Reformed Nazarenes [Archive] - NazNet Community Forum

James Diggs

April 28th, 2010, 01:15 PM

has anyone seen/heard about this? Any comments??

http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/

Perhaps this was discussed on the previous board prior to the crash
-neb

Manny apparently addressed Pastors on the New England District on April 10th. This video he provides from that presentation pretty well sums up his position as one of the self appointed leaders of "Concerned Nazarenes".

http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/nazarene-denomination-losing-its-way/the-nazarene-problem/

He sees himself as a "watchmen" and "defender of the the true faith". He sees any objection to his position as "persecution" for his righteousness which he uses to validate himself as a "true believer". He does make some good points about legitimate concerns but unfortunately largely mischaracterizes the positions of others and charges anyone and everyone (including Nazarene leaders, Pastors and teachers) as a "heretic" through "guilt by association" if they associate in any way with things like the "emergent church" conversation or anything that seems to Catholic in practice. The most critical element of who is a "real Christian" seems for him and other "Concerned Nazarenes" to be the belief in the inerrancy of scripture.

Paul DeBaufer

April 28th, 2010, 01:40 PM

Jim Abrams

April 28th, 2010, 02:52 PM

Jeremy D. Scott

April 28th, 2010, 03:10 PM

I honestly don't know of any New England District Pastors who attended this April 10th meeting. I did here a passing remark about an invitation that might have been sent to all New England District Pastors but don't know of anyone who actual got an invite.

I received the invitation. I had planned on going, but that day brought a number of other things, namely my mother's birthday celebration. I e-mailed Manny to let him know that I had planned on, but could not go, and received a nice response.

Benjamin Burch

April 28th, 2010, 03:38 PM

From the video on his blog, I would have had a very difficult time remaining silent or even remaining present.

Dennis M. Scott

April 28th, 2010, 05:05 PM

I honestly don't know of any New England District Pastors who attended this April 10th meeting. I did here a passing remark about an invitation that might have been sent to all New England District Pastors but don't know of anyone who actual got an invite.

Jeremy and I received invitations, and there is a side of me that would have wanted to give him another hearing. Having now watched that video, however, I'm somewhat grateful that a previous commitment prevented our attending: likely Providential.

Paul DeBaufer

April 28th, 2010, 05:11 PM

has anyone seen/heard about this? Any comments??

http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/

Perhaps this was discussed on the previous board prior to the crash
-neb

I'm sorry, I tried but I cannot seem to bring myself to sit through 20 minutes of Manny demonizing everything with which he disagrees.

Dennis M. Scott

April 28th, 2010, 05:16 PM

An insight was the part where Manny lamented emergent Nazarens' unwillingness to be judgemental.

Jim Franklin

April 28th, 2010, 05:27 PM

As an old fashioned Nazarene who believes we should hold to the original message of the doctrine as researched and presented by my dad's old friend, H. Orton Wiley whose book was used by Dr. Eugene Stowe in my undergraduate course in Biblical Theology, I decry this wind of doctrine which was prophesied in the scriptures to be a sign of the last days. My sister has told me that her pastor is leaving the Nazarene denomination to proceed with graduate work at another seminary and afterward will seek a pastoral call with another or independent group as he is fed up with this whole emergent church trend as unBiblical and denying our holiness heritage. We certainly don't need any Marxist ideologs infiltrating, adulterating and undermining the true message of the Gospel of Saving Grace.

Billie Goodson

April 28th, 2010, 05:37 PM

As an old fashioned Nazarene who believes we should hold to the original message of the doctrine as researched and presented by my dad's old friend, H. Orton Wiley whose book was used by Dr. Eugene Stowe in my undergraduate course in Biblical Theology, I decry this wind of doctrine which was prophesied in the scriptures to be a sign of the last days. My sister has told me that her pastor is leaving the Nazarene denomination to proceed with graduate work at another seminary and afterward will seek a pastoral call with another or independent group as he is fed up with this whole emergent church trend as unBiblical and denying our holiness heritage.

Jim, I think this discussion would be better in another thread -- but I will start it here. Can you give the specifics of the "emergent church" that you think are unbiblical?

Shea Zellweger

April 28th, 2010, 05:39 PM

As an old fashioned Nazarene who believes we should hold to the original message of the doctrine as researched and presented by my dad's old friend, H. Orton Wiley whose book was used by Dr. Eugene Stowe in my undergraduate course in Biblical Theology, I decry this wind of doctrine which was prophesied in the scriptures to be a sign of the last days. My sister has told me that her pastor is leaving the Nazarene denomination to proceed with graduate work at another seminary and afterward will seek a pastoral call with another or independent group as he is fed up with this whole emergent church trend as unBiblical and denying our holiness heritage.

Jim,
Could you tell us what exactly in the emergent church is unbiblical and denying our holiness heritage?

Jeremy D. Scott

April 28th, 2010, 07:22 PM

Ryan Plott

April 28th, 2010, 07:54 PM

My sister has told me that her pastor is leaving the Nazarene denomination to proceed with graduate work at another seminary and afterward will seek a pastoral call with another or independent group as he is fed up with this whole emergent church trend as unBiblical and denying our holiness heritage. We certainly don't need any Marxist ideologs infiltrating, adulterating and undermining the true message of the Gospel of Saving Grace.

I think he's talking about his sister's pastor as far as a trend toward the emergent church being unbiblical and denying the holiness message. He may share that idea but it is his sister's pastor's idea he's presenting. I am interested in this part though.

We certainly don't need any Marxist ideologs infiltrating, adulterating and undermining the true message of the Gospel of Saving Grace.

Can you express your view more fully on this? Does this connect to the emergent church in your mind? If so, how? Who are you reading within the emergent movement that advocates that? Hopefully you're not applying a Glenn Beck-ish stereotype concerning social justice or whatever other stuff that man cooks up.

If change is inevitable, does the problem lie with change or the way we deal with that change? It saddens me that your sister's pastor would leave the denomination rather than try to be part of a solution to what he perceived as a problem. If the church has a message worth living and dying for then I think we should be willing to engage people that don't agree with us in honest conversation. It's probably the least we can do.

Kevin Rector

April 28th, 2010, 09:37 PM

Let's avoid piling on Jim or Manny in this thread if we could.

Rich Schmidt

April 28th, 2010, 11:03 PM

Manny apparently addressed Pastors on the New England District on April 10th. This video he provides from that presentation pretty well sums up his position as one of the self appointed leaders of "Concerned Nazarenes".

http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/nazarene-denomination-losing-its-way/the-nazarene-problem/

Thanks for linking to that video, James. I participate in the comments on Manny's blog from time to time, but I'd missed that video of his presentation.

He says in the video, starting around 14:50 --

They [emergent Nazarene pastors] are forcing long-time members to leave their church if they dare to question anything. I won't have time to go into it now, but I am a result of that questioning. And I know many across the country who have given similar stories to me of how they were forced to leave their church of years and years because they dared to question what was going on.

There's a part of me that wants to believe that this isn't really happening, that no one is being forced out of their church simply because they are asking questions... but Manny knows several, and I've read posts or comments from some. That truly saddens me. I hope that if someone were asking those questions in the church I pastor, I would answer them patiently, thoroughly, and gracefully. Sure, they might decide to leave the church if they don't like my answers to their questions... but that would be their choice. And I would be sad to see them go.

If Manny's situation is to be representative, though.... I don't think he was forced to leave his church. I think he has said that he and his family felt they had to leave because they disagreed so strongly with the emergent stuff that was being promoted in their church. That's different from being forced out of a church, if you ask me. But I could be wrong about Manny's story. I'm going from fuzzy memories of what I've read on his blog and the Concerned Nazarenes page on Facebook. Maybe Manny will stop by here and clear that part up.

Either way.... it's still sad.

Hans Deventer

April 29th, 2010, 12:37 AM

Let's avoid piling on Jim or Manny in this thread if we could.

Kevin, I'd love to never have to think about Manny, Tim or Grant at all, trust me.

Jim Chabot

April 29th, 2010, 06:36 AM

There's a part of me that wants to believe that this isn't really happening, that no one is being forced out of their church simply because they are asking questions... but Manny knows several, and I've read posts or comments from some. That truly saddens me. I hope that if someone were asking those questions in the church I pastor, I would answer them patiently, thoroughly, and gracefully. Sure, they might decide to leave the church if they don't like my answers to their questions... but that would be their choice. And I would be sad to see them go.

Rich, I think that your safe. I can't for the life of me think that you would shy away from answering questions. Or questions about questions about questions for that regard, I have never once seen you walk away from a conversation, you stay and you interact. I don't think that was the case with Manny's pastor, I got the sense that he felt that Manny's questions threatened his authority and I think that he overreacted. Yes Manny can come on strong, no doubt there, but he does listen to reason and he can respect convictions. He will not agree with something that he feels is unbiblical, just to get along, then again neither will I.

I think that what some of you are seeing in Manny is his response to leadership that has responded with ridicule rather than reason.

Todd Erickson

April 29th, 2010, 06:42 AM

Dennis M. Scott

April 29th, 2010, 07:01 AM

My perspective on the process is that in many cases, churches are dying. Their constituent population is mostly people over 60, heading toward 70, with a conservative, evangelistic outlook on church and what's it's for, and what moral causes should be at the heart of it.

New pastors come into these churches (or the existing pastors realize that their churches are dying) and they take steps to become more contemporary, perhaps even more postmodern. They introduce contemporary worship, more discussion, they bring in work by more modern (sometimes emergent) authors. They hold 40 days of purpose events, etc. They switch to a more contemporary bible, like the NLT or the ESV.

The old guard grow alarmed by what they've been taught to see for decades as a watering down of scripture, a moving away from reliable sources of teaching and worship to new, Emergent means. They look online for information about these writers, and the majority of what they find on the web is people who are like them, who think like them, talking about how these are false teachers looking to lead the youth of the nation astray. They become more alarmed, and speak urgently to their pastor about the need to maintain (what they're used to) proper biblical teaching, worship, and practice, and the pastor makes it clear that he's more interested in the church growing, than in maintaining some antiquated measure of spirituality.

And then they leave, angry. Some of them find more conservative churches to attend, where the "safe ways" are practiced (my parents are in that kind of quandry right now) while others decide that there's a war on, and they go looking for others to help fight the good fight with them.

They aren't doing this because they're particularly mean spirited, or against God. They are actively concerned, Godly people, whose entire culture is being overturned, and are fighting against it.

...I would venture, btw. in the manner of David P.'s article on the subject, that the actual issue of these churches is not how contemporary they are, but rather how they incarnate Christ in the world. It's not how contemporary your worship or your message series is, it's whether they can see Christ in you.

Good, quick evaluation and description, except that it is far more complicated: it often is. Every person and situation is different. That's the nature of the Church when the Lord gifts people differently as He sees fit. Consequently, the "change" isn't merely a time thing. It is personal, cultural, geographic, intellectual, etc. The Lord seems to be comfortable with that: some earthlings seem unable to grant Him that perogative. I don't know a single person who completely embraces everything maintained by any of the people cited as emergent, or even characterized at all.

There has been a long line of similar responses for our entire history. Many on either side of some imaginary line have chosen to leave. Some of those have eventually returned, others have made such a scene that return just couldn't happen. One of my greatest concerns is that it can be damagingly distracting from mission.

Jim Chabot

April 29th, 2010, 07:07 AM

My perspective on the process is that in many cases, churches are dying. Their constituent population is mostly people over 60, heading toward 70, with a conservative, evangelistic outlook on church and what's it's for, and what moral causes should be at the heart of it.

New pastors come into these churches (or the existing pastors realize that their churches are dying) and they take steps to become more contemporary, perhaps even more postmodern. They introduce contemporary worship, more discussion, they bring in work by more modern (sometimes emergent) authors. They hold 40 days of purpose events, etc. They switch to a more contemporary bible, like the NLT or the ESV.

The old guard grow alarmed by what they've been taught to see for decades as a watering down of scripture, a moving away from reliable sources of teaching and worship to new, Emergent means. They look online for information about these writers, and the majority of what they find on the web is people who are like them, who think like them, talking about how these are false teachers looking to lead the youth of the nation astray. They become more alarmed, and speak urgently to their pastor about the need to maintain (what they're used to) proper biblical teaching, worship, and practice, and the pastor makes it clear that he's more interested in the church growing, than in maintaining some antiquated measure of spirituality.

And then they leave, angry. Some of them find more conservative churches to attend, where the "safe ways" are practiced (my parents are in that kind of quandry right now) while others decide that there's a war on, and they go looking for others to help fight the good fight with them.

They aren't doing this because they're particularly mean spirited, or against God. They are actively concerned, Godly people, whose entire culture is being overturned, and are fighting against it.

...

I would venture, btw. in the manner of David P.'s article on the subject, that the actual issue of these churches is not how contemporary they are, but rather how they incarnate Christ in the world. It's not how contemporary your worship or your message series is, it's whether they can see Christ in you.

Todd, I would agree with you, in fact this may be true in many cases. However it isn't always the case. Sometimes it is the new modern contemporary people who are intolerant, they are there to bring change, and if that change involves brooming people out the door, no problem.

A few years back I was asked to work with a young worship leader at another church (not Nazarene), this church was somewhat traditional, yet open minded and forward looking. Their music program had slowly deteriorated over the years to a young woman singing while her husband played guitar. Their abilities weren't the problem, nor was their desire and commitment, but their lack of confidence was contagious and the result was very sad to watch. Enter this talented young man with confidence to spare. Between his family and congregants he pieced together a decent team talent wise. Drums, guitar, bass, keyboards and piano, his vocal talents were pretty good and his sister was a talented vocalist as well.

But tolerance was not his strong suit. He insisted that the congregation would be singing that which God had given him, actually heard him say it out loud once. He was frustrated that very few in the congregation would sing along, yet rather than reach out to their level to minister, he doubled down on his efforts toward excellence. Practice twice a week, lectures toward the sound and visual people. The end result was a congregation that came each Sunday to a concert rather than a time of worship, the end result was his leaving the church defeated and with a downcast spirit. It was sad to watch. I just recall this to show that it isn't always the cranky old folk that resist change. We need to be uniters!

Rich Schmidt

April 29th, 2010, 07:18 AM

Rich, I think that your safe. I can't for the life of me think that you would shy away from answering questions. Or questions about questions about questions for that regard, I have never once seen you walk away from a conversation, you stay and you interact. I don't think that was the case with Manny's pastor, I got the sense that he felt that Manny's questions threatened his authority and I think that he overreacted. Yes Manny can come on strong, no doubt there, but he does listen to reason and he can respect convictions. He will not agree with something that he feels is unbiblical, just to get along, then again neither will I.

I think that what some of you are seeing in Manny is his response to leadership that has responded with ridicule rather than reason.

Thanks, Jim. Let me say, though, that I can imagine situations in which I might have to ask a person to leave -- if I've answered their questions thoroughly and repeatedly, and they just keep on asking them, not only of me or the board but of everyone else in the church, in a way that isn't respectful and teachable but is intended to undermine. I can imagine reaching a point where I would have to say to someone, "Look, I've answered your questions repeatedly. The board has answered your questions. I've addressed your questions publicly in sermons. I'm sorry you don't agree, but I can't let you repeatedly bring these questions up Sunday after Sunday with everyone else in the church and with the new people coming in. I'm responsible for this flock, and the board holds me accountable, and the DS watches over us all (and I know you've talked to him already). So it's time for you to decide if you want to stay here and move forward with us or find a different church that you can wholeheartedly support. Because what you're doing here and now is not good. So please, make up your mind."

I haven't had to do this yet... but we're a new church, so if people show up and don't like our approach or our take on things, they don't stick around to duke it out. They just don't come back. But if I did have to do this, I imagine it would take several months, and at least a dozen conversations, before it would reach that point... unless the person was extremely disruptive.

And, again, I have no idea how the conversations between Manny and his pastor played out. His pastor's breaking point may have been very different from my own. It is clear that it was a rough experience for Manny. I imagine it was a rough experience for his pastor, too.

Todd Erickson

April 29th, 2010, 08:20 AM

But tolerance was not his strong suit. He insisted that the congregation would be singing that which God had given him, actually heard him say it out loud once. He was frustrated that very few in the congregation would sing along, yet rather than reach out to their level to minister, he doubled down on his efforts toward excellence. Practice twice a week, lectures toward the sound and visual people. The end result was a congregation that came each Sunday to a concert rather than a time of worship, the end result was his leaving the church defeated and with a downcast spirit. It was sad to watch. I just recall this to show that it isn't always the cranky old folk that resist change. We need to be uniters!

I've seen plenty of variations on this. Worship leaders who feel like they're being attacked if everybody doesn't sing with fervor, Worship leaders who have plenty of solos and lead all of the music "their way", etc. I think that any part of the overall church ministry can be a distraction, if people let it, from who we are in Unity together, whether Emerging, Fundamentalist, or whatever.

Hans Deventer

April 29th, 2010, 08:41 AM

Rich Schmidt

April 29th, 2010, 08:47 AM

We need to be uniters!

Yes. However, there needs to be a way to reach that. When I'm a heretic for not believing the verbal dictation theory of the Scriptures, what is the way to unite? Please tell me.

And they, of course, would ask, "How can we be united to people who are following a different gospel?"

It certainly is a difficult situation.

Hans Deventer

April 29th, 2010, 08:53 AM

And they, of course, would ask, "How can we be united to people who are following a different gospel?"

Upon which I would answer, what part of the Apostle's Creed or the Nicean Creed or even the Nazarene Agreed Statement of Belief don't I agree with? And since the answer is none, who has been changing the gospel?

When one has taken it upon oneself to define the "rules" of orthodoxy, it's easy to find heretics.

The situation isn't so difficult. If you want to be a Nazarene, abide by what the Church teaches, as the BoGS has recently once again explained. It's not so hard to unite there, if you want. And if you don't agree, hey, God's kingdom is a lot bigger than the CotN. Seek a place where you can be a blessing, I'm sure the Lord will guide you. It's what I would do.

Dennis Bratcher

April 29th, 2010, 09:21 AM

Yes. However, there needs to be a way to reach that. When I'm a heretic for not believing the verbal dictation theory of the Scriptures, what is the way to unite? Please tell me.

There is a very difficult reality at work here: as valuable as "peace" or "unity" is, it cannot be obtained no matter the cost. Sometimes the cost is too high.

The classic historical example is the UK Prime Minister Lord Neville Chamberlain's 1938 Munich Pact with Adolf Hitler, which allowed Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudentenland). Lord Chamberlain proclaimed "peace with honor" and "peace in our time." Just a few months later in March of 1939, Hitler invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and in September of 1939 invaded Poland sparking World War II.

There is an interesting parallel in the current USA TV series 24. In the story line, the USA president is committed to a peace treaty that would bring peace and stability to the Middle East (the IRK, or Islamic Republic of Kamistan is a symbolic Middle Eastern Muslim nation). After a series of setbacks, she declares that the treaty must be signed "no matter the cost." That begins her rapid descent into lying, cover-ups, political intrigue, torture, and murder.

Of course, this is not so externally dramatic. The point is that peace, or unity, cannot be the only goal "no matter the cost." There are many places in Scripture, including Jesus' teaching, which point out that commitment to God will bring conflict (for example, Matt 10:34). That is no excuse to go looking for a fight, or to assume a righteous crusade to force others to believe as I do. But it does suggest a simple reality. Some things are polar opposites that will not and cannot be combined.

I think that is why Jesus did NOT say, "Make sure that you have no enemies." Rather he said

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 6:29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Wayne Paul

April 29th, 2010, 10:18 AM

... Snip ...

I think that is why Jesus did NOT say, "Make sure that you have no enemies." Rather he said

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 6:29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

I have heard a lot of sermons on the about scriptures; however, I can not recall a single sermon on "Give to everyone who begs from you."

Kevin Rector

April 29th, 2010, 10:23 AM

Of course, this is not so externally dramatic. The point is that peace, or unity, cannot be the only goal "no matter the cost." There are many places in Scripture, including Jesus' teaching, which point out that commitment to God will bring conflict (for example, Matt 10:34). That is no excuse to go looking for a fight, or to assume a righteous crusade to force others to believe as I do. But it does suggest a simple reality. Some things are polar opposites that will not and cannot be combined.

I think that is why Jesus did NOT say, "Make sure that you have no enemies." Rather he said

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 6:29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

This is also why Paul wrote in Romans 12:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Kevin Rector

April 29th, 2010, 10:25 AM

I have heard a lot of sermons on the about scriptures; however, I can not recall a single sermon on "Give to everyone who begs from you."

I haven't preached that, but I have preached on, "...if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again."

Wayne Paul

April 29th, 2010, 10:30 AM

I haven't preached that, but I have preached on, "...if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again."

Why a sermon on the second half of the sentence (verse) while ignoring the first half? I consider the second half an expansion of the first half.

Paul DeBaufer

April 29th, 2010, 10:36 AM

Maybe in print, and maybe it would appear that way when he presents, but I can tell you that he is not that way in person. Yes Manny has strong views and yes Manny can be blunt, but I have found that he can also be reasonable. Manny legitimately carries deep hurt with him, regarding his experience with his church of 38 years, 10 of which his father was the pastor. From what I know, I would agree that he was forced out, my take on his pastor's response to his questioning was good riddance to bad rubbish.

So, the hard, name calling, demonizing is NOT the real Manny, but a defense mechanism of sorts?

To tell the truth I have had exchanges with Manny last year that would seem to make some progress toward civility. Both of us agreeing that maybe we hold our position too tightly, then enter Tim into the mix and Manny reverts right back to his original hardline place.

Now that you mention it, I can see deep hurt. See it in the tactics of lashing out. But It probably runs deeper than just how he was treated in church.

If he was as vocal and used the tactics he uses as a CN, then maybe he was being disruptive and wouldn't accept counsel from leadership. What do you do in such situations, when someone is undermining your authority as Pastor, stirring up strife amongst the congregation? Hebrews 13:17 tells us to trust our leaders and not rebel against them, to not make their already stressful job more stressful. Now I have NO idea that this was what happened with Manny. I am extrapolating from public exchanges with him on FB and from reading his blog.

Bottom line I wish Manny well and he is in my prayers. But, I can no longer enter into dialog with him.

Paul DeBaufer

April 29th, 2010, 10:46 AM

Todd, I would agree with you, in fact this may be true in many cases. However it isn't always the case. Sometimes it is the new modern contemporary people who are intolerant, they are there to bring change, and if that change involves brooming people out the door, no problem.

I think I have to agree with this statement. I even caught this attitude in myself not so very long ago. Then a couple left. It hurt! While I wasn't the direct cause as an associate, but I helped to foster or at least enabled an attitude of intolerance for the old ways and attitudes. I had to re-examine my own attitudes and prejudices and level of intolerance. I found myself coming up short and have been working with the Holy Spirit on changing this shortcoming.

(Come to find out the reason this couple left was our lack of Sunday school after church-something I am always for)

Kevin Rector

April 29th, 2010, 10:53 AM

Why a sermon on the second half of the sentence (verse) while ignoring the first half? I consider the second half an expansion of the first half.

Well, I didn't actually preach on that text, but I've used that text in sermons. The latter part was in line with my sermon. The sermon was on being peacemakers, and the latter part deals with those who "take" from us which is a form of violence against us.

We probably shouldn't go too far down this rabbit trail as it's way way way off of the topic of the thread and could really blow up.

Paul DeBaufer

April 29th, 2010, 10:58 AM

I have heard a lot of sermons on the about scriptures; however, I can not recall a single sermon on "Give to everyone who begs from you."

A sermon may be difficult because it is so difficult to live. But neither have I heard one. Might be interesting to give one.

Susan Unger

April 29th, 2010, 10:59 AM

Thank you for showing us another side to him. Knowing that his comments come from a place of deep hurt explains alot for me.

Maybe in print, and maybe it would appear that way when he presents, but I can tell you that he is not that way in person. Yes Manny has strong views and yes Manny can be blunt, but I have found that he can also be reasonable. Manny legitimately carries deep hurt with him, regarding his experience with his church of 38 years, 10 of which his father was the pastor. From what I know, I would agree that he was forced out, my take on his pastor's response to his questioning was good riddance to bad rubbish.

Jon Twitchell

April 29th, 2010, 11:12 AM

From what I know, I would agree that he was forced out, my take on his pastor's response to his questioning was good riddance to bad rubbish.

That's a pretty strong statement. Do you have any first-hand knowledge to support this? Have you spoken with his pastor about this before making this claim on a public website? Or are you just sharing Manny's perspective?

Craig Laughlin

April 29th, 2010, 11:22 AM

As a pastor my heart goes out to Manny and the hurt he feels. However, he desires that we take him serious as a theologian. In the body of Christ the life of the leader matters as much as the ideas. Manny's scorched earth approach disqualifies him from leadership in the body of Christ and there is very little leadership as important as theological leadership. In my opinion he needs to not just slow down or soften but repent of his methodology and experience deep heart change. I really don't think the word "blunt" is a fair characterization. I can be blunt, Manny has made deep and sustained personal attacks on people.

If he were a part of my church I would bluntly say that he could not be a teacher in the church until his attitude and approach demonstrated much more spiritual and personal maturity. (BTW - Lest you think this is just about Manny - I have said these very words to people.) If that hurt him I would sympathize but I could not change my position. Sometimes people get hurt because of their own actions. I don't know Manny's specifics but the fact that he is nice in person does not change what he has done in print and he should be held responsible.

Steven Martinez

April 29th, 2010, 11:34 AM

That's a pretty strong statement. Do you have any first-hand knowledge to support this? Have you spoken with his pastor about this before making this claim on a public website? Or are you just sharing Manny's perspective?

Thanks Jon

I think we should remember that the pastor in question is a member of NazNet and does not deserve to have any comments made at his expense that does not ask him directly. Not doing so would constitute a personal attack IMHO.

Jim Chabot

April 29th, 2010, 11:55 AM

That's a pretty strong statement. Do you have any first-hand knowledge to support this? Have you spoken with his pastor about this before making this claim on a public website? Or are you just sharing Manny's perspective?

Jon, you are correct. I didn't quite realize how strong my statement was/is until you pointed this out and I re-read it. Yes, I am only sharing Manny's perspective, I should have made that clear, and I shouldn't have worded my statement nearly that strong. I'm thinking that rather than edit it which would confuse things, I should apologize, I didn't adequately explain that my statement was only a reflection of Manny's position and I have not talked with his Pastor. I will give him a call and talk with him, I feel I owe him that. My statement was meant in defense of Manny, not as an attack on his Pastor, I can see that what I have written does not accurately reflect that sentiment.

Cindi Hammons

April 29th, 2010, 12:17 PM

Paul DeBaufer

April 29th, 2010, 12:40 PM

Susan Unger

April 29th, 2010, 12:54 PM

Glenda Harvey

April 29th, 2010, 01:17 PM

Manny Silva

April 29th, 2010, 04:09 PM

I found this article a little surprising. In a conversation I had with Manny on his site he seemed to question whether or not God speaks to individuals and his statements led me to believe that he thinks that God only speaks to us through scripture. His fathers experience seems to have been a very personal encounter with God.

Glenda, just to clarify, my father never testified to any kind of strange, mystical experiences, if a "very personal encounter with God" is what you imply; I don't know that for sure. His prayer life was one of getting up early and often praying for several hours directly to God, verbally. As far as God speaking to us through scripture, I believe that is so. I also believe the Holy Spirit guides and speaks to us as we study the Word, and pray, but God does not speak to me in a direct way as if hearing a voice. I have lived 55 years, and that has never happened to me. Maybe someone else can testify to God actually speaking to them that way, but not in my experience.

Benjamin Burch

April 29th, 2010, 04:15 PM

Benjamin Burch

April 29th, 2010, 04:17 PM

Rich Schmidt

April 29th, 2010, 04:23 PM

I also believe the Holy Spirit guides and speaks to us as we study the Word, and pray, but God does not speak to me in a direct way as if hearing a voice. I have lived 55 years, and that has never happened to me. Maybe someone else can testify to God actually speaking to them that way, but not in my experience.

The closest to that "as if hearing a voice" type of experience I've had was when God called me to pastoral ministry. I was talking to God about something, and it's like a thought from him interrupted my thoughts.

Welcome back to Naznet, Manny. :)

Jim Chabot

April 29th, 2010, 04:52 PM

There is absolutely no doubt from anything I've ever read that Manny's father was a great minister. I'm sure he was also a great father, from how highly Manny speaks of him. I also fully appreciate that Manny's father, as well as many in the Cape Verde Islands would hold a much stronger view of inerrancy, and that this plays into Manny's own personal feelings on the issue. I'm just not convinced that the hard-line all-or-nothing, breaking fellowship stance is the correct one; no matter who holds it! Even a great minister can be wrong on one account, my father would admit to nothing less.

I can tell you another story about Cape Verde that may explain some thoughts on spiritual formation and Catholic practices.

Jorge Barros preaches a sermon that talks about his childhood on Cape Verde. Jorge's dad was a church planter, he planted a church on Fogo, Jorge tells the story of how they were quarantined for a time before arriving because the Priest didn't want them there and he held sway with the authorities. Once they arrived, it was quickly noticed that no one would come to their church, Jorge took attendance and locked up when everyone was gone. The attendance each Sunday was 12, his mother, father, nine brothers and sisters and himself, no one else came, they feared the Priest. Jorge's dad would preach loudly, just in case someone was sitting outside a window and could hear. In time some people started to come, the Priest was not happy. One Sunday as Jorge was leaving a man confronted him and beat him severely, leaving he said to Jorge "This is a message from the Priest to your Father, tell him he is not wanted here!" Jorge ran home to tell his father, he encouraged him to press charges, he wanted satisfaction. Reluctantly his dad went to the authorities, they said that they would bring charges only if the Barros family would leave the island. The charges were dropped, and Jorge returned home burning with anger. "I will drink milk and exercise and I will grow big, I will beat up the Priest in his old age! "

Fast forward to many years later, Jorge is now the Pastor of a very large church on Fogo. He is driving back from a parishioners home out in the country when he spots a man walking along the dirt road. As he draws near he realizes that this is the Priest, he thinks "I can run him over, no one will know!" Instead he roars by spinning his tires to bury him in dust. Now he can hear a small voice, the voice clearly says stop, Jorge says NO! I won't do it, but he comes to a stop. The voice now tells him to back up and give him a ride, "I won't do it", Jorge complains as he puts the car in reverse. He says that he has traveled hundreds of thousands of miles by train, plane and automobile, yet this small trip in reverse is still the longest trip he has ever been on. He offers the priest a ride, places his belongings in his trunk and heads in to town. When he reaches the Priests house, the voice says bring his things inside for him, Jorge again refuses, then he gathers the Priest belongings and brings them inside for him. As he follows him up the stairs he notices that the Priest is now a frail old man, he could beat him up easily! Three floors up they reach the door and he hands the Priest his belongings, the Priest thanks him. Jorge asks him, "Do you know who I am." The Priest answers him, "Yes I remember you well, you are a much better man that I am."

When I read the dialog regarding Rev. Silva's willingness to try different things, it reminded me of this sermon. I have to wonder if he had similar experiences with the Catholic's on Cape Verde? Just a thought.

Dennis Bratcher

April 29th, 2010, 04:53 PM

Even a great minister can be wrong on one account, my father would admit to nothing less.

Wesley most certainly agreed, which is why he repeatedly said "think, and let think" in his writings.

If there a difference of opinion, where is our religion, if we cannot think and let think? [“The Lord Our Righteousness,” preached at the Chapel in West-Street, Seven Dials, Sunday, November 24, 1765.]

Also:

1. The distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort. His assenting to this or that scheme of Religion, his embracing any particular set of notions, his espousing the judgment of one man or of another, are all quite wide of the point. Whosoever therefore imagines, that a Methodist is a man of such or such an opinion, is grossly ignorant of the whole affair; he mistakes the truth totally. We believe indeed, that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks, and Infidels. We believe the written word of God to be the only and sufficient rule, both of Christian faith and practice; and herein we are fundamentally distinguished from those of the Romish church. We believe Christ to be the eternal, supreme God; and herein we are distinguished from the Socinians and Arians. But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think. So that whatsoever they are, whether right or wrong, they are no distinguishing marks of a; Methodist. [The Character of a Methodist] (http://www.crivoice.org/charactermethodist.html)

This is also an interesting quote in light of Manny's and the Concerned Nazarenes' interpretation of judging (which I have pointed out before is badly mistaken according to Scripture).

Wesley makes a similar point in A Catholic Spirit:

4. But there is even more. Although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it), yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. In fact, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing [i]humanum est errare et nescire: "To be ignorant of many things, and to mistaken in some, is the necessary condition of humanity." This, therefore, he understands, applies to himself as well. He knows, generally, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particular opinions he is mistaken, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know.

5. I say "perhaps he cannot know;" for who can tell how far invincible ignorance may extend? Or, which amounts to the same thing, invincible prejudice, which is often so fixed in tender minds, that it is afterwards impossible to tear up what has taken so deep a root. And who can say, unless he knew every circumstance attending it, how far any mistake is culpable, seeing all guilt must suppose some concurrence of the will. Only He who can judge and search the heart can know.

6. Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking that he desires they should allow him, and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He is patient with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question: "Is your heart right, as my heart is with your heart?" A Catholic Spirit (http://www.crivoice.org/cathspirit.html)

Wesley also constantly tried to calm rancorous debates to avoid bitter hostility and internal dissension in the Church (he was the one continually accused of being heretical and compromising the Faith):

Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way.

Nay, perhaps, if you are angry, so shall I be too; and then there will be small hopes of finding the truth. If once anger arises, [aute kapnos], (as Homer somewhere expresses it,) this smoke will so dim the eyes of my soul, that I shall be able to see nothing clearly. For God’s sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath. Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell; much less blow it up into a flame. If we could discern truth by that dreadful light, would it not be a loss rather than gain? For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!

The God of love forbid that we should ever make the trial. May he prepare us for the knowledge of all truth, by filling our hearts with all his love, and with all joy and peace in believing! [From the "Preface" to Sermons On Several Occasions,1872 Reprint of the 1771 edition of the Sermons]

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

James Diggs

April 29th, 2010, 07:19 PM

Glenda, just to clarify, my father never testified to any kind of strange, mystical experiences, if a "very personal encounter with God" is what you imply; I don't know that for sure. His prayer life was one of getting up early and often praying for several hours directly to God, verbally. As far as God speaking to us through scripture, I believe that is so. I also believe the Holy Spirit guides and speaks to us as we study the Word, and pray, but God does not speak to me in a direct way as if hearing a voice. I have lived 55 years, and that has never happened to me. Maybe someone else can testify to God actually speaking to them that way, but not in my experience.

The closest to that "as if hearing a voice" type of experience I've had was when God called me to pastoral ministry. I was talking to God about something, and it's like a thought from him interrupted my thoughts.

Good example Rich. Manny, scripture alone did not call your father Ilidio Silva to Pastoral ministry unless you can show me the verse where it did. Being called to Pastoral ministry is scriptural as a general concept, but God would need to speak to the heart of those individuals called (and if we believe in a theology of ordination-speak to the body as a way to affirm that call) in order for people to become Pastors.

I am sure your father did not do all the talking in his prayers, I am sure he did a lot of listening too. I am sure God spoke to him through the time he dedicated to studying the scripture, but it sounds like God lead him in specific ways he should apply that scripture to his life and ministry.

I say all this because I believe from all the great testimony about your father that he was a great man of God.

What I don't understand is how you hear someone as somehow referring to "strange, mystical experiences" in a pejorative way when they say simply said your father had "a very personal encounter with God"?

You seem to be implying that by saying "a very personal encounter with God" we could be referring to some kind of umbilical mysticism.

It's like if we don't express things with just the right kind of "Christianeez" that we might be speaking some sort of heresy. I also don't understand why mystery is so taboo as if God himself speaking to the heart of any one of us, drawing us to himself, should not be celebrate as a wonderful mystery.

Dennis Bratcher

April 29th, 2010, 10:13 PM

It's like if we don't express things with just the right kind of "Christianeez" that we might be speaking some sort of heresy. I also don't understand why mystery is so taboo as if God himself speaking to the heart of any one of us, drawing us to himself, should not be celebrate as a wonderful mystery.

I think one of the greatest tragedies of some branches of Protestantism is the rather arrogant assumption that for 1,500 years the Church got everything all wrong and only awaited the rejection of anything that could remotely be connected to "Catholic" to recover true Christianity. It's as if God could not work in the world, in spite of the coming of Jesus, until we Protestants got around to discovering the true way of being Christian on our own. And of course we got it all right. Sounds a little Mormon to me. And it sells God's grace far too short.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Glenda Harvey

April 30th, 2010, 04:06 PM

Glenda, just to clarify, my father never testified to any kind of strange, mystical experiences, if a "very personal encounter with God" is what you imply; I don't know that for sure. His prayer life was one of getting up early and often praying for several hours directly to God, verbally. As far as God speaking to us through scripture, I believe that is so. I also believe the Holy Spirit guides and speaks to us as we study the Word, and pray, but God does not speak to me in a direct way as if hearing a voice. I have lived 55 years, and that has never happened to me. Maybe someone else can testify to God actually speaking to them that way, but not in my experience.

Hi Manny,

It isn't my intention to misrepresent our conversation. (I don't think you are accusing me of that but I want to make it clear) On my end of the conversation I was not referring to an actual voice but a very definite and clear sense of God speaking to a person. Maybe you have experienced this and just not recognized as Gods voice or referred to it as such. This is where we have to be careful sometimes when jumping to conclusions about what someone else is teaching or claiming. When God lays something on my heart or reveals something to me in a very specific way I consider this to be God speaking to me. Of course I believe that anything I feel that God is telling me has to be consistent with Biblical teaching. Your statement was that God only speaks to you through scripture. I may have misunderstood you and you may of misunderstood me but I decided around that point to back away from the conversation for the moment. I appreciate your replying to my post and explaining where you are coming from.

(As far as your fathers experience I was going by what was written in the article. I of course did not know your father so cannot say what his experience was)

Manny Silva

April 30th, 2010, 04:11 PM

Hi Manny,

It isn't my intention to misrepresent our conversation. (I don't think you are accusing me of that but I want to make it clear) On my end of the conversation I was not referring to an actual voice but a very definite and clear sense of God speaking to a person. Maybe you have experienced this and just not recognized as Gods voice or referred to it as such. This is where we have to be careful sometimes when jumping to conclusions about what someone else is teaching or claiming. When God lays something on my heart or reveals something to me in a very specific way I consider this to be God speaking to me. Of course I believe that anything I feel that God is telling me has to be consistent with Biblical teaching. Your statement was that God only speaks to you through scripture. I may have misunderstood you and you may of misunderstood me but I decided around that point to back away from the conversation for the moment. I appreciate your replying to my post and explaining where you are coming from.

(As far as your fathers experience I was going by what was written in the article. I of course did not know your father so cannot say what his experience was)

I agree with your thoughts completely. And no, I was not attempting to accuse you of something, but hoping for clarification regarding a "voice". So I'm with you on what you just said. Thanks.

Shea Zellweger

April 30th, 2010, 04:12 PM

The closest to that "as if hearing a voice" type of experience I've had was when God called me to pastoral ministry. I was talking to God about something, and it's like a thought from him interrupted my thoughts.

Welcome back to Naznet, Manny. :)

Same here. I've never heard an audible voice that I would attribute to God, but I've certainly felt thoughts impressed upon me that I never would've come up with on my own, accompanied by a sense that these thoughts were of God.

However... I have heard stories from people I trust very much who claim to have audibly heard God speak to them, with phenomenal results. One person once told me that he was driving home from work one day when he heard a voice tell him to call an old friend from high school. Thinking he was hearing things, he ignored it. A few days later, there was an obituary for that friend in the paper. Turns out he killed himself just a couple ours after the voice told the guy to call him. He's told me the story several times, and always ends by saying "you'd better believe, when I've heard that voice since then, I've done what it says," and he's got a few interesting stories about things that happened when he listened to that voice. I have no doubt that at the very least this man is hearing from something that is of God, be it God or some angel, or just some supernaturally inspired auditory hallucinations.

Jon Twitchell

April 30th, 2010, 05:31 PM

However... I have heard stories from people I trust very much who claim to have audibly heard God speak to them, with phenomenal results. One person once told me that he was driving home from work one day when he heard a voice tell him to call an old friend from high school. Thinking he was hearing things, he ignored it. A few days later, there was an obituary for that friend in the paper. Turns out he killed himself just a couple ours after the voice told the guy to call him. He's told me the story several times, and always ends by saying "you'd better believe, when I've heard that voice since then, I've done what it says," and he's got a few interesting stories about things that happened when he listened to that voice. I have no doubt that at the very least this man is hearing from something that is of God, be it God or some angel, or just some supernaturally inspired auditory hallucinations.

I have a similar story about a dear lady in our church who has since passed on. She told us of a time when she was driving home from work, approaching an intersection. She audibly heard a voice say, "stop." It was so audible to her that she turned to see who was in the car. When she didn't see anyone, she continued, but the voice said more insistently, "stop." And so she stopped, just in time to watch someone go flying through the intersection without having stopped at their stop sign. She would have been in the middle of the intersection if she hadn't stopped.

So... while I have not heard God's audible voice, I'm convinced that He certainly can and does speak (or commands the angels to speak) if He chooses to.

David Graham

May 1st, 2010, 01:29 AM

I once did hear God speak to me in what appeared to me at the time was an audible voice. I was 14 years of age at the time in a Religious Instruction class in high school. Towards the end of the class, I heard God say: "David, I want you to do what that man is doing". (That man was my minister) I looked around to see who spoke to me, but clearly no one around me had, and in my heart of hearts I knew that God had spoken to me.

Now, I don't expect that God will always speak to me (or anyone else) in the same way..... it is simply one way among many that God gets our attention and gives us his message.

Grace & peace,
Dave

Dan Ross

May 7th, 2010, 01:41 AM

Here is an excellent article (http://www.dacb.org/stories/capeverde/silva_ilidio.html) about the work of Manny's father in the Cape Verde Islands. It may give some perspective on Manny's background in the church. It sounds like his dad had a great ministry in the Church of the Nazarene.

It is interesting to me that any pastor of the Church of the Nazarene would refer to "old people" as a pejorative. Some pastors should try out their computer's "Find and Replace" function. You should do what the Bible does. Search your messages for "old people" and replace it with "Saints."

When you read that article about Pastor Silva, check the footnotes for "Earl Mosteller." Earl Mosteller and Gladys asked me if I knew anything about the "Emergent Church." The first time they asked me, I wouldn't answer them at any length. On Thursdays, my wife and I take two or three days of meals to the Mostellers. Today, I took food to the Mostellers and found that Gladys was at NNU in Nampa for a relative's graduation. I had a lengthy discussion with Earl.

The question of "Emergent Church" came up with Earl and Gladys when a relative of theirs called them and said he didn't know what to do. He had questioned his Nazarene Pastor about what was going on in his church and the message received by the Mosteller's was "I was told 'We are emergent now. If you don't like it, get out.'"

Skip what Manny Silva says. Go directly to the horse's mouth. Mark Driscoll was one of the "co-founders" of the emergent church movement. He is pastor of the 6,000 member Mars Hill Church (Emergent) in Seattle. Hear in his own words his experience with "Emergent Church" in this 80 minute audio recording:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7856171376481803784#

Search YouTube for "Mark Driscoll" emergent and you won't have any shortage of authoritative information about the "Emergent Church."

Hans Deventer

May 7th, 2010, 02:11 AM

Search YouTube for "Mark Driscoll" emergent and you won't have any shortage of authoritative information about the "Emergent Church."

Dan, we really don't have any shortage of authoritative and other information on either the emergent church or the concerned Nazarenes. I personally know quite well what it is to be abused, misquoted and persecuted by one of them.

Todd Erickson

May 7th, 2010, 06:32 AM

Search YouTube for "Mark Driscoll" emergent and you won't have any shortage of authoritative information about the "Emergent Church."

Mark Driscoll is a neo-Calvinist who is firmly rooted in the idea that God predestines all things, and that men should never listen to women, among other things. He would be just as hostile toward Wesleyan thought as he is toward Emergent thought.

This would be like referring people to recordings of Bin Laden talking about America to get an opinion of what America is like.

Could you perhaps provide contact information for this pastor? It would be interesting if we could verify this story with him...we get a lot of 3rd person anecdotes about this sort of thing, but we've never been able to get verification from actual pastors that they "went emergent" and told people who weren't interested to get out. Getting actual testimony on this would be great. Thanks...

Scott Sherwood

May 7th, 2010, 08:09 AM

Mark Driscoll is a neo-Calvinist who is firmly rooted in the idea that God predestines all things, and that men should never listen to women, among other things. He would be just as hostile toward Wesleyan thought as he is toward Emergent thought.

This would be like referring people to recordings of Bin Laden talking about America to get an opinion of what America is like.

Driscoll participates in a helpful point/counterpoint book with Pagitt, Kimball and others. It represents the wide spectrum of thought that exists between those who all claim some form of the label "emerging." Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches (http://www.amazon.com/Listening-Beliefs-Emerging-Churches-Perspectives/dp/0310271355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273234529&sr=8-1)

Its not surprising to me that many of those trying to be the church in response to / in the midst of postmodern culture would carry with them some or all of their own pre-existing theological commitments. Others have determined that nearly everything in their "theology of origin" is more modern than Christian and needs to be completely liberated from its modern constraints and allowed to become whatever it is going to be in postmodernity. Driscoll is definitely not one of these.

Ryan Scott

May 7th, 2010, 08:15 AM

You should do what the Bible does. Search your messages for "old people" and replace it with "Saints."

I have no problem with your sentiment; I believe we must pay more attention to the elders in our congregations, but this just isn't true. In the New Testament "saints" didn't mean any indication of age.

Ryan Scott

May 7th, 2010, 08:17 AM

Driscoll participates in a helpful point/counterpoint book with Pagitt, Kimball and others. It represents the wide spectrum of thought that exists between those who all claim some form of the label "emerging." Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches (http://www.amazon.com/Listening-Beliefs-Emerging-Churches-Perspectives/dp/0310271355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273234529&sr=8-1)

Driscoll is a good example of the people who simply use the label as a way of getting attention - it happens a lot. That's why its important to understand there is no group called "the emerging church." It's analogous to him saying the same things and claiming to be a Nazarene - the label doesn't mean anything, we must pay attention to the words.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

May 7th, 2010, 08:23 AM

Skip what Manny Silva says. Go directly to the horse's mouth. Mark Driscoll was one of the "co-founders" of the emergent church movement.

Even better, skip what Manny says and skip what Driscoll says and, as a Nazarene go to what the board of General Superintendents say: http://nazareneblogs.org/miscellany/2010/03/08/the-emergent-church-from-the-general-superintendents/

Dan Ross

May 7th, 2010, 11:02 AM

Dan Ross

May 7th, 2010, 11:07 AM

I had that within a few hours after it was originally posted. I was told there is a more recent article in Holiness Today about emergent church by a retired GS. I don't subscribe to Holiness Today. Can anybody send me that article? Idid read the inside cover of Holiness Today which reiterated the statement of beliefs agreed to by all members during the enrollment ceremony.

David Pettigrew

May 7th, 2010, 11:24 AM

Excuse me. I missed that whole thing on the prior discussion. What I would like to know is about this video. Is this description of what happened at NNU factually accurate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n2PQ94Gh18

This has been discussed at length, but several of us were at that conference, including myself, and it is not accurate.

Dennis Bratcher

May 7th, 2010, 11:35 AM

This has been discussed at length, but several of us were at that conference, including myself, and it is not accurate.

At what point does misrepresentation become outright lying?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

David Pettigrew

May 7th, 2010, 11:39 AM

At what point does misrepresentation become outright lying?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

I cannot speak to intent. I just know the facts as presented in the video do not line up with what I witnessed at the conference.

Dan Ross

May 7th, 2010, 11:47 AM

Dan, we really don't have any shortage of authoritative and other information on either the emergent church or the concerned Nazarenes. I personally know quite well what it is to be abused, misquoted and persecuted by one of them.

When I post something in a forum, I assume that occasionally someone new to the subject will come along. We do not all have the same body of knowledge or resources. We live in a dynamic world which, for Christians, ALWAYS presents opportunity for REPENTANCE. The changing of one's mind, the changing of one's direction, the possibility of revival, the possibility of revelation, and the possibility of reconciliation. Placing labels on a person or a practice, imho, inhibits all of those possibilities of productive change and hardens hearts, inhibits dialogue, polarizes parties and quenches the spirit.

Rich Schmidt

May 7th, 2010, 11:55 AM

When I post something in a forum, I assume that occasionally someone new to the subject will come along. We do not all have the same body of knowledge or resources. We live in a dynamic world which, for Christians, ALWAYS presents opportunity for REPENTANCE. The changing of one's mind, the changing of one's direction, the possibility of revival, the possibility of revelation, and the possibility of reconciliation. Placing labels on a person or a practice, imho, inhibits all of those possibilities of productive change and hardens hearts, inhibits dialogue, polarizes parties and quenches the spirit.

So.... what does that mean for the conversation at hand, Dan? I'm not quite sure how what you're saying here connects with the rest of the thread, and I don't want to make any assumptions...

Hans Deventer

May 7th, 2010, 12:29 PM

This has been discussed at length, but several of us were at that conference, including myself, and it is not accurate.

I was there too. And I agree with David.

Some songs we learned there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSm0VyHGH40&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKuCaPkR7O4

I especially liked this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDj3FehAyVw&feature=related (start at 1:20)

Majesty and Power
Words and music by Brian McLaren, 2007, Brian McLaren. Publishing, Revolution of Hope Music Group
SESAC 2007, all rights reserved. Registered with CCLI

Majesty and power, immensity and might
Tenderness and nearness, mystery and light
Just and full of mercy, high and reaching low
Forgiving and so holy, beyond all we can know

O Lord, how great you are! O Lord, how great you are!
Maker of the mountains, tender of the trees
Sender of the rainfall, calmer of the seas
Singer of the woodlands, Silence of the sky,
I look up and wonder: Lord, who am I?

O Lord, how great you are! O Lord, how great you are!
Healer of the broken, champion of the poor
Turner of the tables, Knocking on the door
Dying on a cross, bearing all our sin,
Rising up victorious, with us and within.
O Lord, how great you are! O Lord, how great you are!

Very dangerous emergent stuff, of course. Come to think of it, I really should get this one sung in church. Thanks for bringing me back to it!

Todd Erickson

May 7th, 2010, 12:33 PM

When I post something in a forum, I assume that occasionally someone new to the subject will come along. We do not all have the same body of knowledge or resources. We live in a dynamic world which, for Christians, ALWAYS presents opportunity for REPENTANCE. The changing of one's mind, the changing of one's direction, the possibility of revival, the possibility of revelation, and the possibility of reconciliation. Placing labels on a person or a practice, imho, inhibits all of those possibilities of productive change and hardens hearts, inhibits dialogue, polarizes parties and quenches the spirit.

You seem to be indicating here that you're trying to provide Emergent leaning folks with the opportunity to repent. Is that accurate?

Hans Deventer

May 7th, 2010, 12:50 PM

So.... what does that mean for the conversation at hand, Dan? I'm not quite sure how what you're saying here connects with the rest of the thread, and I don't want to make any assumptions...

Thanks Rich, I thought it was just me who didn't get it. I missed the relation with what was said before as well.

Dennis Bratcher

May 7th, 2010, 01:06 PM

I cannot speak to intent. I just know the facts as presented in the video do not line up with what I witnessed at the conference.

I understand.

Yet, some things to consider:

1) When someone has been told repeatedly that they have misunderstood or misrepresented people, to continue to do so while refusing to address the facts in a judicious way suggests malevolent intent.

2) When someone has been told by a variety of people that they do not understand a topic, their refusal to investigate and make attempts at understanding and getting the facts straight suggests malicious motives.

3) To selectively use isolated quotes, references, or actions to proclaim condemnations against people without honestly attempting to place those things in a context or understand the set of related ideas with which they are connected is deceitful.

4) Using a biblical rationale for a course of action, and then continuing that course of action even though being told, supported by evidence, that the biblical rationale is mistaken, suggests a commitment to personal opinion that takes priority over the truth.

While we certainly cannot judge the motives of others, sometimes the actions suggest, at the very least, that something is wrong.

Luke 6:45 . . . it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.
Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

David Gerber

May 7th, 2010, 03:08 PM

When I post something in a forum, I assume that occasionally someone new to the subject will come along. We do not all have the same body of knowledge or resources. We live in a dynamic world which, for Christians, ALWAYS presents opportunity for REPENTANCE. The changing of one's mind, the changing of one's direction, the possibility of revival, the possibility of revelation, and the possibility of reconciliation. Placing labels on a person or a practice, imho, inhibits all of those possibilities of productive change and hardens hearts, inhibits dialogue, polarizes parties and quenches the spirit.

I'm all for the Concerned Nazarene's repentance. I am also all for forgiveness and reconciliation.

I am not for the vilification of the Catholic church or its adherents. I am not for calling people with whom we disagree 'heretical' 'heretic' or other dangerous terms.

I'm all for reasonable conversation. I am not for a 'my way or the highway' conversation.

Dan Ross

May 7th, 2010, 10:00 PM

You seem to be indicating here that you're trying to provide Emergent leaning folks with the opportunity to repent. Is that accurate?

Not necessarily.

I am in "information gathering mode" hence the question about the video. However, anyone interested in these issues should neither cut Manny Silva off nor Brian McLaren. For instance, some of my best friends are atheists. In fact, I listen to everybody. Here's something from an atheist I like and pray for a lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w

Penn Jillette is STILL an atheist and has made a newer video explaining this.

Shea Zellweger

May 7th, 2010, 10:20 PM

Not necessarily.

I am in "information gathering mode" hence the question about the video. However, anyone interested in these issues should neither cut Manny Silva off nor Brian McLaren. For instance, some of my best friends are atheists. In fact, I listen to everybody. Here's something from an atheist I like and pray for a lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w

Penn Jillette is STILL an atheist and has made a newer video explaining this.

Dan,
I agree that it's good to get all sides of the story. However, I don't think it's useful to try and gain information from someone hellbent on attacking those who disagree. In the theological/church realm, that's people who insist that their version of Christianity is the only true version, or go about calling people "heretic" without accurately presenting facts. In the political realm, it's the pundit who says his opponents are Nazis, or hers are racist. People labeling and insulting their opposition with little or no evidence is a surefire way for me to pay no heed to them.

Jim Chabot

May 8th, 2010, 07:45 AM

I understand.

Yet, some things to consider:

1) When someone has been told repeatedly that they have misunderstood or misrepresented people, to continue to do so while refusing to address the facts in a judicious way suggests malevolent intent.

I agree wholeheartedly, this has happened far too often and it casts negative aspersions against those who partake. It is wrong and I really wish that those who employ this method could gain enough wisdom to realize how poorly this method serves them as a communication tool.

2) When someone has been told by a variety of people that they do not understand a topic, their refusal to investigate and make attempts at understanding and getting the facts straight suggests malicious motives.

Agreed, although this ties in with your next point to the extent that there have been times when the "variety of people" engage simply as a "make work" effort always questioning yet never answering. To be clear, I have never seen you fail to also answer questions Dennis.

3) To selectively use isolated quotes, references, or actions to proclaim condemnations against people without honestly attempting to place those things in a context or understand the set of related ideas with which they are connected is deceitful.

Yes this has happened in some instances. Yet there are also instances where the isolated quotes have spoken directly to the problem that they seek to expose. I have spent many painful hours reading the likes of Richard Foster, Brian McClaren and Rob Bell, I'm ready to just accept the isolated quotes and resume reading things that are agreeable.

4) Using a biblical rationale for a course of action, and then continuing that course of action even though being told, supported by evidence, that the biblical rationale is mistaken, suggests a commitment to personal opinion that takes priority over the truth.

The biblical rationale is mistaken? Could you please elaborate. Hermeneutics?

Todd Erickson

May 8th, 2010, 08:14 AM

The biblical rationale is mistaken? Could you please elaborate. Hermeneutics?

People come to the bible with an opinion that they want to prove, and read the verses/passages that support that opinion, while ignoring or reading out of context the verses that don't. Also known as prooftexting.

Jim Chabot

May 8th, 2010, 09:11 AM

People come to the bible with an opinion that they want to prove, and read the verses/passages that support that opinion, while ignoring or reading out of context the verses that don't. Also known as prooftexting.

I understand that Todd, really I do. It is impossible for us to see with 100% certainty through this glass darkly. We all have filters of one sort or another. I have seen this employed by both "sides" of this issue, one side claims a plain reading while ignoring context, while the other claims an enlightened understanding when it simply isn't so. I am not trying to paint with a broad brush, these are extremes that I have witnessed from both camps. 2 Kings 10:15 becomes a very important verse indeed.

Cindi Hammons

May 8th, 2010, 09:46 AM

I'm sorry Dan, what did this have to do with my praise for the article about Manny's father? When one quotes from another post, one is usually referring to their writing and I, for one, am a little puzzled.

Tim Bourland

May 8th, 2010, 09:55 AM

The biblical rationale is mistaken? Could you please elaborate. Hermeneutics?

Could it be that people tend to forget that what the Bible reports is not necessarily what the Bible recommends...?

Dan Ross

May 8th, 2010, 12:06 PM

Dan,
I agree that it's good to get all sides of the story. However, I don't think it's useful to try and gain information from someone hellbent on attacking those who disagree. In the theological/church realm, that's people who insist that their version of Christianity is the only true version, or go about calling people "heretic" without accurately presenting facts. In the political realm, it's the pundit who says his opponents are Nazis, or hers are racist. People labeling and insulting their opposition with little or no evidence is a surefire way for me to pay no heed to them.

I have learned by experience that it is foolish to stop listening, especially to people who disagree with you. When contending for the faith, especially against people in authority, one should probably take heed to a Biblical example. When Christians argue, which they should, there is a Biblical example, especially when arguing with people in legitimate authority. If one has never heard of this example, he should be excused. The dispute should continue until the truth wins. Here is the example:

Speaking Evil of Dignities? "Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."
Jude 1:8,9

Even this statement begs the question: What is a "railing accusation"? If the Concerned Nazarenes / Emergent Pastors are not making "railing accusations," but are in a frank dispute / discussion, the conversation is Biblically okay. For me, I listen regardless of the attitude of the other party. Honesty is ALWAYS an issue. Even if I believe the other person is blatantly lying to me, I listen. Mainly because ... I could be wrong.

Coincidentally, if you are a disciple of Brian McLaren, it appears to me that the book of Jude is the Lord rebuking Brian and his disciples. I seem to be under the impression that Brian McLaren and his disciples might be the subject of the Book of Jude. I am not necessarily suggesting that Emergent Pastors repent because I know that there are a lot of "flavors" of Emergent Church. I won't "rail against" Brian McLaren and his disciples. All I need do is point to Jude. Then it's the problem of the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure most of you have read the letter endorsed by all six generals regarding the "Emergent" and "Emerging" churches. If not, you might be interested so find a copy. I'm talking about the letter posted a few days ago to all District Superintendents that contains the following paragraph:

"“Sadly some in the Emergent Church have messed with the message. They have started down the road of compromise, eliminating the ‘useless baggage’ of specific scripturally based religious convictions.
Such misguided attempts to eliminate critical theological content may lighten the load of some churches. It may even create a temporary euphoria of false freedom. In the end, however, these choices will prove to be liabilities."

Now let the "railing" against me begin. I ain't no "dignity."

Rich Schmidt

May 8th, 2010, 12:10 PM

I'm sure most of you have read the letter endorsed by all six generals regarding the "Emergent" and "Emerging" churches. If not, you might be interested so find a copy. I'm talking about the letter posted a few days ago to all District Superintendents that contains the following paragraph:

"“Sadly some in the Emergent Church have messed with the message. They have started down the road of compromise, eliminating the ‘useless baggage’ of specific scripturally based religious convictions.
Such misguided attempts to eliminate critical theological content may lighten the load of some churches. It may even create a temporary euphoria of false freedom. In the end, however, these choices will prove to be liabilities."

I'd love a link to that letter. I haven't seen it yet. (I'm also not a DS, which may explain why...)

Dan Ross

May 8th, 2010, 12:33 PM

People come to the bible with an opinion that they want to prove, and read the verses/passages that support that opinion, while ignoring or reading out of context the verses that don't. Also known as prooftexting.

Imho, the Bible is a supernatural book inspired by God. Many people come to the Bible for guidance especially in areas where they are at a loss. Not everybody is out to prove a point. I love science and I love the Bible. I am constantly amazed at how accurate the Bible is in the area of technology. Who would have thought 2,000 years ago when scripture said something would happen in Israel and people from every nation and tribe on earth would see it that here, in 2010, every nation and tribe on earth would have access to a computer, tv or cell phone upon which they could watch what was happening in Israel?

Dennis Bratcher

May 8th, 2010, 01:56 PM

Thanks for the comments.

The biblical rationale is mistaken? Could you please elaborate. Hermeneutics?

No, it is not just hermeneutics or differences in interpretation. Sometimes it is simply a false claim that can be demonstrated to be so. One example (unfortunately the interchange is now gone although I have my response archived):

Manny claimed that he has a biblical responsibility and mandate to judge other people, which provides him justification for his attacks, his slander, and his harsh rhetoric. Since I don't think he reads Greek, he depended almost exclusively on an article by Yomi Adegboye, "Judge Not?" (http://www.pressingforthecrown.org/2008/10/08/judge-not/), duplicated on Manny's blog (http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/judge-not/). I can find nothing on the credentials or qualifications of Yomi Adegboye beyond his website, which is a "contend for the Faith" apologetics/discernment site. He appears to be African (Nigeria?) and views the Church as almost totally apostate.

In this article, Mr. Adegboye tries to make the argument that Christians are called to judge other Christians, even to using harsh words. He challenges Jesus' teaching in Matt 7:1-5 and says, "He was not commanding us not to judge." He then proceeds to collect together a whole range of texts that he offers as proof of his position, without doing any exegetical or contextual work on the passages. He also throws in Greek words trying to show how the Greek supports his position. He supplements that by topical interpretation of other passages. He takes any biblical passage that he thinks relates to the topic and applies it to his own version of what the Christian Faith ought to look like, claiming that it is only the truth. It is easy to see why Manny likes that approach since that is basically what he has been doing.

I responded to Manny with a detailed examination of the primary Greek words used in the New Testament for judging, and pointed out that none of them mean what they are claiming they mean. There are significant differences in the ranges of meaning of the Greek words that range from "judge" (which is what God does, therefore human beings are not to do) to judicious evaluation and examination, which is considerably different than what either Manny or Tim Wirth are doing. I pointed out that neither the Greek words nor the passages as a whole would support the claims that either Mr. Adegboye or Manny are making.

Manny never responded to that set of evidence, never engaged the possibility that he had used resources that were mistaken, still has the article "Judge Not?" on his blog, and still attacks other Christians using its "biblical" rationale.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Todd Erickson

May 8th, 2010, 01:58 PM

I understand that Todd, really I do. It is impossible for us to see with 100% certainty through this glass darkly. We all have filters of one sort or another. I have seen this employed by both "sides" of this issue, one side claims a plain reading while ignoring context, while the other claims an enlightened understanding when it simply isn't so. I am not trying to paint with a broad brush, these are extremes that I have witnessed from both camps. 2 Kings 10:15 becomes a very important verse indeed.

Passage 2 Kings 10:15:
15When Jehu left there, he met Jehonadab son of Rechab coming to meet him. He saluted him and said to him, Is your heart right, as my heart is with yours? Jehonadab answered, It is. [Jehu said] If it is, give me your hand. He gave him his hand, and Jehu took him up into the chariot.

Er...okay...

Todd Erickson

May 8th, 2010, 02:03 PM

Coincidentally, if you are a disciple of Brian McLaren, it appears to me that the book of Jude is the Lord rebuking Brian and his disciples. I seem to be under the impression that Brian McLaren and his disciples might be the subject of the Book of Jude. I am not necessarily suggesting that Emergent Pastors repent because I know that there are a lot of "flavors" of Emergent Church. I won't "rail against" Brian McLaren and his disciples. All I need do is point to Jude. Then it's the problem of the Holy Spirit.

Er...1. What makes you think that McLaren has disciples? If my pastor says something, and I agree with him, does that make me my pastor's disciple? 2. In what way is Jude specifically rebuking McLaren? This is not a clear statement at all on your part.

I'm sure most of you have read the letter endorsed by all six generals regarding the "Emergent" and "Emerging" churches. If not, you might be interested so find a copy. I'm talking about the letter posted a few days ago to all District Superintendents that contains the following paragraph:

"“Sadly some in the Emergent Church have messed with the message. They have started down the road of compromise, eliminating the ‘useless baggage’ of specific scripturally based religious convictions.
Such misguided attempts to eliminate critical theological content may lighten the load of some churches. It may even create a temporary euphoria of false freedom. In the end, however, these choices will prove to be liabilities."

Which is a very vague statement, and just as applicable to many who would call themselves Nazarenes, or Baptists, or any other stripe of believer.

Dennis Bratcher

May 8th, 2010, 02:07 PM

Passage 2 Kings 10:15:
15When Jehu left there, he met Jehonadab son of Rechab coming to meet him. He saluted him and said to him, Is your heart right, as my heart is with yours? Jehonadab answered, It is. [Jehu said] If it is, give me your hand. He gave him his hand, and Jehu took him up into the chariot.

Er...okay...

This is the text for Wesley's sermon "On a Catholic Spirit (http://www.crivoice.org/cathspirit.html)."

The irony is that this passage and Wesley's sermon seemed to have totally escaped most of the "concerned Nazarenes" folks.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Todd Erickson

May 8th, 2010, 02:17 PM

This is the text for Wesley's sermon "On a Catholic Spirit (http://www.crivoice.org/cathspirit.html)."

The irony is that this passage and Wesley's sermon seemed to have totally escaped most of the "concerned Nazarenes" folks.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Wow, that's an awesome sermon. Have you done translations on all of Wesley's sermons?

Jim Chabot

May 8th, 2010, 02:46 PM

Wow, that's an awesome sermon. Have you done translations on all of Wesley's sermons?

Sorry Todd, i should have provided a link. It is an incredible sermon indeed, one of my favorites.

Jim Chabot

May 8th, 2010, 02:51 PM

Thanks for the comments.

No, it is not just hermeneutics or differences in interpretation. Sometimes it is simply a false claim that can be demonstrated to be so. One example (unfortunately the interchange is now gone although I have my response archived):

Manny claimed that he has a biblical responsibility and mandate to judge other people, which provides him justification for his attacks, his slander, and his harsh rhetoric. Since I don't think he reads Greek, he depended almost exclusively on an article by Yomi Adegboye, "Judge Not?" (http://www.pressingforthecrown.org/2008/10/08/judge-not/), duplicated on Manny's blog (http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/judge-not/). I can find nothing on the credentials or qualifications of Yomi Adegboye beyond his website, which is a "contend for the Faith" apologetics/discernment site. He appears to be African (Nigeria?) and views the Church as almost totally apostate.

In this article, Mr. Adegboye tries to make the argument that Christians are called to judge other Christians, even to using harsh words. He challenges Jesus' teaching in Matt 7:1-5 and says, "He was not commanding us not to judge." He then proceeds to collect together a whole range of texts that he offers as proof of his position, without doing any exegetical or contextual work on the passages. He also throws in Greek words trying to show how the Greek supports his position. He supplements that by topical interpretation of other passages. He takes any biblical passage that he thinks relates to the topic and applies it to his own version of what the Christian Faith ought to look like, claiming that it is only the truth. It is easy to see why Manny likes that approach since that is basically what he has been doing.

I responded to Manny with a detailed examination of the primary Greek words used in the New Testament for judging, and pointed out that none of them mean what they are claiming they mean. There are significant differences in the ranges of meaning of the Greek words that range from "judge" (which is what God does, therefore human beings are not to do) to judicious evaluation and examination, which is considerably different than what either Manny or Tim Wirth are doing. I pointed out that neither the Greek words nor the passages as a whole would support the claims that either Mr. Adegboye or Manny are making.

Manny never responded to that set of evidence, never engaged the possibility that he had used resources that were mistaken, still has the article "Judge Not?" on his blog, and still attacks other Christians using its "biblical" rationale.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Thanks Dennis. I haven't read that particular piece nor your response, so I cannot comment on content. I do agree with your rationale, if I read you correctly you responded to a particular set of claims with detail indicating that scripture does not agree with these claims.

Hans Deventer

May 8th, 2010, 03:10 PM

I have learned by experience that it is foolish to stop listening, especially to people who disagree with you.

True, but it depends how. Our Lord, we are told, was full of grace and truth (John 1). I don't believe the two can be separated. So if I see totally graceless people, my only conclusion can be that the truth can't be there either. And the same goes for me. If people find no grace in what I say and do, don't listen to me. The world is already filled with voices that have nothing to do with truth, don't add to them!

Secondly, if you talk about Christians disagreeing, before that can happen we would first have to establish that we're actually Christians who are disagreeing. If people set up standards of their own and call everyone who does not meet them a heretic, then at least from their point of view, I am no Christian and hence we're not talking about a disagreement between Christians. I have no problem seeing them as misguided Christians, and pray that the Lord may have mercy on them for what they are doing. But from their point of view, we do not have sufficient common ground to discuss as Christians. Hence, there is nothing I could say that might make them change their minds. However, since I adhere to the ecumenical creeds of the church, I am doctrinally spoken a Christian according to the church of all ages. But why should I listen to people who do not want to align with that? There is so much useless information in this world, I can't read all of it.

"What is a "railing accusation"? Check Grant Swank's blogs and all the numerous places where he accused me of heaven knows what, and you'll get a pretty good idea.

As to Brian McLaren, I didn't know he had any disciples, but I may have missed the latest developments. For all I know, he's just a fellow disciple of Jesus.

Gary Creely

May 9th, 2010, 12:17 AM

I am in "information gathering mode" hence the question about the video. However, anyone interested in these issues should neither cut Manny Silva off nor Brian McLaren. For instance, some of my best friends are atheists. In fact, I listen to everybody. Here's something from an atheist I like and pray for a lot:

A couple things to keep in mind as you search for your information.

Consider the source. You have cited some information that is spun by folk who use some nasty tactics. Even if I agreed with there positions, some of their behavior is despicable.

Naznet is made up of a pretty diverse cross section of the denomination. Within that it tends to be a pretty clergy heavy group, and often other denominational leadership is represented here as well. This is the group that day-in and day out (clergy) do their best for the kingdom as a profession. As part of that you will find a body of people who represent a great deal of Nazarene theological higher education. Many of the CN style critics are alarmed because they have realized some of what they have learned in Sunday School is not what the church actually believes, and have launched on a personal crusade.

I have seen many good people get hurt because of this misguided criticism.

My own opinion on many of the emergent leaders is many of them have some very useful points of dialog, others hold positions on issues that I would not agree with, and run counter to historical Nazarene positions. That could be said of church growth people, seeker sensitive people, Jesus is a republican people, Promise keepers people, and the list goes on and on.

Dennis Bratcher

May 9th, 2010, 10:31 AM

My own opinion on many of the emergent leaders is many of them have some very useful points of dialog, others hold positions on issues that I would not agree with, and run counter to historical Nazarene positions. That could be said of church growth people, seeker sensitive people, Jesus is a republican people, Promise keepers people, and the list goes on and on.

And it has always been so. That is why Jesus told us not to judge others, Paul warned us about judging the servant of another, and Wesley urged us to exhibit the love of God in a catholic spirit. As Wesley put it,

. . ."To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity." This, therefore, he understands, applies to himself as well. He knows, generally, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particular opinions he is mistaken, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know.
I say "perhaps he cannot know;" for who can tell how far invincible ignorance may extend? Or, which amounts to the same thing, invincible prejudice, which is often so fixed in tender minds, that it is afterwards impossible to tear up what has taken so deep a root. And who can say, unless he knew every circumstance attending it, how far any mistake is culpable, seeing all guilt must suppose some concurrence of the will. Only He who can judge and search the heart can know.

Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking that he desires they should allow him, and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He is patient with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question: "Is your heart right, as my heart is with your heart?" On A Catholic Spirit (http://www.crivoice.org/cathspirit.html)

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Mike Fraley

May 9th, 2010, 05:38 PM

I have learned by experience that it is foolish to stop listening, especially to people who disagree with you. When contending for the faith, especially against people in authority, one should probably take heed to a Biblical example. When Christians argue, which they should, there is a Biblical example, especially when arguing with people in legitimate authority. If one has never heard of this example, he should be excused. The dispute should continue until the truth wins.

While I agree with what you say here, and I think the vast majority of individuals on the board would as well, I think we should take Shae's words more in the context in which they appear to have been intended. In my conversations with Shae, it appears to me that he has never stopped reading the opinion of those with whom he disagrees. If I read his posts correctly, then he is simply saying that if you are doing the initial phases of information gathering, it is probably best not to start with the more radical ends of the issue (those that are bent on using isolated quotes, proof texts, and alleged slander) and take those words as truth.

I think the Biblical example is all that anyone here has asked for. If you come before us and declare that all sides should be welcome as long as they behave in a civil fashion (and that only if they cannot behave in a Christlike fashion), then you'll probably find a lot of nods of agreement. I doubt you'll have anyone railing against you.

I'm not going to claim that everyone follows the model you call for. All are welcome here so long as they are moderately civil. But the general request has been that everyone take notice of those that address them directly, and try to answer posed questions when possible. In essence, the general culture of this board is to listen whether we agree or not, and try to behave like decent people.

Dan Ross

May 9th, 2010, 06:55 PM

At what point does misrepresentation become outright lying?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

The internet and these forums are so kewl, but kewler and higher, and greater will be our wonder our vict'ry when Jesus we see. How many of us will say "Jesus, was Manny right or were the others right? Oh, we'll also see John Wesley and we can ask "Did the way we discussed this issue conform to what you meant in that wonderful sermon about "a catholic spirit."

Dennis Bratcher

May 9th, 2010, 07:27 PM

The internet and these forums are so kewl, but kewler and higher, and greater will be our wonder our vict'ry when Jesus we see. How many of us will say "Jesus, was Manny right or were the others right? Oh, we'll also see John Wesley and we can ask "Did the way we discussed this issue conform to what you meant in that wonderful sermon about "a catholic spirit."

Of course!

But that is not the issue. We are not there yet. In the meantime we are called to live in the world as people who love God and love one another. That is our primary mandate from Jesus. What the concerned Nazarenes are doing, which includes both Manny Silva and Tim Wirth as well as others, falls far short of that by almost any standard of Christian decency.

It is not a matter of discussing things according to Wesley's sermon, especially since Manny and the others will not discuss much of anything (I have an archive of post to demonstrate that). It is a matter of living out Christianity according to that catholic spirit, which at the very least represents the ethical teachings of Jesus.

What we do has eternal consequences, according to Jesus:

Matthew 18:6 "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!
So either what Jesus says matters or it doesn’t. If it doesn't, then none of it matters anyway. Of course, Manny and the Concerned Nazarenes crowd assume that they are the righteous ones who are trying to prevent others from stumbling, and everyone who does not agree with them are the cause of stumbling. But what if they are wrong? They have never allowed that possibility (which is what Wesley pointed out in the sermon).

If Manny and the concerned Nazarene folks are right, then Christianity is something far different than Wesley and most of the holiness tradition has thought. If they are wrong, then Matthew 18:6-7 applies to those folks since they are violating the very essence of what Jesus taught, which lies at the heart of the Christian Faith.

So we cannot just dismiss it all as trivial and insignificant, as if it were "you say potato and I say potahto." It is far more important to the Church and the Kingdom than that.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

David Gerber

May 9th, 2010, 07:40 PM

How many of us will say "Jesus, was Manny right or were the others right?

If that is one of my questions when I see Jesus, someone shoot me.

Jim Chabot

May 9th, 2010, 07:52 PM

If that is one of my questions when I see Jesus, someone shoot me.

And just where would they get a gun?:ihe_cowboy:

Tim Bourland

May 9th, 2010, 08:11 PM

And just where would they get a gun?:ihe_cowboy:

From an NRA attorney? ;-)

Dan Ross

May 9th, 2010, 08:17 PM

From an NRA attorney? ;-)

Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about going to heaven. What's an attorney doing there?

Shea Zellweger

May 9th, 2010, 08:27 PM

While I agree with what you say here, and I think the vast majority of individuals on the board would as well, I think we should take Shae's words more in the context in which they appear to have been intended. In my conversations with Shae, it appears to me that he has never stopped reading the opinion of those with whom he disagrees. If I read his posts correctly, then he is simply saying that if you are doing the initial phases of information gathering, it is probably best not to start with the more radical ends of the issue (those that are bent on using isolated quotes, proof texts, and alleged slander) and take those words as truth.

Thank you, Mike. Sorry I haven't contributed a lot after entering into this conversation. I won't be on NN much the next few days as we make our journey North. However, yes, Mike is right about the tenor of my post. If you were looking to find out whether you should be a conservative or a liberal, I wouldn't start with Glenn Beck, and neither would I start with Saul Alinsky. The same is the case here- if you're genuinely looking to get a balanced perspective, don't start with the people that are crying "heresy," as theirs is clearly an all-or-nothing approach. I have stayed abreast of the activities of several individuals who have referred to me in less-than-flattering terms, because I don't want to be guilty of doing to them what they've done to folks like Brian McLaren. In my opinion, the opinions of such individuals are not valid. That does not mean I don't stay aware of their opinions, but they are not the valid critiques I'll be passing along to others when it comes to the Emergent Church.

Tim Bourland

May 9th, 2010, 08:39 PM

Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about going to heaven. What's an attorney doing there?

I am reminded that God is a God of grace..... ;-)

Dan Ross

May 9th, 2010, 09:53 PM

I am reminded that God is a God of grace..... ;-)

But those lawyers ... they don't deserve grace!

Shea Zellweger

May 9th, 2010, 10:01 PM

But those lawyers ... they don't deserve grace!

FYI, one of "those lawyers" owns NazNet :D

Dan Ross

May 9th, 2010, 10:09 PM

FYI, one of "those lawyers" owns NazNet :D

I suppose she knows more lawyer jokes than I do. I guess if the Scythians can get into heaven, so can a lawyer or two.

Shea Zellweger

May 9th, 2010, 10:25 PM

I suppose she knows more lawyer jokes than I do. I guess if the Scythians can get into heaven, so can a lawyer or two.

... he. ;)

Hans Deventer

May 10th, 2010, 12:17 AM

Craig Laughlin

May 10th, 2010, 10:02 AM

But those lawyers ... they don't deserve grace!

For those who don't know Dan is a lawyer. Always good to laugh at ourselves.

John Brickley

May 10th, 2010, 11:25 AM

And just where would they get a gun?:ihe_cowboy:

Charlton Heston will have all the guns you'll need, and we know he'll be there, I mean he gave us the Ten Commandments after all! :ihe_cowboy:

John

Rich Schmidt

May 10th, 2010, 10:50 PM

Just thought you guys might like to know that our conversation here was brought up by Tim in the comments on Manny's blog (http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/who-is-a-concerned-nazarene-or-christian/) today. Just FYI.

Please do not go over there and try to fill his comments with responses to Tim's comment! If you choose to respond to Manny's blog post, stay on-topic and respectful. Please.

Dan Ross

May 10th, 2010, 10:51 PM

For those who don't know Dan is a lawyer. Always good to laugh at ourselves.

Now we're gettin' somewhere. If you can be wrong about this, what else can you be wrong about?

Hans Deventer

May 11th, 2010, 12:20 AM

Manny Silva

May 11th, 2010, 01:04 AM

And it has always been so. That is why Jesus told us not to judge others,

Hi Dennis,

Since I don’t have the “theological creds” that you and others think I should have in order to go up against those of you who are “more learned”, I won’t go into further debate with you. Apparently Yomi Adegboye is not smart enough for you as well, judging (no pun intended) by your condescending opinion of his "creds" as well in writing on the topic of judging.

Let me instead point you to a person who at least has the same or close to the same credentials as you and other professors at our Nazarene universities. Although he is a Baptist, his work is included in at least one Nazarene university’s theology program, and perhaps more. His name is Voddie Baucham, and below is a link to a sermon he preached called “Beware False Prophets”. In the sermon, he thoroughly makes the biblical case that we SHOULD judge, as opposed to what I believe is your erroneous insistence that we should not judge.

If you have the time, please listen to it- and I recommend it to everyone here- and then if you have additional time, feel free to critique it, using your many years of biblical knowledge, and perhaps explain why he might be wrong in his teaching that we ARE to judge, and there is no avoiding it. Besides, you do it all the time when you talk about me, don’t you? You just showed that in your comments here. So, is it okay to judge, or not?

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112091641129

Just a thought: when you paint me as someone who thinks he is “the righteous one”, or some other kind of caricature, you are painting many others with the same brush- including long time pastors and others who are far more learned than me in the scriptures. However, it’s your right to do that, however, comments like that- and worse- don’t really bother me anymore.

Hans Deventer

May 11th, 2010, 01:12 AM

Just a thought: when you paint me as someone who thinks he is “the righteous one”, or some other kind of caricature, you are painting many others with the same brush- including long time pastors and others who are far more learned than me in the scriptures. However, it’s your right to do that, however, comments like that- and worse- don’t really bother me anymore.

Manny, the discussion here is mainly internal. I don't think any human being can change the point of view of you and your friends, so if that were the goal, it would be a total waste of time. I at least am way beyond that point of hope. Just forget the discussion about credentials. It doesn't matter in this discussion.

Perhaps out Lord can, who knows. But when I look at church history, that appears not to be His main area of concern. He usually let us burn one another at the stake, Soli Deo Gloria of course.

The only hope I can see is that He might poor out His perfect love that casts out all fear. He still does that. So that's what I am praying for.

James Diggs

May 11th, 2010, 06:40 AM

Craig Laughlin

May 11th, 2010, 10:02 AM

Now we're gettin' somewhere. If you can be wrong about this, what else can you be wrong about?

Hey Dan, sorry if I am miss informed. I thought for sure I read on your Facebook profile that you are a law school graduate. I went back to look and did not see it there. My apologizes! My capacity to be wrong never ceases to amaze me.

FYI - I am the pastor at Marysville.

Jason McPherson

May 11th, 2010, 10:25 AM

Manny,

I think it depends whether you mean "discernment" or "condemnation" when you say "judge". You have shown that you really don't care about biblical discernment when it comes to what is true, or what is true when it it comes to what others really have said. You twist both scripture and what others say so you can judge (condemn) others no matter what.

I and others have shown you scripture that you just ignore, as well ignoring the context when pointed out of the many you slander by twisting their quotes. It seems to me that you don't really care about any "truth" but your own. Such is my discernment of you based on years of observation and interaction; much of which is public record for others to observe as well. I am open to being wrong.

However, we have not condemned you, we have not called for your removal from the church or claimed that you are not a follower of the "real" Jesus. We'll leave that for God to decide.

You say you have been "judged" and "painted" unjustly by people here, yet people here have loved you and do love you. You are not banned or censored like I and others are when we try to engage you in your spaces (even though you talk about us there) and you are welcome to share and discuss and fellowship here. We may have strong disagreement, and many Nazneters do, but you are not condemned- you are welcome.

If you really care about "truth" I invite you to join us here in discussion rather just having insular discussion in your facebook group or blog where you make sure that everyone agrees with you. You have set up an environment for yourself where you listen only to those who tickle your ears. Here no one holds a monopoly on the truth and you will be sometimes challenged and sometimes affirmed, as we all seek to live in the truth of Jesus Christ together. At least stop throwing rocks at us from the outside. You only show up here to occasionally defend yourself from our strong objection of being attacked by you.

By the way, you sent me an email saying I mischaracterized you here on the first page of this thread. I responded by email putting what I said about you in bullet points and I told you that if you would tell me which one of the things I said about you wasn't true I would post a retraction of my statement here. I have not heard from you yet about anything specific I have said incorrectly about you, but the offer still stands.

While I have not commented on this thread, I appreciate your response to Manny. It is obvious to me that despite the disagreements and history between the two of you that you still have a strong desire to maintain relationship with him... something that the Church has failed to do in the last several hundred years (unity in the midst of disagreement).

I am currently struggling with a woman in our congregation who has written written letters and emails to people in my congregation about my wife and I and how people need to beware of what we are teaching and encouraging. Recently, she became upset that I challenged our teens to love the homosexuals at their school. That night, she immediately 'unfriended' my wife and I on facebook and posted a message about how God gave her the strength to stay quiet in the midst of false teaching.

My temptation is to say mean things to her... To tell her how off she is. I am struggling with what it looks like to love someone who has repeatedly bashed my wife and I.

My apologies if this strayed too far from the thread topic.

Rich Schmidt

May 11th, 2010, 10:37 AM

While I have not commented on this thread, I appreciate your response to Manny. It is obvious to me that despite the disagreements and history between the two of you that you still have a strong desire to maintain relationship with him... something that the Church has failed to do in the last several hundred years (unity in the midst of disagreement).

I am currently struggling with a woman in our congregation who has written written letters and emails to people in my congregation about my wife and I and how people need to beware of what we are teaching and encouraging. Recently, she became upset that I challenged our teens to love the homosexuals at their school. That night, she immediately 'unfriended' my wife and I on facebook and posted a message about how God gave her the strength to stay quiet in the midst of false teaching.

My temptation is to say mean things to her... To tell her how off she is. I am struggling with what it looks like to love someone who has repeatedly bashed my wife and I.

My apologies if this strayed too far from the thread topic.

I don't think you're off-topic at all, Jason. As a fellow pastor, my heart goes out to you. My wife and I haven't faced your exact situation, but we've certainly known the struggle of loving those who don't love you back. I pray that God will give you wisdom to know how to continue to love this woman who is causing you such grief.

You piqued my curiosity a bit when you said that she's telling people to beware of what you're teaching and encouraging. Besides showing love to homosexuals, what sorts of things are you teaching that this woman takes issue with?

David Pettigrew

May 11th, 2010, 10:38 AM

While I have not commented on this thread, I appreciate your response to Manny. It is obvious to me that despite the disagreements and history between the two of you that you still have a strong desire to maintain relationship with him... something that the Church has failed to do in the last several hundred years (unity in the midst of disagreement).

I am currently struggling with a woman in our congregation who has written written letters and emails to people in my congregation about my wife and I and how people need to beware of what we are teaching and encouraging. Recently, she became upset that I challenged our teens to love the homosexuals at their school. That night, she immediately 'unfriended' my wife and I on facebook and posted a message about how God gave her the strength to stay quiet in the midst of false teaching.

My temptation is to say mean things to her... To tell her how off she is. I am struggling with what it looks like to love someone who has repeatedly bashed my wife and I.

My apologies if this strayed too far from the thread topic.

Jason, there is nothing more difficult in the church than loving someone who thinks you are out of God's will and does everything possible to let others know about it. I had a struggle with this some time ago, and the only way I got any peace was to go stand in the sanctuary at the place they normally sat, and pray for them until I loved them. I'm not telling you to do that, but it helped me not say and do things that I would never have been able to take back, and the relationship was redeemed.

Cam Pence

May 11th, 2010, 10:43 AM

Jason, there is nothing more difficult in the church than loving someone who thinks you are out of God's will and does everything possible to let others know about it. I had a struggle with this some time ago, and the only way I got any peace was to go stand in the sanctuary at the place they normally sat, and pray for them until I loved them. I'm not telling you to do that, but it helped me not say and do things that I would never have been able to take back, and the relationship was redeemed.

i'm still not convinced it is the wrong move to get the ds involved and tell her to "shape up or ship out" so to speak. hate like that in the church should be addressed and squashed.

Cam Pence

May 11th, 2010, 10:45 AM

and i just realized after posting that that is not always the easiest thing to do. forgive me for way oversimplifying the situation. praying for you man.

Dennis Bratcher

May 11th, 2010, 12:03 PM

Since I don’t have the “theological creds” that you and others think I should have in order to go up against those of you who are “more learned”, I won’t go into further debate with you. Apparently Yomi Adegboye is not smart enough for you as well, judging (no pun intended) by your condescending opinion of his "creds" as well in writing on the topic of judging.

Playing ignorant just won’t cut it anymore. Manny. Claiming to have discernment and then trying to play the "I can't debate with you big boys" card is dishonest.

And "further debate" is not true. You have never entered into a discussion since you have been on NazNet other than to do hit and run posts, using the excuse that you don't have time to spend discussing these things (although you seem to have plenty of time to write attacks against other Christians).

The plain and simple fact is that I have enough experience in biblical languages to know when someone does not understand them. It is not a matter of education; it is a matter of knowing what you are talking about. And Yomi Adegboye does not.

I gave no condescending opinions of his education. I simply stated that I could find nothing about them. Manny, it is about time you stopped reading things into what other people say in order to attack them. It's about time for you to be honest. You have not been to this point. If you really believe the Bible in the way you say you do, that dishonesty has consequences from the One who really does judge others.

Let me instead point you to a person who at least has the same or close to the same credentials as you and other professors at our Nazarene universities. Although he is a Baptist, his work is included in at least one Nazarene university’s theology program, and perhaps more. His name is Voddie Baucham, and below is a link to a sermon he preached called “Beware False Prophets”. In the sermon, he thoroughly makes the biblical case that we SHOULD judge, as opposed to what I believe is your erroneous insistence that we should not judge.

I am wondering when you are going to actually do some investigation that goes beyond accumulating resources that support your own opinions. And I wonder when you are going to stop using Reformed and Baptist people to try to argue against Wesleyans. Maybe you should just be honest enough to change your moniker to "Reformed Reformed."

I have no intention of getting into a debate with one of your resources. If you are making the accusations and committing slander against others, you should at least have the courage to stand and respond in defense of what you have said rather than always running away, while throwing other people at us to do your defending. Either support and defend what you say, respond to those who challenge you, or stop. It’s that simple.

If you have the time, please listen to it- and I recommend it to everyone here- and then if you have additional time, feel free to critique it, using your many years of biblical knowledge, and perhaps explain why he might be wrong in his teaching that we ARE to judge, and there is no avoiding it. Besides, you do it all the time when you talk about me, don’t you? You just showed that in your comments here. So, is it okay to judge, or not?

Have you actually read what I wrote on judging?

I have said that what you and Tim are doing is sinful, according to everything I read in Scripture. It is not the fact that you disagree with people, or even the content of the disagreement, but the feckless manner in which you attack others with slander, false accusations, and guilt by association, as well as refusal to deal with facts, an obstinate refusal to investigate beyond personal opinions, distortion of what people say, and a reckless and aggressive disregard for the truth. I'll stand by that. And yes, that includes anyone else who is committing the same kind of malicious attacks that violate Jesus' primary command of loving one another.

Finally, though, it is not my call. I really do believe Paul:

Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Jeremiah warned the people of their sin for nearly 40 years, and few believed him or responded. Like the case of Hananiah, Jeremiah simply told them the truth and walked away when they refused to listen.

Manny, I have told you and Tim the truth. Whether you are willing to listen is your responsibility.

Jeremiah was vindicated (in tears) when the consequences came.

8:21 For the hurt of my poor people I am hurt, I mourn, and dismay has taken hold of me. 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of my poor people not been restored? 9:1 O that my head were a spring of water, and my eyes a fountain of tears, so that I might weep day and night for the slain of my poor people!

No one will gloat when your consequences come; there will only be tears. But you cannot say you were not warned. My deepest prayer for you is the prayer of Elisha (2 Kng 6:17):

O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.

Prayers and blessings, and tears

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Jason McPherson

May 11th, 2010, 12:20 PM

I don't think you're off-topic at all, Jason. As a fellow pastor, my heart goes out to you. My wife and I haven't faced your exact situation, but we've certainly known the struggle of loving those who don't love you back. I pray that God will give you wisdom to know how to continue to love this woman who is causing you such grief.

You piqued my curiosity a bit when you said that she's telling people to beware of what you're teaching and encouraging. Besides showing love to homosexuals, what sorts of things are you teaching that this woman takes issue with?

Here are a couple... A few years back, my wife and this woman were involved in a conversation. During the conversation this woman stated that Barack Obama was 'obviously not a true Christian.' My wife stated that he has openly confessed to being a Christian and that it is not our job to judge whether he is truly a believer or not. This resulted in an 8 page (single space) letter accusing my wife of not being an informed Christian if she could make a statement like that. She went on to say she didn't know if she wanted her son to come to church anymore if he was going to hear false teachings like this.

Throughout the last couple years she has called me several times to tell me I should not end the teen small group with open ended questions to think about because "they might not know what the correct answer is." I try to get my teens to truly wrestle and ponder difficult questions as oppose to the traditional 'spoon-fed' model of teaching. She also tells me regularly that I don't teach on the book of Revelation enough and I need to preach with more of an urgency in regards to the end times.

I could go on... but I am struggling with showing grace to her.

Dan Ross

May 11th, 2010, 12:47 PM

Hey Dan, sorry if I am miss informed. I thought for sure I read on your Facebook profile that you are a law school graduate. I went back to look and did not see it there. My apologizes! My capacity to be wrong never ceases to amaze me.

FYI - I am the pastor at Marysville.

It all depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

OWIEEE!! That hurt!

(I've often wondered if I could work that sentence into a conversation without hurting myself. I can't.)

Craig Laughlin

May 11th, 2010, 01:12 PM

It all depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

OWIEEE!! That hurt!

(I've often wondered if I could work that sentence into a conversation without hurting myself. I can't.)

Okay I'm a little confused. Does this mean I was wrong because I missed a nuance between being a law school graduate and a lawyer? (I'm assuming something along the lines of the difference between a medical school graduate and being a licensed physician?)

I don't mind being corrected and in fact appreciate it but your response to my mistake seems a bit sharp if what I missed was a relatively small distinction. (Or maybe I missed the humor part of the last sentence)

Now we're gettin' somewhere. If you can be wrong about this, what else can you be wrong about?

Maybe the nuance is more important than I think but the context was humor. The fact that a lawyer was making lawyer jokes, in my opinion makes the joke funnier and more appropriate. We consider ourselves a community on Naznet and I just wanted to fill the rest of the group in on your perspective.

Looking forward to getting to know you better.

Grace and Peace Brother,

Dan Ross

May 11th, 2010, 02:14 PM

I am currently struggling with a woman in our congregation who has written written letters and emails to people in my congregation about my wife and I and how people need to beware of what we are teaching and encouraging. Recently, she became upset that I challenged our teens to love the homosexuals at their school. That night, she immediately 'unfriended' my wife and I on facebook and posted a message about how God gave her the strength to stay quiet in the midst of false teaching.

My temptation is to say mean things to her... To tell her how off she is. I am struggling with what it looks like to love someone who has repeatedly bashed my wife and I.

My apologies if this strayed too far from the thread topic.

Back in the day, when I had a real job. I would set up scenarios and play through the upcoming confrontation. I would have someone else play the part of the opposition and they would use all of their skills, education and experience to try to defeat me and my arguments. Sometimes I would play the part of my opponent. This procedure might help you. Go to the Bible. Find every passage that supports this woman's argument and prepare a defense for those arguments. You must put everything you've got into defending and promoting her position. Once you have done this, you will begin to understand how to respond to her. You will know why she is doing what she is doing. She might be a wonderful person and would possibly not be doing this if she thought that it was damaging her church or her pastor. You are the shepherd. You are the one that guards the sheep in the gate of the fold. She might be seeing you as a person who has abandoned this duty. Just a thought.

Dan Ross

May 11th, 2010, 02:42 PM

Okay I'm a little confused. Does this mean I was wrong because I missed a nuance between being a law school graduate and a lawyer? (I'm assuming something along the lines of the difference between a medical school graduate and being a licensed physician?)

I don't mind being corrected and in fact appreciate it but your response to my mistake seems a bit sharp if what I missed was a relatively small distinction. (Or maybe I missed the humor part of the last sentence)

Maybe the nuance is more important than I think but the context was humor. The fact that a lawyer was making lawyer jokes, in my opinion makes the joke funnier and more appropriate. We consider ourselves a community on Naznet and I just wanted to fill the rest of the group in on your perspective.

Looking forward to getting to know you better.

Grace and Peace Brother,

Okay. I WAS a lawyer. I am not now a lawyer. The distinction is extremely important because I cannot give legal advice and people like to ask. I have never been licensed in Washington and have never had a desire to be. I was mostly a criminal defense lawyer. It was a lot like flying a plane or being in combat. Hours upon hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. I am also a pilot and combat veteran. I know what boredom is and I know what terror is. When I get into a discussion, I do not like to discuss my education or my experience. If I have to depend on that, my argument is meaningless and lame. Let's move along folks, nothing to see here. :)

Manny Silva

May 11th, 2010, 03:28 PM

Manny, the discussion here is mainly internal. I don't think any human being can change the point of view of you and your friends, so if that were the goal, it would be a total waste of time. I at least am way beyond that point of hope. Just forget the discussion about credentials. It doesn't matter in this discussion.

Perhaps out Lord can, who knows. But when I look at church history, that appears not to be His main area of concern. He usually let us burn one another at the stake, Soli Deo Gloria of course.

The only hope I can see is that He might poor out His perfect love that casts out all fear. He still does that. So that's what I am praying for.

OK. Thank you.

Manny Silva

May 11th, 2010, 03:31 PM

Manny,

I think it depends whether you mean "discernment" or "condemnation" when you say "judge". You have shown that you really don't care about biblical discernment when it comes to what is true, or what is true when it it comes to what others really have said. You twist both scripture and what others say so you can judge (condemn) others no matter what.

I and others have shown you scripture that you just ignore, as well ignoring the context when pointed out of the many you slander by twisting their quotes. It seems to me that you don't really care about any "truth" but your own. Such is my discernment of you based on years of observation and interaction; much of which is public record for others to observe as well. I am open to being wrong.

However, we have not condemned you, we have not called for your removal from the church or claimed that you are not a follower of the "real" Jesus. We'll leave that for God to decide.

You say you have been "judged" and "painted" unjustly by people here, yet people here have loved you and do love you. You are not banned or censored like I and others are when we try to engage you in your spaces (even though you talk about us there) and you are welcome to share and discuss and fellowship here. We may have strong disagreement, and many Nazneters do, but you are not condemned- you are welcome.

If you really care about "truth" I invite you to join us here in discussion rather just having insular discussion in your facebook group or blog where you make sure that everyone agrees with you. You have set up an environment for yourself where you listen only to those who tickle your ears. Here no one holds a monopoly on the truth and you will be sometimes challenged and sometimes affirmed, as we all seek to live in the truth of Jesus Christ together. At least stop throwing rocks at us from the outside. You only show up here to occasionally defend yourself from our strong objection of being attacked by you.

By the way, you sent me an email saying I mischaracterized you here on the first page of this thread. I responded by email putting what I said about you in bullet points and I told you that if you would tell me which one of the things I said about you wasn't true I would post a retraction of my statement here. I have not heard from you yet about anything specific I have said incorrectly about you, but the offer still stands.

You have obviously judged me too, James. Thank you. Makes my point I think, thatt shows you also believe that it is appropriate to judge.

Rich Schmidt

May 11th, 2010, 03:38 PM

You have obviously judged me too, James. Thank you. Makes my point I think, thatt shows you also believe that it is appropriate to judge.

Evidently you're using "judge" in the sense of "discern" then. Is that right? Or do you believe that James has condemned you?

Manny Silva

May 11th, 2010, 03:43 PM

Playing ignorant just won’t cut it anymore. Manny. Claiming to have discernment and then trying to play the "I can't debate with you big boys" card is dishonest.

And "further debate" is not true. You have never entered into a discussion since you have been on NazNet other than to do hit and run posts, using the excuse that you don't have time to spend discussing these things (although you seem to have plenty of time to write attacks against other Christians).

The plain and simple fact is that I have enough experience in biblical languages to know when someone does not understand them. It is not a matter of education; it is a matter of knowing what you are talking about. And Yomi Adegboye does not.

I gave no condescending opinions of his education. I simply stated that I could find nothing about them. Manny, it is about time you stopped reading things into what other people say in order to attack them. It's about time for you to be honest. You have not been to this point. If you really believe the Bible in the way you say you do, that dishonesty has consequences from the One who really does judge others.

I am wondering when you are going to actually do some investigation that goes beyond accumulating resources that support your own opinions. And I wonder when you are going to stop using Reformed and Baptist people to try to argue against Wesleyans. Maybe you should just be honest enough to change your moniker to "Reformed Reformed."

I have no intention of getting into a debate with one of your resources. If you are making the accusations and committing slander against others, you should at least have the courage to stand and respond in defense of what you have said rather than always running away, while throwing other people at us to do your defending. Either support and defend what you say, respond to those who challenge you, or stop. It’s that simple.

Have you actually read what I wrote on judging?

I have said that what you and Tim are doing is sinful, according to everything I read in Scripture. It is not the fact that you disagree with people, or even the content of the disagreement, but the feckless manner in which you attack others with slander, false accusations, and guilt by association, as well as refusal to deal with facts, an obstinate refusal to investigate beyond personal opinions, distortion of what people say, and a reckless and aggressive disregard for the truth. I'll stand by that. And yes, that includes anyone else who is committing the same kind of malicious attacks that violate Jesus' primary command of loving one another.

Finally, though, it is not my call. I really do believe Paul:

Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Jeremiah warned the people of their sin for nearly 40 years, and few believed him or responded. Like the case of Hananiah, Jeremiah simply told them the truth and walked away when they refused to listen.

Manny, I have told you and Tim the truth. Whether you are willing to listen is your responsibility.

Jeremiah was vindicated (in tears) when the consequences came.

8:21 For the hurt of my poor people I am hurt, I mourn, and dismay has taken hold of me. 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of my poor people not been restored? 9:1 O that my head were a spring of water, and my eyes a fountain of tears, so that I might weep day and night for the slain of my poor people!

No one will gloat when your consequences come; there will only be tears. But you cannot say you were not warned. My deepest prayer for you is the prayer of Elisha (2 Kng 6:17):

O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.

Prayers and blessings, and tears

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

There you go judging me again, showing that you contradicted your own comments that "Jesus said we should not judge". That's not biblical Dennis. Please read Yomi's biblically sound lesson again, or listen to Voddie's sermon. You will learn something about judging that is true- we are called to judge. Jesus said: "beware of false prophets". How do you suppose we can do that unless we are able to judge their actions and teachings? Can you explain that?

Of course you won't go listen to Voddie Baucham- who is as I said, is a resource at at least one Nazarene university. And you disparage him because of what? He's Reformed? And you would say that someone like Brian Mclaren is Wesleyan? That is why I can't and won't spend much time here, especially talking with you, not because I don't like you, but frankly, because you seem to think that your pronouncements (JUDGMENTS) (such as that Tim and I are being sinful) are the final word.
Who are you to tell me that what Tim and I are doing is sinful? What you are teaching is false teaching, the theory of process theology, Dennis. So I'm sorry, there are many Nazarenes and other Christians who utterly reject your disrespect for God's infallible word.

So sorry, Dennis, you are not a good source of authority for me. I'll stick more closely to folks like Voddie Baucham- and all the Nazarenes who reject Process Theology.

Thanks for your time.

Benjamin Burch

May 11th, 2010, 04:54 PM

There you go judging me again, showing that you contradicted your own comments that "Jesus said we should not judge". That's not biblical Dennis. Please read Yomi's biblically sound lesson again, or listen to Voddie's sermon. You will learn something about judging that is true- we are called to judge. Jesus said: "beware of false prophets". How do you suppose we can do that unless we are able to judge their actions and teachings? Can you explain that?

Of course you won't go listen to Voddie Baucham- who is as I said, is a resource at at least one Nazarene university. And you disparage him because of what? He's Reformed? And you would say that someone like Brian Mclaren is Wesleyan? That is why I can't and won't spend much time here, especially talking with you, not because I don't like you, but frankly, because you seem to think that your pronouncements (JUDGMENTS) (such as that Tim and I are being sinful) are the final word.
Who are you to tell me that what Tim and I are doing is sinful? What you are teaching is false teaching, the theory of process theology, Dennis. So I'm sorry, there are many Nazarenes and other Christians who utterly reject your disrespect for God's infallible word.

So sorry, Dennis, you are not a good source of authority for me. I'll stick more closely to folks like Voddie Baucham- and all the Nazarenes who reject Process Theology.

Thanks for your time.

You'll have to show me where Dennis has taught Process Theology here, Manny. Likewise, it seems you are bouncing back and forth between different meanings of the word "judge." You want to use it to "condemn" and then cite someone else's use of that term in the sense of "discern" to support your use of it to "condemn." That's odd, considering they are completely different concepts.

Bob Hunter

May 11th, 2010, 06:24 PM

When are you guys going to stop this madness? Seriously! I love you guys, and you all have brilliant minds, but you fritter your time away debating a man who is hellbent on insulting our church, and demeaning everything we stand for. I have watched this debate for over a year and I have not seen one occasion where Silva, Wirth and those who associate with him are even the slightest bit charitable. What is the point here folks? Really...I'm just saying. We gave it a chance and tried our gut level best to reason with these folks, but it just ain't happening. At some point we have to move on...didn't Jesus say something about dusting ones feet off? Lets face it, the Concerned Nazarenes do not want to receive input, they reject it. So let them go! Please ignore what is going on over there on their blog! Every time you post a thread on NN devoted to this issue, it drives traffic to their site lending credibility to their cause and inflating their egos. For Christ's sake...give it a rest.

And may I remind you all that not unlike myself...these guys are NOT presently in the Nazarene Church! They have left on their own, been asked to leave or never belonged to the CotN in the first place.

LET IT GO...MOVE ON FOLKS!

Craig Laughlin

May 11th, 2010, 06:31 PM

Okay. I WAS a lawyer. I am not now a lawyer. The distinction is extremely important because I cannot give legal advice and people like to ask. I have never been licensed in Washington and have never had a desire to be. I was mostly a criminal defense lawyer. It was a lot like flying a plane or being in combat. Hours upon hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. I am also a pilot and combat veteran. I know what boredom is and I know what terror is. When I get into a discussion, I do not like to discuss my education or my experience. If I have to depend on that, my argument is meaningless and lame. Let's move along folks, nothing to see here. :)

Point taken. Thanks for explanation. - Moving on...

Manny Silva

May 11th, 2010, 06:37 PM

You'll have to show me where Dennis has taught Process Theology here, Manny. Likewise, it seems you are bouncing back and forth between different meanings of the word "judge." You want to use it to "condemn" and then cite someone else's use of that term in the sense of "discern" to support your use of it to "condemn." That's odd, considering they are completely different concepts.

You'll have to show me where Dennis has taught Process Theology here, Manny. Likewise, it seems you are bouncing back and forth between different meanings of the word "judge." You want to use it to "condemn" and then cite someone else's use of that term in the sense of "discern" to support your use of it to "condemn." That's odd, considering they are completely different concepts.

I'm sorry, Ben, I don't recall ever saying that Dennis taught Process Theology "here?". perhaps you misread something again?

And perhaps you can give me a scripturally based lesson on where Jesus taught us to NOT judge, as Dennis erroneously thinks. You cannot because that is not true- we are commanded over and over in the scriptures to judge. In the very passages that Jesus said, "judge not, that ye be not judged:, a few verses later he says that you must remove the plank in your eye, BEFORE you can judge.

I would recommend also that you: read Yomi's excellent lesson on judging, and/or listen to Voddie Baucham's excellent sermon, then if something is wrong with either one, please let me know- using the scriptures of course, which is our authority, not our personal opinions.

Here’s a few more examples:

1. Paul commended the Bereans, for they were nobler than the Thessalonians, because why? Because they scrutinized his sermons and made sure he was preaching the right gospel. How can you do that without judging what he was preaching?
2. Paul called Simon the sorcerer a “son of the devil”, because he was perverting God's ways. Was he judging him in what he was doing? How else could he know he was perverting God's ways? Was he wrong for doing that? (Note that he did this shortly AFTER being filled with the Holy Spirit!
3. Paul scolded Peter PUBLICLY, for teaching the wrong doctrine. Was he not judging Peter? And note that he did not take Peter aside privately as Mattthew 18 commands us, because Peter was teaching the wrong things PUBLICLY, therefore Paul had to rebuke him publicly.
4. Then there is this admonition:

Acts 20:28-31 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!

Ben, How can we be on guard for these savage wolves, unless we are able to judge the fruits of their work?

Matthew 7:15-16 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

If anyone here says that we should NOT ever judge, they are absolutely wrong, and it does not matter how many degrees you have. That's not from Manny's opinion; that's scriptural.

Rich Schmidt

May 11th, 2010, 06:45 PM

If anyone here says that we should NOT ever judge, they are absolutely wrong, and it does not matter how many degrees you have. That's not from Manny's opinion; that's scriptural.

I don't think anyone here has said we shouldn't judge -- in the sense of discerning truth from error, right from wrong, etc. Has someone said this, and I missed it?

Benjamin Burch

May 11th, 2010, 06:59 PM

Ben, How can we be on guard for these savage wolves, unless we are able to judge the fruits of their work?

Good question, allow me to answer with Scripture:

By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

Or... maybe another Scripture...

My friends,* if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil* the law of Christ.

And, one more, which also speaks of the "fruits" we should be looking for.

My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become* my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.

These are the "fruits" we are to know them by. Not how they interpret Scripture one way or another, if it conforms to the way you interpreted it, Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Erasmus, Barth, Origen, Justin, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, etc, etc, etc. They've all interpreted things differently. Whose reading is correct? Yours? On what authority?

No, as long as one can consent to the creeds of the faith, they are good in my book. The "fruit" I will look for is the fruit mentioned in these verses. Most of the people you condemn as heretics display these fruits. Sadly, from my interactions with you, they've been far more lacking in you. I will pray for you if you disagree with these being the fruits we are called to witness.

Benjamin Burch

May 11th, 2010, 07:08 PM

Matthew 7:15-16 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

It's really odd, Manny. I do get the picture, but I'm not sure you do. After all, you didn't go "on and on." In fact, you left off right where we get to the important part of that statement. What are the fruits we should be looking for, Manny? Their belief on creation? Their belief on Open Theism? I mean, that's what Jesus was talking about, right?

‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”

Does Jesus mention to us what those "fruits" are which they will be recognized by? Does he say how we'll know that they are "evildoers" and what that "evil" is?

Ye, Jesus does in Matthew (which is where one would look, if doing proper exegesis, to follow what Jesus means earlier in Matthew, i.e. chapter 7).

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’

It seems that the "fruit" has nothing to do with belief. In fact, many people "believed," maybe even rightly. However, they're known by their fruits. Right? That's what Jesus says. He says on that day (judgment day), and then goes on to talk about judgment day and the "fruits" that we will know them by are not those you talk about so often on your blog. Also, the "evil" they did is not the evil you rail against on your blog. No, not at all. The "good" they did is the "good" which all those "heretics" keep talking about. It's really odd that you always use Scripture to talk about "scoffers" and "wolves in sheeps clothing" and all these other things. However, all the verses you use never specify what it is that they do wrong, or what's so bad about them. So you go on to assume it's the people you don't like.

Scripture seems to say something different than what you have tried to say, Manny. Hopefully I've used enough Scripture for you.

Bob Hunter

May 11th, 2010, 07:24 PM

Jim Chabot

May 11th, 2010, 07:27 PM

I don't think anyone here has said we shouldn't judge -- in the sense of discerning truth from error, right from wrong, etc. Has someone said this, and I missed it?

It appears that we are having difficulty with terms. It is fair to say that we should not "condemn" rather we should "discern". The word "judge" can be used for either, it takes a bit of work searching the context in order to flush out the meaning of "judge" as used in different posts. My take is that Manny is talking about discernment rather than condemnation.

Glenda Harvey

May 11th, 2010, 07:31 PM

Sadly, from my interactions with you, they've been far more lacking in you. I will pray for you if you disagree with these being the fruits we are called to witness.

I don't think we can know people well enough through the internet to say whether or not their life bears the Fruits of the Spirit. I have had discussions on the Reformed Nazarene web site with Manny in which we have disagreed and he has usually been kind in his responses to me.

It seems to me that the Wesleyan vs Calvinist discussions of years gone by have shifted to Emergent vs Fundamentalist discussions. Wesleyans have always espoused a Free Will doctrine which makes many of us at least sympathetic to the Emergent and Open Theology movements. There are some such as Grant Swank who believe that the Wesleyan teachings are heretical. They see the Emergent and Open Theology movements as being extremely liberal.

I think these issues are seen as much more important to those who are of a Calvinist/Reformed mind frame than to those of us who come from a Wesleyan mind frame. They want to warn people of what they perceive as false teaching. At the same time those of us are who are in the process of exploring these ideas and discussing them with others are going to feel defensive when we feel that our Christianity is being questioned.

Benjamin Burch

May 11th, 2010, 07:36 PM

I don't think we can know people well enough through the internet to say whether or not their life bears the Fruits of the Spirit. I have had discussions on the Reformed Nazarene web site with Manny in which we have disagreed and he has usually been kind in his responses to me.

It seems to me that the Wesleyan vs Calvinist discussions of years gone by have shifted to Emergent vs Reformed discussions. Wesleyans have always espoused a Free Will doctrine which makes many of us at least sympathetic to the Emergent and Open Theology movements. There are some such as Grant Swank who believe that the Wesleyan teachings are heretical. They see the Emergent and Open Theology movements as being extremely liberal.

I think these issues are seen as much more important to those who are of a Calvinist/Reformed mind frame than to those of us who come from a Wesleyan mind frame. They want to warn people of what they perceive as false teaching. At the same time those of us are who are in the process of exploring these ideas and discussing them with others are going to feel defensive when we feel that our Christianity is being questioned.

I must say that reading my statement in your quote, it sounds much more harsh than I meant it to. I meant in no way to say that Manny lacks the fruits of the Spirit. Not at all. I meant a simple comparison: Since Manny doesn't know the others he condemns as bearing "bad fruit" and has only their writings to work from, so I only have Manny's writings. If I am going to compare the two, it seems that his writings are "lacking" moreso than the others. That is not to say they're completely devoid. Not at all. I am sorry it seemed that way.

Todd Erickson

May 11th, 2010, 08:23 PM

It appears that we are having difficulty with terms. It is fair to say that we should not "condemn" rather we should "discern". The word "judge" can be used for either, it takes a bit of work searching the context in order to flush out the meaning of "judge" as used in different posts. My take is that Manny is talking about discernment rather than condemnation.

The problem is, the language that is being used on the "Concerned" sites is "and these people are heretics and false teachers, and leading others to hell". Condemnation

The statements from James, Benjamin, et. al are rather "Brother, you have gone against the Spirit of what Christ commands us, and I ask that you would return." No condemnation, just discernment of direction.

Dennis Bratcher

May 11th, 2010, 09:56 PM

There you go judging me again, showing that you contradicted your own comments that "Jesus said we should not judge". That's not biblical Dennis. Please read Yomi's biblically sound lesson again, or listen to Voddie's sermon. You will learn something about judging that is true- we are called to judge. Jesus said: "beware of false prophets". How do you suppose we can do that unless we are able to judge their actions and teachings? Can you explain that?

Of course you won't go listen to Voddie Baucham- who is as I said, is a resource at at least one Nazarene university. And you disparage him because of what? He's Reformed? And you would say that someone like Brian Mclaren is Wesleyan? That is why I can't and won't spend much time here, especially talking with you, not because I don't like you, but frankly, because you seem to think that your pronouncements (JUDGMENTS) (such as that Tim and I are being sinful) are the final word.

Who are you to tell me that what Tim and I are doing is sinful? What you are teaching is false teaching, the theory of process theology, Dennis. So I'm sorry, there are many Nazarenes and other Christians who utterly reject your disrespect for God's infallible word.

So sorry, Dennis, you are not a good source of authority for me. I'll stick more closely to folks like Voddie Baucham- and all the Nazarenes who reject Process Theology.

Thanks for your time.

It is not on my list of aspirations to be a source of authority for you. But I will tell you the truth. And have. You do with it what you will.

Blessings on you, my brother.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Gary Creely

May 11th, 2010, 10:52 PM

Guys...seriously? You are Manny Silva's best form of advertising, where else can he go to get almost 4,000 views but Naznet? You give him the attention he demands and thereby strengthen his hand. I know I won't be thanked for this,because you don't want to hear it.. but it needs to be said...dialog with these guys is impossible! I don't see any good that has come from it...NONE!

I am not sure you are on the right track with that Bob. Google is a bit of a game changer. The reality is if you search for say Naznet the 4th result is Naznet distorts, and the 5th result is reformednazarene. If you search David Mcclung you will find this "NAZNET MODERATOR’S DAVE MCCLUNG IS LAX, INEPT, A TROUBLE-MAKER" at the number six spot (ie the middle of the first page). Allowing there only to be one voice on the web equals- that voice must be true. Most reasonable people reading through these naznet threads would be able to discern whats what. With out these threads the net is filled with a one sided story.

Lengthy Naznet threads on this stuff serve as a counter point to the slander. With out them there is primarily one voice out there, and it is not the voice of truth. Most of those 4000 views (probably only 500 or 600 unique people) would result in at least better understanding of the facts surrounding the various issues.

Folks like CN are not fueled or strengthened by our responses, but rather the responses of similarly mind souls. Naznet serves as one of the best and only lines of defense against these online attacks.

I like a lot of what you post on here, but I have to disagree with your theory on minimizing these guys effects.

Bob Hunter

May 11th, 2010, 11:49 PM

Gary,

I disagree. I helped Admin a FB group set up to respond to these guys, i also created several YouTubes videos. I have been involved in this issue for over a year. All five Admins of our FB group resolved to disengage from any public dialog with the CNs, and we have stuck to it. Moreover, my correspondence with Nazarene leaders has convinced me that nothing good is being accomplished here. Every time a thread is posted on FB or NN it drives people to their sites and there is a noticeable increase of traffic on their blogs. (I'm not tracking exact numbers, and neither would I debate your google theory, but I think my analysis is pretty accurate).

Need I remind you that the key Concerned Nazarene figures are no longer attending Nazarene Churches, they have left, are leaving or never were Nazarenes in the first place! My goodness! Have you noticed how many visible Nazarene leaders refuse to dignify these mean-spirited attacks? It's called Death by silence. And I think it is time Gary... We have given it our best and tried to "inform" them, sadly, they totally reject it. Not only have they rejected it, they deplore and demean anyone who disagrees with them.

I just think we can provide a better understanding of the facts as you describe without providing shock value entertainment for NN users (even though that may not have been the intent). I know there is a certain attraction and draw to an internet street fight, but don't you think we can do better? Maybe we should start...lets lock down this thread and get rid of it. I won't miss it, that is for sure.

Gary Creely

May 12th, 2010, 12:10 AM

And I think it is time Gary... We have given it our best and tried to "inform" them, sadly, they totally reject it. Not only have they rejected it, they deplore and demean anyone who disagrees with them.

The information I am thinking of is not for the CN types benefit, but for the unsuspecting folk in one of our churches who starts poking around and finds one of these blogs (they come up quite well on searches). Granted the tone of this particular thread does have some street flavor, that is not what I am looking to promote. What I am saying is the more counter information there is out on the web, the better chance there is for our people to not be led down an ugly road. I have had to deal with some parishioners who have gone down this path, and it is no fun. If only they could have found some reasonable voices, it could have saved me and them some pain.

Rich Schmidt

May 12th, 2010, 12:20 AM

Hans Deventer

May 12th, 2010, 12:34 AM

Evidently you're using "judge" in the sense of "discern" then. Is that right? Or do you believe that James has condemned you?

He's using "judge" as in "I prefer peanut butter over cheese". Defined that way, of course it's impossible not to judge. We use judge as in "tearing people apart and nailing them on the cross" like the Pharisees did to Jesus. That, of course is completely avoidable.

Hans Deventer

May 12th, 2010, 12:41 AM

I know there is a certain attraction and draw to an internet street fight, but don't you think we can do better? Maybe we should start...lets lock down this thread and get rid of it. I won't miss it, that is for sure.

How can we do better? Serious question. I've been wondering this. We can let the internet be filled with false accusations, without providing any other resource. Ignoring would be a good idea in the days gone past, but it no longer works that way. We're dealing with people who are obsessed and derive their goal in life, their very identity from this. They will not listen to anyone, will not stop unless the Lord steps in as He did towards Saul, or death take them. Not even the misery it brings them and their families in will stop them, it just turns them into martyrs. It's a very sad ting to see.
But the question is, should we let them devour churches and pastors, for the simple reason that they do not agree with their own specific unorthodox brand of Christianity? Is that the Christian thing to do?

Hans Deventer

May 12th, 2010, 04:41 AM

I've been thinking about this for a while now, but the truth is that not all is black in this regrettable controversy.

1. We are actually blessed! The Lord says so: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."

2. We have a good reason to love and to pray: "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven"

3. We get to follow Jesus in his prayers: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Which has to be a good prayer that pleases God, there can be no doubt about it.

4. It is a great opportunity to realise our utter dependence on Christ. Nothing we can say or do makes any difference, so we come before Him empty handed and all we can say is, 'Lord, we cannot heal these people. Only you can.' It isn't bad to be completely depended on Christ. We cannot ever build the Kingdom, that is God's work alone.

5. It helps us to focus on what is really important in our faith, and to focus on the core in stead of things we might like a great deal but are not crucial. It is a good thing to know where the heart of the gospel beats.

6. It prompted even the Board of General Superintendents to speak about our essential beliefs and put forward the Agreed Statement of Belief again. That is a very good thing, especially because we Nazarenes can be notoriously vague in what our essentials are.

7. And most of all, we get to find our security, identity, hope and future in Christ alone. The temptation to find security in jobs, friends, systems, whatever, is always very much alive. But when they come under attack, we realise none of those will last, and quite a few systems are not sustainable either. Ultimately, nothing remains but the love of God.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 06:23 AM

You have obviously judged me too, James. Thank you. Makes my point I think, thatt shows you also believe that it is appropriate to judge.

Manny, anyone who can read what I said can tell that you are just hearing what you want to hear in a way to justify yourself. My discernment is not the same as your condemnation. But you just make the word “judge” what you want it to be for your own purposes. You cherry pick and twist my words just like you do scripture.

Ben, How can we be on guard for these savage wolves, unless we are able to judge the fruits of their work?

You ask a great question here, but I wonder if you really want to hear the answer…. My guess is no. I hope I am wrong. But let's see what you do with Benjamin's response....

Good question, allow me to answer with Scripture.... Galatians 5:22-6,….. Galatians 6:1-2,….. John 15:8-14,……

You always say no on answers with scripture and this isn’t true. Benjamine just did, but I am afraid you will ignore it. He goes on…

Does Jesus mention to us what those "fruits" are which they will be recognized by? Does he say how we'll know that they are "evildoers" and what that "evil" is? Ye, Jesus does in Matthew (which is where one would look, if doing proper exegesis, to follow what Jesus means earlier in Matthew, i.e. chapter 7). .

My guess is if you respond again, you will avoid the biblical text and Benjamin’s comments and you will cherry pick something else someone else said that you can use to continue and justify your actions. It does not seem you really want to know the truth as you work so hard only to confirm what you already think instead. For all the talk about “just believing the bible” I have yet to see it when you are confronted with so much scripture you just ignore.

It's really odd that you always use Scripture to talk about "scoffers" and "wolves in sheeps clothing" and all these other things. However, all the verses you use never specify what it is that they do wrong, or what's so bad about them. So you go on to assume it's the people you don't like. .

This is very accurate. A “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is a biblical idea, but you determine such a person based on those YOU disagree with. Again you use these verses to say what YOU want them to say. And when someone takes their time to show you how the scripture instructs us further like Benjamin did about those things you just shut your ears because such understanding does not further your agenda.

Again Manny, I doubt you will engage Benjamin in the substance of the scriptures he has shown you. This is usually where you tend to check out - either by focusing on something other than the scripture that was given to you or by saying “I am to busy to spend all my time chatting here on NazNet”. I would love to find that I am wrong. We will just have to see.

Jim Chabot

May 12th, 2010, 06:37 AM

Need I remind you that the key Concerned Nazarene figures are no longer attending Nazarene Churches, they have left, are leaving or never were Nazarenes in the first place!

You have said this twice now, and you may be correct in most instances I do not know. Manny Silva attends the International Church of the Nazarene in New Bedford, MA, he is comfortable with the teaching here, I personally haven't heard him object to anything at our church. I can tell you that he did a great job narrating our Christmas program.

He is concerned with what he sees going on within the denomination, and he has that right. Perhaps if the knives could be lowered on both sides, a reasonable albeit lengthy dialog could take place. And let's not kid ourselves, not all dialog has been nice heading in Manny's direction. Do you honestly think that he keeps his guard up for no reason?

Please take note that my defense is limited to Manny, I have read the online attacks against Hans, Scott and Dave, and I am quite troubled by them.

Jim Chabot

May 12th, 2010, 06:48 AM

Again Manny, I doubt you will engage Benjamin in the substance of the scriptures he has shown you. This is usually where you tend to check out - either by focusing on something other than the scripture that was given to you or by saying “I am to busy to spend all my time chatting here on NazNet”. I would love to find that I am wrong. We will just have to see.

In fairness I would ask if Ben actually responded to Manny's question. It doesn't appear to me that he did. Ben took the word "fruits" out of Manny's context and applied his own while responding. Perhaps if Manny had used a different word there? Regardless of the word choice, it is clear by the context that he spoke not to the fruit of the spirit, but rather to the "result" of false teaching. I think that the word "wolves" makes it clear that Manny's question is relative to false teaching, one may disagree with his definition, but to properly respond to the question, one must acknowledge the subject, Ben did not do that.

So before we accuse Manny of non response, perhaps someone could actually respond to his question. I am not saying that he won't or hasn't disengaged, I'm just saying that in this instance, the response wasn't fair, therefore a return to conversation would be difficult if not impossible.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 06:58 AM

Manny Silva attends the International Church of the Nazarene in New Bedford, MA, he is comfortable with the teaching here, I personally haven't heard him object to anything at our church....He is concerned with what he sees going on within the denomination, and he has that right.

I wonder if Manny would really object to much of what he might hear in the churches of the many ordained elders he condemns as unchristian heretics and wolves and sheep's clothing. Most of the things he has objected to seems to come from what he has read online, and that has been filtered and mischaracterized by "discernment ministries" like the lighthouse. Manny just passes that stuff on and has accepted that kind of filter and lens as he continues to look. But, I wonder if he took the time to really hear if he would be nearly as concerned as he is.

I am not negating any possible real disagreement or concerns. Jim, you and I have had disagreements about even big issues, but we have not put each other in the category of not being "real Christians" and being "heretics" and "wolves in sheep's clothing". We sometimes misunderstand each other, but we also recognize that their is sometimes a "language barrier" in the way we talk about these things. We do our best to try to listen rather than condemn.

Perhaps if the knives could be lowered on both sides, a reasonable albeit lengthy dialog could take place. And let's not kid ourselves, not all dialog has been nice heading in Manny's direction.

I am all for that Jim!!! I have even dedicated many posts on Emergent Nazarenes to making peace. I made some headway with Tim Wirth who finally said that he would accept me as a real Christian and a brother in the Lord, but he has so far not wanted to build on that.

I would love to see Manny accept the many ordained leaders that he has condemned in the past as not being "real Christians" and embrace them as brothers in Jesus instead. Then as brothers, love each other enough to sit down and work things out. I would be more than happy to do this. I know others would be too. What a wonderful story of reconciliation it would be!!!!!!

Jim Chabot

May 12th, 2010, 07:16 AM

I wonder if Manny would really object to much of what he might hear in the churches of the many ordained elders he condemns as unchristian heretics and wolves and sheep's clothing. Most of the things he has objected to seems to come from what he has read online, and that has been filtered and mischaracterized by "discernment ministries" like the lighthouse. Manny just passes that stuff on and has accepted that kind of filter and lens as he continues to look. But, I wonder if he took the time to really hear if he would be nearly as concerned as he is.

I am not negating any possible real disagreement or concerns. Jim, you and I have had disagreements about even big issues, but we have not put each other in the category of not being "real Christians" and being "heretics" and "wolves in sheep's clothing". We sometimes misunderstand each other, but we also recognize that their is sometimes a "language barrier" in the way we talk about these things. We do our best to try to listen rather than condemn.

I am all for that Jim!!! I have even dedicated many posts on Emergent Nazarenes to making peace. I made some headway with Tim Wirth who finally said that he would accept me as a real Christian and a brother in the Lord, but he has so far not wanted to build on that.

I would love to see Manny accept the many ordained leaders that he has condemned as not real Christians in our denomination as brothers in Jesus and then as brothers love each other enough to sit down and work things out. I would be more than happy to do this. I know others would be too. What a wonderful story of reconciliation it would be!!!!!!

Such wisdom at an early hour! Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors, rather he seeks to warn against influences from outside the denomination and our willingness to embrace them without serious question. I think that Manny sometime gets discouraged that few Nazarene Pastors will come along side of his efforts. Those who do stand with him do so very cautiously. Bear in mind that is just off the cuff, there may be notable exceptions to this.

I continue to hope and pray that our Generals will step up to the plate with some definition. I understand that this is a difficult task for them, and I realize that doctrinal guidance from them is not a given. But I do hold out hope that they can bring a reconciliation to this, the little that we have heard from them is encouraging!

And yes, what a wonderful story of reconciliation that would be indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 07:36 AM

Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors.....

Actually Manny’s criticism HAS been directed at Nazarene Pastors, I personally have been a target of him and Concerned Nazarenes. They tell people that I am a "heretic" and “do not follow the real Jesus”, and that I am “deceiving my church” with heretical teaching. I have been told that I am a "wolf in sheep's clothing". To them, I am one of the false teachers they warn about. Of course, Manny and others have never been to my church.

I am not the only one, there are countless list of other Nazarene Pastors and professors they personally attack as “heretics”.

Even so.....we are willing to make peace, forgive, and reconcile.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 07:52 AM

Jim Abrams

May 12th, 2010, 08:00 AM

Rich Schmidt

May 12th, 2010, 08:19 AM

Such wisdom at an early hour! Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors, rather he seeks to warn against influences from outside the denomination and our willingness to embrace them without serious question.

Hmmm... He names ordained Nazarene elders on his blog and aims criticism directly at them, Jim. Clicking the "Nazarene Denomination Losing its Way" link at the top of the page takes you to an article (a very even-handed and calmly written article) that includes the following:

Contemplative spirituality practices, which are nothing more than “Christianized” transcendental meditation, are being taught in Nazarene universities, seminaries, and churches. Professors such as Thomas Oord of Northwest Nazarene University are teaching Open Theism, the heresy that God does not know the future, among other heresies. Professors such as Karl Giberson at Eastern Nazarene College are teaching that evolution is fully compatible with the Bible. Trevecca Nazarene University has a prayer labyrinth on campus, and some Nazarene churches now use prayer labyrinths, which is a practice from pagan cultures that was invented and used thousands of years before Christ. There is nothing Christian about it, but now it is becoming more commonplace in the Nazarene church. Leaders at Point Loma Nazarene University and others are promoting contemplative spirituality practices. Even Nazarene Theological Seminary is going “contemplative”, promoting a “spiritual formation” retreat at a Catholic retreat center a few days before General Assembly.

His post from this past March titled, "NazNet's Pastors and their Dubious Theology," (http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/naznets-pastors-and-their-dubious-theology/) includes the following:

What is disturbing to me, is that many of the participants on Naznet, including pastors, are trying to pass off some very distorted thinking as orthodox Christian doctrine, or as traditional Nazarene doctrine and beliefs. ...

And as my friend Tim Wirth described it, NazNet is a breeding ground for emergent heresy. I agree. And I applaud the writings of Grant Swank, a hardhitting, former Nazarene minister, who is doing the hard work of exposing the many heretical viewpoints that are being allowed to go unchallenged by the moderators of the “supposedly Nazarene-friendly” forum at NazNet.

Later in that post he calls Dan Boone, president of TNU, "a deceived college president," and Ron Benefiel, president of NTS, "a deceived seminary president." These are two ordained Nazarene elders who have given and are giving their lives to the work of the gospel. That doesn't mean they can't be deceived... but it does mean they deserve more respect than to be called "wolves in sheep's clothing," to use the words of ordained Nazarene elder Beverly Turner at the beginning of the Concerned Nazarene DVD that Manny promotes, the video clip of which Manny posted on YouTube.

I'm not begrudging Manny his opinion on these matters. I just wanted to make clear that I believe it would be quite inaccurate to say that he has not directed criticism toward Nazarene pastors.

[Edited to add: Sorry if this post feels like "piling on." That wasn't my intent. I was delayed in posting it, so I didn't see that James & Jim had already addressed the issue... and now that I've done all that writing and quoting and linking, I'm hesitant to just hit the delete button! :)]

Jon Twitchell

May 12th, 2010, 08:23 AM

Is there a process in the Manual by which Manny can bring formal complaints or file charges against these individuals? If he truly believes them to be so dangerous, shouldn't he avail himself of it? (Or is the process not something that a layperson can engage? I've not read that section in a while.)

Dennis Bratcher

May 12th, 2010, 08:24 AM

You have said this twice now, and you may be correct in most instances I do not know. Manny Silva attends the International Church of the Nazarene in New Bedford, MA, he is comfortable with the teaching here, I personally haven't heard him object to anything at our church. I can tell you that he did a great job narrating our Christmas program.

He is concerned with what he sees going on within the denomination, and he has that right. Perhaps if the knives could be lowered on both sides, a reasonable albeit lengthy dialog could take place. And let's not kid ourselves, not all dialog has been nice heading in Manny's direction. Do you honestly think that he keeps his guard up for no reason?

Please take note that my defense is limited to Manny, I have read the online attacks against Hans, Scott and Dave, and I am quite troubled by them.

Sorry, Jim, but this is inaccurate. It is a very one-sided picture. I know it has been the practice of some to say that both sides are equally guilty. I do not know the reason for that and would not guess. But it is just not true.

I have read every post that Manny has made here and read most everything on his blog, as well as his posts on other blogs. In that context, I will stand by what I have said in other posts in this thread (without repeating them here). Manny is the attacker and the one trying to lop off heads in the name of God and his own truth.

There is a huge difference between a knife and a shield. I think most of us will keep the shield up as long as Manny is swinging the knife.

As I have said repeatedly, the issue is not that Manny or anyone else is "concerned." The issue is the aggressive posture toward others, which has devolved to outright slander, without any solid foundation or evidence beyond vague association with things and people he does not like.

In any case, the church is not about "rights." It is about mutual responsibility and servanthood.

Dialog? All of the concerned Nazarene folks, including Manny have been invited to dialog repeatedly, even to being offered free airfare and meals (at least to Tim). But they have refused. Manny refuses to discuss anything here, and will not tolerate challenge on his blog. Perhaps that is a reality that also needs comment.

And let's not kid ourselves, not all dialog has been nice heading in Manny's direction. Do you honestly think that he keeps his guard up for no reason?

I have seen nothing comparable to what Manny has thrown at others directed back at him. In fact, nearly everyone has been more than gracious to Manny, something that I have not seen from him. I and others have challenged him to provide more evidence than quoting Reformed and Southern Baptists, or using online resources that are inaccurate, or working solely from assumptions beyond evidence. I and others have also challenged him to deal with aspects he has presented that are simply false. He has never responded to a single challenge beyond throwing more quotes from other people back.

I have said that what Manny and the others are doing is sinful based on biblical injunctions about how to deal with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I will stand by that until there is some change of tactics. I suppose that could be considered "not nice." But it is ludicrous to assume that this is the reason for Manny's actions. His is not and has never been in a defensive posture.

Also, as I have repeatedly said, I do not know and cannot know anyone's spiritual status before God. I know that God is gracious and longsuffering, and believe that there is grace within a commitment to God that does not force us out of the Kingdom because of a single sin. It is really a matter of the heart that only God can judge. And yet, I also believe that God calls us to repentance from within that relationship.

Manny's actions are still sinful and need repentance. Most of us here (of whom I am aware) are quite willing to intercede for Manny, to pray for his repentance, yearning to redeem a brother before sin gives birth to death.

Bottom line: This needs a reality check.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Rich Schmidt

May 12th, 2010, 08:27 AM

I am thankful that the CON has a process in place to address these issues but CN's do so much damage when they try to circumvent that system and launch their own smear campaign.

I've asked Manny and other Concerned Nazarenes more than once if any of them have followed the process given in the Manual (that they agreed to follow when they became members) and filed charges against any of these ordained Nazarene elders that they continue to criticize. I've never received an answer.

Shea Zellweger

May 12th, 2010, 09:05 AM

Such wisdom at an early hour! Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors, rather he seeks to warn against influences from outside the denomination and our willingness to embrace them without serious question. I think that Manny sometime gets discouraged that few Nazarene Pastors will come along side of his efforts. Those who do stand with him do so very cautiously. Bear in mind that is just off the cuff, there may be notable exceptions to this.

Sorry, Jim, but yes, he has very much directed criticism toward Nazarene pastors. I've made his list on more than one occasion.
I'm Sorry, Jim and Manny, that Manny gets discouraged that few Nazarene Pastors will come alongside of his efforts, but many of us feel that his efforts are inaccurate and misguided. When several men and women who I highly respect and from whom I have received invaluable assistance in my spiritual journey via their books, lectures, and other media are being assaulted as false teachers and heretics, I don't much feel comfortable coming alongside the person slinging the accusations. If there are a few valid points from the Concerned Nazarenes, they are so buried in insults, anti-Catholic claims, and literalist dogma that they are nearly impossible to identify. I know that you, Jim, do not take the entire Bible as literal fact, and yet Manny insists that those who do not are misled at best and heretics at worst. I've also seen a disturbing trend of guilt by association to villify those Manny opposes, combined with turning a blind eye to those he supports. For example, Dan Boone is attacked for bringing students to a Catholic monastery, yet Grant Swank claims on his site to be comfortable worshipping in a Catholic (or Jewish) setting, and is applauded by Manny. This lack of consistency is so incredibly consistent that it calls into questions the motives of the one doing it. Another example, this from Tim Wirth. On the CN facebook page, Tim accused me and others of disorting the truth by saying something along the lines of "I don't agree with everything the author says, but he makes some good points." This was, in Tim's estimation, an example of what "emergents" do. And yet less than 72 hours later there was a discussion going on on their page about a teacher, and Tim claimed that he made a lot of good points, but the gentleman in question was wrong for being a Calvinist.

If they would at least start by showing some consistency about who's "in" and who's "out," I might be more willing to listen, but as it stands the claims are so incredibly subjective that the most postmodern of us blush at the blatant relativism.

I continue to hope and pray that our Generals will step up to the plate with some definition. I understand that this is a difficult task for them, and I realize that doctrinal guidance from them is not a given. But I do hold out hope that they can bring a reconciliation to this, the little that we have heard from them is encouraging!

And yes, what a wonderful story of reconciliation that would be indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...The generals released a paper on the Emerging Church, did they not?

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 09:07 AM

I've asked Manny and other Concerned Nazarenes more than once if any of them have followed the process given in the Manual (that they agreed to follow when they became members) and filed charges against any of these ordained Nazarene elders that they continue to criticize. I've never received an answer.

It is odd and hypocritical that they ask for "accountability", but refuse to operate in any way within systems and community of accountability. Instead, they appointed themselves the leaders of "concerned nazarenes" and they control who joins and can participate in that group so they don't have any accountability there either. If you don't agree with them, they will just kick you out because they are in charge. I don't see any evidence that they are interested in anything that requires them to "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ".

David Troxler

May 12th, 2010, 09:24 AM

Rich Schmidt

May 12th, 2010, 09:50 AM

...The generals released a paper on the Emerging Church, did they not?

If you're referring to the paper that Hans shared here before the crash, it didn't give any details. It said, basically, that there are some helpful things about the emerging conversation but also some who have clearly stepped away from orthodox Christianity. Manny has asked for clarification. Who, in their estimation, has crossed the line? And where is that line for us as a church/denomination?

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

May 12th, 2010, 10:11 AM

If you're referring to the paper that Hans shared here before the crash, it didn't give any details. It said, basically, that there are some helpful things about the emerging conversation but also some who have clearly stepped away from orthodox Christianity. Manny has asked for clarification. Who, in their estimation, has crossed the line? And where is that line for us as a church/denomination?

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

I think the "statement of affirmation" from the BoGS of April 21 is an indirect reply to those who are trying to redefine our beliefs in narrow, exclusionary terms. They say there are eight "nonnegotiable elements" of our beliefs.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10009167

These, then, are the primary doctrinal stands of the Church.

A person who attacks Nazarene leaders who hold to them is mistaken at best and sinful at worst.

Apparently, the BoGS wants people who are "concerned" about other things to stop distracting the church from it's core beliefs and mission. They conclude: "Let us set aside anything and everything that distracts from our mission to make Christlike disciples in the nations."

Bob Hunter

May 12th, 2010, 10:11 AM

I'm with Gary on this one. Sorry, Bob. Let's model respectful dialogue, filled with grace and truth. Both for the sake of our brothers and sisters in the Concerned camp and for those who aren't in either camp but are asking questions and looking for answers.

I just Googled "Reformed Nazarene" (w/o the quotes), and this thread was the 4th or 5th result.

Okay, guys but when is enough enough? And I would add that you don't always model respectful dialog because Silva and Wirth you drag into a bare knuckle internet brawl that makes you all look bad and causes outsiders to wonder if we are even Christians (and I can't help but wonder what members of our church must think when their pastor spends an inordinate amount of time dealing with a cyber church bully from afar). All I'm saying is this: WHEN THE HORSE IS DEAD...Dismount. This group doesn't even attend a Nazarene Church! I agree with your content, you all are brilliant and have such a heart, but its time to pull the plug and exercise the sacrament of failure...dust your feet off fellas and move on.

Dennis Bratcher

May 12th, 2010, 10:14 AM

If you're referring to the paper that Hans shared here before the crash, it didn't give any details. It said, basically, that there are some helpful things about the emerging conversation but also some who have clearly stepped away from orthodox Christianity. Manny has asked for clarification. Who, in their estimation, has crossed the line? And where is that line for us as a church/denomination?

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

Apart from all the hysteria, misinformation, and histrionics from the concerned Nazarenes folks, I have said from the beginning that the range of what passes as "emergent" needs examination and honest questions. It cannot be lumped under the same rubric as catholic, inerrancy, contemplative, etc., and we cannot assume that all "emergents" are the same. But in an effort to distance ourselves from the CN grunge we cannot afford to ignore asking those questions and dealing with them candidly.

I think that is really what the GSs were trying to say indirectly.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Jim Abrams

May 12th, 2010, 10:16 AM

Ben, I wonder how the Generals can name specific people, ministries, and practices in any way that will satisfy Concerned Nazarene and not essentially vilify those named by them for clarification. By clarifying particular people, ministries and practices as unorthodox will they not essentially be seen as endorsing everything else as acceptable?

I guess I am struggling with what a fair statement of clarification would look like and wondering if it would provide any resolution at all? I think the best way to address it is to clearly affirm who we are, what we are about and why. I believe the paper Hans shared BC - (before crash) does that.

Dennis Bratcher

May 12th, 2010, 10:18 AM

I think the "statement of affirmation" from the BoGS of April 21 is an indirect reply to those who are trying to redefine our beliefs in narrow, exclusionary terms. They say there are eight "nonnegotiable elements" of our beliefs.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10009167

These, then, are the primary doctrinal stands of the Church.

A person who attacks Nazarene leaders who hold to them is mistaken at best and sinful at worst.

Apparently, the BoGS wants people who are "concerned" about other things to stop distracting the church from it's core beliefs and mission. They conclude: "Let us set aside anything and everything that distracts from our mission to make Christlike disciples in the nations."

I agree. But as a practical matter, we as a Community of Faith need to say this more plainly in the Manual (which is anything but clear at this point).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 10:23 AM

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Hebrews 13:17

The authority that members of the COTN must submit to is the General Assembly which has delegated certain functions to certain people in various positions (General Secretary, GS, DS, pastors, etc.). The General Assembly ratified the 500s in our manual which describe the proper procedure for lodging complaints against other members and clergy.

So the Concerned Nazarenes (and all Nazarenes everywhere) have one and only one acceptable course of action according to Hebrews 13:17. They have the right to file a complaint with the proper person according to the provisions of the authorities in their church (manual paragraphs 500-515.6). If that person in authority feels there is no merit to their complaints then the complainant, according to Hebrews 13:17, MUST submit to that decision.

Making claims against members of the COTN and clergy of the COTN on the internet and DVDs is out of harmony with the manual and is a direct violation of Hebrews 13:17 and if the CNs are truly interested in being biblical they will recognize Hebrews 13:17 and submit to the proper channels and proper authorities in the church.

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 10:43 AM

Actually Manny’s criticism HAS been directed at Nazarene Pastors, I personally have been a target of him and Concerned Nazarenes. They tell people that I am a "heretic" and “do not follow the real Jesus”, and that I am “deceiving my church” with heretical teaching. I have been told that I am a "wolf in sheep's clothing". To them, I am one of the false teachers they warn about. Of course, Manny and others have never been to my church.

I am not the only one, there are countless list of other Nazarene Pastors and professors they personally attack as “heretics”.

Even so.....we are willing to make peace, forgive, and reconcile.

Okay, James, when did I ever call you a heretic or a false teacher? Can you document that, I don't believe I ever have done that, yet you say it with certainty.
This is exactly why I ignore much of what you say, because you twist much of what I say or you assume that you know exactly how and what I think!

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 10:44 AM

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

I am not sure it is. What they seem to want is to have certain words and phrases of how we talk about Christianity either to be endorsed or banned. They say "tell us plainly" is "emergent/emerging" right or wrong, yet they are not unwilling to unpack what that might mean. They just wait an answer that will either give them permission to get rid of heretics or include the Generals among the heretics.

In John 10 it was once demanded of Jesus that he tell them plainly if he was the “Messiah” or the “Christ” or not. The terms "Christ" or “Messiah” refer to the Jews anticipation of the coming of an “anointed one”. We should remember that this anticipation did not include the idea that the Messiah would be God himself, and many Jews were not even convinced it would be just one person. Some looked for the return of a King in the line of David, others looked the return of a strong priestly order through an “anointed” High Priest. Some looked for both.

With all these different expectations the request to “tell them plainly” was in a reality an impossibility as any such direct statement becomes obfuscated by the preconceived notions of the hearers. It might seem simple enough to ask Jesus to just come out and say if he is the “Messiah” or not, but Jesus did not think so.

Jesus instead claims he is the “Good Shepherd”; which initially seems to confuse the issue further as the hearers understood that the prophets said that God himself would assume this role after so many “shepherds of Israel” failed to live up to what shepherds were supposed to be. The idea that the “Messiah” would be God was not what they were expecting. When the hearers of this claim pick up stones to kill Jesus for claiming to be God, Jesus asks for what works and miracles do they stone him for?

Jesus then points to Psalm 82 which speaks of Kings (gods) that fall like a mere prince. A Prince is one that never reaches his destiny to be King, and in the case of the Psalm it was because they were judged for not reflecting what a true and good King should be. In this Jesus says that what he does identifies who he is better than any claim, regardless of how “plainly” it is stated. Jesus does not want to be Christ, Messiah, King, High Priest, or even God if by those terms you would mean something by them that fails to reflect who he really is. He does not want those words to define him when they come with such baggage. Jesus wants us instead to be defined by what he does and let those things breath new life into the terms.

This gets back to the issue of fruit. Jesus said, “Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.” The CN’s argue about “words”, they don’t really want to deal with the concepts behind those words and how we are to live into those concepts. They want to argue which words are the right words and that’s it.

2 Timothy 2:14-15 “keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

“Correctly handling the word of truth” is as much about being a “workman” and bearing good fruit as we follow good teaching as anything else. When others were out looking to condemn Jesus based on getting him to confess words that could mean different things to different people he did not do it. He instead pointed to the fruit of his works if anyone had any doubt about who he was.

It is not so simple for the Generals to come out and “answer plainly” when people are more worried about which words you use than they are about the substance behind them and how we are live into that substance as we follow the Way of Jesus.

Looking at the teachings and fruit of the Concerned Nazarenes and then looking at the teachings and fruit of those they attack. I feel pretty comfortable with which of all this I have come down on. In the mean time the Generals have done the wisest thing by not trying to pigeonhole certain words used in a conversation as either good or bad.

They have been given clarification, it just doesn't come in the over simplified answers they can use to continue to call people heretics.

Jim Chabot

May 12th, 2010, 10:51 AM

Jim C., I am noting several exceptions. I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of slander and have to deal with the undermining of ministry and authority. I know what it is like to have to answer the charge of being a false teacher, unqualified pastor and someone who fails in his responsibility to preach the whole council of God. I am thankful that the CON has a process in place to address these issues but CN's do so much damage when they try to circumvent that system and launch their own smear campaign. I can not agree that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene pastors. It has been and continues to be. In addition I believe that an assault on the flock is an assault on the shepherd and that an assault on the shepherd is an assault on the flock. CN have not only been unchristian in dealing with Nazarene ministers but they have been the cause of great division, hurt and pain for local congregations. It amazes me that someone on such an offensive crusade can be sooooo good at playing the role of the victim. In my personal experience I have found the Concerned Nazarene to be perpetrator, not the victim. The victim is usually the church, the local ministry and many times the pastor and staff.

I do believe the Generals have address the issue. I could be wrong but I think they have said all their going to officially say about the issue. I have found that Concerned Nazarenes will continue to ask the question until they get the answer they want to hear. I am just not convinced they are open to anything else.

On the first part, I'm thinking that it would be better left to yourself and Manny to sort out, there was an obvious problem there, my statement was made not specifically but more to how I read him. I admit that he can be abrasive, but I think his goal is a return to what the CotN has stood for traditionally, yes there has been division, how can there not be unless one side decides to simply follow the other. I don't see his goal as divisive, even though his writing has caused some, I think that he want's reconciliation, I think that he is looking for agreeable terms. Maybe I'm dreaming, some say that I am. I'm quite concerned myself, I try to be minimally abrasive though.

My understanding is that we have two documents from the Generals, one written by GS Middendorf and endorsed by GS Porter without objection from the others, and I understand that there is a second document recently issued to the DS's of which I have read only a small part. I do need to re read this thread, I thought I saw a reference to another piece. I'm hoping, maybe in vain, that the Generals will address this in a way that mediates things. Perhaps something like this; "Ok emergent thinkers, we find that the following to be objectionable, while the following is ok, and Hi Concerned, we agree with you on a couple of things and have taken steps to address them, while we disagree on other matters and ask that you stop complaining about them." Ok maybe I'm dreaming, but something decisive would be nice.

Cam Pence

May 12th, 2010, 11:21 AM

Jim Abrams

May 12th, 2010, 11:21 AM

Jim C.
My comments were not specifically related to Manny Silva although he does factor into them. I am honestly glad that your interactions with CN do not reflect the majority of mine and I pray the Lord will use you help bring about a constructive, redemptive duologue. I can only speak from my experience and from what I have publicly observed from others. I don't understand how the ends justify the means. The GOAL of many CNs may not be division but when it is apparent that division is the RESULT those who cause such division must take responsibility. I have not in any of my encounters with CN found anyone willing to take responsibility or a willingness to be held countable for those actions.

I think many CNs have a gross misunderstanding of what the CotN has stood for traditionally. For example let me point to a recent article on a Reformed Nazarene blog that bemoans Nazarene involvement in social justice, "Nazarene Social Justice and It’s Socialist Connections (http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/)." This gross misunderstanding of what the CotN has traditionally stood for is a large part of the problem. The accusation sometimes takes the form: that some Nazarene Pastors are introducing strange new practices and emphasis into the denomination when the reality is that some of those accused are simply calling the church to recapture what she has been traditionally about all along.

I am glad, truly glad, that you have not had the same experiences as I. My experiences however have moved me to a different conclusion than yours have lead you to. Perhaps the Lord will use you to bring about the reconciliation you believe is being being desired.

As for the statements by the Generals I'll refer you to my comments to Ben above.

Blessings,
Jim

Dennis Bratcher

May 12th, 2010, 11:31 AM

im sorry jim but there is no way i can buy this since we both know that the only agreeable terms manny sees are his own terms. there is no search for reconciliation from the CN....it is simply divide and conquer. agree with us or be a heretic. what they want is really a Pyrrhic victory. if they can drive all the emergents, false teachers, and wolves in sheeps clothing out of the church, than in the end looking at all the damage they have caused and churches they have torn apart, they can smile knowing that they proved that they were "right".

I really do not want this to be true and pray that it is not.

We will have to wait for history to demonstrate whether it is or not.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 12:57 PM

Okay, James, when did I ever call you a heretic or a false teacher? Can you document that, I don't believe I ever have done that, yet you say it with certainty.
This is exactly why I ignore much of what you say, because you twist much of what I say or you assume that you know exactly how and what I think!

Really? So are you saying I am not a heretic and I am a real Christian?

You sound just like Tim Wirth your co-leader of Concerned Nazarenes who wrote on, 04/05/2009 (http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2009/04/denomination-caves-to-concerned.html#comment-7847831) :

Tim Wirth: James I have never said you are not a Christian. Do I consider you a brother in Christ? No because of what you teach and promote.”

I love the way he denied saying he ever said I wasn’t a Christian, but then said it. What about you? Am I a Christian? Am I a false teacher? Just answer yes or no to each.

The Concerned Nazarenes (and you are a leader of that group) first targeted me on September 15, 2008, when a concerned nazarene blog said that I was the “tip of the iceberg of what’s going on in the Nazarene Denomination”, as a “false movement” has "hit the Nazarene Church". HERE is the Concerned Nazarenes Post (http://nazarenepsalm113.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/nazarene-emergent-church-plant/)

Here is another quote from your Co-leader of Concerned Nazarenes Tim on 03/06/2010 (http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2010/03/article-iv-olive-branch-for-unity-in.html#comment-38285755):

Tim Wirth: Im sorry james it does grieve me because you do proclaim to be a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ. But you follow a different jesus other than the real Jesus that is written in scripture. I cannot call someone a brother in the Lord who promotes heresy and false teaching and teachers like you do. I would pray again that you would step down as pastor and as a leader. Repent and reject the false teaching and teachers you promote and then come back in the tent that Jesus Christ.

Tim would eventually say he changed his mind about me not being a Christian, and so in an email with you recently I told you so- trying to get you both to work on a way we can work things out as brothers in Jesus. I said to you,

James Diggs: Your good friend Tim Wirth recently retracted his belief that I wasn't a Christian and now says he accepts me as such. I have told him that I would much rather work with him as fellow Christians and Nazarenes than against him. As brothers in Jesus and as Nazarenes we have more common ground than differences. I offer you the same thing Manny, to work together to build on our common ground in a way that even if we do not agree on other things we will not tear down the body of Christ around us just to win an argument.

You replied to that statement saying,

Manny Silva: it seems that you have twisted Tim's words around.

So by that you are saying that Tim still thinks I am not a Christian and that I am still a false teacher? Has he told you so? I asked you this in the email, but you never responded. Are you saying you stand by Tim's original statements about me that I "follow a different jesus other than the real Jesus"? Are you saying that Tim really never retracted those statements and that you and he still stand by them as leaders of the Concerned Nazarenes? Please clear this up for me.

If I am wrong, set me straight. Say “James Diggs is a Christian, a brother in Jesus and as is NOT a heretic or false teacher”. Then you can do the same with Jon Middendorf, Dan Boone, Dennis Bratcher, Rich Schmidt, Ron Benefiel, Thomas Oord, Karl Giberson, and many, many, many other names.

If I have twisted things up and misunderstood you then you can fix that right now.

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 02:14 PM

"I don't see his goal as divisive, even though his writing has caused some, I think that he want's reconciliation, I think that he is looking for agreeable terms."

im sorry jim but there is no way i can buy this since we both know that the only agreeable terms manny sees are his own terms. there is no search for reconciliation from the CN....it is simply divide and conquer. agree with us or be a heretic. what they want is really a Pyrrhic victory. if they can drive all the emergents, false teachers, and wolves in sheeps clothing out of the church, than in the end looking at all the damage they have caused and churches they have torn apart, they can smile knowing that they proved that they were "right".

Cam,
My goal is not to divide for division's sake- my goal is to speak the truth (I know some disagree on my view of truth, that's fine) but division is going to happen is it not when we preach the truth? Christ said He came to divide.

Those who preach another gospel will cause division, won't they? So division according to scripture is bound to happen, when those who disobey Christ, go up against those who obey Christ, is that not true?

So, setting aside whether you agree that I'm right or wrong, those who believe the emergent church movement is bringing in a lot of false teaching into the church, believe that they are causing the division by their false teaching. I welcome the division in one sense- because it will separate those who uphold the gospel that Paul talks about in Galatians 1; that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed.

I know some here will clearly disagree with me, others here agree with me in part, perhaps in whole. But regardless, I just want to do God's will and speak the truth and continue to expose the false teachings going on in our great denomination. I'm not here in a search for popularity, so you won't here anything from me that does not come from the heart.

I would affirm with what you said at the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

Cam Pence

May 12th, 2010, 02:26 PM

Cam,
My goal is not to divide for division's sake- my goal is to speak the truth (I know some disagree on my view of truth, that's fine) but division is going to happen is it not when we preach the truth? Christ said He came to divide.

Those who preach another gospel will cause division, won't they? So division according to scripture is bound to happen, when those who disobey Christ, go up against those who obey Christ, is that not true?

So, setting aside whether you agree that I'm right or wrong, those who believe the emergent church movement is bringing in a lot of false teaching into the church, believe that they are causing the division by their false teaching. I welcome the division in one sense- because it will separate those who uphold the gospel that Paul talks about in Galatians 1; that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed.

I know some here will clearly disagree with me, others here agree with me in part, perhaps in whole. But regardless, I just want to do God's will and speak the truth and continue to expose the false teachings going on in our great denomination. I'm not here in a search for popularity, so you won't here anything from me that does not come from the heart.

I would agree with what you said a the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

thanks manny....you said it better than i could....ill continue to pray for you as you seek to destroy our denomination for the sake of being "right"

Jon Twitchell

May 12th, 2010, 02:34 PM

I would affirm with what you said at the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

Manny,

If you truly believe what you say, I fail to understand why you have not filed charges against the individuals who are teaching a false gospel and poisoning the minds of our youth. If you truly love this denomination, then you ought to be exhausting every possibility available to you in order to protect it.

Question: have you filed charges against any Nazarene elders because of their false teaching?

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 02:49 PM

I know some here will clearly disagree with me, others here agree with me in part, perhaps in whole. But regardless, I just want to do God's will and speak the truth and continue to expose the false teachings going on in our great denomination. I'm not here in a search for popularity, so you won't here anything from me that does not come from the heart.

I would affirm with what you said at the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

Manny,

What about Hebrews 13:17 (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?310-Reformed-Nazarenes&p=7124&viewfull=1#post7124)? Seriously, are you not required to abide by Hebrews 13:17? Is not your speaking out against ordained Nazarene elders rather than going to their authorities not in direct contravention of Hebrews 13:17?

If the spiritual authorities placed over the Nazarene leaders that you call out as heretical (James, Rich, Dan Boone, etc) discount or disregard your claims, does Hebrews 13:17 not REQUIRE you to submit to them?

I am genuinely curious how you continue your behavior in light of Hebrews 13:17.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 02:50 PM

I welcome the division in one sense- because it will separate those who uphold the gospel that Paul talks about in Galatians 1; that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed.

Manny, here you go again doing just what Ben said you do; you quote verses that say things like “that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed” yet, you decided for yourself what “another gospel” is.

Ironically the context of the passage you chose was Paul talking about how he used to wrongly persecute the church and wrongly tried to destroy it. Saul thought he was stamping out heresy- just like you do now. Paul then talks about his conversion and how he tried to meet with the Apostles whom he once persecuted. In chapter two Paul describes that “other gospel” you mention and says, “This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.” The issue of the true gospel was that it provided liberty not to have to become a Jew in order to follow Christ. He then tells of how he met with Peter and the others and they agreed that he was to take the gospel to the gentiles, even though he had to confront Peter himself later about this as Peter struggled momentarily with the idea. I also like how the gospel is also associated with “remembering the poor” which Paul said Peter had asked him to do and he was eager to do himself.

I guess the context of statements like “anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed” mean nothing as you just apply the statement to whatever context you want.

I think Hans has said it before, but I pray that you will have a Saul to Paul kind of change of heart concerning the way you wrongly persecute the church.

By the way, you have so far just ignored Ben as he engaged in scripture answering your question. (as I thought you might) And you have failed so far to take an opportunity to affirm me (or all the others) as your brother(s) in Christ and tell people that you don’t think we are heretics, false teachers, or wolves in sheep’s clothing. If it is a mischaracterization that you think we are all heretics, then you can set it straight and tell us and everyone else that you believe we are your Christian brothers and that we are NOT heretics.

Bill Morrison

May 12th, 2010, 02:54 PM

Manny,

If you truly believe what you say, I fail to understand why you have not filed charges against the individuals who are teaching a false gospel and poisoning the minds of our youth. If you truly love this denomination, then you ought to be exhausting every possibility available to you in order to protect it.

Question: have you filed charges against any Nazarene elders because of their false teaching?

Jon:
Is it even possible in the Church of the Nazarene to do what you are urging Manny to do? (i.e. to bring charges against an elder who is not even part of your local congregation?) I am doubting it, otherwise we would have constant turmoil in the denomination. Please show me if I am wrong. Otherwise let's not put Manny down for failing to do something he can't possibly do!

BILL

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 03:00 PM

Jon:
Is it even possible in the Church of the Nazarene to do what you are urging Manny to do? (i.e. to bring charges against an elder who is not even part of your local congregation?) I am doubting it, otherwise we would have constant turmoil in the denomination. Please show me if I am wrong. Otherwise let's not put Manny down for failing to do something he can't possibly do!

BILL

Bill, I refer you to the latest manual which can be found at http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Manual2009-2013.pdf. Pages 224-245 (Paragraphs 500-516.6) deal with church discipline.

I refer you specifically to paragraph 505.1:

505.1. If a member of the clergy is accused of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a minister, or of teaching doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statement of the Church of the Nazarene, or of serious laxity in the enforcement of the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the church, such accusations shall be placed in writing and shall be signed by at least two members of the Church of the Nazarene who are at the time in good standing. Accusations of sexual misconduct cannot be signed by any person who consented to participate in the alleged misconduct. The written accusation must be filed with the District Advisory Board of the district where the accused has ministerial membership. This accusation shall become part of the record in the case.

Jon Twitchell

May 12th, 2010, 03:03 PM

505.1 - If a member of the clergy is accused of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a minister, or of teaching doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statement of the Church of the Nazarene, or of serious laxity in the enforcement of the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the church, such accusations shall be placed in writing and shall be signed by at least two members of the Church of the Nazarene who are at the time in good standing....

(Emphasis mine)

Manny need only find one other member of the CotN to file formal accusations against any of the elders that he has called out. He does not need to be a member of the same local church.

So: Is he unable to find someone else willing to file charges?
OR: does he not really believe the things that he is saying?

Is there another option?

Bill Morrison

May 12th, 2010, 03:07 PM

Kevin:
THANK YOU for your response on the legality of this issue. I am still very skeptical that in practice this could ever happen , i.e that someone like Manny, or me, or you along with a second person could charge an elder outside of our local church with an issue like this. I don't wish to reopen the unfortunate pre-crash harsh criticism of D.S.'s, but this is an instance where my gut instinct and 59 years in the Church of the Nazarene tell me that our District and General leadership would nip this in the bud if any peon member tried to do it!

BILL

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 03:09 PM

The authority that members of the COTN must submit to is the General Assembly which has delegated certain functions to certain people in various positions (General Secretary, GS, DS, pastors, etc.). The General Assembly ratified the 500s in our manual which describe the proper procedure for lodging complaints against other members and clergy.

So the Concerned Nazarenes (and all Nazarenes everywhere) have one and only one acceptable course of action according to Hebrews 13:17. They have the right to file a complaint with the proper person according to the provisions of the authorities in their church (manual paragraphs 500-515.6). If that person in authority feels there is no merit to their complaints then the complainant, according to Hebrews 13:17, MUST submit to that decision.

Making claims against members of the COTN and clergy of the COTN on the internet and DVDs is out of harmony with the manual and is a direct violation of Hebrews 13:17 and if the CNs are truly interested in being biblical they will recognize Hebrews 13:17 and submit to the proper channels and proper authorities in the church.

Kevin,
So are you saying that we should submit ALWAYS to authority, even if they are promoting false teachings? What do you do with the scriptures that command us to expose false teaching, to rebuke false teachers?
How do we deal with that problem when it occurs if an authority over us is promoting the wrong gospel? Do we continue to submit to them, and just keep quiet because they are our authority?

Is it not also a violation of scripture, and a sin, IF we refuse to DO what is right? Sins of omission, of looking away from evil and doing nothing about it, are just as bad as sins of commission.

Bill Morrison

May 12th, 2010, 03:09 PM

Jon:
THANK YOU for your response. I refer you to what I said in post #195, apparently typed at the same time you were posting an answer to my question!

BILL

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 03:11 PM

505.1. If a member of the clergy is accused of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a minister, or of teaching doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statement of the Church of the Nazarene, or of serious laxity in the enforcement of the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the church, such accusations shall be placed in writing and shall be signed by at least two members of the Church of the Nazarene who are at the time in good standing. Accusations of sexual misconduct cannot be signed by any person who consented to participate in the alleged misconduct. The written accusation must be filed with the District Advisory Board of the district where the accused has ministerial membership. This accusation shall become part of the record in the case.

Please note that accusations "shall" be from at least two members in good standing, and they "shall" be in writing and they "shall be signed and the "shall" be filed with the District Advisory Board.

It is not permissible for any of those steps to be skipped. What this means is that:

1. A single person can not accuse a clergy person.
2. A person who is not a member can not accuse a clergy person.
3. A person who wished to remain anonymous can not accuse a clergy person.
4. A person can not accuse a clergy person in an open forum, but must do so to the District Advisory Board.

Jon Twitchell

May 12th, 2010, 03:12 PM

Jon:
THANK YOU for your response. I refer you to what I said in post #195, apparently typed at the same time you were posting an answer to my question!

BILL
Yeah... you... and me... and Kevin... were all posting at the same time! ;)

Perhaps it is my inexperience, but I have greater optimism in our district and general leadership than that. I think that this process ought to be followed more often, and more deliberately... for it is surely more healthy then the sort of back-channel communication that we see far too often around the denomination. The accused is generally injured more by the informal process then by the formal process... which is why I suspect that most people shy away from the formal process.

Todd Erickson

May 12th, 2010, 03:14 PM

Jon Twitchell

May 12th, 2010, 03:15 PM

Manny,

If you truly believe what you say, I fail to understand why you have not filed charges against the individuals who are teaching a false gospel and poisoning the minds of our youth. If you truly love this denomination, then you ought to be exhausting every possibility available to you in order to protect it.

Question: have you filed charges against any Nazarene elders because of their false teaching?

As I re-read my post, I realize that I have confused the words "accusation" and "charges." Upon a closer reading of the Manual, it appears as though the first step is to file an accusation... then an investigative committee is impaneled... and then the charges may be filed (if the investigative committee finds grounds).

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 03:30 PM

Kevin,
So are you saying that we should submit ALWAYS to authority, even if they are promoting false teachings? What do you do with the scriptures that command us to expose false teaching, to rebuke false teachers?
How do we deal with that problem when it occurs if an authority over us is promoting the wrong gospel? Do we continue to submit to them, and just keep quiet because they are our authority?

Is it not also a violation of scripture, and a sin, IF we refuse to DO what is right? Sins of omission, of looking away from evil and doing nothing about it, are just as bad as sins of commission.

Hey Manny, thanks for taking the time to engage the questions posed in light of the scriptural mandate to submit to your authorities in Hebrews 13:17, even if you did answer my question with a bunch of questions. I'll avoid the temptation to do the same.

Membership in the Church of the Nazarene is voluntary. By joining this church we are all agreeing to abide by the structures of authority in place. According to Hebrews 13:17 we MUST submit to that authority.

You asked if we should ALWAYS submit to an authority even if they are promoting false teachings.

There are two questions there, that we need to address:
1. who is the authority that we must submit to, and
2. who gets to determine if someone is promoting false teachings.

The highest authority in the Church of the Nazarene is the General Assembly. The GA has appointed General Superintendents to act in its place in implementing the procedures that it has put in place. The District Superintendents fill a similar role for the District Assemblies. In answer to question 1, the authority we must submit to is not the clergy person whom we think is promoting false teachings, it is the General Assembly.

The next question is of vital importance, who gets to determine if a member of the clergy is promoting false teaching. Again, the General Assembly is the highest authority in our church and it had delegated responsibility for this task to the District Board of Discipline (or a Regional Board of Discipline in certain instances).

What this ultimately means is that the authority we are submitting to is not the clergy person in question, but it is the General Assembly. So yes, according to Hebrews 13:17 we must ALWAYS submit to this authority - and if in it's wisdom the board of discipline (operating under the authority of the General Assembly) is NOT convinced the clergy person in question is promoting false teachings then we have two choices:

1. Submit to the authority of those appointed over us in line with Hebrews 13:17, or
2. Leave the Church of the Nazarene for a church where we CAN submit to their authority (being careful not to slander our former authority in the process).

So, I leave you with this question, why do you think that you have the spiritual authority to "expose" false teachers if the leaders of your church have not granted you that authority, and if they have not granted you that authority does your action not stand in direct violation of Hebrews 13:17?

Jon Twitchell

May 12th, 2010, 03:30 PM

As I re-read my post, I realize that I have confused the words "accusation" and "charges." Upon a closer reading of the Manual, it appears as though the first step is to file an accusation... then an investigative committee is impaneled... and then the charges may be filed (if the investigative committee finds grounds).

And while that sounds like a lot of steps, I guess it's not that far removed from the UCMJ--which calls for an Article 32 Hearing prior to a Court Martial.

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 03:37 PM

What do you do with the scriptures that command us to expose false teaching, to rebuke false teachers?

Manny, again I really want to thank you for engaging. It is so much more edifying when we talk TO each other even if we don't agree.

If you will give me direct scriptural citations that command us to expose false teaching and to rebuke false teachers I will be better able to directly answer that portion of your question.

Hans Deventer

May 12th, 2010, 03:55 PM

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 03:59 PM

I think what Kevin is saying is that the bible clearly states that if you believe there is false teaching, it should be brought before the leaders of the group.

Kevin has pointed out how such a thing would offficially be done, and has asked if you have done so. Since your response is that we cannot submit to authorities who promote false teachings, this would seem to indicate that you believe that all of the leaders of the COTN are currently false teachers, which then would negate the effect of filing the complaint as officially stated by the church. Is this correct?

My only clear authority is the Bible, which tells us that we are to expose and rebuke false teachers, and to eventually have nothing to do with them. Does Heb. 13:17 mean that we ought to obey leaders, and this includes any kind of leader, who promotes false teaching (not implying that our leaders are doing that by the way).

I'm not an expert on the church manual. I'll leave it at this without specifics: I tried some things which followed the manual's guidelines, and I ran into dead ends doing it. So much for following the manual.

Hans Deventer

May 12th, 2010, 04:07 PM

My only clear authority is the Bible,

Wrong. Anyone who became a member of the CotN has submitted him/herself to its teachings, to the community of faith that constitutes this church. The authority to define those is the General Assembly. Of course, one can always leave if one does not agree with them, of follow the procedures the church put in place to change them. I've been successful in changing some things, unsuccessful in others. But being a Nazarene, I have to accept that.

Todd Erickson

May 12th, 2010, 04:11 PM

My only clear authority is the Bible, which tells us that we are to expose and rebuke false teachers, and to eventually have nothing to do with them. Does Heb. 13:17 mean that we ought to obey leaders, and this includes any kind of leader, who promotes false teaching (not implying that our leaders are doing that by the way).

I'm not an expert on the church manual. I'll leave it at this without specifics: I tried some things which followed the manual's guidelines, and I ran into dead ends doing it. So much for following the manual.

As followers of Christ, we are part of an overall community. Acting as individuals outside of community (and interpreting the bible within that context) is one of the curses of the Reformation...it freed us to read the bible on our own and come up with our own conclusions, and then seek, Don Quixote style, to tilt all available windmills on our own.

What you have said above is that you identify yourself as a Nazarene, but when the methods of the church didn't work for you, you abandoned them for your own ways. This would seem to strongly ask...in what way are you actually a Nazarene?

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 04:12 PM

My only clear authority is the Bible, which tells us that we are to expose and rebuke false teachers, and to eventually have nothing to do with them. Does Heb. 13:17 mean that we ought to obey leaders, and this includes any kind of leader, who promotes false teaching (not implying that our leaders are doing that by the way).

I'm not an expert on the church manual. I'll leave it at this without specifics: I tried some things which followed the manual's guidelines, and I ran into dead ends doing it. So much for following the manual.

So the bible which is your highest authority says in Hebrews 13:17 that you must submit to those appointed as leaders over you. Which means effectively that the bible delegates authority to the church leaders (General Assembly) who have delegated authority to others (general superintendents, district superintendents, boards of discipline, district advisory boards, etc).

Perhaps the "dead ends" indicate that you are wrong and that you do not have the authority to determine if someone is promoting false teaching.

If following the manual does not get you the result you desire does that mean you can now simply disobey Hebrews 13:17 - that wouldn't make sense since the scripture including Hebrews 13:17 is in your own words, "your only clear authority"?

Hans Deventer

May 12th, 2010, 04:13 PM

in what way are you actually a Nazarene?

He's a Reformed Nazarene, Todd.

If following the manual does not get you the result you desire does that mean you can now simply disobey Hebrews 13:17 - that wouldn't make sense since the scripture including Hebrews 13:17 is in your own words, "your only clear authority"?

Hey wise guy, don't start to get logical! It's not about logic, it's about truth!

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 04:15 PM

Also Manny, I would love to engage the biblical basis for exposing and rebuking false teachers if you will give me direct biblical citations.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 04:21 PM

My only clear authority is the Bible....

I don't see any evidence that the Bible is "clearly" an authority for you at all.
Benjamin Burch pointed out Scripture (Galatians 5:22-6, Galatians 6:1-2, John 15:8-14) that you just ignored. you also just ignored the fact that I pointed out how you quoted Galatians 1 completely out of context and how it does not support what you are using it for. You don't seem to care about the authority of those verses nor any that Kevin, Dennis or anyone else has pointed out to you either.

I am sorry Manny, you saying you submit to the Bible is a joke when you just cherry pick it to make it say what you want.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 04:38 PM

Manny, by the way you have now have offers to dive into scripture and take a hard look at it with both Benjamin and Kevin. Both said they will take the time to really look at it to see what it says. But you don't seem interested in any of that and have ignored such invitations. I don't understand why you bail every time people are willing to engage in the bible with you?

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 05:00 PM

So the bible which is your highest authority says in Hebrews 13:17 that you must submit to those appointed as leaders over you. Which means effectively that the bible delegates authority to the church leaders (General Assembly) who have delegated authority to others (general superintendents, district superintendents, boards of discipline, district advisory boards, etc).

Perhaps the "dead ends" indicate that you are wrong and that you do not have the authority to determine if someone is promoting false teaching.

If following the manual does not get you the result you desire does that mean you can now simply disobey Hebrews 13:17 - that wouldn't make sense since the scripture including Hebrews 13:17 is in your own words, "your only clear authority"?

The dead ends I refer to mean that the proper guidelines in the manual were ignored, not that I did not get my way as I saw it.

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 05:01 PM

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 05:03 PM

Also Manny, I would love to engage the biblical basis for exposing and rebuking false teachers if you will give me direct biblical citations.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the request. I would suggest that I and others have made our cases over and over on our blogs. Feel free to go there and make up your mind.

Perhaps I can send you a link later to a few that pertain to the question you are asking.

Cam Pence

May 12th, 2010, 05:05 PM

Read my blog articles, James. I don't have time to repeat everything I wrote there, here again. Sorry.

so you wrote a blog today that engages the scriptures that both benjamin and kevin have presented to you? otherwise it is another hit and run we can chalk up to you and your fear of dialoguing in a setting that is not completely controlled by you. see my theory is we all know that you have more than enough time....you just do not want to dialogue because you have been stumped.

Todd Erickson

May 12th, 2010, 05:28 PM

Read my blog articles, James. I don't have time to repeat everything I wrote there, here again. Sorry.

All of your blog articles follow the following format:

A. There is an issue.
B. There are X experts (blog links follow) that support my view of this issue.
C. Here are a number of scriptures that I also feel, quoted individually, also back up this issue.
D. This is why this issue is important.

Essentially, each blog post is a statement of the people who agree with you, and the individual scriptures that you believe mean what you want them to believe. They do not function in the manner in which the Nazarene Church supports scripture.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 05:30 PM

Read my blog articles, James. I don't have time to repeat everything I wrote there, here again. Sorry.

I was suggesting that you look at scripture together with them, but you seem to prefer to be the teacher. By what authority do you teach? And why are you above learning?

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 05:39 PM

I was suggesting that you look at scripture together with them, but you seem to prefer to be the teacher. By what authority do you teach? And why are you above learning?

James, by what authority do you teach? And why are you above learning?

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 05:40 PM

All of your blog articles follow the following format:

A. There is an issue.
B. There are X experts (blog links follow) that support my view of this issue.
C. Here are a number of scriptures that I also feel, quoted individually, also back up this issue.
D. This is why this issue is important.

Essentially, each blog post is a statement of the people who agree with you, and the individual scriptures that you believe mean what you want them to believe. They do not function in the manner in which the Nazarene Church supports scripture.

Apparently you have rejected what I wrote on my blog, which is your right. I'm glad I did not waste time in repeating things to you.

Kevin Rector

May 12th, 2010, 05:42 PM

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the request. I would suggest that I and others have made our cases over and over on our blogs. Feel free to go there and make up your mind.

Perhaps I can send you a link later to a few that pertain to the question you are asking.

Hi Manny, just like you don't have time to wade through every post on Naznet, I don't have time to wade through your blog (you are rather prolific after all). I asked about Hebrews 13:17 and the question of authority and you asked what we are to do with the scriptures that tell us to expose and rebuke false teachers. I am merely asking you to cite those scriptures so that I can coherently answer your question.

Thanks.

Manny Silva

May 12th, 2010, 05:43 PM

so you wrote a blog today that engages the scriptures that both benjamin and kevin have presented to you? otherwise it is another hit and run we can chalk up to you and your fear of dialoguing in a setting that is not completely controlled by you. see my theory is we all know that you have more than enough time....you just do not want to dialogue because you have been stumped.

No, I have written previous posts that deal with the subject, Cam. I am not stumped, thank you.

You're pretty smart- since you speak for everyone, that your theory is that "everyone knows" that I have time for constant dialogue with you? You don't know me at all and the time I have. Unless you are God, and I know you're not!

And I don't spend a lot of time here- and I don't intend to. I have my priorities.

Cam Pence

May 12th, 2010, 06:14 PM

Apparently you have rejected what I wrote on my blog, which is your right. I'm glad I did not waste time in repeating things to you.

manny the point is simply directing people to wade through your blogs, none of which address the scriptures addressed earlier by ben and kevin, you are simply avoiding engaging in a conversation that you cannot ignore away. you have made it clear you have plenty of time to decide who you think are false teachers, be they emergent or "gasp" catholics, but no time to engage when people genuinely challenge your position. you are absolutely right that i don't know you or your time restraints, however i do have eyes.

James Diggs

May 12th, 2010, 06:22 PM

James, by what authority do you teach? And why are you above learning?

Well, for what it is worth I teach with the authority of an Ordained Elder as my calling and gifts for ministry have been affirmed by the church. This kind of authority is humbling because it comes from the body of Christ as represented by our denomination. This creates a relationship of mutual accountability. I am not above learning, and am always seeking to learn and grow. I don't close myself off from hearing what others have to say. I listen to what others have to teach me wherever I can find them; here, from the leaders in our denomination, on my district, in my church, the comments of my blog (which I don't censor).

What concerns me though is that you and Tim have set yourselves up on your own authority as the head of "Concerned Nazarenes". You are the self appointed people in charge. You control everything that can be said and taught in the spaces you create and speak as if you speak for everyone that is "concerned". You have made yourself accountable to no one, yet demand that everyone be accountable to you. I ask you on what authority you teach and why you think you are above learning because you have positioned yourself as a teacher with no accountability as a learner.

I am not throwing my "credentials" around as a way to trump you or anything like that, that would be foolish because I have so much to learn from other Ordained elders and laity alike. But I don't teach on my own authority, I am part of a community that graciously affirms and holds me accountable to my calling to preach and teach the gospel as a Pastor and to keep growing and learning along the way.

So Manny, when it comes to looking at scripture I am not putting myself as authority over you, because my authority has come from you as you belong to the body of Christ in the church of the Nazarene. I think our theology and process of ordination is beautiful as it helps us live into Ephesians 5:21 which says "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ".

So again, instead of looking at scripture in an environment where you set yourself up as your own authority and you have no accountability, let's look at it together. Accept Kevin and Ben's invitation.

Rich Schmidt

May 12th, 2010, 06:56 PM

I'm not an expert on the church manual. I'll leave it at this without specifics: I tried some things which followed the manual's guidelines, and I ran into dead ends doing it. So much for following the manual.

The dead ends I refer to mean that the proper guidelines in the manual were ignored, not that I did not get my way as I saw it.

I'm sorry to hear that the Manual was not followed in this case. I'd love to know the details of what took place. Because if you presented a formal accusation to the DS & Advisory Board, as instructed by the Manual, and they did not follow through as directed by the Manual, then I imagine your next step would be to appeal to the GS's. If you did that, and still the Manual process was not followed..... well, I guess I'm curious as to why I've never read anything on your blog or on your Facebook group about how this all played out. As far as any of us know, none of the Concerned Nazarenes have ever made a formal accusation against anyone, in writing, to the proper authorities who could actually do something about it.

John Reilly

May 12th, 2010, 08:10 PM

Jeremy and I received invitations, and there is a side of me that would have wanted to give him another hearing. Having now watched that video, however, I'm somewhat grateful that a previous commitment prevented our attending: likely Providential.

I think my mail is being censored. I did not receive an invitation. I would not have attended anyway. I am already in enough trouble.

Benjamin Burch

May 12th, 2010, 08:57 PM

How do we deal with that problem when it occurs if an authority over us is promoting the wrong gospel?

That's the thing here, Manny. All of these other things you decry:

* Denying Biblical inerrancy
* Open Theism
* Evolution
* Spiritual Formation

Are not "another gospel." Our "gospel" is very simple in Christianity:

* God became incarnate in Jesus Christ and
* was crucified and
* on the 3rd day was resurrected and
* declared Lord of the whole of creation

That's it. That's "the Gospel." It gets more detailed in the creeds. However, anything more than the creeds is someone's interpretation. No one's "interpretation" equals "sola Scriptura."

To say "the Bible" is the authority, and then promote your reading of the Bible as "the Bible" is to say that your interpretation is the authority. It's not. This is what confuses me so much about your approach.

Benjamin Burch

May 12th, 2010, 09:08 PM

In fairness I would ask if Ben actually responded to Manny's question. It doesn't appear to me that he did. Ben took the word "fruits" out of Manny's context and applied his own while responding. Perhaps if Manny had used a different word there? Regardless of the word choice, it is clear by the context that he spoke not to the fruit of the spirit, but rather to the "result" of false teaching. I think that the word "wolves" makes it clear that Manny's question is relative to false teaching, one may disagree with his definition, but to properly respond to the question, one must acknowledge the subject, Ben did not do that.

So before we accuse Manny of non response, perhaps someone could actually respond to his question. I am not saying that he won't or hasn't disengaged, I'm just saying that in this instance, the response wasn't fair, therefore a return to conversation would be difficult if not impossible.

Jim,

You're creating a false dichotomoy (and I assume Manny is using the same one) which does not exist in Scripture. "False teaching" is not an isolated "bad fruit." False teachers are always spoken of in the context of sin and evil-doing. Read Romans and Galatians! Read 1 Corinthians! Read 1 John! Read John!

Also, not only did I NOT take the word out of context, I actually used the context Manny provided. Manny talked about "wolves in sheeps clothing" and "fruits" to refer to false teachings. Yet, that's not what the text he cited says!

This is elementary exegesis class. Manny cannot cut a verse off and assume what it means. He can't say "false teachers will come, you'll know them by their fruits" and then assume that "fruits" means "false teaching" in that context. It doesn't. I showed Manny that by quoting the rest of Matthew 7 (which he conveniently ignored) and then following Matthew's narrative through to the actual judgment scene, where the judgment which is foretold in Matthew 7 actually takes place (Matthew 25). This is the first thing someone learns when doing exegesis.

If I have not responded to Manny's question, then Manny's question is out of context, and invalid Biblically. I responded in proper context. If there is any flaw, it is with the question, not the response. Manny is trying to create something which the Scriptures never speak about... Good, loving, Christ-like people who teach bad things. That doesn't exist in Scripture. Manny is creating out of whole-cloth and waving it around to show the world. I won't let him do that. If he wants to talk Scripture we can do that. If he won't respond... I'll take that as a concession that I am correct.

Jim Chabot

May 12th, 2010, 09:19 PM

Jim,

You're creating a false dichotomoy (and I assume Manny is using the same one) which does not exist in Scripture. "False teaching" is not an isolated "bad fruit." False teachers are always spoken of in the context of sin and evil-doing. Read Romans and Galatians! Read 1 Corinthians! Read 1 John! Read John!

Also, not only did I NOT take the word out of context, I actually used the context Manny provided. Manny talked about "wolves in sheeps clothing" and "fruits" to refer to false teachings. Yet, that's not what the text he cited says!

This is elementary exegesis class. Manny cannot cut a verse off and assume what it means. He can't say "false teachers will come, you'll know them by their fruits" and then assume that "fruits" means "false teaching" in that context. It doesn't. I showed Manny that by quoting the rest of Matthew 7 (which he conveniently ignored) and then following Matthew's narrative through to the actual judgment scene, where the judgment which is foretold in Matthew 7 actually takes place (Matthew 25). This is the first thing someone learns when doing exegesis.

If I have not responded to Manny's question, then Manny's question is out of context, and invalid Biblically. I responded in proper context. If there is any flaw, it is with the question, not the response. Manny is trying to create something which the Scriptures never speak about... Good, loving, Christ-like people who teach bad things. That doesn't exist in Scripture. Manny is creating out of whole-cloth and waving it around to show the world. I won't let him do that. If he wants to talk Scripture we can do that. If he won't respond... I'll take that as a concession that I am correct.

Yes your correct Ben, nailed it, no response is possible except for total surrender. Honestly I can agree with your logic, but you are leaving out love when you decide for Manny which context is correct, you leave out any understanding of where he may be coming from. It's ok though, I suppose he had it coming? Ben you have talked right past him at a time when others have not.

Benjamin Burch

May 12th, 2010, 09:29 PM

Yes your correct Ben, nailed it, no response is possible except for total surrender. Honestly I can agree with your logic, but you are leaving out love when you decide for Manny which context is correct, you leave out any understanding of where he may be coming from.

Jim,

I am not asking for surrender. I'm asking for honest dialogue. I didn't say no response was possible except total surrender. Not at all. I said if he does not respond. Two days now and Manny has had plenty of time to respond to me, and this is evidenced by his responses to everyone else besides me. Why won't he respond to me? Especially when I did exactly what he asked for and exactly what he said he would respond to.

It is not "unloving" to decide what the context is. The context is provided by the text. Manny cannot rip a text out of context and expect that to hold true. If he wants to talk about Scripture, let's do that. That's exactly what I've done.

Edited To Add: I am the only person who responded directly with Scripture, which is what Manny asked for. However, I'm also the only person who Manny has not responded to that has addressed him directly. James is correct here.

Ben you have talked right past him at a time when others have not.

I also don't understand how I've spoken past him. He asked for Scripture, and I gave them to him. If he says he wants to honestly dialogue about the Scriptures, then I want to do that. I did that.

Was it "talking past him" because I said his question was invalid? He is the one who said that he was using Scripture. He is the one who says that Scripture alone is our authority. He is the one who claims to be only saying what Scripture says.

However, none of that is true if he is going to create a scenario which does not exist in Scripture, then use Scripture out of context to prove it. It is not talking past him to show him the context of the Scripture. It is not talking past him to talk about what the Bible actually says on the issue. Since when is a correction, out of the source required and asked for, "talking past" someone?

It's ok though, I suppose he had it coming?

I will address this in a PM. I know exactly what you mean here, and if you'd like to discuss this, we can do so over PM. No need to keep bringing it up, especially on other threads like you've done.

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 02:49 AM

Benjamin Burch

May 13th, 2010, 04:18 AM

Jim, I don't quite understand you here. What can Manny be coming from that would justify his behaviour?

As Ben wrote, none of the issues he fights (Denying Biblical inerrancy, Open Theism, Evolution, Spiritual Formation) have been labelled heresies by the Church Universal or the Church of the Nazarene. What history gives him the authority to sidestep all of that and declare people heretics, false teachers etc etc?

I don't understand how ANY history can provide that authority. Could you please explain?

I can understand how someone's history would give him aversion against these topics. All clear. But I cannot understand how it grant authority to do what he is doing.

you are leaving out love when you decide for Manny which context is correct, you leave out any understanding of where he may be coming from.

I want to honor his history and where he is coming from. I do, Jim. However, my history, Manny's history, Hans' history, and your history, none of it makes the Scriptures say something they don't. They may make us read the Scriptures a certain way. Yes. However, that doesn't make that reading correct. It also doesn't give us a right to leave love out of our reading.

So again, I'm not trying to "leave out love" when "I decided what the context is." I'm trying to be honest with the text. It doesn't say what he said it does. It says something quite different; in fact, it says something which is detrimental to what he's doing, and supports many of those he fights against.

Maybe I could be gentler with my response. I'm sure you're right about that.

Manny Silva

May 13th, 2010, 06:35 AM

Wrong. Anyone who became a member of the CotN has submitted him/herself to its teachings, to the community of faith that constitutes this church. The authority to define those is the General Assembly. Of course, one can always leave if one does not agree with them, of follow the procedures the church put in place to change them. I've been successful in changing some things, unsuccessful in others. But being a Nazarene, I have to accept that.

Wrong, Hans. It's the scriptures that are the source of telling us what is false teaching, not us or a group of appointed leaders.

Manny Silva

May 13th, 2010, 06:37 AM

I don't see any evidence that the Bible is "clearly" an authority for you at all.
Benjamin Burch pointed out Scripture (Galatians 5:22-6, Galatians 6:1-2, John 15:8-14) that you just ignored. you also just ignored the fact that I pointed out how you quoted Galatians 1 completely out of context and how it does not support what you are using it for. You don't seem to care about the authority of those verses nor any that Kevin, Dennis or anyone else has pointed out to you either.

I am sorry Manny, you saying you submit to the Bible is a joke when you just cherry pick it to make it say what you want.

Sorry, I don't accept what you said because you seem to ignore much of what I have said, or you misquote it, James. As you have misquoted my friedn Tim as well.

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 06:41 AM

Wrong, Hans. It's the scriptures that are the source of telling us what is false teaching, not us or a group of appointed leaders.

Very wrong, Manny, it is the church that defined what the Scriptures are, and hence the church that defines what the truth is. In this case, the CotN as the part of the Body of Christ that you have freely joined and submitted yourself to.

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 06:43 AM

Sorry, I don't accept what you said because you seem to ignore much of what I have said, or you misquote it, James. As you have misquoted my friedn Tim as well.

I don't think the word "misquote" is a word you should use regarding someone else without turning red. You guys have turned the concept into a form of art.

Manny Silva

May 13th, 2010, 06:46 AM

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 06:48 AM

I surrender Ben.

It's not a good thing for a Christian to lie, Manny.

Manny Silva

May 13th, 2010, 06:50 AM

Very wrong, Manny, it is the church that defined what the Scriptures are, and hence the church that defines what the truth is. In this case, the CotN as the part of the Body of Christ that you have freely joined and submitted yourself to.

The "church" defines the truth? Please tell me you are not serious about this claim.
Here is what defines the truth, Hans: God defines the truth because He is truth, Christ is the Truth, and the truth is revealed to us in the scriptures. WE do not define the truth.
You are absolutely wrong on this.

Manny Silva

May 13th, 2010, 06:52 AM

It's not a good thing for a Christian to lie, Manny.

Now you have "judged" me too, Hans? Who said I lied, and what did I lie about?

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 06:54 AM

The "church" defines the truth? Please tell me you are not serious about this claim.
Here is what defines the truth, Hans: God defines the truth because He is truth, Christ is the Truth, and the truth is revealed to us in the scriptures. WE do not define the truth.
You are absolutely wrong on this.

Hey, wait a minute, we were talking about the Scriptures! I reacted to your statement:

Wrong, Hans. It's the scriptures that are the source of telling us what is false teaching, not us or a group of appointed leaders.

So what is the source of truth? God? The Scriptures? If you say God is, I completely agree. God is the truth, the way, the life. Next question, how does He communicate it?

But we were talking about the Scriptures and it is the Church that defined which books are Scriptures.

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 06:56 AM

Now you have "judged" me too, Hans? Who said I lied, and what did I lie about?

You lied by saying you surrendered. You don't. Not till your dying day, or if Jesus might confront you earlier. You do not agree with Ben, nor the way he explained the Scriptures. In fact, you never really engaged in a discussion with him, let alone that there would be the slightest change he was able to convince you.

Oh, and as to "judged", in your view the very act of thinking is judging, so yes, we are all judging all day long, according to your personal definition.

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 07:04 AM

BTW, Manny, I do need to thank you. I've never been forced so strongly to try and understand what orthodox Christianity is, nor who has the right to defined it. Thanks to you, it has gotten a lot clearer. I have no more doubts on who has the right to define that, and even more clearer, who has not.
It even prompted our GS's to write about this. Which, considering the regrettable vagueness in our church on this subject, is a great improvement. That is something good that came out of all this misery.

Kevin Rector

May 13th, 2010, 07:28 AM

In all the back and forth Manny, I don't want us to lose the productive conversation we were having in regards to Hebrews 13:17 which requires us to submit to the authorities over us. I'm still waiting on citations of the scriptures you alluded to that require us to expose and rebuke false teachers. Please don't abandon this conversation Manny as I have quoted directly from the scriptures as you have requested. I think we have found a useful line of inquiry that could potentially draw us closer together.

Jim Chabot

May 13th, 2010, 07:39 AM

Jim, I don't quite understand you here. What can Manny be coming from that would justify his behaviour?

As Ben wrote, none of the issues he fights (Denying Biblical inerrancy, Open Theism, Evolution, Spiritual Formation) have been labelled heresies by the Church Universal or the Church of the Nazarene. What history gives him the authority to sidestep all of that and declare people heretics, false teachers etc etc?

I don't understand how ANY history can provide that authority. Could you please explain?

I can understand how someone's history would give him aversion against these topics. All clear. But I cannot understand how it grant authority to do what he is doing.

My statement was in regard for the context of the statement of Manny's that Ben responded to. I hopefully made no reference to the overarching issue of authority. I stand by my assertion that Ben talked past Manny. I haven't spoken with Manny about this, but I am reasonably sure that Ben's response did not address Manny's question.

It is interesting to me that we spend so much time trying to discern what the writers of scripture actually meant apart from the technical aspects of the text. Yet here we are presented with a real life example, where we can actually ask the writer what he meant, and we fail to do so. Rather we determine for him what he should have meant and fire away.

We are called to love and love calls us to understand.

I suppose that I am writing this more to Ben than to you. I am fully cognizant of the public attacks which you have endured, I cringe when I read them, I feel for you and I believe that you have responded with much grace.

Jim Chabot

May 13th, 2010, 07:45 AM

I want to honor his history and where he is coming from. I do, Jim. However, my history, Manny's history, Hans' history, and your history, none of it makes the Scriptures say something they don't. They may make us read the Scriptures a certain way. Yes. However, that doesn't make that reading correct. It also doesn't give us a right to leave love out of our reading.

So again, I'm not trying to "leave out love" when "I decided what the context is." I'm trying to be honest with the text. It doesn't say what he said it does. It says something quite different; in fact, it says something which is detrimental to what he's doing, and supports many of those he fights against.

Maybe I could be gentler with my response. I'm sure you're right about that.

I understand that you were attempting to be honest with the text. I followed your logic and I said that I agreed with it. Problem is that from my perspective, (I haven't spoken with Manny to confirm this.), you did not speak to Manny's question. You determined the proper context and in effect you pronounced Manny's question to be specious. You did this without confirming Manny's intent. I maintain that love requires us to take that step, we must work toward understanding before we respond, or at least be willing to backtrack to gain this understanding. When we fail to do so we talk past each other.

Daniel Hamlin

May 13th, 2010, 08:03 AM

But we were talking about the Scriptures and it is the Church that defined which books are Scriptures.

I think the true weight of the above-quoted sentence is much heavier and more encompassing than a lot of people realize. It seems that many hold the idea that the Bible as we have it floated "down" from heaven (wink towards the "Where did Jesus Go?" thread :) ) without realizing that it was humans <gasp> in the form of the Church which decided which books would be in the canon. So, in essence, it's a circular argument. Declaring some thing as "truth" because "Scripture (and therefore God) says so" but forgetting that Scripture was defined by the church.

So, Hans, you are right.

Hans Deventer

May 13th, 2010, 08:10 AM

It is interesting to me that we spend so much time trying to discern what the writers of scripture actually meant apart from the technical aspects of the text. Yet here we are presented with a real life example, where we can actually ask the writer what he meant, and we fail to do so. Rather we determine for him what he should have meant and fire away.

Well, as much as I try to understand the Scriptures, I've tried to understand where the CN's come from. And I smell fear a mile away. Fear that the church is changing, fear that what they always believed and thought the church believed, isn't actually what it believes and believed. Fear that it will fall in heresy, as defined by fundamentalism. Fear that its leaders will too easily listen to voices that, again according to fundamentalism, aren't orthodox. It starts with fear, ends with fear, and in between there is fear.
And of course arguments don't relieve fear. So no arguments will ever amount to anything. For it ultimately isn't about something rational, but about an emotion. Try to reason away an emotion! You won't be able.

Now the question is of course, and you've alluded to that already, where does that fear come from? That is indeed where a person's history plays a role, a big role. But perhaps even more, one's character. The need to control, the angst to let go and let God be God, a latent Messiah complex (I have to save the church and if I don't do it, no one will). I'm not a psychologist but these must be some of the elements as far as I can understand. There may be many more.

The problem with all of this of course is that we cannot help. It's work for a Christian therapist rather than a theologian. And a therapist can't do a thing unless people recognize there's a problem, as we all learned from the AA. (The recognition "Hi, I'm John, I'm an alcoholic" is the start of any process of healing.)

So all that we actually can do on a webforum is defend against the false accusations, the misquotes, the inconsistent and faulty reading of the Scriptures, the arrogance in claiming the right to set up a court and judge people in the legal sense, the lack of discerning the Body of Christ.

We are called to love and love calls us to understand.

And then? Let the wolves devour us? Let them destroy pastors and families, teachers and faculty, churches and laity? Then what, Jim? Please continue.