Faith in Faith

[John Brickley]

I am not sure where this thread will go, nor entirely sure if there is any one question that I would like to address, but having closely observed the thread on Penal Substitution and watching the ongoing diatribes of the fundamentalist agitators in the Church of the Nazarene right now I am convinced that the primary reason that conversation is ultimately futile with them is that their faith is in faith. It is their belief itself that is for them salvation, thus any attempt to question or to converse about said belief (whatever the content might be) is understood as a rejection of their salvation (eg., rejection of PS is rejection of the gospel).

When the gospel is understood as a set of beliefs and not a person, then the road to division and fundamentalism is a short one indeed, because any deviation from ones particular belief is in fact a rejection of the gospel (not unlike 5 point Calvinism in which the whole house of cards inevitably falls if any one of the points is removed).

While I am not sure what the way forward is in conversing with folk whose faith is in faith, the one thing that has become glaringly obvious is that debating belief for belief is not the way forward.

Those of us who have moved beyond faith in faith to faith in Jesus Christ are able to converse with a dynamism and flexibility that those whose faith is in faith cannot begin to comprehend, because for us regardless of what happens to our ideas about Christ, the Person of Jesus remains, thus we are able to converse far more effectively because our exchange of ideas does not ultimately threaten the One in Whom our true faith lies, Who He is is not dependent on what we say about Him.

So perhaps one way forward is the recognition of the radically different starting points. I would suggest that we need to see those who rigidly hold to a narrow, self referential view of the faith as if their salvation depended upon it (which in their minds it does) as the weaker brothers that Paul refers to. In dealing with them we cannot eat meat, because they are still struggling to hold down their milk.



PS. Wesley did not hold exclusively, nor even primarily to a Penal Substitutionary view of the atonement. I spent over a year researching this topic for my Masters Thesis at NTS. Wesley drew on a wide range of metaphors (utilizing in one place or another images from all the popular theories to articulate the work of God in Jesus Christ). I would argue that for Wesley, the atonement was not a theory, nor was it something that Christ did, but it was who Christ is. He is the at-one-ment between God and man, and for Wesley the outworking in us of that at-one-ment was far more relational, therapeutic, and wholistic (ultimately encompassing all of our relationship between God and mankind, not just the forgiveness of sins) than legal or forensic.

[Hans Deventer]

So perhaps one way forward is the recognition of the radically different starting points. I would suggest that we need to see those who rigidly hold to a narrow, self referential view of the faith as if their salvation depended upon it (which in their minds it does) as the weaker brothers that Paul refers to. In dealing with them we cannot eat meat, because they are still struggling to hold down their milk.

John, I like your post but I think we need to get a little more practical. Does this mean we can no longer say what we think? For if we do, it will be perceived as an attack upon "faith in faith". And rightly so. And even if we don't use words like that in a direct "conversation", it will still be there on NazNet for all to see.

[Sarah Smith]

I don't believe the more fundamentalists among us have "faith in faith" but rather a strong faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.

To disagree about theology does not mean to have a closed mind.

Watching the discussion on penal substitution has raised another question related to this thread in my mind.

My grandparents came from the East Texas Methodists--specifically the Methodist Protestant Church or low church Methodism.

They were driven from it over the issue of holiness and found a home in the Church of the Nazarene........which in their time and place was very much an American Holiness Movement church.

Am I reading NazNet right, that those of us from the AHM stream need to just get out since we are so unwelcome? That the church has grown up and moved on past such teachings, which are now considered juvenile and somehow "not Wesleyan enough?"

[John Brickley]

John, I like your post but I think we need to get a little more practical. Does this mean we can no longer say what we think? For if we do, it will be perceived as an attack upon "faith in faith". And rightly so. And even if we don't use words like that in a direct "conversation", it will still be there on NazNet for all to see.

I think it is a good question Hans, and I certainly was not advocating not stating what we think, just pointing out why I think conversation will ultimately be futile. Perhaps the best we can expect is simply articulating a counter point and then leaving it at that because obviously extended conversation is fruitless. I was also thinking out loud as to why it was that Leon was insisting that any deviation from his position of PS is a false gospel when a vast swath of the Christian church (probably even the majority) do not accept that theory.

[Billy Cox]

I re-read John's post and I don't see any sort of assault on the American Holiness Movement...unless one considers AHM as interchangeable with fundamentalism. That is worth discussing, but I don't automatically equate the two.

[Hans Deventer]

Am I reading NazNet right, that those of us from the AHM stream need to just get out since we are so unwelcome? That the church has grown up and moved on past such teachings, which are now considered juvenile and somehow "not Wesleyan enough?"

The AHM is definitely not the issue. The early Nazarenes were solidly in the AHM, but were not fundamentalists as we know them today.

[John Brickley]

I don't believe the more fundamentalists among us have "faith in faith" but rather a strong faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.

To disagree about theology does not mean to have a closed mind.





Then how else do you explain the fact that when someone disagrees with their theology they regularly denounce them as not being Christian? The obvious inference of that is that it is what they believe that makes one Christian and not Christ, thus their faith is in their belief not Christ.

This is not about theological disagreements, this is about their acceptance or rejection of persons as Christians based on whether or not those persons believe as they do.

[Marsha Lynn]

Am I reading NazNet right, that those of us from the AHM stream need to just get out since we are so unwelcome? That the church has grown up and moved on past such teachings, which are now considered juvenile and somehow "not Wesleyan enough?"

Friday evening around a campfire several of us were discussing possibilities for Sunday School fellowship activities and someone suggested visiting the Creation Museum -- a mere four hours from here. She knew nothing about it other than that the Christians she knows who have been there (mostly from the Christian Church) are extremely positive about it. She thought we should check it out.

Uhm. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Let's just say that made for some interesting campfire discussion. I have once again been 'outed" as a heretic. Fortunately, this was a group that values our relationship more than correct beliefs. It was a safe place, but it was still a discussion I would have just as soon not had. I try hard not to challenge the truths others have held dear for a lifetime, but too much time sitting around campfires together makes it difficult to always keep one's 'rogue' beliefs under wraps.

Approximately 24 hours later -- Saturday evening, same fire ring, same beautiful setting, slightly warmer evening, slightly modified group, fresh firewood. I brought up the Creation Museum again and made a statement that I hoped would be reassuring:

As someone who doesn't accept the premise that believing the Bible requires being a young-earth six-day creationist and explaining away evolution, there's a modest level of risk I could be labeled a heretic within the Church of the Nazarene in southern Indiana. On the other hand, those who DO take such a position will fit in well here and are well within the 'big tent" of acceptable belief of the denomination as a whole. On the whole, they will have no problem finding common ground with fellow laypeople in the denomination.

In other words, you might get some flak on NazNet for certain beliefs, particularly if you insist that yours is the only correct way to believe, but there's plenty of room for you in the denomination and you can likely spend years in a local setting as someone in line with AHM beliefs without ever suspecting that there might be people such as you encounter on NazNet in an average manifestation of the Church of the Nazarene.

Marsha

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't believe the more fundamentalists among us have "faith in faith" but rather a strong faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.


Well, some. Maybe even many. There are probably just as many on the "Liberal Fundamentalist" side who have Faith in something other than Christ who just don't show it as often.

However, the fact is that many have faith in a certain reading of Scripture which gives them the picture of a certain savior. It is THIS savior according to THIS picture which they have faith in. They are vehemently against the idea that their reading could be wrong and that this savior might be different than they thought.

This seems that their faith in the savior rests in certain ideas - not in the person. If the faith were in the person, they would chase that person no matter where he went. Instead of holding so tightly onto his cloak in order to keep him where they want him.



To disagree about theology does not mean to have a closed mind.


I completely agree. But that does not mean ipso facto that any and all who disagree about theology do not have a closed mind.

Some most definitely do.




Watching the discussion on penal substitution has raised another question related to this thread in my mind.

My grandparents came from the East Texas Methodists--specifically the Methodist Protestant Church or low church Methodism.

They were driven from it over the issue of holiness and found a home in the Church of the Nazarene........which in their time and place was very much an American Holiness Movement church.

Am I reading NazNet right, that those of us from the AHM stream need to just get out since we are so unwelcome? That the church has grown up and moved on past such teachings, which are now considered juvenile and somehow "not Wesleyan enough?"

Absolutely not. But, a couple of points should be made here along with a response.

(1) Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory has nothing to do with AHM
(2) Inerrancy has nothing to do with AHM

However, what the church (as a whole) seems to be asking is that no one hold on to their beliefs just because it's what they believe(d). We do learn. The Church as a whole seems to be asking that the Church be interested in learning - not holding onto past beliefs.

So, as we learn that the AHM ideas about certain things - such as holiness - are not Biblical, we ask that many move with us into Scripture instead of holding on strongly to their AHM beliefs just because it's what they believe.

However, we're also completely open to those people holing on strongly to their AHM beliefs, and we welcome them into the Big Tent of the CotN as brothers and sisters in Christ at the Table.

[Paul DeBaufer]

A couple years ago I was at a regular Bible study for former inmates that met at a church in the Reformed Church of America. We were not a closed group and welcomed all, as I think we should. I am a Wesleyan/Arminian Open theist. On this particular evening a man from this church attended, he is very grounded in 5-point Calvinism. Now this fellow has had his share of struggles including drugs, crime, divorce, depression, etc. The subject of perseverance of the saints came up, I don't remember how, but I think he raised it. Well, I do not adhere to this doctrine and when he stated it as though it were fact I interjected that I think that while we cannot "lose" our salvation like we can our car keys, we can make the choice to step away from it, give back or toss aside the gift. This man turned red with rage. He argued his case as though his very salvation depended on his being right. That if perseverance of the saints is not the absolute and only truth then he was forever lost. I stopped debating with him as I realized his faith is in his doctrine of Jesus rather than in the person of Jesus.

I think we see this in biblolotry as well, or is this an extension of faith in faith?

[Dennis M. Scott]

A couple years ago I was at a regular Bible study for former inmates that met at a church in the Reformed Church of America. We were not a closed group and welcomed all, as I think we should. I am a Wesleyan/Arminian Open theist. On this particular evening a man from this church attended, he is very grounded in 5-point Calvinism. Now this fellow has had his share of struggles including drugs, crime, divorce, depression, etc. The subject of perseverance of the saints came up, I don't remember how, but I think he raised it. Well, I do not adhere to this doctrine and when he stated it as though it were fact I interjected that I think that while we cannot "lose" our salvation like we can our car keys, we can make the choice to step away from it, give back or toss aside the gift. This man turned red with rage. He argued his case as though his very salvation depended on his being right. That if perseverance of the saints is not the absolute and only truth then he was forever lost. I stopped debating with him as I realized his faith is in his doctrine of Jesus rather than in the person of Jesus.

I think we see this in biblolotry as well, or is this an extension of faith in faith?

So, Paul, is your faith in Jesus, or in the God Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Yes, I know that if we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father, and that Jesus said, "You believe in God, believe also in me." but with that expression it's no wonder that we might think that Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.

We need a balance of the two identified camps. Let's be biblical and experiential. It's probably not true that we should be exclusively one or the other.

[Hans Deventer]

So, Paul, is your faith in Jesus, or in the God Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Yes, I know that if we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father, and that Jesus said, "You believe in God, believe also in me." but with that expression it's no wonder that we might think that Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.

We need a balance of the two identified camps. Let's be biblical and experiential. It's probably not true that we should be exclusively one or the other.

Dennis, can you explain a bit more? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

[Billy Cox]

I am not sure where this thread will go, nor entirely sure if there is any one question that I would like to address, but having closely observed the thread on Penal Substitution and watching the ongoing diatribes of the fundamentalist agitators in the Church of the Nazarene right now I am convinced that the primary reason that conversation is ultimately futile with them is that their faith is in faith. It is their belief itself that is for them salvation, thus any attempt to question or to converse about said belief (whatever the content might be) is understood as a rejection of their salvation (eg., rejection of PS is rejection of the gospel).


I think this point is valid, but I keep tripping over the 'faith in faith' terminology. I don't like using the word 'faith' interchangeably with the word 'religion' or 'doctrine' because it greatly trivializes faith.

Here on NazNet, we go round and round about essentials vs. non-essentials. Fundamentalists have a long list of essentials, and they are not just essential in order to affiliate with a particular tradition, they all have heaven or hell ultimacy. While it would seem that there is no point in discussing/debating with people who subscribe to those positions, I think there is value in keeping channels of communication open.

If we Nazarenes should have learned anything from our brief theological history, it's that the refusal to discuss certain topics merely serves to cede those topics to the crazies.

[Billy Cox]

Linda,

Then how else do you explain the fact that when someone disagrees with their theology they regularly denounce them as not being Christian? The obvious inference of that is that it is what they believe that makes one Christian and not Christ, thus their faith is in their belief not Christ.

This is not about theological disagreements, this is about their acceptance or rejection of persons as Christians based on whether or not those persons believe as they do.

Is it possible that the term of choice would be 'sectarian' instead of 'fundamentalist'?

[Marsha Lynn]

If we Nazarenes should have learned anything from our brief theological history, it's that the refusal to discuss certain topics merely serves to cede those topics to the crazies.

I think this is a good point. I'm still amazed that it took me so long to discover the fantastic news that I didn't have to believe in the secret rapture to be a good Nazarene. Looking back from this perspective, the biggest barrier wasn't those who taught me about the secret rapture but those who believed differently and didn't tell me, who simply didn't address it at all.

I guess I do the same. Those discussing the Creation Museum around the campfire this past weekend have all been in my Sunday School class for several years and we just finished a unit on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Yet they were mostly unaware that I am not a young-earth proponent. On one hand, I'm quite pleased that I could get through this unit without anyone detecting that I don't necessarily view those beginnings stories as literal history. (And also impressed that the lesson material left the door open to that option without actually addressing the issue.) On the other hand, when is it worth the risk of being exposed as a liberal in order to present options to people who are struggling with the "company line" (AKA the position of "the crazies")?

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

I think this is a good point. I'm still amazed that it took me so long to discover the fantastic news that I didn't have to believe in the secret rapture to be a good Nazarene. Looking back from this perspective, the biggest barrier wasn't those who taught me about the secret rapture but those who believed differently and didn't tell me, who simply didn't address it at all.

I guess I do the same. Those discussing the Creation Museum around the campfire this past weekend have all been in my Sunday School class for several years and we just finished a unit on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Yet they were mostly unaware that I am not a young-earth proponent. On one hand, I'm quite pleased that I could get through this unit without anyone detecting that I don't necessarily view those beginnings stories as literal history. (And impressed that the lesson material left the door open to that option without actually addressing the issue.) On the other hand, when is it worth the risk of being exposed as a liberal in order to present options to people who are struggling with the "company line" (AKA the position of "the crazies")?

I'm going to say I generally try to do the same thing. Steven tries too, but he succeeds more often than me. ;) Often, if I know my personal beliefs in some non-essential matter are different than the fundamentalist norm of the group I am with, I'll hold my tongue and just not discuss my point of view on the topic, because I'm afraid that speaking up will start an argument. We've already seen (repeatedly) here just how useless and repetitive and accusatory such arguments are apt to become (on both sides), so I'd often rather keep my mouth shut and endure it rather than start such controversies and be labeled heretical or unchristian again.

I guess the question becomes, how can I tell when I may safely express controversial opinions on non-essential topics without starting fights or being the subject of accusations by my brothers and sisters in Christ? How can I know when it is more relationally beneficial to voice my beliefs and free others to believe the same and when it is more relationally beneficial to hold my tongue and not eat meat around my brothers and sisters who may feel threatened by my particular beliefs?

[Susan Unger]

I can see where John is coming from, and definitely have experienced what Paul did. The church environment in which I was raised was such that to question some theology was to question God [like the murmurers of the Exodus] and thus one got scolded and guilted back into the party line. I see that as either having an immature faith and/or a case of people who haven't been taught to think critically [not thinking of any examples in particular other than those in my background]. I was like that, too, until I went through a period of time in which all I ever did was question God. I realized during that time that God is big enough for all our questions, and that correct doctrine is not as important as showing God's love to others through grace and mercy.

When one hasn't been taught how to think critically, comments from others hit emotional nerves and boom! off we go into an argument. But when one can develop criticial thinking skills, engage in a conversation with grace and love, and stick to the subject while not taking the discussion to an emotional level, we can have healthy discussions in which no one is required to believe the party line.

[Wayne Paul]

I'm going to say I generally try to do the same thing. Steven tries too, but he succeeds more often than me. ;) Often, if I know my personal beliefs in some non-essential matter are different than the fundamentalist norm of the group I am with, I'll hold my tongue and just not discuss my point of view on the topic, because I'm afraid that speaking up will start an argument. We've already seen (repeatedly) here just how useless and repetitive and accusatory such arguments are apt to become (on both sides), so I'd often rather keep my mouth shut and endure it rather than start such controversies and be labeled heretical or unchristian again.

I guess the question becomes, how can I tell when I may safely express controversial opinions on non-essential topics without starting fights or being the subject of accusations by my brothers and sisters in Christ? How can I know when it is more relationally beneficial to voice my beliefs and free others to believe the same and when it is more relationally beneficial to hold my tongue and not eat meat around my brothers and sisters who may feel threatened by my particular beliefs?

Charlotte,

This is a real problem. Silence implies that you agree with the "norm" and helps solidify their views. Labeling one as heretical and/or un-Christian is often a form of intimidation/bullying. I have been in your position at various times in my life. I have seen people who simply said "I know a wonderful Christian who drinks" no longer nominated for positions of leadership in their local church.

The pressure of the norm and its' rejection of anything that may be considered controvertible has driven masses of youth from the Church and wonderful scholars from Nazarene Universities.

The solution is beyond my creative capabilities; however, the lack of a solution is a cancer that is destroying many ministries that furthers Christ's witness to a hurting world.

[Steven Burton]

Charlotte,

This is a real problem. Silence implies that you agree with the "norm" and helps solidify their views. Labeling one as heretical and/or un-Christian is often a form of intimidation/bullying. I have been in your position at various times in my life. I have seen people who simply said "I know a wonderful Christian who drinks" no longer nominated for positions of leadership in their local church.

The pressure of the norm and its' rejection of anything that may be considered controvertible has driven masses of youth from the Church and wonderful scholars from Nazarene Universities.

The solution is beyond my creative capabilities; however, the lack of a solution is a cancer that is destroying many ministries that furthers Christ's witness to a hurting world.

Just curious do you mean that you should speak up every time and confront it when it comes up or are you saying that you should be diplomatic about the way you handle it?

I would say that I do try to express my ideas and beliefs, usually to one in greater authority to me. So that I can judge there reaction to or about my ideas, if I noticed my idea has taken them by surprise or seem to make them uneasy I will usually try to tone it down. I want to be able to voice my opinion and not be able to go against the authority figure at that church if it seems to be making an ant hill into a mountain (which I am am currently trying to blow up a mountain with out explosives at the moment, maybe I need some digging equipment). I think that the issue you mentioned needs to be taken seriously and not over looked. I have had plenty of friends who thought the people in church where cool but they felt rejected by the ideas that you have to believe this certain way to be accepted. I think as long as the Church keeps Christ at its center and focuses on the two greatest commandments, then we should not worry about 6 days or billions of years, or five points or the quadrilateral, those are ideas to help us understand the greatness that is God and are not essential to salvation.

Marsha your comments make me think of this Jewish idea (http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html). I am sure there are more than this idea out there in that community though.

[Bob Hunter]

I think what John is trying to say can be summed up in this Jason Gray song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKm6USWzVPE&feature=related

The lyrics are appear in the video

I would love to hear comments on this video, sometimes a song can capture in words what theologians cannot

[Marsha Lynn]

Charlotte,

This is a real problem. Silence implies that you agree with the "norm" and helps solidify their views.

Wayne, I will agree with your second sentence and admit to being guilty of solidifying some completely offensive views. I'll even agree that it's a problem to do so. However, I have learned that it is often equally a problem to challenge those views. It's like throwing one's pearls before swine. Not only do your pearls get trampled, but you and others are likely to get hurt as well.

Even if challenging an offensive position results in winning the debate, we still lose, particularly when laypeople challenge those in authority. Is it Dennis Scott who has some clever phrasing about not having to participate in every fight to which we are invited? Sometimes silence is not a bad choice when speaking would only stir up hostility without changing anyone's positions.


The solution is beyond my creative capabilities; however, the lack of a solution is a cancer that is destroying many ministries that furthers Christ's witness to a hurting world.

The best solution I have found is to provide an alternative safe place for genuine discussion. It's a balancing act because those with differing opinions need to be respected even in their absence, particularly those in authority in the local church. But it's possible to say, "The position our leaders (or grandparents or friends) present on this is not at all uncommon. It's one they have learned from their own mentors. Here is some of the history behind their position and some of the truth contained in that position. Here are the verses they use to support their views. However, there are also other ways of looking at it. For example, some people, based on these other scriptures, believe ..."

Those with firm positions who refuse to be challenged in those positions may not be interested in participating in open discussions but they can provide plenty of material for them.

;)

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha your comments make me think of this Jewish idea (http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html). I am sure there are more than this idea out there in that community though.

Thanks, Steve. I waded part way through the article but realized afresh that I really don't need a clever way to reconcile science and Genesis. Genesis tells me that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That is all I need for my beginning-times faith statement. I'm fine with waiting for science to figure out how God did it and how long it took. While I wait, it's not really a question that bothers me. I know that God is behind it all, that humans fell quickly into the temptation to be demigods and have struggled to submit to God since the earliest days, that God has always sought fellowship with humans, and that it is possible to make choices that please God.

I enjoyed our recent trip through Genesis 1-11 in Sunday School. There is much to be learned from those ancient accounts. When we ran across holes in the stories such as the identity of Cain's wife, I simply said, "Yes, there seems to be a hole in our story. However, I don't think it detracts from the lessons we can learn from it."

The "faith in faith" people of which John speaks can't stand to have holes in their stories because their stories must be airtight or their faith falls apart. It's a precarious position. Thankfully, it's a position we don't have to defend as Wesleyans.

[Steven Burton]

Thanks, Steve. I waded part way through the article but realized afresh that I really don't need a clever way to reconcile science and Genesis. Genesis tells me that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That is all I need for my beginning-times faith statement. I'm fine with waiting for science to figure out how God did it and how long it took. While I wait, it's not really a question that bothers me. I know that God is behind it all, that humans fell quickly into the temptation to be demigods and have struggled to submit to God since the earliest days, that God has always sought fellowship with humans, and that it is possible to make choices that please God.

I enjoyed our recent trip through Genesis 1-11 in Sunday School. There is much to be learned from those ancient accounts. When we ran across holes in the stories such as the identity of Cain's wife, I simply said, "Yes, there seems to be a hole in our story. However, I don't think it detracts from the lessons we can learn from it."

The "faith in faith" people of which John speaks can't stand to have holes in their stories because their stories must be airtight or their faith falls apart. It's a precarious position. Thankfully, it's a position we don't have to defend as Wesleyans.

I just figured another cultures understanding can always be good (especially in light of the culture it is from). I am always trying to see things from different points of view, and different cultural lenses. I am glad you do not feel threatened by other ideas and that you don't feel like you have to defend your idea to the Nth degree.

[Marsha Lynn]

I think what John is trying to say can be summed up in this Jason Gray song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKm6USWzVPE&feature=related

The lyrics are appear in the video

I would love to hear comments on this video, sometimes a song can capture in words what theologians cannot

I very much agree with the lyrics of the song, but I'm not sure how they relate to what John is saying. (Although, with the direction my own posts have gone in this thread there's no reason anyone would think I understand what he's saying at all.) What I hear from them has to do with why I don't try to push my skeptical friends into the Kingdom using logic. As my current signature reads: "When a hearer's acceptance of the Christian message becomes obligatory, when witness is no longer surprising but coercive because it is presented as undeniable, then the good news is neither news nor good."

On the other hand, my friends whose faith is in their faith are not skeptics at all. They are certain of their position and very interested in defending their position with words and showing my words to be faulty. I have to basically tune out their messages to avoid getting drawn into debates with them. The song is right in that the only way to get past their wall of words is to insist on being their friend even while both disagreeing with their beliefs and ignoring their insistence that all their beliefs are right and mine are at least suspect and probably wrong. Basically, we can't talk theology and still be friends so I have to choose friendship over dialog that goes beyond the surface. But it's not their plea that I give them love rather than words. I don't think they value my friendship enough to long for my love. It's my choice to refuse to take their bait and have my gray beliefs analyzed and found wanting against their black-and-white world, to offer them love and acceptance instead.

Does that make sense?

[Dennis M. Scott]

So, Paul, is your faith in Jesus, or in the God Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Yes, I know that if we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father, and that Jesus said, "You believe in God, believe also in me." but with that expression it's no wonder that we might think that Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.

We need a balance of the two identified camps. Let's be biblical and experiential. It's probably not true that we should be exclusively one or the other.

Having been asked to explain these comments, I simply think that somehow the Lord is able to know the intent of our hearts. Our "faith" may be misdirected to a Person of the trinity, but God is able to "get it."

Our help comes from the Object of our faith, not faith itself. The victory is not that we have great faith, but that the One in Whom we have our faith is great.

While we will do well to "work out our own salvation" and order our faith, there is also a summons to experience mystery. It is very difficult to deny what one has experienced, even in the face of disagreeing evidence. We often are able to view the evidence through the "eyes" of our experience, and thusly interpret it differently than someone with a different perspective (experience). People choose sides, and polarization begins. So-called evidence is interpretted as verification of each position. Curiously, what each side needs most is a flavor of the other side. We really do need each other.

[Paul DeBaufer]

A couple years ago I was at a regular Bible study for former inmates that met at a church in the Reformed Church of America. We were not a closed group and welcomed all, as I think we should. I am a Wesleyan/Arminian Open theist. On this particular evening a man from this church attended, he is very grounded in 5-point Calvinism. Now this fellow has had his share of struggles including drugs, crime, divorce, depression, etc. The subject of perseverance of the saints came up, I don't remember how, but I think he raised it. Well, I do not adhere to this doctrine and when he stated it as though it were fact I interjected that I think that while we cannot "lose" our salvation like we can our car keys, we can make the choice to step away from it, give back or toss aside the gift. This man turned red with rage. He argued his case as though his very salvation depended on his being right. That if perseverance of the saints is not the absolute and only truth then he was forever lost. I stopped debating with him as I realized his faith is in his doctrine of Jesus rather than in the person of Jesus.

I think we see this in biblolotry as well, or is this an extension of faith in faith?


So, Paul, is your faith in Jesus, or in the God Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Yes, I know that if we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father, and that Jesus said, "You believe in God, believe also in me." but with that expression it's no wonder that we might think that Jesus saves, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.

We need a balance of the two identified camps. Let's be biblical and experiential. It's probably not true that we should be exclusively one or the other.


Having been asked to explain these comments, I simply think that somehow the Lord is able to know the intent of our hearts. Our "faith" may be misdirected to a Person of the trinity, but God is able to "get it."

Our help comes from the Object of our faith, not faith itself. The victory is not that we have great faith, but that the One in Whom we have our faith is great.

While we will do well to "work out our own salvation" and order our faith, there is also a summons to experience mystery. It is very difficult to deny what one has experienced, even in the face of disagreeing evidence. We often are able to view the evidence through the "eyes" of our experience, and thusly interpret it differently than someone with a different perspective (experience). People choose sides, and polarization begins. So-called evidence is interpretted as verification of each position. Curiously, what each side needs most is a flavor of the other side. We really do need each other.

I guess in light of your latest post I don't get the context for your previous response to my post, maybe I'm a bit thick today, but.... Because the point of my illustration was meeting a person whose faith is in doctrine, or as you phrased it his help came from faith itself. I do not think that I would be wrong to say my salvation comes from the second person of the Trinity, Christ Jesus--I think that there is much biblical support for this. However, while Jesus IS Lord I cannot separate the three distinct persons of our triune God so easily. I believe that our faith is important after all Jesus repeatedly tells people that their faith has healed them, but I think it is implied that their faith was in Him and that the healing came from or through Jesus.

I guess it's late and I'm drained, but I do not see how faith in a person of the Trinity can be misdirected unless there is a denial of the other persons.

Oh just to be clear, which I realize I wasn't in my original post: I stopped debating with this man when it became apparent that he believed that his salvation depended on his view of perseverance of the saints be the absolute truth, not because his faith was apparently in a doctrine alone, but because of his vehement adherence. I felt that to continue would have been to unnecessarily cause my friend grief, never did I even mention that I believed his faith was in doctrine rather than God (the Trinity) or that it seemed that he held on like his salvation depended on it.

[Hans Deventer]

I guess the question becomes, how can I tell when I may safely express controversial opinions on non-essential topics without starting fights or being the subject of accusations by my brothers and sisters in Christ? How can I know when it is more relationally beneficial to voice my beliefs and free others to believe the same and when it is more relationally beneficial to hold my tongue and not eat meat around my brothers and sisters who may feel threatened by my particular beliefs?

Second attempt at a reply, after reading a little more background to the question.

I think you'll get sensitive enough about this pretty soon. Start by saying nothing that doesn't fit the generic Calvinistic and evangelical culture from the 1950's. In any group or situation, you'll find out soon enough if people are still stuck there, or not. In the latter case, you might find friends there. And you'll need them!

It's a somewhat schizophrenic world you'll be living in, but that's exactly what the 21st century church is.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I guess in light of your latest post I don't get the context for your previous response to my post, maybe I'm a bit thick today, but.... Because the point of my illustration was meeting a person whose faith is in doctrine, or as you phrased it his help came from faith itself. I do not think that I would be wrong to say my salvation comes from the second person of the Trinity, Christ Jesus--I think that there is much biblical support for this. However, while Jesus IS Lord I cannot separate the three distinct persons of our triune God so easily. I believe that our faith is important after all Jesus repeatedly tells people that their faith has healed them, but I think it is implied that their faith was in Him and that the healing came from or through Jesus.

I guess it's late and I'm drained, but I do not see how faith in a person of the Trinity can be misdirected unless there is a denial of the other persons.

Oh just to be clear, which I realize I wasn't in my original post: I stopped debating with this man when it became apparent that he believed that his salvation depended on his view of perseverance of the saints be the absolute truth, not because his faith was apparently in a doctrine alone, but because of his vehement adherence. I felt that to continue would have been to unnecessarily cause my friend grief, never did I even mention that I believed his faith was in doctrine rather than God (the Trinity) or that it seemed that he held on like his salvation depended on it.

I wasn't really picking an argument with you. My real issue is with those television-like portrayals of people saying "My faith has held me strong," and then put on some sort of ethereal eye-roll that usually doesn't make me think of God at all.

Your point about Jesus indicating that person's faith had made them whole is well taken. Jesus' ministry and message context was that we were to have faith in God: that is that our faith was to have an Object.

While Jesus did say that if we had seen Him we also had seen the Father, He repeatedly mentioned His Father, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Holy Spirit (the Comforter.) It seems like maybe to illustrate God as three Persons - ala, the Trinity - Jesus found valuable or at least helpful. Probably it still is, and to distinguish Their roles.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

Friday evening around a campfire several of us were discussing possibilities for Sunday School fellowship activities and someone suggested visiting the Creation Museum -- a mere four hours from here. She knew nothing about it other than that the Christians she knows who have been there (mostly from the Christian Church) are extremely positive about it. She thought we should check it out.

Uhm. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Let's just say that made for some interesting campfire discussion. I have once again been 'outed" as a heretic. Fortunately, this was a group that values our relationship more than correct beliefs. It was a safe place, but it was still a discussion I would have just as soon not had. I try hard not to challenge the truths others have held dear for a lifetime, but too much time sitting around campfires together makes it difficult to always keep one's 'rogue' beliefs under wraps.

Approximately 24 hours later -- Saturday evening, same fire ring, same beautiful setting, slightly warmer evening, slightly modified group, fresh firewood. I brought up the Creation Museum again and made a statement that I hoped would be reassuring:

As someone who doesn't accept the premise that believing the Bible requires being a young-earth six-day creationist and explaining away evolution, there's a modest level of risk I could be labeled a heretic within the Church of the Nazarene in southern Indiana. On the other hand, those who DO take such a position will fit in well here and are well within the 'big tent" of acceptable belief of the denomination as a whole. On the whole, they will have no problem finding common ground with fellow laypeople in the denomination.

In other words, you might get some flak on NazNet for certain beliefs, particularly if you insist that yours is the only correct way to believe, but there's plenty of room for you in the denomination and you can likely spend years in a local setting as someone in line with AHM beliefs without ever suspecting that there might be people such as you encounter on NazNet in an average manifestation of the Church of the Nazarene.

Marsha

Just curious, if you happen to feel as many in the COTN do...that we are a big tent of beliefs, why not go to the Creation Museum and see what they have to say?

[Hans Deventer]

Just curious, if you happen to feel as many in the COTN do...that we are a big tent of beliefs, why not go to the Creation Museum and see what they have to say?

I don't understand the reason for this question. Do you think the Creation Museum promotes the "big tent" and fairly shows the different views?

[John Brickley]

I think what John is trying to say can be summed up in this Jason Gray song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKm6USWzVPE&feature=related

The lyrics are appear in the video

I would love to hear comments on this video, sometimes a song can capture in words what theologians cannot

Bob,

Thanks for the video. It very much expresses that difference that I see between faith in Christ and faith in faith. I appreciate your sharing that. For I too agree that often times songs can communicate far better than our theologizing.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

I don't understand the reason for this question. Do you think the Creation Museum promotes the "big tent" and fairly shows the different views?

I have not been to the Creation Museum, so cannot accurately say what and how things are promoted. I do know that many in the COTN do agree with their views on Creationism. So, if we are a Big Tent, why not go to the museum and see how they portray their views? I also have heard many positive things about the museum.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Just curious, if you happen to feel as many in the COTN do...that we are a big tent of beliefs, why not go to the Creation Museum and see what they have to say?

Personally, it was Answers in Genesis which caused me to nearly give up the faith. That's why I won't go, nor recommend it to anyone, nor take my children there.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I wasn't really picking an argument with you. My real issue is with those television-like portrayals of people saying "My faith has held me strong," and then put on some sort of ethereal eye-roll that usually doesn't make me think of God at all.

Your point about Jesus indicating that person's faith had made them whole is well taken. Jesus' ministry and message context was that we were to have faith in God: that is that our faith was to have an Object.

While Jesus did say that if we had seen Him we also had seen the Father, He repeatedly mentioned His Father, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Holy Spirit (the Comforter.) It seems like maybe to illustrate God as three Persons - ala, the Trinity - Jesus found valuable or at least helpful. Probably it still is, and to distinguish Their roles.

I apologize if I came off as implying you were picking an argument, I really didn't think you were. I think that we are actually in agreement. Our faith needs to be in the Triune God, as I see it. I think that the healing the people received from Jesus was due to the object of that faith--God--and not simply from faith in faith (to use the phrase that initiated this thread.

When I was an atheist I had faith, tremendous faith, faith that certain unprovable assumptions, that are the foundations of human reasoning, held true. This is real faith, but there is no salvation from the object of that faith. Likewise when people have faith in doctrine and ideas ABOUT God, rather than actual faith in God Himself, they can have a real and strong faith, but is it a faith that saves?

[John Brickley]

When I was an atheist I had faith, tremendous faith, faith that certain unprovable assumptions, that are the foundations of human reasoning, held true. This is real faith, but there is no salvation from the object of that faith. Likewise when people have faith in doctrine and ideas ABOUT God, rather than actual faith in God Himself, they can have a real and strong faith, but is it a faith that saves?

This question actually gives me a chance to clarify something in relation to my concerns about faith in faith. Faith does not save us, God does (which I am sure we would be in agreement there), and I believe God in His mercy extends that salvation to those who have not yet moved beyond faith in faith (or belief, or doctrine, or however you want to phrase it). But here is the difference that I see, one cannot fully live in that salvation (and I speak of a salvation in the present experience and not some sort of eternal get out of hell free card) until such time as one fully realizes that that salvation is not something I believe in so much as it is Someone I fall passionately in love with. Until we move from the acceptance of ideas to the loving relationship with another Person (who is Jesus Christ) we barely scratch the surface of all that salvation really is. One could liken it to the difference between going to the Louvre and seeing the beauty of that magnificent statue of Venus de Milo, or having Venus herself show up in your living room in all of her, uhm, glory :smilies0262::smilies0262::smilies0262:. While both reveal the beauty of Venus, I think we can all see that they would be two radically different experiences. :smilies0150::smilies0150::smilies0150:

So to sum that up I do think that such a faith is saving, but only in the most basic of senses.

[Hans Deventer]

I have not been to the Creation Museum, so cannot accurately say what and how things are promoted. I do know that many in the COTN do agree with their views on Creationism. So, if we are a Big Tent, why not go to the museum and see how they portray their views? I also have heard many positive things about the museum.

I can't answer for Marsha, but if anyone is presenting a view on a non essential as "this is the only truth and everyone who thinks differently is mistaken at least and .... at worst", I'm not listening.

[Bill Morrison]

I can't answer for Marsha, but if anyone is presenting a view on a non essential as "this is the only truth and everyone who thinks differently is mistaken at least and .... at worst", I'm not listening.

But isn't that exactly what the "evolution" side of the debate says too? Does that mean that since I am a biologist who is a young earth creationist I should not listen to them?

BILL

[Hans Deventer]

But isn't that exactly what the "evolution" side of the debate says too? Does that mean that since I am a biologist who is a young earth creationist I should not listen to them?

BILL

It's your call, Bill, not mine. I'm only responsible for myself. I'll probably be missing out on stuff but I simply can't stand the arrogance. It makes my stomach turn.

[Bill Morrison]

It's your call, Bill, not mine. I'm only responsible for myself. I'll probably be missing out on stuff but I simply can't stand the arrogance. It makes my stomach turn.
I couldn't agree with you more. I just hope I don't display arrogance when I discuss this or any other issue. Still, it is hard on the stomach!

BILL

[Marsha Lynn]

Just curious, if you happen to feel as many in the COTN do...that we are a big tent of beliefs, why not go to the Creation Museum and see what they have to say?

Someone asked that question during our discussion. The best answer I can give is that I'm not open to either the beliefs being presented or the tone with which they are presented on the founder's radio spots. However, I admitted that there is always danger in critiquing a book one hasn't read, a movie one hasn't watched, or a "museum" one hasn't visited and so I couldn't say for sure what was in the Creation Museum. I suggested that those who were interested could go and bring back a report to the rest of us. ;)

The bottom line is that I can't go with an open mind and it seems disrespectful to go in full knowledge that I will walk in with a closed mind and likely carry a negative attitude through the entire experience. Negativity is not something I want to demonstrate or promote, particularly in regard to the beliefs of other people, and I don't think I could visit the Creation Museum without making it obvious that I have little respect for its message. If I can't respect the message, I can at least respect those who believe and promote it by maintaining a respectful distance.

The interesting thing is that the suggestion was made by someone who has little interest in exploring controversial faith issues. She truly had no idea what it was -- perhaps a place to marvel at the untold wonders of creation? (Wouldn't that be nice?) After I explained what it is to the best of my knowledge, she said something about it being a lot of energy to focus on one issue.

In other words, although she likely has no problem at all accepting belief in young-earth, six-day creation as part of being a Christian and would likely enjoy the museum, it didn't seem to bother her to have that belief recast as just one option. Her faith -- unlike the faith of those prompting this thread -- apparently does not rest on a particular set of beliefs, not even something so obvious as accepting the Bible, including Genesis, at face value. She'll likely continue to do that but isn't particularly bothered by the idea of having a Sunday School teacher who doesn't. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but it's interesting.

Marsha

[Todd Erickson]

There is a Sunday School class at a local Nazarene church which has been going through the latter portion of the NT for this year. Everything is focused around scoffers, scorners, and false teachers who turn away from the truth of God.

It was very difficult to speak up in that class, as anything about loving and reaching others for God was generally dismissed, because those who have turned against true teachings are to be abandoned, not loved. *sigh*

[Lorie Hatcliff]

Someone asked that question during our discussion. The best answer I can give is that I'm not open to either the beliefs being presented or the tone with which they are presented on the founder's radio spots. However, I admitted that there is always danger in critiquing a book one hasn't read, a movie one hasn't watched, or a "museum" one hasn't visited and so I couldn't say for sure what was in the Creation Museum. I suggested that those who were interested could go and bring back a report to the rest of us. ;)

The bottom line is that I can't go with an open mind and it seems disrespectful to go in full knowledge that I will walk in with a closed mind and likely carry a negative attitude through the entire experience. Negativity is not something I want to demonstrate or promote, particularly in regard to the beliefs of other people, and I don't think I could visit the Creation Museum without making it obvious that I have little respect for its message. If I can't respect the message, I can at least respect those who believe and promote it by maintaining a respectful distance.

The interesting thing is that the suggestion was made by someone who has little interest in exploring controversial faith issues. She truly had no idea what it was -- perhaps a place to marvel at the untold wonders of creation? (Wouldn't that be nice?) After I explained what it is to the best of my knowledge, she said something about it being a lot of energy to focus on one issue.

In other words, although she likely has no problem at all accepting belief in young-earth, six-day creation as part of being a Christian and would likely enjoy the museum, it didn't seem to bother her to have that belief recast as just one option. Her faith -- unlike the faith of those prompting this thread -- apparently does not rest on a particular set of beliefs, not even something so obvious as accepting the Bible, including Genesis, at face value. She'll likely continue to do that but isn't particularly bothered by the idea of having a Sunday School teacher who doesn't. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but it's interesting.

Marsha

I'm fine with you believing that. But what I've put in bold, seems to put the shoe on the other foot from what John B. has presented in his first post. His views seems to think that those of a more fundamental thinking are the "weaker brothers". After viewing your post I wondered who IS more open minded? Truly, on many things it seems like both sides think they are right and do not want to listen to the other side. As Bill M. pointed out Young Earth Creationist have to listen to it all the time in that they are surrounded with the Evolutionist's message.

[Billy Cox]

Just curious, if you happen to feel as many in the COTN do...that we are a big tent of beliefs, why not go to the Creation Museum and see what they have to say?

Just because 6-day creationist, young-earth people are tolerated in the big tent does not mean that I have to sit through their sales pitch.

[Billy Cox]

There is a Sunday School class at a local Nazarene church which has been going through the latter portion of the NT for this year. Everything is focused around scoffers, scorners, and false teachers who turn away from the truth of God.

It was very difficult to speak up in that class, as anything about loving and reaching others for God was generally dismissed, because those who have turned against true teachings are to be abandoned, not loved. *sigh*

Life is so much better after you graduate from Sunday School. :)

[Cam Pence]

Just because 6-day creationist, young-earth people are tolerated in the big tent does not mean that I have to sit through their sales pitch.

Hopefully not "tolerated" but "embraced" in the same way anyone else on any other side of the debate would wish to be....I can't think of a single loving community that I would want to be apart of because they "tolerate" me so well :)

[Hans Deventer]

I'm fine with you believing that. But what I've put in bold, seems to put the shoe on the other foot from what John B. has presented in his first post. His views seems to think that those of a more fundamental thinking are the "weaker brothers". After viewing your post I wondered who IS more open minded? Truly, on many things it seems like both sides think they are right and do not want to listen to the other side. As Bill M. pointed out Young Earth Creationist have to listen to it all the time in that they are surrounded with the Evolutionist's message.

Lorie, I'm willing to listen to anyone who can share his/her message with some decency. I remember reading C.S. Lewis' "Letters to Malcom" as a teen. He offers some profound ideas, but followed them with an almost disclaimer like "I've offered only guesses". THEN I am absolutely willing to listen, and listen good!

That's the whole point. Whatever view, whatever idea, the attitude behind it is crucial.

[Charlotte 'Mercer' Burton]

I'm fine with you believing that. But what I've put in bold, seems to put the shoe on the other foot from what John B. has presented in his first post. His views seems to think that those of a more fundamental thinking are the "weaker brothers". After viewing your post I wondered who IS more open minded? Truly, on many things it seems like both sides think they are right and do not want to listen to the other side. As Bill M. pointed out Young Earth Creationist have to listen to it all the time in that they are surrounded with the Evolutionist's message.

Lorie, I think most people here will gladly agree with you that neither side is perfect and that neither side is as perfectly open to the opposing viewpoint as we could be. As to who is more open minded, I honestly can't think of anyone who is objective enough to say. I think most people on both sides are willing to hear what the other side has to say, but no one is willing to hear that they are wrong, stupid, unloving, or heretical for holding a set of beliefs that, as Marsha said, is well within the "big tent" of Nazarene doctrine. What makes some of us on both sides unwilling to listen is the fear that the view we hear will not be presented as one of several possible options but as the only option that can ever allow a true relationship with God. And, if we're honest, all of us are guilty of presenting our views that way at times, including you and me.

[Steven Burton]

This question actually gives me a chance to clarify something in relation to my concerns about faith in faith. Faith does not save us, God does (which I am sure we would be in agreement there), and I believe God in His mercy extends that salvation to those who have not yet moved beyond faith in faith (or belief, or doctrine, or however you want to phrase it). But here is the difference that I see, one cannot fully live in that salvation (and I speak of a salvation in the present experience and not some sort of eternal get out of hell free card) until such time as one fully realizes that that salvation is not something I believe in so much as it is Someone I fall passionately in love with. Until we move from the acceptance of ideas to the loving relationship with another Person (who is Jesus Christ) we barely scratch the surface of all that salvation really is. One could liken it to the difference between going to the Louvre and seeing the beauty of that magnificent statue of Venus de Milo, or having Venus herself show up in your living room in all of her, uhm, glory :smilies0262::smilies0262::smilies0262:. While both reveal the beauty of Venus, I think we can all see that they would be two radically different experiences. :smilies0150::smilies0150::smilies0150:

So to sum that up I do think that such a faith is saving, but only in the most basic of senses.

I think I would prefer Venus out side of the picture. :P

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm fine with you believing that. But what I've put in bold, seems to put the shoe on the other foot from what John B. has presented in his first post. His views seems to think that those of a more fundamental thinking are the "weaker brothers". After viewing your post I wondered who IS more open minded? Truly, on many things it seems like both sides think they are right and do not want to listen to the other side. As Bill M. pointed out Young Earth Creationist have to listen to it all the time in that they are surrounded with the Evolutionist's message.

While I sympathize for this thought, I think it misses what goes into the entire discussion. Fundamentalists (not labeling you as one) are not open to hearing what non-fundamentalists hear or think. In fact, if presented with the possibility that the Bible might not be inerrant, they quickly google apologetic sites and offer up that as a defense and then act as though they've settled the matter (even though apologetics are really just sad).

The fact is that those of us who are not inerrantists/fundamentalists are not "closed minded" in the same way. We're closed minded because we've already seen all the evidence on both sides and made a judgment about it. Why should someone "open their mind" to the same thing they've heard time and time again but have already factored into their decision. "Open Mindedness" is towards new and different thought.

There is nothing "new" and "different" about fundamentalism or their reading of the Bible. It's the same old same old. Most of us know it, have heard it 1,000 times, and after having surveyed the evidence have found it severely lacking in credibility (as a way of reading the text). Then we get told that we're not being "open minded" because we aren't willing to reconsider the same evidence for the 200th time.

Until something changes on that front.... I don't see any reason to be "open minded" in that way. If we were rejecting or ignoring something new, I think you could say we aren't being open minded. However, that is just simply not the case.

[Billy Cox]

Hopefully not "tolerated" but "embraced" in the same way anyone else on any other side of the debate would wish to be....I can't think of a single loving community that I would want to be apart of because they "tolerate" me so well :)

Perhaps I betrayed a bit of my skepticism that the so-called big tent is a viable philosophy to start with. A 'big tent' simply means that while we denominationally believe and practice 'x' with regard to inerrancy, baptism, creation, etc., we won't lobby for the removal of local 'tribes' who believe and practice 'y'. Our tent is so big that we will only kick a tribe out and confiscate their sub-tent if they condone criminal activity or speak in tongues. :)

It is a different story at the local level. When there is a church on virtually every street corner, we can gather in likeminded clusters and never have to tolerate someone with different ideas. Consider Luke 6:32-33:


32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.

How 'loving' is a community if they freeze people out of the fellowship whom they would otherwise have to tolerate?

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm fine with you believing that. But what I've put in bold, seems to put the shoe on the other foot from what John B. has presented in his first post. His views seems to think that those of a more fundamental thinking are the "weaker brothers". After viewing your post I wondered who IS more open minded? Truly, on many things it seems like both sides think they are right and do not want to listen to the other side. As Bill M. pointed out Young Earth Creationist have to listen to it all the time in that they are surrounded with the Evolutionist's message.

A few points.

1. I have listened multiple times to Ken Ham, the man behind the Creation Museum. He is a regular on the local Christian radio station.

2. I have attended the Church of the Nazarene for 46 years and heard many sermons on creation, including apologetic-style defense of six 24-hour days for creation. I have had far more exposure to the creationist view than to the theory of evolution.

3. As you picked up, I have heard enough to know I'm not interested in hearing more. There are plenty of issues for which I don't claim to have an open mind. For example, I'm not at all open to smoking and wouldn't attend a seminar promoting tobacco use as a way to help poor farmers in Kentucky. Does anyone keep an open mind on every subject? What's that saying about having a mind so open that our brains fall out?

4. I don't consider this a "weaker brother" position. I'm not avoiding the Creation Museum for fear I will lose my way and be taken in by the persuasive arguments presented there. I'm avoiding it for fear I will be unable to resist belittling what I find there. At the moment, my answer to the question "How did God create the world" is "I don't know." It wouldn't rock my faith to discover it all happened in six 24-hour days. I'd like to remain open to that idea. Based on my exposure to Ken Ham's radio spots, I fear that visiting the Creation Museum would make it difficult to keep what little open-mindedness I have left on the issue. His arguments (and those I hear from various other sources) strike me as being weak and make it difficult for me to avoid rejecting the idea of six-day creation altogether.

[John Brickley]

I'm fine with you believing that. But what I've put in bold, seems to put the shoe on the other foot from what John B. has presented in his first post. His views seems to think that those of a more fundamental thinking are the "weaker brothers". After viewing your post I wondered who IS more open minded? Truly, on many things it seems like both sides think they are right and do not want to listen to the other side. As Bill M. pointed out Young Earth Creationist have to listen to it all the time in that they are surrounded with the Evolutionist's message.

Lorie,

My issue is not necessarily with those from a fundamentalist position because they are fundamentalist, what I take issue with is the oft repeated idea that if you don't believe like this or that then you are not a Christian. It strikes me that this goes deeper than fundamentalism, and deeper than making non essentials essential, it is a misplaced faith (one could even go so far as to say that it is a form of idolatry). When the way in which one believes, or what one believes, becomes more important than Who one believes then you have crossed over (in my opinion) into having faith in faith. This is a ultimately a weaker position (this is evidenced by the rigidity with which the position is usually held) and does not allow for the kind of faith that can ultimately take seriously the challenges of this present age and yet still stand. I am convinced that only faith in a person (and not in ideas) can do that.

In a sense the fact that those who I was describing are in a large degree fundamentalist is somewhat incidental (I say somewhat because fundamentalism perhaps more than any other expression of faith is susceptible to this). Yet this trap can be fallen into by most anyone that holds their ideas dear to them, so it is a danger to us all.

[Leon McCaffrey]

While I sympathize for this thought, I think it misses what goes into the entire discussion. Fundamentalists (not labeling you as one) are not open to hearing what non-fundamentalists hear or think. In fact, if presented with the possibility that the Bible might not be inerrant, they quickly google apologetic sites and offer up that as a defense and then act as though they've settled the matter (even though apologetics are really just sad).

The fact is that those of us who are not inerrantists/fundamentalists are not "closed minded" in the same way. We're closed minded because we've already seen all the evidence on both sides and made a judgment about it. Why should someone "open their mind" to the same thing they've heard time and time again but have already factored into their decision. "Open Mindedness" is towards new and different thought.

There is nothing "new" and "different" about fundamentalism or their reading of the Bible. It's the same old same old. Most of us know it, have heard it 1,000 times, and after having surveyed the evidence have found it severely lacking in credibility (as a way of reading the text). Then we get told that we're not being "open minded" because we aren't willing to reconsider the same evidence for the 200th time.

Until something changes on that front.... I don't see any reason to be "open minded" in that way. If we were rejecting or ignoring something new, I think you could say we aren't being open minded. However, that is just simply not the case.

This enitre comment epitomizes a close mind. Simply foolishness.

[Billy Cox]

My issue is not necessarily with those from a fundamentalist position because they are fundamentalist, what I take issue with is the oft repeated idea that if you don't believe like this or that then you are not a Christian. It strikes me that this goes deeper than fundamentalism, and deeper than making non essentials essential, it is a misplaced faith (one could even go so far as to say that it is a form of idolatry). When the way in which one believes, or what one believes, becomes more important than Who one believes then you have crossed over (in my opinion) into having faith in faith.

Perhaps it is worth noting that 'fundamental' and 'essential', while not synonyms, are very close in meaning. If some belief is fundamental or essential to following Christ, then a deficiency in a fundamental belief indicates that one is not a follower of Christ.

I could profess to be an airline pilot, but if I cannot safely land an airplane, then no government agency would certify me as a pilot and no company in their right mind would hire me to fly their airplanes. All of the other flight skills I can demonstrate amount to nothing if I am missing a fundamental/essential skill.

Maybe it seems crazy for fundamentalists to say that if you don't believe 'x' or if you don't abstain from 'y' then you cannot be a Christian...but it's just the logical outcome of identifying fundamentals. They're just playing out the script.

Incidentally, it is for this reason that I think the quest to identify essentials of the Christian faith is fruitless at best. Such an endeavor seems to come from a belief that we can have the certainty of fundamentalism, but with a kinder and gentler rigor.

The problem with fundamentalism is not that their list is too long, but rather that they create the list in the first place.

[Craig Laughlin]

I have not been to the Creation Museum, so cannot accurately say what and how things are promoted. I do know that many in the COTN do agree with their views on Creationism. So, if we are a Big Tent, why not go to the museum and see how they portray their views? I also have heard many positive things about the museum.

The reason going to a creation museum is not helpful is that the question is theological not scientific. All the geological evidence in the world is not going to change my mind about the most appropriate way to interpret the Bible. To those that do not see the theological necessity of a young earth it really makes no difference at all if the world is 4,000 years old or 4 billion. BTW - I have not been to this creation museum but I have been to some others. They raise interesting questions, but I'm not a scientist so I have no context for understanding and it really makes no difference to me. God created that is what I care about as a Theologian, how he did it is up to others.

[Cam Pence]

While I sympathize for this thought, I think it misses what goes into the entire discussion. Fundamentalists (not labeling you as one) are not open to hearing what non-fundamentalists hear or think. In fact, if presented with the possibility that the Bible might not be inerrant, they quickly google apologetic sites and offer up that as a defense and then act as though they've settled the matter (even though apologetics are really just sad).

The fact is that those of us who are not inerrantists/fundamentalists are not "closed minded" in the same way. We're closed minded because we've already seen all the evidence on both sides and made a judgment about it. Why should someone "open their mind" to the same thing they've heard time and time again but have already factored into their decision. "Open Mindedness" is towards new and different thought.

There is nothing "new" and "different" about fundamentalism or their reading of the Bible. It's the same old same old. Most of us know it, have heard it 1,000 times, and after having surveyed the evidence have found it severely lacking in credibility (as a way of reading the text). Then we get told that we're not being "open minded" because we aren't willing to reconsider the same evidence for the 200th time.

Until something changes on that front.... I don't see any reason to be "open minded" in that way. If we were rejecting or ignoring something new, I think you could say we aren't being open minded. However, that is just simply not the case.

Ben,
While I have seen and certainly do agree, to an extent, with much of what you have written here in your analysis of fundamentalism, I think your whole post is a sweeping general assumption about a large group of people, which can be very dangerous. I have certainly met people like you have described here, but I have met very open minded fundamentalists before. My brother in particular considers himself to be a fundamentalist and even subscribes to the whole TULIP so as you can imagine, we have pretty interesting conversations, but they are always very gracious conversations. I certainly would not say he is someone who does not look at both sides of the argument. The truth is when we argue, on the phone, on Naznet, whatever, there is always a part of us that wants to be right. Some are better at hiding this than others, but when you have to different views on pretty much anything, no matter how much open minded grace is present, we disagree and we want the other person to see why we disagree. We almost try to outlaw being certain about anything, as if that were always a bad thing. Back to my primary example, my brother and I's conversations generally end up with me trying to convince him why I am right and vise versa....and there does not have to be anything wrong with that, even if we will never change each others minds. All this to say,don't put all you fundies in one basket....if that works. Probably not...:)

[Cam Pence]

This enitre comment epitomizes a close mind. Simply foolishness.

Leon,
While I can understand your disagreement and especially your history of disagreement with Ben, I don't really know what you hope accomplish by simply insulting him, with no reasoning as to why you think his entire post "epitomizes a close mind" and is "simply foolishness". While there is nothing wrong with you feeling this way and even expressing it, you fail to express why and that runs the danger of bordering on the childish logic of "I don't agree with Ben therefore he is a poop head." Once again, it is not my intent to nag you, but to say it makes more sense, for you as someone who obviously feels passionate about this, to explain your feelings rather than just grab an insult, pull the pin, throw it, and duck and run.

[Lorie Hatcliff]

I'd like to respond to everyone who has responded to me, but do not have time. So since John started this thread, I'd like to respond to this post:


Lorie,

My issue is not necessarily with those from a fundamentalist position because they are fundamentalist, what I take issue with is the oft repeated idea that if you don't believe like this or that then you are not a Christian. It strikes me that this goes deeper than fundamentalism, and deeper than making non essentials essential, it is a misplaced faith (one could even go so far as to say that it is a form of idolatry). When the way in which one believes, or what one believes, becomes more important than Who one believes then you have crossed over (in my opinion) into having faith in faith. This is a ultimately a weaker position (this is evidenced by the rigidity with which the position is usually held) and does not allow for the kind of faith that can ultimately take seriously the challenges of this present age and yet still stand. I am convinced that only faith in a person (and not in ideas) can do that.

In a sense the fact that those who I was describing are in a large degree fundamentalist is somewhat incidental (I say somewhat because fundamentalism perhaps more than any other expression of faith is susceptible to this). Yet this trap can be fallen into by most anyone that holds their ideas dear to them, so it is a danger to us all.

When I read this post I think of two people I would be considered to be prominent fundamentalist: Charles Stanley and Beth Moore. I don't know if you've ever heard either of them speak/teach, but I could never say that the way they believe is more important to them than the WHO. To me, it's obvious WHO is most important in their lives. Someone earlier in the thread alluded to arrogance. Isn't it arrogant to suggest such a thing?

[John Brickley]

I'd like to respond to everyone who has responded to me, but do not have time. So since John started this thread, I'd like to respond to this post:



When I read this post I think of one person I would be considered to be prominent fundamentalist: Charles Stanley and Beth Moore. I don't know if you've ever heard either of them speak/teach, but I could never say that the way they believe is more important to them than the WHO. To me, it's obvious WHO is most important in their lives. Someone earlier in the thread alluded to arrogance. Isn't it arrogant to suggest such a thing?

Lorie,

You are actually making my point. I am not saying that because someone is fundamentalist they place their faith in faith, not at all. I am simply stating that some people do. I do not know enough about either Beth Moore or Charles Stanley to speak about them, nor would I care to, that is not my point. Now it has been my impression that those from a fundamentalist persuasion seem to struggle with this more than do non fundamentalists, but again I am not saying that it is because they are fundamentalists that they have this struggle. So I think you are fighting ghosts here if you are debating me on that point, because it is not one that I am making nor have I made it in this thread.

[Bob Hunter]

This enitre comment epitomizes a close mind. Simply foolishness.

Leon, I know Ben and he is anything but close minded and foolish. He is so open minded that he thinks the Miami Heat are going to win multiple championships with Lebron James.

[Cam Pence]

Leon, I know Ben and he is anything but close minded and foolish. He is so open minded that he thinks the Miami Heat are going to win multiple championships with Lebron James.

Ok....so that might be "simply foolish" :)

[Todd Erickson]

Ben,
While I have seen and certainly do agree, to an extent, with much of what you have written here in your analysis of fundamentalism...

Ben isn't making sweeping statements about Fundamentalists. Ben is making specific statements about people from the Fundamentalist camp who are themselves closed minded, and must either proselytize everybody, or label the heretics and false teachers.

I think that everybody has their tenuous points. My father doesn't trust any church that talks about Love more than Hell, because to him that indicates that they're less about responsibility than making people feel good. As a result, we don't have conversations about theology pretty much at all.

There are people on this board, such as Leon, who specifically believe that certain doctrinal stances are narrowly and specifically true, and that anybody who doesn't subscribe to those views is foolish and is mocking God. This might also apply to Manny, from statements he's made elsewhere, as well as folks who mostly subscribe to the Political forum.

But.

One will also note that Christians who have been burned a lot by dealing with those people (Hans, myself, Billy, Ben, various others) will, as a result, be less charitable than others we can all name (Rich) about the whole process, simply because, when you have been burned, you're less likely to want to go get burned again.

If you know that you are likely to encounter the type of people or arguments that have burned, injured you, and perhaps even hardened you against the body of Christ in the past, you're going to want to avoid it, because it's a stumbling block for your heart.

Which is why I tend to take multi-month breaks from facebook and Naznet, to try to ease off of the negativity and find hope about the church.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,
While I have seen and certainly do agree, to an extent, with much of what you have written here in your analysis of fundamentalism, I think your whole post is a sweeping general assumption about a large group of people, which can be very dangerous. I have certainly met people like you have described here, but I have met very open minded fundamentalists before. My brother in particular considers himself to be a fundamentalist and even subscribes to the whole TULIP so as you can imagine, we have pretty interesting conversations, but they are always very gracious conversations. I certainly would not say he is someone who does not look at both sides of the argument. The truth is when we argue, on the phone, on Naznet, whatever, there is always a part of us that wants to be right. Some are better at hiding this than others, but when you have to different views on pretty much anything, no matter how much open minded grace is present, we disagree and we want the other person to see why we disagree. We almost try to outlaw being certain about anything, as if that were always a bad thing. Back to my primary example, my brother and I's conversations generally end up with me trying to convince him why I am right and vise versa....and there does not have to be anything wrong with that, even if we will never change each others minds. All this to say,don't put all you fundies in one basket....if that works. Probably not...:)

My attempt was not to put all Fundies in one basket. I apologize. I was attempting to say that to call Liberals who have already looked at the evidence "closed minded" because they are not interested in considering the same evidence AGAIN is just not a true statement

I also would want to say that what I've said is fairly true of certain fundamentalists. Calling someone closed minded because they won't visit the Creation Museum (and I want to be VERY clear hear that I am in no way saying Lorie was doing this) and hear the same thing for the 40th time just misses the point.

[Benjamin Burch]

This enitre comment epitomizes a close mind. Simply foolishness.

Again, a mind that is closed to the same evidence that has already been considered is not a "closed mind." It's a learned mind. The idea that someone must listen to the same evidence and same argument 100x or else they're "just as closed minded" just makes no sense. I'm sorry.

[Bob Hunter]

Again, a mind that is closed to the same evidence that has already been considered is not a "closed mind." It's a learned mind. The idea that someone must listen to the same evidence and same argument 100x or else they're "just as closed minded" just makes no sense. I'm sorry.

Ben,

I think the close minded accusation is actually a frustration on the part of those who cannot accept the fact that some people will draw a different conclusion. We can still authentically welcome those with whom we have disagreements with, but it helps a great deal when we let go of the "everybody-has-to-be-like-me” attitude.

[Hans Deventer]

This entire comment epitomizes a close mind. Simply foolishness.

You're in a danger zone.

[Hans Deventer]

Incidentally, it is for this reason that I think the quest to identify essentials of the Christian faith is fruitless at best. Such an endeavor seems to come from a belief that we can have the certainty of fundamentalism, but with a kinder and gentler rigor.

The problem with fundamentalism is not that their list is too long, but rather that they create the list in the first place.

Ok. So let's say I'm following the teachings of Buddha, believe that God is everything I see and cannot see, and think that Jesus was one of the incarnations of Krishna. But I call myself a Christian all the same (and a Buddhist, Hindu etc). You're happy with that, I understand? I'm a Nazarene in good standing?

[Lorie Hatcliff]

My attempt was not to put all Fundies in one basket. I apologize. I was attempting to say that to call Liberals who have already looked at the evidence "closed minded" because they are not interested in considering the same evidence AGAIN is just not a true statement

I also would want to say that what I've said is fairly true of certain fundamentalists. Calling someone closed minded because they won't visit the Creation Museum (and I want to be VERY clear hear that I am in no way saying Lorie was doing this) and hear the same thing for the 40th time just misses the point.


Again, a mind that is closed to the same evidence that has already been considered is not a "closed mind." It's a learned mind. The idea that someone must listen to the same evidence and same argument 100x or else they're "just as closed minded" just makes no sense. I'm sorry.

I am trying to let this debate go and just let you guys keep agreeing with each other...BUT Ben, your posts indicate that a fundamentalist could never draw the same conclusions that you have...looked at all the evidence 100 times and draw a different conclusion. This goes BOTH ways.



Ben,

I think the close minded accusation is actually a frustration on the part of those who cannot accept the fact that some people will draw a different conclusion. We can still authentically welcome those with whom we have disagreements with, but it helps a great deal when we let go of the "everybody-has-to-be-like-me” attitude.

Bob, I don't know if you meant it both ways. My guess is that you didn't since you highlighted Leon's post. However, if I read your post coming from the opposite side I can agree totally with it.

I don't think the so called "open minded liberal" is as open minded as he thinks he is. But none of you agree with that, so just keep on agreeing with each other in your open minded way :)

[Hans Deventer]

I don't think the so called "open minded liberal" is as open minded as he thinks he is. But none of you agree with that, so just keep on agreeing with each other in your open minded way :)

I don't know if I'm an open minded liberal. I try to be open minded. But let's get out of the theory and make it practical. I've changed my opinion on several issues because of NazNet throught the years. Capital punishment and open theism are two of those. On how many issues did you change your opinion because of NazNet discussions?

If the answer is none, I don't think it's up to you to accuse others of being close minded.

[Marsha Lynn]

I don't think the so called "open minded liberal" is as open minded as he thinks he is. But none of you agree with that, so just keep on agreeing with each other in your open minded way :)

I'll agree with your comment about liberals not being as open-minded as some like to think they are. (Does that mean I'm not agreeing with the rest of the group?) Perhaps the difference is the focus of the closed mind. Using liberal/conservative to define the two camps under discussion, a conservative is suspicious, even fearful, of any idea that would lead to a more liberal view. At its extreme -- the position with which John started this thread -- conservative Christianity constructs a list of sacred beliefs and compares any incoming ideas to that list. Those that don't jive are rejected as dangerous and an attempt is made to rid the church of their influence at any cost. Their faith is in the truths they hold sacred rather than in the God they believe to be behind that truth.

Liberals can also focus on principles more than God. They reject ideas they see as archaic or restrictive. They are much more welcoming to new ideas that stretch truth in new and interesting ways. Their faith can be in freedom and exploration and new ideas rather than the God who authors freedom.

As you assert, neither is better. And I haven't really seen anyone disagree with that. I think the difference John is trying to highlight is that conservatives are more likely to slam the doors shut to keep liberals out while the liberals are willing to let the conservatives stay around as long as they are humble in their old-fashioned beliefs and don't try to champion their position as the only correct way to believe. Again, neither position is better, but the latter does allow us to stay together -- maybe.

The turning point for me in all this was the day I decided to start over on my faith. I tossed it all aside and started with the most basic question: Is there a God or is there not? I then started to build again deciding the evidence for God was too strong to ignore and that I would embrace it rather than do the hard work of rejecting it. I now know that my belief in God is not something I have to hang on to with all my might to keep it from disappearing. Rather, it is something that creeps right back in even if I try to let go of it.

Rather than me having faith, my faith has me and I choose to let it have me. I can be a "liberal" (in surely one of the most conservative senses of that word) because I don't have to protect my faith. I can look at new ideas because I have confidence that they can't separate me from God. I can wade through mud and grime because I'm quite confident that it will wash right off my spiritual skin rather than causing a permanent stain. I can let loose of aspects of my faith that quit making sense to me because I'm confident that the essentials aren't so easily released.

My faith is no longer fragile and easily damaged by dangerous ideas. And that has made all the difference. I would guess you might be somewhere along that same journey or you would have stepped away from this conversation by now for fear all the "liberals" here might damage your faith. You appear to be conservative in your beliefs and fearful there is no room for you in the church [edit: or at least on NazNet], but I think there's plenty of room. I think your position is difficult because you are defending the "popular" beliefs in the church that have caused many of us grief as we try to reconcile them with how God is working in our lives. But you're representing the mainstream of the existing church and I for one appreciate your willingness to be part of the conversation -- even if you don't change your mind on anything.

Marsha

[Craig Laughlin]

I'll agree with your comment about liberals not being as open-minded as some like to think they are. (Does that mean I'm not agreeing with the rest of the group?) Perhaps the difference is the focus of the closed mind. Using liberal/conservative to define the two camps under discussion, a conservative is suspicious, even fearful, of any idea that would lead to a more liberal view. At its extreme -- the position with which John started this thread -- conservative Christianity constructs a list of sacred beliefs and compares any incoming ideas to that list. Those that don't jive are rejected as dangerous and an attempt is made to rid the church of their influence at any cost. Their faith is in the truths they hold sacred rather than in the God they believe to be behind that truth.

Liberals can also focus on principles more than God. They reject ideas they see as archaic or restrictive. They are much more welcoming to new ideas that stretch truth in new and interesting ways. Their faith can be in freedom and exploration and new ideas rather than the God who authors freedom.

As you assert, neither is better. And I haven't really seen anyone disagree with that. I think the difference John is trying to highlight is that conservatives are more likely to slam the doors shut to keep liberals out while the liberals are willing to let the conservatives stay around as long as they are humble in their old-fashioned beliefs and don't try to champion their position as the only correct way to believe. Again, neither position is better, but the latter does allow us to stay together -- maybe.

The turning point for me in all this was the day I decided to start over on my faith. I tossed it all aside and started with the most basic question: Is there a God or is there not? I then started to build again deciding the evidence for God was too strong to ignore and that I would embrace it rather than do the hard work of rejecting it. I now know that my belief in God is not something I have to hang on to with all my might to keep it from disappearing. Rather, it is something that creeps right back in even if I try to let go of it.

Rather than me having faith, my faith has me and I choose to let it have me. I can be a "liberal" (in surely one of the most conservative senses of that word) because I don't have to protect my faith. I can look at new ideas because I have confidence that they can't separate me from God. I can wade through mud and grime because I'm quite confident that it will wash right off my spiritual skin rather than causing a permanent stain. I can let loose of aspects of my faith that quit making sense to me because I'm confident that the essentials aren't so easily released.

My faith is no longer fragile and easily damaged by dangerous ideas. And that has made all the difference. I would guess you might be somewhere along that same journey or you would have stepped away from this conversation by now for fear all the "liberals" here might damage your faith. You appear to be conservative in your beliefs and fearful there is no room for you in the church, but I think there's plenty of room. I think your position is difficult because you are defending the "popular" beliefs in the church that have caused many of us grief as we try to reconcile them with how God is working in our lives. But you're representing the mainstream of the existing church and I for one appreciate your willingness to be part of the conversation -- even if you don't change your mind on anything.

Marsha

That thanks button was not enough. Excellent post.

[Kevin Rector]

Marsha, you are a gem and an unbelievable asset to this community.

[Billy Cox]

Ok. So let's say I'm following the teachings of Buddha, believe that God is everything I see and cannot see, and think that Jesus was one of the incarnations of Krishna. But I call myself a Christian all the same (and a Buddhist, Hindu etc). You're happy with that, I understand? I'm a Nazarene in good standing?

The corporate church needs some way of identifying those who can be trusted to speak for the organization. This is primarily where essentials are useful.

I could personally believe in some bizarre theory of inspiration involving space aliens or golden tablets, but my local Nazarene church will only chase me away with a stick if I try to propagate that theory within the congregation. Sure, they would prefer that I agree with Article IV (or at least the shadow version of Article IV that makes inerrantists happy), but a person suffering from doctrinal schizophrenia can still enjoy 99.9% of the benefits that a Nazarene in good standing enjoys, and 100% of the obligations.

[Hans Deventer]

The corporate church needs some way of identifying those who can be trusted to speak for the organization. This is primarily where essentials are useful.

I could personally believe in some bizarre theory of inspiration involving space aliens or golden tablets, but my local Nazarene church will only chase me away with a stick if I try to propagate that theory within the congregation. Sure, they would prefer that I agree with Article IV (or at least the shadow version of Article IV that makes inerrantists happy), but a person suffering from doctrinal schizophrenia can still enjoy 99.9% of the benefits that a Nazarene in good standing enjoys, and 100% of the obligations.

Could be. Let me rephrase: If what I wrote is true, am I a Christian?

Obviously, I completely disagree. Which has nothing to do with the corporate church, but with the simple fact of being a Christian or not. I will submit that there are (few, but still) things you have to believe in order to be one. I would agree that practice is more important than dogma, but I'm definitely not saying that anything goes.

[John Kennedy]

If the minimum level of orthodoxy advances much further than the historic creeds, I get a bit uncomfortable.

[Billy Cox]

If the minimum level of orthodoxy advances much further than the historic creeds, I get a bit uncomfortable.

Considering the context in which the creeds were developed, I don't consider them gospel either.

[John Kennedy]

While I certainly don't think they're canonical, I see them as pretty adequately capsulizing (is that a real word?) the gospel. They compare extremely well to some of the stuff I've heard from people with a 'fresh word from the Lord.'

I'm not at all deterred by the context of their development - God has a way of using the most unlikely of people and circumstances to work out his purposes. While typing this, one of next Sunday's hymns came to mind. I'd quote it, but you probably wouldn't consider Wm. Cowper's "God moves in a mysterious way" to be gospel, either.

Billy, we'll just have to agree to go to different churches......

[Hans Deventer]

Considering the context in which the creeds were developed, I don't consider them gospel either.

Maybe not, but they are one of the very few things Christian denominations have in common. I would say that counts for something.

[Marsha Lynn]

The pressure was mounting to visit the Creation Museum last evening. I said I would go if the most “liberal” member of the group would go. Bad idea. I overlooked the fact that he's not as adverse to mocking other people's beliefs as I am.

Then we found out that tickets are $25 each. Whew! That's a high price to find out why Genesis is right and science is (consequently) wrong. It seems that the interest level has dropped.

During that discussion, I brought up this one. Someone reminded me of the section in Velvet Elvis where Rob Bell talks about the difference between faith that resembles a brick wall and faith that is more like a trampoline. If you start taking bricks out of a brick wall, it doesn't take long for the whole thing to lose its integrity and collapse under pressure. However, a trampoline can lose multiple springs and still work. Also, a brick wall shuts people out whereas a trampoline is good for a party.

I had forgotten that metaphor. If I still had a copy of the book, I would revisit it. (I wonder what happened to my copy.)

[Todd Erickson]

Velvet Elvis is one of those books (like Ragamuffin Gospel) that tends to sprout legs and walk.

[Billy Cox]

Billy, we'll just have to agree to go to different churches......

Why is that? I'm actually very orthodox, but I like to test the limits. You don't really own a belief that hasn't knocked you on your backside a time or two.