Meritorious Atonement

[Bob Evans]

The Michigan Distirct passed a general assembly resolution to reinsert the word Meritorious in the article of faith on the atonement. The link will provide the actual resolution. To honor the occasion my wife penned the following song about Meritorious Atonement It's to be sung to the tune of Old Mcdonald. Let me know what you guys think about the proposal.

Christ’s atonement for our sin
Was very glorious
Now we live in peace with Him
And its victorious!
With a Praise God here and a Praise God there
Here a praise, there a praise
And a hallelujah!
Christ’s atonement for our sin
Is Meritorious

[Gord Evans]

Not sure what I think about the proposal, Bob, but the song rocks!

Aren't semantics wonderful?

Alternatively, I guess that Jesus Christ would be the only one worthy of the term "meritorious" anything.

For some reason, though, qualifying His atonement for our sin with any adjective seems somewhat demeaning. No earthly adjective would be adequate. This is, perhaps, why it was removed in the first place.


The Michigan Distirct passed a general assembly resolution to reinsert the word Meritorious in the article of faith on the atonement. The link will provide the actual resolution. To honor the occasion my wife penned the following song about Meritorious Atonement It's to be sung to the tune of Old Mcdonald. Let me know what you guys think about the proposal.

Christ’s atonement for our sin
Was very glorious
Now we live in peace with Him
And its victorious!
With a Praise God here and a Praise God there
Here a praise, there a praise
And a hallelujah!
Christ’s atonement for our sin
Is Meritorious

[Hans Deventer]

The Michigan District passed a general assembly resolution to reinsert the word Meritorious in the article of faith on the atonement. The link will provide the actual resolution.

There was one in 2005 as well. Not sure if it was defeated or referred, I need to check that. I'll also check for the rationale of the 2001 resolution that was adopted. From the top of my head, it had something to do with trying to avoid the idea that salvation was "bought", as if Jesus paid the devil. Personally, am very much against any view of the atonement that turns it into some legal transaction. I won't vote in favour of this amendment.

[Scott Daniels]

Are you able to share details? For example, was the vote close? Are you able to share who wrote and submitted the resolution? Were there any dissenting voices?

[Bob Evans]

Are you able to share details? For example, was the vote close? Are you able to share who wrote and submitted the resolution? Were there any dissenting voices?

It was written by Joe Knight. He is my pastor. He is John Allen Knights nephew. There was some discussion which felt like one word was inadequete to describe the atonement. No one had anything wrong with the word Meritorious. It was a voice vote with little oppisition.

[Hans Deventer]

The 2001 resolution came from the Alabama South & North District Resolutions Committees and the Tennessee District. They all called for exchanging the word "meritorious" with "sacrificial".

During the discussions, "sacrificial" was dropped as well. As such, the resolution came amended and adopted from the Judicial committee with a 11 for and 0 against vote.

A very short and abridged summery of the reasons:

H. Ray Dunning, Richard S. Taylor and J. Kenneth Grider are quoted to say that:
The concept of Meritorious is unscriptural.
It leads to the idea that the "excess righteousness" of Christ may be imputed even to those who live immoral lives.
It makes it difficult to defend the doctrine of holy living.
It is a "baptistification of our theology
We are saved by grace, not by merit.

We should not single out one theory of the atonement.
Wesley wrote that this way of interpreting the basis of salvation opended the door to antinomianism.
"Procured grace is a contradiction in terms"

I'd vote against the resolution to reintroduce it.


The 2005 resolution (JUD-822) from Chicago Central and Michigan has been referred. I don't understand why Michigan is submitting one again.


BTW, after reading the resolutions again, I wonder what the real issue is.

[Hans Deventer]

It was written by Joe Knight. He is my pastor. He is John Allen Knights nephew. There was some discussion which felt like one word was inadequete to describe the atonement. No one had anything wrong with the word Meritorious. It was a voice vote with little opposition.

Interesting. The 3 resolutions from 2001 chose "sacrificial" for the very same reason. There were way too many problems with meritorious but no one had a problem with sacrificial.

[Gary Swartzlander]

First, I must offer that I was a delegate to the Michigan assembly.

I have no argument pro or con on this issue, and I think that is probably why it passed by the large margin that it did. We simply passed it on to a body that is much more capable of debating the question.

I am a long time attender of district assembly, and there is still much of it that just makes me wonder about the way we do business. Of the several hundred delegates that were there, I think roughly 100 +/- have pastoral status. I'm pretty sure that far fewer than that have gone through seminary. Of the remaining delegates, a large majority are the older members of churches who don't have much else to do for 2 days, and will represent their church. Others, like myself are lucky enough to have jobs that allow us the time off and are involved enough in the leadership of our church to care and understand much of what takes place at assembly.

My feeling on this resolution was only that I needed to vote for it so it could simply be passed on to those who are much better educated in these matters and can make this decision. My guess is that others did the same.

[Charles W Christian]

I seem to recall that Wesley seemed uncomfortable with this kind of term (meritorious), because it could lead down some roads that could close off the idea of participation in response to God's grace in the holy life.

I have heard and like some of Joe's arguments for the term (I like Joe -- he formerly pastored here at N. Seattle Church!). I don't know if the opposition to the term by folks like Dunning AND Grider both could be overcome easily, though, no matter the power of the argument.

It is technically not a "biblical" term in the purest sense, and some may oppose it on these grounds, too.

We'll see....

Charles

[Ryan Scott]

Perhaps it was dropped because good Nazarene brothers and sisters differed on their opinion of it. Is it a good idea to re-establish a point of contention?

As to the rationale, one of the points said that claiming God could have atoned for sins without the sacrifice of God's Son on the cross is tantamount to saying all religions lead to salvation.

I entirely disagree with that rationale. I believe God can atone for sins in any way God sees fit to do so; I am further joyed to know that God atones for sins by grace without any required action.

I think the sacrificial explanation of Christ's death has value so long as it does not become the only way atonement is viewed. I believe this word takes a step in the wrong direction.

[Billy Cox]

Perhaps it was dropped because good Nazarene brothers and sisters differed on their opinion of it. Is it a good idea to re-establish a point of contention?

As to the rationale, one of the points said that claiming God could have atoned for sins without the sacrifice of God's Son on the cross is tantamount to saying all religions lead to salvation.

I entirely disagree with that rationale. I believe God can atone for sins in any way God sees fit to do so; I am further joyed to know that God atones for sins by grace without any required action.

I think the sacrificial explanation of Christ's death has value so long as it does not become the only way atonement is viewed. I believe this word takes a step in the wrong direction.

We really don't need a return to language that eschews contemporary English. :basic03

[Thomas Oord]

First, I must offer that I was a delegate to the Michigan assembly.

I have no argument pro or con on this issue, and I think that is probably why it passed by the large margin that it did. We simply passed it on to a body that is much more capable of debating the question.

I am a long time attender of district assembly, and there is still much of it that just makes me wonder about the way we do business. Of the several hundred delegates that were there, I think roughly 100 +/- have pastoral status. I'm pretty sure that far fewer than that have gone through seminary. Of the remaining delegates, a large majority are the older members of churches who don't have much else to do for 2 days, and will represent their church. Others, like myself are lucky enough to have jobs that allow us the time off and are involved enough in the leadership of our church to care and understand much of what takes place at assembly.

My feeling on this resolution was only that I needed to vote for it so it could simply be passed on to those who are much better educated in these matters and can make this decision. My guess is that others did the same.

Gary,

Thanks for this explanation.

It reminds me of a short thread I instigated elsewhere in which I asked about the chances of college and university theologians actually being elected delegates to GA.

Your post reflects what I think is a general view held by those attending district assemblies. That is, most folk assume that there will be trained theologians present at GA to wrestle through intricate issues such as whether to include "meritorious" in the articles.

But I think that very few such highly-trained theologians actually attend or are chosen as delegates for GA. And this means the general view that districts should feel comfortable passing on difficult theological decisions to those more qualified at the GA has little merit.

I think the present system is broken ... (and maybe my post fits better on the "Turn Around" thread!)

Tom

[Gary Swartzlander]

After reading your explanation and thinking about it, I suspect you are correct, and I agree with you that the system is broken if we put our theological future into the hands of people like myself, who love our church, but haven't studied or actually doesn't care to study issues such as this. Perhaps that is my flaw, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. Getting a copy of a resolution in my district packet and listening to 10 - 15 minutes of debate on a subject just doesn't make any of us educated enough to make a resonable or informed decision.

Is there a possible good alternative?




Gary,

Thanks for this explanation.

It reminds me of a short thread I instigated elsewhere in which I asked about the chances of college and university theologians actually being elected delegates to GA.

Your post reflects what I think is a general view held by those attending district assemblies. That is, most folk assume that there will be trained theologians present at GA to wrestle through intricate issues such as whether to include "meritorious" in the articles.

But I think that very few such highly-trained theologians actually attend or are chosen as delegates for GA. And this means the general view that districts should feel comfortable passing on difficult theological decisions to those more qualified at the GA has little merit.

I think the present system is broken ... (and maybe my post fits better on the "Turn Around" thread!)

Tom

[Thomas Oord]

Gary,

Just to be clear, I didn't mean for my post to be a personal attack on you. I hope you didn't read my post that way. I didn't intend to offend.

I was just saying that I'd like to see a way for some of our university and college theology professors to contribute to articles of faith and other matters that have a strong theological orientation.

Unfortunately, I don't know of a quick fix to the system. But I'll think about it more.

Tom

[Gary Swartzlander]

Gary,

Just to be clear, I didn't mean for my post to be a personal attack on you. I hope you didn't read my post that way. I didn't intend to offend.

I was just saying that I'd like to see a way for some of our university and college theology professors to contribute to articles of faith and other matters that have a strong theological orientation.

Unfortunately, I don't know of a quick fix to the system. But I'll think about it more.

Tom


Tom, I certainly didn't view your post as a personal attack. I had no feeling at all that leaned that way. I agree 100% that the job (if it's actually a job)
of developing the theology of the Church of the Nazarene needs to fall on the shoulders of others than myself and others who just don't get the total theological side of things.

Maybe a committee for selecting people smarter than me (in this area) would be a good idea. Committees solve all problems.

[Susan Unger]

Committees solve all problems.

:laughing:laughing:laughing

Being serious - the idea that you got only 10 minutes warning that you'd be voting on this is appalling to me.

[Hans Deventer]

Is there a possible good alternative?

Well, it would help enormously if the districts only elected people to the GA who are able to deal with the issues that are placed before them. And yes, that would include theological issues like this one.

[Eric Vail]

It is concerning that a district would want to reintroduce language of "merit" back into an article without clearly discussing its history (the context in which it became commonplace). Ideas have birth-dates (and sometimes limited shelf lives). We don't need to reintroduce language born within a medieval-feudalistic conceptualization of justice (cf. St. Anselm's 12th century work, Cur Deus Homo; a must read for understanding the theological background).

I am concerned with the reasons given by the E. Michigan district. Their theology of forgiveness that they offer is based on the assumptions of atonement theories such as vicarious satisfaction (i.e., Anselm's medieval social presuppositions) and/or penal substitution (i.e., Reformation juridical categories). Either way, "forgiveness" first requires either payment of a debt (merit) or punishment according to the law. There is no such thing as praying "forgive us our debts/trespasses" apart from the demands of "justice" (as defined within those paradigms) first being met. "Forgiveness" becomes anything but foregoing retribution. The stories of God's foregoing his impending punishment at Israel's repentance, of Nineveh's repentance, etc. or the parable of the ruler who forgave a great debt, etc. all become meaningless--irrelevant. Also, we must overlook John the Baptist's ministry of preaching a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"--at the least we must make it anything but true forgiveness of sins due to repentance alone.

We have been taught to read our bibles through the lenses of vicarious satisfaction and penal substitution. However, little of the bible has any coherence through those lenses. We need to relearn the cleansing nature of sacrifice (cf. Jacob Milgrom's work on Leviticus)--how the impure is brought into the realm of life. We need to learn to read the creation/new-creation images that abound within the gospels' accounts of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection. These help point us to some of the many facets of what atonement is about.

As Hans has already pointed out, the bible says wholly different things depending on the presuppositions you bring to it. Concepts of "merit/meritorious" are very old and had their place in communicating the message of the Gospel in their context. However, that context was neither the bible's nor ours. Let's give that language an honorable burial; please, if you are a delegate, vote against this proposal.

[Jamie Wayne]

But I think that very few such highly-trained theologians actually attend or are chosen as delegates for GA. And this means the general view that districts should feel comfortable passing on difficult theological decisions to those more qualified at the GA has little merit.

I would tend to agree, Tom, but how do we promote such a trend, where we raise up theologians (as well as philosophers and Church historians) and place value on their training?

It's as if, on the one hand, we want to wrestle with the issues, but, on the other hand, we don't want trained "wrestlers" to be invited to the mat.

We don't need to reintroduce language born within a medieval-feudalistic conceptualization of justice (cf. St. Anselm's 12th century work, Cur Deus Homo; a must read for understanding the theological background).

I wholeheartedly agree, Eric, but, tying this in to what I responded to Dr. Oord's post, most people don't know the history of those "birth dates" of ideas, as you've put it, and many of those who are familiar with such things aren't always welcome.

I've been dismayed at how many times I've been accused of needing to "get out of my head, and into my heart." This mentality that "thinkers" aren't as important as "lovers" is contradictory, though, isn't it? Those who wrestle with God in their minds are often those who are doing so out of love, those who seek to know God in ways that many "ordinary" persons (not that there's anything wrong with that) do not seek to know God.

I don't mean to elevate theologians, Church historians, and Christian philosophers, but the Church has always needed them. The Church needs them no less today than before.

Furthermore, how are the average lay persons to understand how skewed Christendom has become, e.g., Cur Deus Homo?, if there isn't the "Christian Education" to educate them?

I'm not trying to rip on CLT (Christian Lay Training) out of Kansas City, but the "Theological and Doctrinal Studies" section does little to educate anyone on non-Nazarene Church history or systematic theology. Why isn't there anything about the Augustine/Pelagius debate, or a study on Cur Deus Homo? or anything else that would HELP when it comes to the larger picture of Christendom?

If more lay persons were educated, as such, then the importance of theologians, Church historians, and Christian philosophers wouldn't be as needed, and, actually, maybe if more lay persons were introduced to these things, they would value those who are more highly trained!

[Jamie Wayne]

To earn a Theological and Doctrinal Studies Certificate complete five of the following texts.






Unit 110.03A
Love Conquers All, W. E. McCumber
CL083-411-4550

Unit 114.01A
The Bible Speaks to Me about My Beliefs, William E. McCumber
CL083-411-285X

Unit 115.00C
Studies in Biblical Holiness, Donald S. Metz
CL083-410-1173

Unit 115.01B
Outward Sign and Inward Grace, Rob Staples
CL083-411-3783

Unit 115.02A
The Fullness of the Spirit, William M. Greathouse
CL083-410-2498

Unit 115.05B
A Theology of Love, Mildred Bangs Wynkoop
CL083-412-0003

Unit 115.06A
Coffee Shop Theology, Frank Moore
CL083-411-7320

Unit 115.06C
Exploring Christian Holiness I: The Biblical Foundation, W. T. Purkiser
CL083-410-8437

Unit 115.07C
Exploring Christian Holiness II: The Historical Development, Paul M. Bassett and William M. Greathouse
CL083-410-9263

Unit 115.08C
Exploring Christian Holiness III: The Theological Formulation, Richard S. Taylor
CL083-411-0776

Unit 115.10A

More Coffee Shop Theology, Frank Moore
CL083-411-7460

Unite 115.13B
The Upward Call, Tracy, Weigelt, Freeborn, Tartaglia
CLT083-411-5166

Unit 115.21A
Second Coming: A Wesleyan Approach, H. Ray Dunning
CL083-412-0577

UNIT 115.24A
More Holiness in Everyday Life, George Lyons
CL083-411-6618

Unit 116.00A
The Blessed Hope, George E. Ladd
CL080-281-1116

Unit 117.00B
An Introduction to Wesleyan Theology, William M. Greathouse and H. Ray Dunning
CL083-411-9994

Unit 117.02B
The Story of God, Michael Lodahl
CL083-411-4798

Unit 139.00A
In Search of Eden: Understanding New Age, David Felter
CL083-411-408

[Thomas Oord]

Jamie,

I really like your mat metaphor! Thanks!

One of the ways that we can encourage theological thinking in our denomination is to use wisely the district pastors and spouses retreat times or pastors enrichment times. While it's natural to want to introduce new techniques and methods for ministry at these events, these annual get-togethers could also be times for deep theological engagement. I know a few DSs who already see the value of this approach. But I'd love to see others follow their lead.

Here's another, more specific idea. What if we as a denomination asked all members of Nazarene college and university religion departments around the world to vote for a half-dozen or more "at large" delegates to attend and vote at the GA? This would mean highly-trained theologians choosing those among their ranks whom they think would be most helpful.

What do you think?

Tom

[Ryan Scott]

Is there a possible good alternative?


Providing the information early, along with a brief description of the "for" and "against" position on everything would be great. The problem is, even in the Church, we can't treat our opponents with respect.

I don't think it would be difficult for someone, like yourself, who has been a strong member of the Church of the Nazarene for a couple decades to make a decision one way or another with just a little information on either side of the issue. (It would at least give you enough background to ask the questions to get you to a decision).

I think the drastic shortening of District Assemblies has been overall a good thing (most of what they do is relatively pointless), however if this move sacrifices the time necessary to actually discuss (the few) important issues, it might not be worth it.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie,

I really like your mat metaphor! Thanks!

Thanks, Tom.

Here's another, more specific idea. What if we as a denomination asked all members of Nazarene college and university religion departments around the world to vote for a half-dozen or more "at large" delegates to attend and vote at the GA? This would mean highly-trained theologians choosing those among their ranks whom they think would be most helpful.

What do you think?

Tom

That would be a good start, though there are also many qualified theologians among the clergy and laity; such a list of those folks could be made by the DS's as pertains to clergy, and by the clergy to the DS as pertains the laity.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Good Points: In this case we were provided the "for" prior to assembly, but the "against" part (what little there was) was not presented until during the assembly.

I suspect that if we were provided the info earlier, and had a chance to ask our pastor for insight, that it would help a lot. Instead, we are setting in assembly, looking at each other waiting for a thumbs up or down.

The shortening of assembly has been a good thing, although they don't seem that much shorter. It seems that some things have simply been replaced with others and the end result is that the business of assembly, votes, etc. get pushed to the last hour of the first day and we are forced to condense those activities into less than adequate time, or it goes over to the second day when there are fewer delegates on hand.

I apologize to my good friend Bob, for kind of derailing the topic, but I know he understands. (at least I think he does).




Providing the information early, along with a brief description of the "for" and "against" position on everything would be great. The problem is, even in the Church, we can't treat our opponents with respect.

I don't think it would be difficult for someone, like yourself, who has been a strong member of the Church of the Nazarene for a couple decades to make a decision one way or another with just a little information on either side of the issue. (It would at least give you enough background to ask the questions to get you to a decision).

I think the drastic shortening of District Assemblies has been overall a good thing (most of what they do is relatively pointless), however if this move sacrifices the time necessary to actually discuss (the few) important issues, it might not be worth it.

[Susan Unger]

I suspect that if we were provided the info earlier, and had a chance to ask our pastor for insight, that it would help a lot.

This is what I was thinking - I know when I was a delegate and had to vote on a manual change this is what my pastor did with us. Gave a good chance to ask questions and discuss background issues...pray even.

[Billy Cox]

To earn a Theological and Doctrinal Studies Certificate complete five of the following texts.



Wow, what an interesting assortment of titles! I'm surprised that some of them don't spontaneously combust by virtue of being in the same list. :basic03

[Jamie Wayne]

Wow, what an interesting assortment of titles! I'm surprised that some of them don't spontaneously combust by virtue of being in the same list. :basic03

Some of the books on that list are very good, like Rob Staples' book, but others need to be seriously updated. "Coffee Shop Theology," for example, and it's sequel are so heavily slanted that I wouldn't even recommend them to a Nazarene audience.

Since Wynkoop is already on the list with "Theology of Love," why not add Oord & Lodahl's "Relational Holiness," which is so much more accessible. Also, why not Wynkoop's "Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology," which is a fantastic little book?

For that matter, why are all of the books "Nazarene"?

Why not add some non-Nazarene authors, like Justo Gonzalez, to tackle Church history - which has much to do with providing a context for "theological and doctrinal studies"?

I see the potential in CLT, and I'd really like to think that it could be useful in raising the bar amongst the laity, but it has to look past the CotN to do that, I think.

In the introduction to Bruce Shelley's Church history book it describes Lucy, from Peanuts, writing a report on Church history; Charlie Brown is seen looking over her shoulder, and the first sentence reads something like:

"Our pastor was born in 1929..."

Besides, how are we to identify with "other" Christians if we don't understand what we believe - let alone what "they" believe?

It's so frustrating sometimes...and now the idea of bringing back language from Cur Deus Homo?!

Why don't we talk about the need to replace the fallen angels while we're at it, like St. Anselm did?

[Ryan Scott]

Good Points: In this case we were provided the "for" prior to assembly, but the "against" part (what little there was) was not presented until during the assembly.


Judging by the rationale given for the change, I'm guessing the "against" wouldn't get fair play from the District, which is a sad commentary. I mentioned the one section in particular in a previous post, but the rationale amounts to "if you don't believe this, you're not a Christian," which is a phrase thrown around far too much in these sorts of meetings.

We always have wishful thinking and eschatelogical hope, right?

[Susan Unger]

"Coffee Shop Theology," for example, and it's sequel are so heavily slanted that I wouldn't even recommend them to a Nazarene audience.

Curious - in what way is it slanted? I ask cuz I almost bought it at DA.

[Gary Swartzlander]

I am concerned with the reasons given by the E. Michigan district.

Just so I don't get in trouble from my friends and family over on the E. Michigan District. This proposal comes from the Michigan District. We are the "Original" Michigan District. :basic05

[Ryan Scott]

Curious - in what way is it slanted? I ask cuz I almost bought it at DA.


Let's just say that large list of books was intentionally large so people could pick the five books that most agreed with them.

[Susan Unger]

Let's just say that large list of books was intentionally large so people could pick the five books that most agreed with them.

Ok, I thought you were saying coffeshop theology was slanted.

[Jamie Wayne]

Ok, I thought you were saying coffeshop theology was slanted.

I said that it was slanted, and I wish that I had it here, on hand, to quote you parts that I think are slanted.

If I recall correctly, however, one slanted part pertained to picking one theory of atonement and not presenting other options; if I'm not mistaken, he presented substitutionary atonement as THE correct understanding of the Cross, rather than one metaphor.

Again, I wish that I could provide you quotes right now, but I also think that his sacramental theology was very weak and slanted. Rob Staples did a much, much better job in that area (though I suppose he has an agenda, too, just to be fair).

I guess my general impression, having read Coffee Shop Theology was that I would NEVER use it as any sort of introduction to theology - or, for that matter, I would NEVER use it at all. At least I was able to see what other people are reading or might be using to teach, but I thought that it was horrible. Mr. Moore may be a great guy, and I don't mean any of this personally, but it really wasn't very good. He had his moments, to give him credit for that.

If I remember, I'll try to bring the book in to work, and I'll quote a few passages for you that I think speak to what I'm saying.

[Ryan Scott]

Ok, I thought you were saying coffeshop theology was slanted.


I was.

[Mike McVey]

Ok, I thought you were saying coffeshop theology was slanted.

The problem with the Coffee Shop Theology books is that they are fluff. Kind of like carnival cotton candy - too expensive and no substance. Most of the content in the two books are scripture as descriptive to points that are not logically made. There is a stronger hint of Calvinism than most "Wesleyans" would be comfortable with. Moore talks point blankly on topics such as atonement and original sin, but is not able to even give a background on the topics and treats them as obvious. I remember the original sin topic specifically - what he says completely eliminates all the scholarly work done between Wesley's sermon on Original Sin to when he wrote the book. This is problematic as over the past 40 years, the work done concerning original sin (and atonement) have not anywhere near as conclusive as Moore indicates. Even Alister McGrath, who has conservative foundationalist leanings like Moore, gives much better thought out responses to these issues.

Finally, Albert C. Outler's book on Wesley's Sermons or NNU's Wesley center with most of his sermons are much better discussing the issues than Moore is.

[Jamie Wayne]

I agree with everything that Mike said.

Here's the passage where I nearly threw out the book altogether:

"The only difference is that infant dedication does not use water in the ritual...Many times baptized infants wish to be baptized again as young persons or adults...this personal choice is also acceptable."

[Mike McVey]

I agree with everything that Mike said.

Here's the passage where I nearly threw out the book altogether:

"The only difference is that infant dedication does not use water in the ritual...Many times baptized infants wish to be baptized again as young persons or adults...this personal choice is also acceptable."

I completely blocked out that section. I'm fine to say infant baptism is or is not okay, but I have historical, sociological, psychological, ethical, and theological reasons to support my decision. Not because of a whim of how I'm feeling at a particular time.

[Jamie Wayne]

Sure, and I'm fine with that from you, Mike, but still, to say that "the only difference [between infant baptism and dedication] is that infant dedication doe not use water in the ritual" seems a gross diminution of a Sacrament and absolutely atrocious sacramental theology - so much so, that he proceeds to nonchalantly say that there's nothing wrong with re-baptism, as if it's not even something to consider otherwise.

[Jamie Wayne]

Where do I petition to the GA a motion for confirmation being a part of the CotN rather than re-baptism?

[Mike McVey]

Where do I petition to the GA a motion for confirmation being a part of the CotN rather than re-baptism?

First, you have to come down to Scottdale for a meal and we'll discuss it. :p

[Mike McVey]

Sure, and I'm fine with that from you, Mike, but still, to say that "the only difference [between infant baptism and dedication] is that infant dedication doe not use water in the ritual" seems a gross diminution of a Sacrament and absolutely atrocious sacramental theology.

What I'm saying, Jamie, and we've talked about this before, is that there is a huge difference between the two. Moore makes it an issue of personal choice. I say it is at worst a communally developed decision, not a personal one. When it becomes a personal one, I think we are already wrong. My decision should never be my own in a selfish sense, but rather in a communal sense I learn why or why not to baptize an infant.

Somehow I'm thinking it is getting cluttered, but does that make sense?

[Jamie Wayne]

First, you have to come down to Scottdale for a meal and we'll discuss it. :p

I have no doubt that, at some point, we will break bread, Mike - and I look forward to that, too.


What I'm saying, Jamie, and we've talked about this before, is that there is a huge difference between the two. Moore makes it an issue of personal choice. I say it is at worst a communally developed decision, not a personal one. When it becomes a personal one, I think we are already wrong. My decision should never be my own in a selfish sense, but rather in a communal sense I learn why or why not to baptize an infant.

Somehow I'm thinking it is getting cluttered, but does that make sense?

You're making sense, Mike.

I have no problem with anyone who decides not to baptize an infant. What I have a problem with is someone who thinks that the only difference between baptism and dedication is water, and that re-baptism is a perfectly acceptable option without even mentioning that re-baptism is not necessary.

Perhaps he reflects a more widespread view than I'd like to believe...

[Mike McVey]

You're making sense, Mike.

I have no problem with anyone who decides not to baptize an infant. What I have a problem with is someone who thinks that the only difference between baptism and dedication is water, and that re-baptism is a perfectly acceptable option without even mentioning that re-baptism is not necessary.

Perhaps he reflects a more widespread view than I'd like to believe...

I agree. But I think I understand his misarticulation. I was baptized as a child (8 years old) for all the wrong reasons. It was a personal choice made because I thought it was cool. When I was 21 years old, I decided along with my pastor and community that I needed to "really" be baptized. I didn't understand the original choice I made was binding and I never had a church teach me about the importance of baptism or confirmation. In our non-mainstream denominations, baptism is taught as nothing more than an outward sign of an inward grace. Not that I think that is a wrong teaching, but it makes baptism completely unnecessary in the community of faith. I have been told so many time growing up (and for awhile I believed it) that baptism has nothing to do with our membership in the church universal, hence the reason I was re-baptized.

I miss the importance of Cyprian in today's "coffee shop" theology. And yes, he does. Most low churches are hesitant to do anything that is reminiscent of Roman Catholic. Also, one of the marks of low churches is not only liturgy, but the hierarchical system of congregationalism. The Nazarene church is ultimately a congregational system with a dose of episcopal. I would even go as far to say that most of the theology arguments that take place here on NazNet deal with our current structure. Us lowbies need to take the mantle that has been provided us by the academy, but generally we look upon them with mistrust and therefore irrelevant. That is why Moore, specifically, has so much "clout" within our denomination. He doesn't threaten peoples preconceived notions of God, he affirms them. I should stop before I say something really stupid. ;)

[Jamie Wayne]

Maybe that's the problem, Mike, that I don't really understand, coming from a far higher church view to begin with.

[Mike McVey]

Maybe that's the problem, Mike, that I don't really understand, coming from a far higher church view to begin with.

It is. :)

But I am of the opinion that we need more people like you in our denom. And because of your history, you help provide a healthy balance. I think this will be my last post until this evening because I need to read.

[Hans Deventer]

Where do I petition to the GA a motion for confirmation being a part of the CotN rather than re-baptism?

Your district's resolution committee would be the place, presuming your district has one. I'd support the resolution.