Drifting?

[Charles W Christian]

I have heard and read many who have said that the shift in emphasis away from entire sanctification as a "moment" or a "crisis experience" is equal to a "drift" away from our essential calling as a denomination. Some have come right out and said that the emphasis upon holiness as a process moves us further away from what we are called to emphasize as a "holiness" Church.

My observation is that those who want to tone down the emphasis upon "crisis" or process related to entire sanctification are simply attempting to help define the work of God's grace in categories and ways that better reflect the experience of Christians over time.

What do you think?

Is this emphasis upon ES as a process of growth more biblical and accurate, or does it represent (as some claim) a "drift" away from our essential understanding of holiness in the Christian life?

I would affirm some sort of crisis moment in the holy life, but I think the "daily" emphasis found in Wesley's spirituality lends us to see crisis/process as inseparable and interchangable, and not as "static" as some would like to view the experience (e.g., not "crisis" and then some process of maturity). Make sense? Thoughts???

Charles

[Ken Pell]

It may very well be a drift ...






in the right direction.




I too think there is a moment or crisis in holiness. But I think the daily walk of grace and surrender needs just as much emphasis.

[Susan Unger]

I have heard and read many who have said that the shift in emphasis away from entire sanctification as a "moment" or a "crisis experience" is equal to a "drift" away from our essential calling as a denomination. Some have come right out and said that the emphasis upon holiness as a process moves us further away from what we are called to emphasize as a "holiness" Church.

My observation is that those who want to tone down the emphasis upon "crisis" or process related to entire sanctification are simply attempting to help define the work of God's grace in categories and ways that better reflect the experience of Christians over time.

What do you think?

Is this emphasis upon ES as a process of growth more biblical and accurate, or does it represent (as some claim) a "drift" away from our essential understanding of holiness in the Christian life?

I would affirm some sort of crisis moment in the holy life, but I think the "daily" emphasis found in Wesley's spirituality lends us to see crisis/process as inseparable and interchangable, and not as "static" as some would like to view the experience (e.g., not "crisis" and then some process of maturity). Make sense? Thoughts???

Charles

Glad to have you back, Charles.

I know from my and my friends' experience that a static view of ES didn't really work. On my own, I felt that sanctification has to be more process than crisis and was shocked to discover this past spring that learned theologians agree with me :fav05

[Michael B. Ross]

Charles, I wonder if we will ever face the fact that a "crisis experience" is a human phenomenon. Twenty-year-old Jewish adherents, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses etc have peak experiences which they claim result in wholeness and a deeper commitment to and understanding of God.

I am not suggesting that God does not accommodate or reveal himself through human experiences, but do we want to hang our hat on something that is considered universal by many human scientists?

Paul reminded the Corinthians they are to seek that which is uniquely Christian and to cry "Lord, Lord."

Why should we persist in identifying ourselves by what is common among all peoples? Our faith is in Jesus Christ, crucified, has been raised from the dead not in personal and sometimes private moments of enhanced understanding or commitment.

And, our call to holiness is to love God fully and our neighbors as ourselves. It is to cry "Lord, Lord" even when it might cost us all we have. It is to daily seek to do his will and to proclaim through subversive acts of love that God's Kingdom is among us.

I suppose we could call it a process. Paul wrote that we are all being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory.

Regardless of our descriptions, I will give my life embracing the transforming power of Christ each day, not something to which anyone could testify.

I have heard and read many who have said that the shift in emphasis away from entire sanctification as a "moment" or a "crisis experience" is equal to a "drift" away from our essential calling as a denomination. Some have come right out and said that the emphasis upon holiness as a process moves us further away from what we are called to emphasize as a "holiness" Church.

My observation is that those who want to tone down the emphasis upon "crisis" or process related to entire sanctification are simply attempting to help define the work of God's grace in categories and ways that better reflect the experience of Christians over time.

What do you think?

Is this emphasis upon ES as a process of growth more biblical and accurate, or does it represent (as some claim) a "drift" away from our essential understanding of holiness in the Christian life?

I would affirm some sort of crisis moment in the holy life, but I think the "daily" emphasis found in Wesley's spirituality lends us to see crisis/process as inseparable and interchangable, and not as "static" as some would like to view the experience (e.g., not "crisis" and then some process of maturity). Make sense? Thoughts???

Charles

[Susan Unger]

Charles, I wonder if we will ever face the fact that a "crisis experience" is a human phenomenon. Twenty-year-old Jewish adherents, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses etc have peak experiences which they claim result in wholeness and a deeper commitment to and understanding of God.

I am not suggesting that God does not accommodate or reveal himself through human experiences, but do we want to hang our hat on something that is considered universal by many human scientists?

Paul reminded the Corinthians they are to seek that which is uniquely Christian and to cry "Lord, Lord."

Why should we persist in identifying ourselves by what is common among all peoples? Our faith is in Jesus Christ, crucified, has been raised from the dead not in personal and sometimes private moments of enhanced understanding or commitment.

And, our call to holiness is to love God fully and our neighbors as ourselves. It is to cry "Lord, Lord" even when it might cost us all we have. It is to daily seek to do his will and to proclaim through subversive acts of love that God's Kingdom is among us.

I suppose we could call it a process. Paul wrote that we are all being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory.

Regardless of our descriptions, I will give my life embracing the transforming power of Christ each day, not something to which anyone could testify.

Oooohhh, I wish I had had you as my pastor when I was a kid. Things might have been so different in me and in the church I grew up in. :basic07

[Charles W Christian]

Charles, I wonder if we will ever face the fact that a "crisis experience" is a human phenomenon. Twenty-year-old Jewish adherents, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses etc have peak experiences which they claim result in wholeness and a deeper commitment to and understanding of God.

I am not suggesting that God does not accommodate or reveal himself through human experiences, but do we want to hang our hat on something that is considered universal by many human scientists?

Paul reminded the Corinthians they are to seek that which is uniquely Christian and to cry "Lord, Lord."

Why should we persist in identifying ourselves by what is common among all peoples? Our faith is in Jesus Christ, crucified, has been raised from the dead not in personal and sometimes private moments of enhanced understanding or commitment.

And, our call to holiness is to love God fully and our neighbors as ourselves. It is to cry "Lord, Lord" even when it might cost us all we have. It is to daily seek to do his will and to proclaim through subversive acts of love that God's Kingdom is among us.

I suppose we could call it a process. Paul wrote that we are all being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory.

Regardless of our descriptions, I will give my life embracing the transforming power of Christ each day, not something to which anyone could testify.

Thanks, Michael.

I agree.

I think that the Church of the Nazarene's impact in regard to our emphasis upon the ability to love God and love others fully is important. I also think that we then took this very Wesleyan idea and "Americanized" it too much, producing a bit of a "come and get it" kind of theology at times that ironically did not always produce the consistent growth in grace that Wesley and the Bible seem to emphasize.

Many who hung their Christian experience upon one crisis or another have tended to just "stop" in a sense in their Christian life and have settled into social and cultural norms all the while claiming to be "holy" and "separate." Racism is a great example of this, but there are others.

Rather than simply place emphasis upon one crisis experience or another in the past, I believe that solid Wesleyan (and biblical) theology calls us to a fresh, full, dynamic, ongoing experience of Jesus Christ and His love.

God bless,
Charles

[Susan Unger]

I think that the Church of the Nazarene's impact in regard to our emphasis upon the ability to love God and love others fully is important.

And so under emphasized. What a difference our history [and Christianity's history] would have been if it had been emphasized more.

Many who hung their Christian experience upon one crisis or another have tended to just "stop" in a sense in their Christian life and have settled into social and cultural norms all the while claiming to be "holy" and "separate." Racism is a great example of this, but there are others.

And leaving folks with a distaste for christianity, or at least our version of it.

[Jamie Wayne]

I still think that sometimes, though not necessarily in all cases, there is that BAM moment, and since it's such an individual thing, there are many different accounts of it, though there are also many similarities.

In studying comparative mysticism, it's often the case that mystics of different religions are, metaphorically, speaking the same language. If we believe that the Holy Spirit is not opposed to anyone, of any religion, who seeks the Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit desires to work in those people to promote the Kingdom here on earth, then it seems quite reasonable to me that these mystics of many traditions are experiencing quite the same thing, expressed in personal ways - and according to the mindset and paradigm of their own culture and religious expression.

Within Christianity, too, there are many, many differing accounts of this experience, and part of the problem is that words always fail. When I first read Article X, I knew what it was talking about, but I knew it from a Charismatic Anglican perspective - not a Nazarene one. I disagree with Article X, but I don't disagree with the Spirit behind it.

[Jill Mickelson]

I've shared my story before....
I do want to share some of it again. I got born again.....the Holy Spirit spoke to me and lead me and guided me .... and then I got saved.
I was hungry to learn about being saved. The LORD kept bringing books into my life. I was devouring the Bible. Several years later, a book about being filled with the Spirit came my way. WOW! I had never heard all that before about being filled with the Holy Spirit! Some time after that, we were singing "I surrender all" in Church, and a deep cry rose up in the depths of my being, and I went forward. A Crisis Experience! That has happened to me more than once. TO GOD BE THE GLORY! :)

[Marissa Lynn]

It's interesting that it's referred to as a "crisis experience." I've been learning recently about the short-term and long-term effects of the occurrence of a traumatic event in a person's life. I met two people recently who had both experienced extremely traumatic events in the past year. They told me about how those type of events challenge a person's core beliefs and how much those challenges change that person...even changing personality. Another friend told me that she ended a long-term friendship because of a dramatic change in the friend's personality after a traumatic event. She felt like the friend never was the same person she had been before the event, and she didn't like the new person. I've seen a "crisis experience" dramatically change a person in a day. But I'm not sure what to do with that. I'm not sure that is the experience of most people, nor is it necessarily desirable. The two people who explained all this to me were able to explain it so well because of the therapy they were going through. I don't think that the Holy Spirit is as irresponsible as the forces of nature, but I, for one, am definitely not praying for any type of crisis after seeing what these people are facing in having their whole world turned upside down. But on the other hand, I do see more clearly the possibility of a person changing completely in a moment.

[Susan Unger]

It's interesting that it's referred to as a "crisis experience." I've been learning recently about the short-term and long-term effects of the occurrence of a traumatic event in a person's life. I met two people recently who had both experienced extremely traumatic events in the past year. They told me about how those type of events challenge a person's core beliefs and how much those challenges change that person...even changing personality. Another friend told me that she ended a long-term friendship because of a dramatic change in the friend's personality after a traumatic event. She felt like the friend never was the same person she had been before the event, and she didn't like the new person. I've seen a "crisis experience" dramatically change a person in a day. But I'm not sure what to do with that. I'm not sure that is the experience of most people, nor is it necessarily desirable. The two people who explained all this to me were able to explain it so well because of the therapy they were going through. I don't think that the Holy Spirit is as irresponsible as the forces of nature, but I, for one, am definitely not praying for any type of crisis after seeing what these people are facing in having their whole world turned upside down. But on the other hand, I do see more clearly the possibility of a person changing completely in a moment.

I was told that theologically speaking, crisis means change in direction. If I am remembering that definition correctly, it still wouldn't work for me as there are many times in one's life in which one changes direction not just the big two of salvation and ES. So, to me that is just another reason why process works better for me.

[Ken Pell]

It's interesting that it's referred to as a "crisis experience." I've been learning recently about the short-term and long-term effects of the occurrence of a traumatic event in a person's life. I met two people recently who had both experienced extremely traumatic events in the past year. They told me about how those type of events challenge a person's core beliefs and how much those challenges change that person...even changing personality. Another friend told me that she ended a long-term friendship because of a dramatic change in the friend's personality after a traumatic event. She felt like the friend never was the same person she had been before the event, and she didn't like the new person. I've seen a "crisis experience" dramatically change a person in a day. But I'm not sure what to do with that. I'm not sure that is the experience of most people, nor is it necessarily desirable. The two people who explained all this to me were able to explain it so well because of the therapy they were going through. I don't think that the Holy Spirit is as irresponsible as the forces of nature, but I, for one, am definitely not praying for any type of crisis after seeing what these people are facing in having their whole world turned upside down. But on the other hand, I do see more clearly the possibility of a person changing completely in a moment.

Your use of "crisis" is probably the way most people think of the term. Therefore it shows the flaw of using it.

Crisis also means, "A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point, a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined."

It is important to regularly share the definition IF one is going to use that terminology. Best t avoid it.

Makes me wonder how many of our Holiness friends and parishioners could, if asked, define, "crisis."

[Ken Pell]

I was told that theologically speaking, crisis means change in direction. If I am remembering that definition correctly, it still wouldn't work for me as there are many times in one's life in which one changes direction not just the big two of salvation and ES. So, to me that is just another reason why process works better for me.


It means a bit more that merely a change in direction. It means "a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined." (Dictionary.com).

Anyhow, it does not have to be / is not either or. Yes, there are many changes in direction, but, as far as spiritual growth goes there is typically one significant change in direction that turns your heart towards the Divine One. I think Michael B. Ross said it pretty well.

[Jamie Wayne]

Sometimes I think that the BAM moments isn't anything new, but, like in the case with John Wesley, it was the BAM of realizing what God had already done. God wasn't doing anything new in John Wesley, but John was just now realizing it. His BAM was his own realization, rather than a new "work" of God in his life. The Holy Spirit had been leading him to that realization far before he had that BAM moment.

John Wesley wasn't previously less saved or less filled with the Holy Spirit; only his perception changed. I think that the same happened with Martin Luther when he realized that he could rest in his baptism; he had never been less baptized, but the weight of it hit him like a ton of bricks. The Glory of God has that sort of weight, and the realization can be transformative, to be sure. However, in these cases, the work behind the realization was done far before Wesley or Luther realized it. Their BAM moments were about their own understanding and owning of what God had already done.

Furthermore, I think that we can have multiple BAM moments, with processes before, between, and after them. In this sense, we can have 2nd "blessings," 3rd "blessings," etc..., but I think that, generally speaking, these BAM moments are mostly realizations or reaffirmations, confirmations, etc... of what God has already done.

For me, the biggest BAM moment was being "baptized in the Holy Spirit" when I was 13. It was an experience that I will NEVER forget. Coming from an Anglican Charismatic church, it would be described differently that Article X might describe, but for me it seemed like an ontological change - like I was truly transformed by God in my innermost being. However, God had been transforming me prior to that moment, and continued to transform me subsequent to that moment. The BAM was simply the complete surrender on my part, by God's grace. It was powerful, though, because in that moment God became more real to me than myself.

[Susan Unger]

Furthermore, I think that we can have multiple BAM moments, with processes before, between, and after them. In this sense, we can have 2nd "blessings," 3rd "blessings," etc..., but I think that, generally speaking, these BAM moments are mostly realizations or reaffirmations, confirmations, etc... of what God has already done.


I believe that too - we can have more than one "bam" or "crisis" moment. Following Ken's definition of crisis "a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined" I had a third "crisis" when I realized that the platitudes that I had been taught in my pre-adult church life really dont' work in the real life. I determined that my 'trend of future events' would be different from then on. This may not sound too dramatic or serious to someone else, but to me it was more dramatic than salvation and ES ever was. I was basically forsaking the craziness I was taught and aiming for something authentic.

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Is this emphasis upon ES as a process of growth more biblical and accurate, or does it represent (as some claim) a "drift" away from our essential understanding of holiness in the Christian life?Charles


In this context, it seems to me that this crisis is an act of God at a given moment in one’s life. In one sense sanctification is not drawn out and without an end. The crisis moment happens at a given time and place. In another sense sanctification is a process. It is not a stagnant experience. It entails growth. Maturity develops from this crisis and process.

In his Sermons, II, Wesley gives his conviction of the matter:

By justification we are saved from the guilt of sin, and restored to the favor of God; by sanctification we are saved from the power and root of sin, and restored to the image of God. All experience, as well as Scripture, shows this salvation (from the power and root of sin) to be both instantaneous and gradual. It begins the moment we are justified, in the holy, humble, gentle, patient love of God and man. It gradually increases from the moment, as ‘a grain of mustard-seed, which, at first is the least of all seeds,’ but afterwards puts forth large branches, and becomes a great tree; till, in another instant, the heart is cleansed from all sin, and filled with pure love of God and man.”

[Chuck Millhuff]

Why must we always make this and "either or" issue. Wesley really never expressed the fact that he had had a crisis moment though he knew many that had. We Nazarenes are not so much Wesleyan as we are of the American Holiness Movement. My concern is that we are drifting away from all crises in the sense of a prescribed heaven sent moment of Biblically defined transformation. Of course there is process or growth before and after each and on I would think into Heaven.

Chuck Millhuff
Editor - The Evangelists' Perspective

[Paul Whitaker]

For me, the biggest BAM moment was being "baptized in the Holy Spirit" when I was 13. It was an experience that I will NEVER forget. Coming from an Anglican Charismatic church, it would be described differently that Article X might describe, but for me it seemed like an ontological change - like I was truly transformed by God in my innermost being. However, God had been transforming me prior to that moment, and continued to transform me subsequent to that moment. The BAM was simply the complete surrender on my part, by God's grace. It was powerful, though, because in that moment God became more real to me than myself.

Thank you, brother. That's my 'experience' as well. It wasn't at age 13. Rather, I was an adult. I did not come from the Anglican Charismatic Church. But the experience you speak of :

because in that moment God became more real to me than myself.

Praise the Lord!

[Jon Twitchell]

We Nazarenes are not so much Wesleyan as we are of the American Holiness Movement.

And that, right there, is the fundamental issue in this discussion, isn't it?

I imagine I could find at least a handful of Nazarenes who would write that sentence the other way around (We Nazarenes are not so much American Holiness as we are Wesleyan).

I have to wonder why it has to be either-or. Couldn't we write a sentence that says something like, "We Nazarenes are heavily influenced by Wesley and the AHM."

[Gene Tatsch]

... the shift in emphasis away from entire sanctification as a "moment" or a "crisis experience" is equal to a "drift" away from our essential calling as a denomination. ...
I would affirm some sort of crisis moment in the holy life, but I think the "daily" emphasis found in Wesley's spirituality lends us to see crisis/process as inseparable and interchangable, and not as "static" as some would like to view the experience (e.g., not "crisis" and then some process of maturity). Make sense? Thoughts???

Charles

Be sure to read Carl Leth's Holiness: Thy Kingdom Come in the current Holiness Today.
"http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/h2ol/articleDisplay.jsp?mediaId=2394663&nid=artt"

[Gene Tatsch]

... We Nazarenes are not so much American Holiness as we are Wesleyan ...

Why not "Biblical" ??:basic03

[Jill Mickelson]

Hi Marissa!
I should have been clearer....a crisis can be either bad or good: "a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point." My experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit changed my whole life. (Just as when I got born again....a life changing event! My eyes were opened. I was a new person.) I've had many other experiences when the Lord spoke to me, directed me, guided me, etc.
Thank you for sharing! God Bless! Our God is an AWESOME God!

[Jon Twitchell]

Why not "Biblical" ??:basic03

Well... I agree on that...

but who gets to decide which lens of Biblical interpretation is more correct?

I might claim that a Wesleyan approach is more Biblical, and my brother might claim that an AHM approach is more Biblical.

[Hans Deventer]

Why not "Biblical" ??:basic03

Because in a Christian context, that word has no meaning.

[BobHunt]

I think the crisis experience or sanctification will help us and give is power to live our daily lives as the Lord would have us to. Lets face it folks, without the power and help of God we are weak as dish rags.
I think people do not go deep enough in their relationship to God, and try to do it on their own, and fail, and then this is a poor representaion to others of the Grace of God. It is not just the profession of Grace that is important, it is the daily walk, minute by minute, day by day transparent walk of right living no matter if other Christians are around or not, that really counts. What do we do in the dark? What do we do in private? Our experience is not just showy, but consistant. It doesnt boast of itself, but its faithful.

[Chuck Millhuff]

And that, right there, is the fundamental issue in this discussion, isn't it?

I imagine I could find at least a handful of Nazarenes who would write that sentence the other way around (We Nazarenes are not so much American Holiness as we are Wesleyan).

I have to wonder why it has to be either-or. Couldn't we write a sentence that says something like, "We Nazarenes are heavily influenced by Wesley and the AHM."

Very well said !

[Jamie Wayne]

Thank you, brother. That's my 'experience' as well. It wasn't at age 13. Rather, I was an adult. I did not come from the Anglican Charismatic Church. But the experience you speak of :

because in that moment God became more real to me than myself.

Praise the Lord!

It's interesting, Paul, that while I had not attended church for over 10 years, that whole time God was still very real to me. It was like, after that experience, that no matter how I may have tried, I could never propose that God didn't exist and that God didn't love me. I could go so far as to question everything except that.

I have been in heated debates with atheists, for example, and when asked why I believe, ultimately it doesn't come down to an argument, but the very fact that I can't do otherwise.

In other words, I may not know much about God or maybe I can't reason a proof or argument, but I can't not believe. Even if I couldn't always say that "I believe," I couldn't ever say that I don't. It wasn't a matter of belief, really, it was a matter of revelation, and how can I prove revelation?

In the pit of my "soul," I can't deny the reality of God, and, in that sense, God is more real to me than anything else, which makes a lot of sense if God is the only necessary being!

I'm glad that you resonated with what I said, Paul.

[Billy Cox]

I imagine I could find at least a handful of Nazarenes who would write that sentence the other way around (We Nazarenes are not so much American Holiness as we are Wesleyan).


Some people would say that we were more Wesleyan at the outset, but cultural and theological cross-pollination occurred, resulting in a short-lived hybrid (the AHM).

American Holiness Movement influence is still present but is dying pretty quickly, having been supplanted to some extent by neo-Wesleyanism, but to a greater degree by evangelical pragmatism. (Church Growth movement, Purpose Driven model, Willow Creek model, whatever works)

[Gene Tatsch]

Because in a Christian context, that word has no meaning.

I'm missing something - I thought as Christians, we anchor our theology & actions on Biblical application & interpretation. So I'm flummoxed.

Could you elaborate?

thanks/gene --

[Gene Tatsch]

... but who gets to decide which lens of Biblical interpretation is more correct?

I might claim that a Wesleyan approach is more Biblical, and my brother might claim that an AHM approach is more Biblical.

Could we both be correct and simply be incapable of comprehending it? :basic03

I think I'd rather sit with a true brother of different persuasion and the Holy Spirit ... and examine His word in humility & love ... and let the theological/denominational chips fall where He wills. ???

[Hans Deventer]

I'm missing something - I thought as Christians, we anchor our theology & actions on Biblical application & interpretation. So I'm flummoxed.

Could you elaborate?

thanks/gene --

Sure! If I say I anchor my theology and actions on Biblical application and interpretation, within a Christian context, I said nothing because I've kicked in an open door, as the Dutch saying is. It is so totally obvious, plus, you still don't have the faintest idea HOW I interpret the Scriptures. For all you know I could be anything from Greek Orthodox to wild Pentecostal and anything in between. So the statement is empty, void of content.

Now when I would tell you I'm a Wesleyan, or a 5 point Calvinist, or tongues speaking Charismatic, you'd have some information on how I anchor my theology & actions on specific Biblical application & interpretation.

So whenever I hear: we're a Bible church, we have no creed but the Scriptures, I get very suspicious. It usually means we follow the teachings of brother such and so, only, we don't recognize we do and call it "Biblical". I rather have people who recognize the glasses with which they read the Scriptures than those who don't recognize their own biases and glasses.

[Michael B. Ross]

Hans, thanks for this post!

Sure! If I say I anchor my theology and actions on Biblical application and interpretation, within a Christian context, I said nothing because I've kicked in an open door, as the Dutch saying is. It is so totally obvious, plus, you still don't have the faintest idea HOW I interpret the Scriptures. For all you know I could be anything from Greek Orthodox to wild Pentecostal and anything in between. So the statement is empty, void of content.

Now when I would tell you I'm a Wesleyan, or a 5 point Calvinist, or tongues speaking Charismatic, you'd have some information on how I anchor my theology & actions on specific Biblical application & interpretation.

So whenever I hear: we're a Bible church, we have no creed but the Scriptures, I get very suspicious. It usually means we follow the teachings of brother such and so, only, we don't recognize we do and call it "Biblical". I rather have people who recognize the glasses with which they read the Scriptures than those who don't recognize their own biases and glasses.

[Jamie Wayne]

...I've kicked in an open door, as the Dutch saying is.

Good one! Thanks!

[Gene Tatsch]

Sure! If I say I anchor my theology and actions on Biblical application and interpretation, within a Christian context, I said nothing because ...
So whenever I hear: we're a Bible church, we have no creed but the Scriptures, I get very suspicious. It usually means we follow the teachings of brother such and so, only, we don't recognize we do and call it "Biblical". ...

Hmmm ... I hadn't thought of it from this perspective. And the comment on "Bible church" resonates with my previously subconscious suspicions.

We may need to verbalize a "double anchoring" - "Biblical interpretation ... according to Wesley" - or something similar.

My question resulted from hearing so very many recent quotes with Wesley as the authority that I began to think that folks had shifted from a Biblical basis to a Wesley basis.

thanks much for the clarification/gene --

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Why must we always make this and "either or" issue. Wesley really never expressed the fact that he had had a crisis moment though he knew many that had. We Nazarenes are not so much Wesleyan as we are of the American Holiness Movement. My concern is that we are drifting away from all crises in the sense of a prescribed heaven sent moment of Biblically defined transformation. Of course there is process or growth before and after each and on I would think into Heaven.

Chuck Millhuff
Editor - The Evangelists' Perspective

I think you touched on a crucial issue. According to Rodney Clapp"…denominations are splintering from within." Denominations have profound disagreement from within. The Church of the Nazarene is not exempt.

There are those who would like to drift and change doctrinal matters and reshape the traditional identity of the church. There are also those who are totally opposed to such transformation and refuse to modify the historic doctrine.

Your “either or” is followed by the word “issue.” I think there is an issue in denominations. In relation to the issue, some are expressing a reaction to a new culture. A more important issue is a decline of agreement because of new trends that run cross current to the group.

Wesley may not have used the word crisis in this spiritual experience but he had an experience of the ‘strangely warmed heart.” It is also interesting that you said in the evangelist’s perspective “… presents holiness as a second work of instantaneous grace in the growth process of the holy life.”