Are we scared of the Holy Spirit? [Archive]

Barb Bouldrey

5th June 2006, 11:49 AM (11:49)

I believe the charismatic movement in the 80's and 90's scared us out of some of our open, free emotion in worship.

Pastoring during that era, we observed that there was an effort by some pentecostal groups to infiltrate other denominations and educate them about the "real" Holy Spirit. I saw this happen and experienced it in two of our pastorates. We had people attend our revivals and try to take over. We had a couple begin attending Sunday School and church and try to take over the S.S. discussions and try to "teach us" by testifying.

Then, the Brownsville "revival" popularity spread like wildfire and everyone was attracted to the bizarre "new" things that were happening there. Church groups around the nation flocked to Brownsville, FL to see it for themselves, bring back videos of the services and try to get the "Holy Spirit" on their services like it was in Brownsville.

But, besides those two example, I have seen people become so involved in their own lives and the good things of the world that they do not WANT to be totally surrendered to the cleansing of the Holy Spirit because they WANT to be in control.

Some people are so aware of "what will people think if I show freedom in the Spirit by doing something emotional," that they quench the Holy Spirit in their own worship.

Now, Billy, if you define the Holy Spirit as emotionalism, you are defining the Holy Spirit incorrectly. If you are defining the Holy Spirit as the Cleanser of self and the Controller of our lives, you are defining correctly.

But I have seen people afraid of submitting to the Holy Spirit. I have also seen people RESIST the Holy Spirit. I believe more people RESIST the Holy Spirit today because they are afraid of total surrender, not afraid of the Holy Spirit. That fear and resistance comes from Satan.

The bottom line is SELF. People to don't want to surrender or lose control of self.

Many people do not realize that total surrender to the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit is freedom and blessing.

And, David, this has been discussed at length several times over the years on NazNet. People are not afraid of discussing this issue.
Maybe this should have been on the Theology Forum.

Barb

Barb Bouldrey

5th June 2006, 11:57 AM (11:57)

Andrea,

We are posting at the same time this morning! Isn't it funny to go to different threads at the same time?

Anyway, I just thought of a third example that everyone needs to be aware of.

In the 70's we had a lot of Nazarene churches experience charismatic splits. We took a pastorate in 1976 that had just gone through this experience. A group started having private prayer meetings with someone already into the charismatic movement. They decided to leave and start their own charismatic church. So, 45 0f 80 people left. It was all the young adults and leadership of that church and strongest tithers.

We arrived at a hurt and bleeding church of old folks, children and huge debt. It was a very difficult pastorate for us, emotionally and financially. We saw first hand what a charismatic split did to a church.

For some reason the 70's was the explosion of this happening. So, many Nazarene churches became fearful of emotional demonstrations of the presence and blessing of the Holy Spirit for fear it would lead to a church split.

So, I believe that is when we began to quench the Spirit in our churches. People who used to shout, no longer shouted. People who would get so blessed they would stand with their hands in the air no longer stood. People stopped saying "Amen."

Maybe that will help you understand the "why."

Barb

Andrea Larabee

5th June 2006, 12:34 PM (12:34)

Andrea,

We are posting at the same time this morning! Isn't it funny to go to different threads at the same time?

Barb

This is too funny Barb. We must be attracted to the same subjects or think alike. Great minds think alike, right? Just kidding!

See ya in the next thread!:basic05

Andrea Larabee

5th June 2006, 12:42 PM (12:42)

Anyway, I just thought of a third example that everyone needs to be aware of.

In the 70's we had a lot of Nazarene churches experience charismatic splits. We took a pastorate in 1976 that had just gone through this experience. A group started having private prayer meetings with someone already into the charismatic movement. They decided to leave and start their own charismatic church. So, 45 0f 80 people left. It was all the young adults and leadership of that church and strongest tithers.
We arrived at a hurt and bleeding church of old folks, children and huge debt. It was a very difficult pastorate for us, emotionally and financially. We saw first hand what a charismatic split did to a church.
For some reason the 70's was the explosion of this happening. So, many Nazarene churches became fearful of emotional demonstrations of the presence and blessing of the Holy Spirit for fear it would lead to a church split.
So, I believe that is when we began to quench the Spirit in our churches. People who used to shout, no longer shouted. People who would get so blessed they would stand with their hands in the air no longer stood. People stopped saying "Amen."
Maybe that will help you understand the "why."

Barb

Wow, this is interesting. I was a toddler back in the early 70's so I would not have known this. I have never heard anyone talk about what happened then like you have here. It reminds me that God is not the authur of confusion. Looks like confusion is what happened in this story you've shared.

Dave McClung

5th June 2006, 01:36 PM (13:36)

Open question...

Our church's history seems to suggest that we are.

Let's not confuse the issue of the fruit of the Holy Spirit with "charasmatic expressions." I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene when the open expression of emotions was common. People "shouted", "ran the isles", "waved white hankies" and "Praise Danced." Frankly, I don't miss those times. The problem was consistency. Those who shouted the loudest often didn't demonstrate the fruit of the Holy Spirit during the week between services.

There were some exceptions. There were certain people in our churches who lived wonderful, Godly lives. When they shouted, everyone got blessed. But, many of those who showed the greatest amount of emotion, didn't show kindness or self-control between church services.

I learned at a young age that the expression of the Holy Spirit in ones life is best shown by the way they live day by day, not by how much of a spectical they make of themselves when emotions run high.

I don't know of anyone who is afraid to see one live a life filled with the Holy Spirit as reflected in Galatians 5: 22, 23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law..."

If only we could see more fruits of the Spirit in our churches!!

Glenn Harris

5th June 2006, 02:10 PM (14:10)

In different states! (-:

Our pastor's sermon was on this very subject yesterday and he mentioned the fact that too many people confuse the moving of the Holy Spirit with emotionalism. He used the exact same analogy from his days as a boy on the Central Ohio District when he used to go to camp meetings and you could set your watch by the persons who were there night after night and knew exactly how they were going to respond. At 6:15 brother so and so was going to jump up, shout and run around the tabernacle waving his arms. At 6:32, sister so and so was going to jump to her feet, wave her hankie and shout glory to God. The sad part of it was that both those people had notorious reputations in their home church for being malcontents, gossips and generally miserable human beings to try to co-exist with. As he stated, he isn't their judge, and thankfully he doesn't have to decide whether or not they were "true" believers, but the jist of the message was that one of the tenets of truly walking with the holy spirit was that your life had to be at least as good, and should be more consistant than the best the world has to offer.

On a personal note, in my brief 51 year stint in the COTN, I have found that (for the most part) the more apt a person was to be all emotional, shout and put on a show, the more likely they were to be the same people that put on a show of a different kind time and time again when they weren't in church with a corporate audience. I have known truly godly men and women who did all those things and their lives reflected their walk but, unfortunately in my case, they were the exception, not the rule.

Dave McClung

5th June 2006, 02:49 PM (14:49)

Judy Engel

5th June 2006, 03:01 PM (15:01)

Let's not confuse the issue of the fruit of the Holy Spirit with "charasmatic expressions." I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene when the open expression of emotions was common. People "shouted", "ran the isles", "waved white hankies" and "Praise Danced." Frankly, I don't miss those times. The problem was consistency. Those who shouted the loudest often didn't demonstrate the fruit of the Holy Spirit during the week between services.

There were some exceptions. There were certain people in our churches who lived wonderful, Godly lives. When they shouted, everyone got blessed. But, many of those who showed the greatest amount of emotion, didn't show kindness or self-control between church services.

I learned at a young age that the expression of the Holy Spirit in ones life is best shown by the way they live day by day, not by how much of a spectical they make of themselves when emotions run high.

I don't know of anyone who is afraid to see one live a life filled with the Holy Spirit as reflected in Galatians 5: 22, 23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law..."

If only we could see more fruits of the Spirit in our churches!!

My husband and I had this same discussion (over several weeks) with my daughter when she was in 6th grade. Our kids were going to christian school at the time and her teacher began to "teach" the Gifts of the Spirit (aka speaking in tongues). Long story short, we finally got the lesson through to her that while these other things may be very emotional and sensational, if a person doesn't exhibit the FRUITS if the Spirit, they probably don't really have the Holy Spirit.

John Kennedy

5th June 2006, 03:15 PM (15:15)

Let's not confuse the issue of the fruit of the Holy Spirit with "charasmatic expressions." I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene when the open expression of emotions was common. People "shouted", "ran the isles", "waved white hankies" and "Praise Danced." Frankly, I don't miss those times. The problem was consistency. Those who shouted the loudest often didn't demonstrate the fruit of the Holy Spirit during the week between services.

There were some exceptions. There were certain people in our churches who lived wonderful, Godly lives. When they shouted, everyone got blessed. But, many of those who showed the greatest amount of emotion, didn't show kindness or self-control between church services.

I learned at a young age that the expression of the Holy Spirit in ones life is best shown by the way they live day by day, not by how much of a spectical they make of themselves when emotions run high.

I don't know of anyone who is afraid to see one live a life filled with the Holy Spirit as reflected in Galatians 5: 22, 23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law..."

If only we could see more fruits of the Spirit in our churches!!

It doesn't really matter how high you jump - it's how straight you walk when you hit the ground!!

Gordon Greene

5th June 2006, 03:17 PM (15:17)

The Holy Spirit will always make us holy never spiritual.

.....peace......

Billy Cox

5th June 2006, 03:21 PM (15:21)

I believe the charismatic movement in the 80's and 90's scared us out of some of our open, free emotion in worship.

Pastoring during that era, we observed that there was an effort by some pentecostal groups to infiltrate other denominations and educate them about the "real" Holy Spirit. I saw this happen and experienced it in two of our pastorates. We had people attend our revivals and try to take over. We had a couple begin attending Sunday School and church and try to take over the S.S. discussions and try to "teach us" by testifying.

I agree that sending 'missionaries' to other churches is not sound missiology, but does that invalidate their testimony? I don't have enough information to answer with eternal certainty.

Then, the Brownsville "revival" popularity spread like wildfire and everyone was attracted to the bizarre "new" things that were happening there. Church groups around the nation flocked to Brownsville, FL to see it for themselves, bring back videos of the services and try to get the "Holy Spirit" on their services like it was in Brownsville.

This reminds me somewhat of Paul's dicussion in 1 Corinthians regarding speaking in tongues. Charismatics look at that discussion and see that Paul didn't prohibit them from speaking in tongues. Nazarenes look at that discussion and see that Paul placed so many 'cautions' on it, that it practically said 'quit it'.

But, besides those two example, I have seen people become so involved in their own lives and the good things of the world that they do not WANT to be totally surrendered to the cleansing of the Holy Spirit because they WANT to be in control.

I do think our desire/lust for control is a formidable obstacle to the Holy Spirit...whether in expressive worship or living a consecrated life.

Some people are so aware of "what will people think if I show freedom in the Spirit by doing something emotional," that they quench the Holy Spirit in their own worship.

As far as worship, I will clap during music (although my hands are usually on a piano-type keyboard), but only if most everyone else is. I WILL NOT be that lone person clapping while everyone else just stands there.

Now, Billy, if you define the Holy Spirit as emotionalism, you are defining the Holy Spirit incorrectly. If you are defining the Holy Spirit as the Cleanser of self and the Controller of our lives, you are defining correctly.

In a Spirit-filled church, grace will outweigh judgment and freedom will outweigh fear. I am concerned that our fear of emotionalism has robbed us of the power of the Holy Spirit. Cleansing is only one aspect of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I wonder if we can accept His cleansing, but keep His power on a high shelf where it can't hurt anybody.

I wonder also whether praying and reading the Bible are pointless if one has quenched the counsel of the Holy Spirit in their life.

Barbara Moulton

5th June 2006, 03:28 PM (15:28)

I am not at all scared of the Holy Spirit. He has empowered and purified me and gives me strength. For the past ten years I have lived a fairly "level" spiritual life and experienced victory over many troubling issues that had bothered me in my youth because of the surrender that I have made to the Holy Spirit.

Having said that, I am "scared" (for want of a better word) of what people sometimes claim the Holy Spirit has told them to do in chuches or dictate to others HOW the Holy Spirit shoudl work in their lives. I dislike being told that I don't know the fullness of God because I don't speak in tongues.

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of unity yet whenever someone tries to bring the charismatic gifts into a non-charismatic church, there is inevitably conflict and disunity. I am scared (for want of a better word) of people who come in with the agenda to change a church.

Belinda Y. Edwards

5th June 2006, 04:16 PM (16:16)

Scared could also mean - respect.

Do we respect the Holy Spirit to the point that we avoid Him?

i have seen what Dave is speaking of regarding emotion, but i have seen the same lack of kindness and self-control in those who try to *squash all emotions*, too. To me, emotion can not be a part of the equasion of Salvation or Sanctification.

Are we talking the same thing?

It seems in this thread that we are separating Sanctification from the Holy Spirit - or are we saying the same thing?

Barb Bouldrey

5th June 2006, 04:32 PM (16:32)

Billy Cox

5th June 2006, 04:56 PM (16:56)

Let's not confuse the issue of the fruit of the Holy Spirit with "charasmatic expressions." I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene when the open expression of emotions was common. People "shouted", "ran the isles", "waved white hankies" and "Praise Danced." Frankly, I don't miss those times. The problem was consistency. Those who shouted the loudest often didn't demonstrate the fruit of the Holy Spirit during the week between services.

There were some exceptions. There were certain people in our churches who lived wonderful, Godly lives. When they shouted, everyone got blessed. But, many of those who showed the greatest amount of emotion, didn't show kindness or self-control between church services.

I learned at a young age that the expression of the Holy Spirit in ones life is best shown by the way they live day by day, not by how much of a spectical they make of themselves when emotions run high.

I don't know of anyone who is afraid to see one live a life filled with the Holy Spirit as reflected in Galatians 5: 22, 23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law..."

If only we could see more fruits of the Spirit in our churches!!

I have heard many many sermons on the fruit of the Spirit and most of them talk about fruit in terms of good things that we ought to be doing, rather than talking about being filled with the Holy Spirit, from whence springs the fruit.

I wonder why the church dealt with that credibility gap (Sunday shouter, sinner the rest of the week) by shunning outwardly expressive worship.

Billy Cox

5th June 2006, 05:25 PM (17:25)

Billy,

Afraid of emotionalism and afraid of the Holy Spirit are not the same thing.

Yes, I agree that being afraid of emotionalism might quench the power of the Holy Spirit's ability to move in our lives.

And, no one of any doctrinal persuasion has a right to attend a church in another denomination with the purpose of teaching them, changing them or taking over to promote a new doctrine. That is what we experienced, twice. It does not matter what they are trying to teach, or whether what they believe is genuine or not....they have no right to do that.

John had to visit them in their home, taking two witnesses, and tell them that if there is any new doctrine to be taught or preached in our church, it will come from the pulpit, not visitors in the pew. They left, telling people that the Devil(meaning John) would not let them speak.

So, it sounds as if you are really wanting to discuss the fear of emotionalism, not fear of the Holy Spirit. They two are not the same thing.

I do believe the trend of contemporary music and worship is loosening us up to worship more freely, but even that is notnecessarily evidence of the Holy Spirit.

Barb

I think that the fear goes beyond a fear of emotionalism. I don't even limit the scope of my question to worship. Some have alluded in other threads to the fear represented by several General Assembly resolutions - fear of losing control.

Fear breeds fear. For every DS who feared charismatic infiltration of his churches, there were 30-50 pastors who feared being excommunicated if they were not militant enough in denouncing charismatic beliefs. It seems that all this fear doesn't leave much room for the Holy Spirit to have His way in us.

Wilson L. Deaton

5th June 2006, 05:37 PM (17:37)

Open question...

Our church's history seems to suggest that we are.

1 Thes. 5:19-21
Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.

I think Paul was telling us two things.

1) Not everything that claims to be of the Spirit is of the Spirit.
2) If something proves to be of the Spirit, embrace it.

I think we have let number 1 rule the roost have decided that if we are going to err it will be on the side of skepticism.

Why are we like this? I think that "moderns" are overly concerned with control. When the Holy Spirit moves things can get out of control.

Besides the issues discussed above relating to emotions/tongues, etc., there are also more "big picture" issues involved. For example, movements of the Spirit in third world countries where we find ourselves needing to start churches without properly trained/credentialed pastors.... This "out of control" growth is scarey to some people.

Wilson

Dave McClung

5th June 2006, 06:54 PM (18:54)

For example, movements of the Spirit in third world countries where we find ourselves needing to start churches without properly trained/credentialed pastors.... This "out of control" growth is scarey to some people.

Wilson

Having just returned from such an area, I can testify that some of us need to be concerned about "out of control" growth. We have a lot of people who are joining the church who have no idea what it means to be "Nazarene." In particular, many of the ones joining in Zambia are Calvinists. In fact, many of the clergy are also Calvinists. Many of them have never seen a Manual and don't realistically have access to a Manual in their own language. Shouldn't we be concerned about losing our doctrinal identity through "out of control" growth?

Barb Bouldrey

5th June 2006, 07:22 PM (19:22)

I have never heard any general or district church leaders suggest that pastors be militant in denouncing charismatic beliefs or any other doctrines for that matter. If we preach holiness and our articles of faith strong enough we should not have to worry about any other church's doctrines.

John has never preached against other churches. He just preaches what we believe.

I do know that back in the 70's and 80's many pastors feared a charismatic split happening in their own congregation because of the awful stories of damage done in other churches. During that time one of our pastors wrote about about his experience, calling it "The Locust Years." We, as pastors, were made much aware of the awful damage being done by charismatic splits. And I believe that fostered a lot of fear about emotionalism.

I do not think people today fear the Holy Spirit. I think some fear that too much emotionalism will lead to some of the very weird things we have heard about in other places.

You mention fear of losing control. We love it when the Holy Spirit comes upon our services and "man's programmed agenda" is set aside as the Lord works. But we do not want something that is not Spirit-controlled taking over.

Again, I say that the comtemporary style of worship is helping us loosen up in our worship.

The fruit of the Spirit is not what we do, it is who we are and our attitudes. If I have the attitude of love, joy, peace, gentleness, kindness,goodness and self control, then my works will reflect the attitudes of the Spirit that are within me.

Barb

Paul Whitaker

5th June 2006, 07:37 PM (19:37)

What would a pastor do if he learned one of his members has a prayer language?

Andrea Larabee

5th June 2006, 08:00 PM (20:00)

What would a pastor do if he learned one of his members has a prayer language?

Good question. I hope to see someone answer. The belief of the COTN regarding the gift of tongues(not the foreign language one) used to be in the manual but I don't see it in the newest one. I may have skipped over it somewhere.

I can count at least 10 Nazarenes and other Christian friends who have it. They are all very well respected Christians. They are also very devout in their Christian walk.

Barbara Moulton

5th June 2006, 08:22 PM (20:22)

What would a pastor do if he learned one of his members has a prayer language?

I would think...nothing.

That's between the church member and God.

We have someone in our church who does and it is simply not an issue.

He is a gracious and gentle man who has never implied that anyone in the church is not filled with the spirit or that the church needs to change its worship to accomodate him.

Barb Bouldrey

5th June 2006, 08:24 PM (20:24)

We have about 10 people currently attending our church who left life-long memberships in the Assembly of God church because of the extreme new things in that particular local church. Some of them have joined our church. Some have not.

Of those who have joined our church(5 of the 10) only one has practiced speaking in tongues before coming to our church. In all 5 cases John had to address this issue with them, expressing that we do not promote or practice it in our church. Of course, they already knew this, but he had to discuss it with them. Of the 5, only one even mentioned having spoken in tongues even though all 5 were raised in that church. She expressed to John that she was willing to accept our doctrine of sanctification as a second work of grace and as the real evidence of the Holy Spirit. She also admitted that she might still speak in tongues in the privacy of her own home during her personal prayer time.

It has been 5 years now and there has not been a problem. She opening expresses her praise in our services and is a joy to have around, especially on our praise team. She respects our church and our doctrine and believes it. She just believes that speaking in tongues in just one of the gifts of the Spirit, not the only evidence of the Spirit.

We can live with that.

Barb

Paul Whitaker

5th June 2006, 08:39 PM (20:39)

I would think...nothing.

That's between the church member and God.

We have someone in our church who does and it is simply not an issue.

He is a gracious and gentle man who has never implied that anyone in the church is not filled with the spirit or that the church needs to change its worship to accomodate him.

As they say on one TV program -- Good Answer! I like that.

Gina Stevenson

5th June 2006, 09:58 PM (21:58)

She respects our church and our doctrine and believes it. She just believes that speaking in tongues in just one of the gifts of the Spirit, not the only evidence of the Spirit.

Barb

Yes, I know some people who do this in the privacy of their home ... but never push it on anyone else, because they feel as you said ... it is "a gift," not "the evidence." Nice folks, too ... so, it doens't bother me, either.

Hans Deventer

6th June 2006, 01:16 AM (01:16)

Good question. I hope to see someone answer. The belief of the COTN regarding the gift of tongues(not the foreign language one) used to be in the manual but I don't see it in the newest one. I may have skipped over it somewhere.

It is still there. Check out par 903.9.

Hans Deventer

6th June 2006, 01:23 AM (01:23)

She just believes that speaking in tongues in just one of the gifts of the Spirit, not the only evidence of the Spirit.

We can live with that.

The Manual too. There has been a tough statement on the issue by the Board of General Superintendents in the 1976 Herald of Holiness. But that statement never made it to the Manual. All the Manual says is that the true evidence of entire sanctification is the cleansing of our hearts, and that a special physical evidence or prayer language is not.

I always amazed me that in the heat of the battle, the Manual statement never got beyond this very down to earth remark. Hardly enough basis to kick out pastors and laity that admit to using a prayer language, as has been done so often.

Hans Deventer

6th June 2006, 01:28 AM (01:28)

What would a pastor do if he learned one of his members has a prayer language?

Thank God, as Paul did.

1 Cor 14:18 "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you."

Gordon Greene

6th June 2006, 01:56 AM (01:56)

Are we scared of the Holy Spirit?

Open question...

Our church's history seems to suggest that we are.

Actually, our church's history clearly proclaims just the opposite to be true.

I love my wife. If you do not show affection to your wife the same way I do to mine then you must not love your wife as much as I do mine. That kind of thinking is scary.

.....peace.....

Wilson L. Deaton

6th June 2006, 08:56 AM (08:56)

Shouldn't we be concerned about losing our doctrinal identity through "out of control" growth?

Not if the gowth is truly of the Spirit. The situation you descibe begs that question: Is the growth of the Spirit or is it not?

There are two possibilities here:

1) The "out of control" growth is not of the Spirit. One must wonder how they became Calvinists. A good guess would be that we are absorbing those who were already Christian Calvinists. Why would we do this? For good stats, maybe. We should be concerned and slow down such growth.

2) The "out of control" growth is of the Spirit. If this is the case then all other concerns, including protecting our doctrinal identity, must take a back seat. We must trust the Spirit. Either the Spirit will protect our identity or realize that apparently our identity need not be protected. The fact that we aren't comfortable with this indicates that we are indeed scared of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit taking control means we lose control.

Wilson

Wilson L. Deaton

6th June 2006, 09:11 AM (09:11)

Yes, I know some people who do this in the privacy of their home ... but never push it on anyone else, because they feel as you said ... it is "a gift," not "the evidence." Nice folks, too ... so, it doens't bother me, either.

I keep hearing about these people who practice in the privacy of their home. Am I the only one who sees the paradox here? If you know people who do this, then they aren't being private about it! If one person knows then probably two people know. If two people know then.... Furthermore, if you think the telling doesn't amount to an endorsement then you are fooling yourselves.

Wilson

Gina Stevenson

6th June 2006, 10:20 AM (10:20)

I keep hearing about these people who practice in the privacy of their home. Am I the only one who sees the paradox here? If you know people who do this, then they aren't being private about it! If one person knows then probably two people know. If two people know then.... Furthermore, if you think the telling doesn't amount to an endorsement then you are fooling yourselves.

Wilson

Well, guess what I was agreeing with Barb about is that they're not pushing it on others as tho' it were "the evidence," which it is not. How's that? ;)

Billy Cox

6th June 2006, 10:45 AM (10:45)

Not if the gowth is truly of the Spirit. The situation you descibe begs that question: Is the growth of the Spirit or is it not?

There are two possibilities here:

1) The "out of control" growth is not of the Spirit. One must wonder how they became Calvinists. A good guess would be that we are absorbing those who were already Christian Calvinists. Why would we do this? For good stats, maybe. We should be concerned and slow down such growth.

2) The "out of control" growth is of the Spirit. If this is the case then all other concerns, including protecting our doctrinal identity, must take a back seat. We must trust the Spirit. Either the Spirit will protect our identity or realize that apparently our identity need not be protected. The fact that we aren't comfortable with this indicates that we are indeed scared of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit taking control means we lose control.

Wilson

I question whether denominational identity is something that the Spirit cares about. The book of Acts seems to indicate that attempts to 'contain' the Holy Spirit are futile.

Wilson L. Deaton

6th June 2006, 12:01 PM (12:01)

I question whether denominational identity is something that the Spirit cares about.

My view of denominations is reflected in this Wilson's-paraphrased-to-make-a-point-version of 1 Corinthians 1:11-13:

[11] My brothers, I have noticed there are quarrels among us. [12] What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Arminius and Wesley"; another, "I follow Luther"; still another, "I follow Christ."
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Wesley crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Arminius?

If I feel that way why am I a Nazarene? For now I keep telling myself that in his grace God forgives us for all this division and uses our denominational structures as tools for his kingdom in spite of our quarrels....

Wilson

Barb Bouldrey

6th June 2006, 12:17 PM (12:17)

Hans,

You were not here in the 70's when so many churches split because of speaking in tongues, so you do not understand that people who "discover" speaking in tongues after they are a part of the Church of the Nazarene want to promote it and change their local church into a tongues speaking church.

During that time, and even today, most denominations who promote and practice speaking in tongues believe it IS the only real evidence of having the Holy Spirit, and THAT is contrary to our doctrine.

The lady who came to our church from the Assembly of God church has had a life long teaching and practicing on this issue. It was already a part of her prayer life. She assured us that she would never promote or practice it within our church. And she has not. I doubt that anyone even knows, except the few that also came from that church. And after 5 years I do not know that she ever speaks in tongues at home. I do not ask her. It is not an issue.

But, our denomination has a right to take a stand for our doctrine and ask pastors and laymen to worship elsewhere if they discover speaking in tongues and believe it is the REAL infilling of the Holy Spirit...and the ONLY REAL evidence of sanctification.

God is not the author of confusion. All I have ever seen involving speaking in tongues, when brought out in our church is confusion, hurt and splits. It is not compatible with our doctrine.

If you have never lived through a charismatic split in your church you cannot understand the harm it does.

If someone who is a Nazarene decides they believe in something we do not believe, then they should go to a church that believes what they do...because there are plenty of churches to choose from. That was one of my main aggrevations about Nazarenes who "discovered" speaking in tongues. There are many churches, old and new, who practice it. Why try to change your Nazarene church? Why not graciously move to a church that accepts it?

And Billy, yes it IS important to protect our doctrine when another doctrine is in direct conflict with ours.

Barb

Hans Deventer

6th June 2006, 12:45 PM (12:45)

You were not here in the 70's when so many churches split because of speaking in tongues, so you do not understand that people who "discover" speaking in tongues after they are a part of the Church of the Nazarene want to promote it and change their local church into a tongues speaking church.

Barb, I understand two things:

1. One can speak in tongues like Paul without any doubt did, whatever that may have been. And stick to his advice to use it in private prayer and not in a service. But according to his example, you are allowed to testify it in the way he does. NOT divisive!

2. One can promote it as THE evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

The Manual is clearly against #2. So am I, without any hesitation. However, it is not against #1.

As always, with any doctrine, the real issue is divisiveness. People find something and tend to make it the core of their faith. Be it immersion (Baptists) or speaking in tongues (Pentecostals, Charismatics) or anything else. We've even had holiness folk preach "holiness or hell" messages! It is the same mistake all over.

During that time, and even today, most denominations who promote and practice speaking in tongues believe it IS the only real evidence of having the Holy Spirit, and THAT is contrary to our doctrine.

Yes I know. I never said anything else. However, we don't deal with denominations, the problem was with Nazarenes promoting this (or not, and then we don't have a problem).

The lady who came to our church from the Assembly of God church has had a life long teaching and practicing on this issue. It was already a part of her prayer life. She assured us that she would never promote or practice it within our church. And she has not. I doubt that anyone even knows, except the few that also came from that church. And after 5 years I do not know that she ever speaks in tongues at home. I do not ask her. It is not an issue.

Exactly! So the issue is not whether or not one speakes in tongues in their prayers, the issue is, is it being promoted as THE evidence?

But, our denomination has a right to take a stand for our doctrine and ask pastors and laymen to worship elsewhere if they discover speaking in tongues and believe it is the REAL infilling of the Holy Spirit...and the ONLY REAL evidence of sanctification.

Agreed. But do they also have that right if they only find a person is speaking in tongues and NOT promoting it? I can still find the emails I had from a pastor's wife whose husband has been kicked out of the church in the late 90's for simply admitting he spoke in tongues in his prayers AND NOTHING ELSE!

God is not the author of confusion. All I have ever seen involving speaking in tongues, when brought out in our church is confusion, hurt and splits. It is not compatible with our doctrine.

That is not true. You have just been telling me you have at least seen one instance where it did not bring any confusion, hurt of split. One can speak in tongues and be a Christian and filled with the Holy Spirit so it is indeed compatible with our doctrine.

If you have never lived through a charismatic split in your church you cannot understand the harm it does.

Barb, we try to keep everyone out who is determined to have our church change to speaking in tongues, believers baptism only, postmillenialism, blindly supporting Israel and heaven knows what other issues the devil uses to destroy churches.

If someone who is a Nazarene decides they believe in something we do not believe, then they should go to a church that believes what they do...because there are plenty of churches to choose from. That was one of my main aggrevations about Nazarenes who "discovered" speaking in tongues. There are many churches, old and new, who practice it. Why try to change your Nazarene church? Why not graciously move to a church that accepts it?

Well, ask the lady in your church. The issue is not the tongues speaking, this issue is the "catholic spirit" as John Wesley called it.

Hans Deventer

6th June 2006, 12:56 PM (12:56)

If I feel that way why am I a Nazarene? For now I keep telling myself that in his grace God forgives us for all this division and uses our denominational structures as tools for his kingdom in spite of our quarrels....

God uses denominations, yes. He even used David's adultery for the bloodline of the Messiah. One of the remarkable things in the Kingdom is that God uses people that are failures in many respect, including moral. I don't understand why we are so surprised if succesful preachers turn out to visit whores. As if God does not work with sinners. If so, He would not work with anyone. In fact, He's been doing nothing eles since Adam and Eve.

Having said all this, I know the CotN is my home. I love the Articles of Faith, just wish we would all (including myself) live accordingly. I don't think I could feel at home in any other denomination.

Billy Cox

6th June 2006, 01:23 PM (13:23)

And Billy, yes it IS important to protect our doctrine when another doctrine is in direct conflict with ours.

I agree...as long as we realize that doctrine can be fallible and defending it can put us on the wrong side of God.

Barb Bouldrey

6th June 2006, 03:25 PM (15:25)

The important thing about defending your doctrine is living a holy life while defending it. If your heart is truly holy and your attitude truly holy,then you do not have to worry about being on the wrong side of God.

The person who believes in eternal security will have no problem with defending his doctrine if his heart and life are right with God anyway. But if they believe it and live a life of sin because they believe it, then they just might be surprised at Judgement.

I would rather be wrong and holy than right and miss the mark.

I do not want to be on the wrong side of God in doctrine, attitude or heart condition.

Barb

Barb Bouldrey

6th June 2006, 03:32 PM (15:32)

Hans,

The difference with the lady in our church is that she came to us with her belief and practice of tongues, willing to lay it aside for our services so as to NOT cause confusion and division.

Usually, when someone who is already a Nazarene begins speaking in tongues, they cannot keep it private but want to promote it and change their church.

This lady came to us and joined our church after a while because she believes in and accepts our doctrine. She showed respect for our church and still does. She wants to promote unity, not division.

She has the "catholic spirit." If she had wanted to publicly speak in tongues, John would have asked her to worship elsewhere, where it was accepted by the congregation.

Barb

John Kennedy

6th June 2006, 04:09 PM (16:09)

Having just returned from such an area, I can testify that some of us need to be concerned about "out of control" growth. We have a lot of people who are joining the church who have no idea what it means to be "Nazarene." In particular, many of the ones joining in Zambia are Calvinists. In fact, many of the clergy are also Calvinists. Many of them have never seen a Manual and don't realistically have access to a Manual in their own language. Shouldn't we be concerned about losing our doctrinal identity through "out of control" growth?

Be thankful they're only Calvinists! They could have, as easily, brought along some of their native religions and attempted a blend of Christianity with some non-Christian teaching. That is a problem that many churches have experienced with in areas of 'out of control' growth where there has been little effort made to even give minimal theological education to their new pastors.

Paul Whitaker

6th June 2006, 04:42 PM (16:42)

Speaking of grace. My cousin sent me this:

I have read a book recently that reconciles our legalistic upbringing with the grace of God. It's called The Discipline of Grace by Jerry Bridges. IT helps me Merge the infinite forgiving Grace of God that sees us through the RIGHTEOUSNESS of Jesus Christ, and reiterates the point to me that I am as SAVED on the days that I accomplish all my legalistic tasks as the days I dissapoint even myself in my Christian walk. How magnificent is the GRACE of God...............................and I've always thought that the people that are going to be MOST surprised by God's GRACE on the first day of eternity are those who HAVE relied on their OWN GOOD WORKS as KEEPING themselves saved. Won't they (WE) all be surprised that God will cover all our insignificant and sometimes sinful works by his magnificent all-encompassing grace? Paul, I have to live like that as I'm far too bad of a person to depend on anything but the grace of God.
======================

Found this compelling - I think I have to read it.

John Kennedy

6th June 2006, 07:56 PM (19:56)

Some have referred to their experiences in dealing with Charismatics and Pentecostals who, when they 'got the gift' would decided to head for the nearest Nazarene church rather than a church that shared those beliefs.

My parents, as Nazarene pastors, had first-hand experience with that type of infiltration back in the forties and fifties - I really wish I could say something good about it, but I don't have that good an imagination.

A reading of Nazarene history shows that the church always attempted to put a lot of daylight between itself and the Pentecostal movement. That was the reason for the denomination's dropping the word "Pentecostal" from its name in the early 20th century.

Although they tended to be pretty quiet and non-demonstrative themselves, they certainly wouldn't have done anythig to 'quench the Spirit'. I think the only kind of spirit they would've like to have seen 'quenched' was the rather smug, self-righteous spirit of those who pushed the idea that if you had the fulness of the Spirit you'd speak in tongues.

Maybe some who think there's an over-reaction against that belief should have been around in those days. I have many happy memories of my days growing up in the Nazarene - those experiences are NOT among them.

Andrea Larabee

6th June 2006, 08:39 PM (20:39)

I guess my final thought for this thread is...

It bothers me when pastors (any denomination) teach that the gift tongues (the prayer kind) does not exist. Or they completey belittle it so badly that they might as well say, "don't ever bring the subject up and don't bring that gift around here!" Even Charles Stanley struggled with it for some time but he recently taught about the gift of tongues while teaching about the gifts of the Spirit. He explained clearly about it being a gift and not evidence of a Spirit filled Christian. It obviously exists and should be encouraged in a Christian who may have recently received it, with proper teaching and direction of the Lord, of course. (Did that make sense? They should be encouraged to look to the Lord for guidence about their gift)

It's explained well enough in 1 Corinthians the position it takes among the Spiritual gifts. It should also be taught and treated just as the other gifts are. It should not be excluded from a teaching on Spiritual gifts.

Edited because my font size was too small

John Kennedy

6th June 2006, 10:32 PM (22:32)

I have absolutely no idea whether the gift of tongues does or not exist. I am not intimating, in any way, that those who have supposedly received that gift shoud not practice it. I think, if they do, it should be practiced in a setting which is receptive to it.

The only spirit I want to see quenched is the self-righteous intimation that those who have not recieved this gift are, in some way, sub-par spiritually.
I believe, more fervently the longer I live, that THE cardinal sin of mankind is spiritual pride and that those who make a great deal about how filled with the Spirit they are, are probably uniquely vulnerable and susceptible to spiritual pride.

Although I am no longer Nazarene, I think the Nazarene Church was very wise to distance itself from those beliefs - and I have seen absolutely nothing, from watching TBN and that whole crowd to make me feel otherwise.

Hans Deventer

7th June 2006, 02:14 AM (02:14)

Having just returned from such an area, I can testify that some of us need to be concerned about "out of control" growth. We have a lot of people who are joining the church who have no idea what it means to be "Nazarene." In particular, many of the ones joining in Zambia are Calvinists. In fact, many of the clergy are also Calvinists. Many of them have never seen a Manual and don't realistically have access to a Manual in their own language. Shouldn't we be concerned about losing our doctrinal identity through "out of control" growth?

Dave, with all due respect, how many of the long time Nazarenes have actually become Calvinists? The evangelical culture in the US is for the most part Calvinistic, and its influence through preachers, magazines and broadcasting is immense.
If you'd ask how many Nazarenese believe that believers baptism by immersion is the only true baptism, I think we'd be amazed.
How many would believe in "once saved, always saved"?
How many don't accept women preachers?

Wilson L. Deaton

7th June 2006, 09:22 AM (09:22)

How many don't accept women preachers?

A board member at the church I pastored before this one told me something like this: "Before we gave the D.S. your name and told him to contact you, he was running out of options. He even brought us a resume from a woman!"

I have a Nazarene-raised relative that is now Southern Baptist. About a year ago my daughter was present when he and I began discussing the women in ministry issue. After hearing his logic, my daughter, who isn't normally very vocal about such things, spoke up and asked, "So does your church also support slavery?" (A chip off the old block?)

Wilson

Marsha Lynn

7th June 2006, 10:52 AM (10:52)

Open question...

Our church's history seems to suggest that we are.

JN 15:26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

JN 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt* in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

JN 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Are we afraid of hearing testimony about Jesus? Are we afraid of inner conviction that tells us and those around us about right and wrong? Are we afraid of being guided into truth and hearing about what is yet to come? Are we afraid of having the things of Jesus made known to us? I don't know about "we," but those things sound pretty good to me!

Why is this thread all about speaking in tongues and emotionalism. Are "we" equating those things with the manifestation of the Holy Spirit? I know about what happened at Pentecost, but that's not the description I read of the Spirit's work in other passages and I've seen too many "manifestations" of that type that weren't accompanied by the fruit of the Spirit to accept that they are always (or even often) of the Spirit. At least in my book, being uncomfortable with public emotionalism does not equate with being afraid of the genuine presence of the comforter, the counselor, the paraclete Spirit of God.

Many people are afraid of allowing God to take total control of their lives and fill them with His Spirit, but I'm not sure those are the same people who are wary of those who speak in tongues and get "blessed" in our services. Which type of fear did you intend to discuss -- fear of the paraclete presence of God or fear of out-of-control worship?

Marsha

Andrea Larabee

7th June 2006, 11:08 AM (11:08)

JN 15:26 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

JN 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt* in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

JN 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Are we afraid of hearing testimony about Jesus? Are we afraid of inner conviction that tells us and those around us about right and wrong? Are we afraid of being guided into truth and hearing about what is yet to come? Are we afraid of having the things of Jesus made known to us? I don't know about "we," but those things sound pretty good to me!

Why is this thread all about speaking in tongues and emotionalism. Are "we" equating those things with the manifestation of the Holy Spirit? I know about what happened at Pentecost, but that's not the description I read of the Spirit's work in other passages and I've seen too many "manifestations" of that type that weren't accompanied by the fruit of the Spirit to accept that they are always (or even often) of the Spirit. At least in my book, being uncomfortable with public emotionalism does not equate with being afraid of the genuine presence of the comforter, the counselor, the paraclete Spirit of God.

Many people are afraid of allowing God to take total control of their lives and fill them with His Spirit, but I'm not sure those are the same people who are wary of those who speak in tongues and get "blessed" in our services. Which type of fear did you intend to discuss -- fear of the paraclete presence of God or fear of out-of-control worship?

Marsha

Marsha,

I like the clarity and scrpitures you've given here. Thank you. The original post was a good question and could have easily been divided into multiple questions. I.E., Are we afraid of surrendering to the Spirit?, Are we afraid of the manifestations of the Spirit?, Are we afraid of lack of control of the Spirit?, etc. I think the thread seemed to carry the conversation more towards the manifestations of the Spirit. For some odd reason tongues is always the hot topic. Someone did add a new question midway through the thread. That's where it took a different track.

Belinda Y. Edwards

7th June 2006, 11:24 AM (11:24)

Marsha,

I like the clarity and scrpitures you've given here. Thank you. The original post was a good question and could have easily been divided into multiple questions. I.E., Are we afraid of surrendering to the Spirit?, Are we afraid of the manifestations of the Spirit?, Are we afraid of lack of control of the Spirit?, etc. I think the thread seemed to carry the conversation more towards the manifestations of the Spirit. For some odd reason tongues is always the hot topic. Someone did add a new question midway through the thread. That's where it took a different track.

Thus the very reason that my first response to this thread was seeking a definition of scared.

i agree with your purposed possibilities for being afraid and i think we can add another. Moses was afraid when he was in the presence of God and had to turn away. It wasn't fear of surrender. It wasn't fear of lack of control. It was another overwhelming response.

Another question that i ask is - if one sees/senses/hears a manifestation of the Holy Spirit - does that equate to being filled with the Spirit or just simply having a moment where the Spirit moved in close.

i mean - because Moses was in the presence of God - does this make him being filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit wasn't *active* as we know it in New Testament times, but scholars do say that when Scriptures speak of the spirit hovering over the earth during creation that this is an indication that the Holy Spirit was present then. If the Holy Spirit was present then- would it be safe to assume that the Holy Spirit was present at other times in the Old Testament?

Barb Bouldrey

7th June 2006, 11:43 AM (11:43)

Belinda,

"Another question that I ask is - if one sees/senses/hears a manifestation of the Holy Spirit - does that equate to being filled with the Spirit or just simply having a moment where the Spirit moved in close."

That is an excellent thought! When the Spirit makes Himself manifest in a service and people respond in demonstrations of praise, that does not mean they are Spirit-filled Christians. It means they are enjoying the moving of the Spirit.

I like your question and your input on this topic. That adds a new dimension to this discussion...and a very important one.

I, too, questioned the definition of "afraid." I was never really sure what direction this discussion was suppose to take. But how often does a thread take a different turn than intended? OFTEN. LOL

Barb

Andrea Larabee

7th June 2006, 11:55 AM (11:55)

I was never really sure what direction this discussion was suppose to take. But how often does a thread take a different turn than intended? OFTEN. LOL

Barb

As I just went back to see the original post, I noticed he did say "OPEN QUESTION..." Might that have meant the answers/responses could be of any sort, as long as it pertained to being afraid of the Holy Spirit. That's definitely what happened.

Belinda Y. Edwards

7th June 2006, 12:26 PM (12:26)

As I just went back to see the original post, I noticed he did say "OPEN QUESTION..." Might that have meant the answers/responses could be of any sort, as long as it pertained to being afraid of the Holy Spirit. That's definitely what happened.

The problem with not having a set definition regarding the word that is being discussed is that ones need to read the responses carefully so as not to subject a definition upon the poster when in actuality the poster was taking a different spin on the definition. Reading carefully isn't a strong suite for many of us here at NazNet - me, included.

Billy Cox

7th June 2006, 02:54 PM (14:54)

Belinda,
I, too, questioned the definition of "afraid." I was never really sure what direction this discussion was suppose to take. But how often does a thread take a different turn than intended? OFTEN. LOL

Having a seven year-old daughter has required that I think about why we fear something and what distinguishes legitimate fear from unnecessary fear.

I do not fear alligators or avian flu or cancer or heart disease or terrorism. I DO fear pain, suffering, loss, the unknown and death - any of which can result from direct experience with the former list.

I doubt that anyone is actually afraid of the Holy Spirit. We may very well be afraid of what we might lose if the Holy Spirit directed us (individually or collectively) to do something really stupid.

Paul Whitaker

7th June 2006, 02:58 PM (14:58)

I doubt that anyone is actually afraid of the Holy Spirit. We may very well be afraid of what we might lose if the Holy Spirit directed us (individually or collectively) to do something really stupid.

Do you think that the HolySpirit would direct us to do something really stupid?

Barb Bouldrey

7th June 2006, 03:01 PM (15:01)

Yes, Billy, I agree with all you just said.

And it mostly comes down to surrendering to the control of the Holy Spirit instead of self being in control. That is a hard thing for many or most of us to give up. The last thing we give up to God is self.

Barb

Andrea Larabee

7th June 2006, 03:18 PM (15:18)

Do you think that the HolySpirit would direct us to do something really stupid?

My biggest fear regarding the Holy Spirit is the spiritual battle that can follow something the Holy Spirit led me to do. Sometimes that battle hits beforehand.

Not surrendering to the Holy Spirit is simple--my selfishness. :basic04

Billy Cox

7th June 2006, 03:31 PM (15:31)

Do you think that the HolySpirit would direct us to do something really stupid?

Absolutely.

For example, 'career-minded' clergy would say that it is stupid to decline the General Superintendency when a stadium full of Nazarenes has just elected you.

From a 'staying alive' point of view, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was really stupid to return to Nazi Germany.

In the interest of Church unity, the Apostle Paul returned to what he knew was a hornet's nest in Jerusalem. That was stupid and it cost him his freedom and eventually his life.

From anything less than an eternal perspective, the direction of the Spirit will sometimes call on us to do something stupid.

Paul Whitaker

7th June 2006, 03:33 PM (15:33)

My biggest fear regarding the Holy Spirit is the spiritual battle that can follow something the Holy Spirit led me to do. Sometimes that battle hits beforehand.

I understand what you are saying,

We suffer severe battles after we are led by the Holy Spirit to testify to healing, radical heart changes or anything which might be "of God" or "of the Holy Spirit"

John Kennedy

7th June 2006, 03:35 PM (15:35)

A board member at the church I pastored before this one told me something like this: "Before we gave the D.S. your name and told him to contact you, he was running out of options. He even brought us a resume from a woman!"

I have a Nazarene-raised relative that is now Southern Baptist. About a year ago my daughter was present when he and I began discussing the women in ministry issue. After hearing his logic, my daughter, who isn't normally very vocal about such things, spoke up and asked, "So does your church also support slavery?" (A chip off the old block?)

Wilson

Bravo for your daughter!

Tell her to hang in there! That un-Biblical point of view that seems to permeate so much of the evangelical world needs to be firmly and unequivocally resisted wherever it rears its ugly head, especially in denominations that believe in women in ministry.

There are people in heaven today, and some still here serving the Lord, because my Mother, over 75 years ago. was willing to follow the call of the Holy Spirit into ministry.

I must confess that, as far as I am concerned, it's a 'deal breaker'. Aside from a wedding or funeral I won't darken the door of a church that refuses to extend full ministerial rights to women.

Those who believe in women in ministry need to be pro-active in asserting that belief. And it ought to be more than mere lip service - part of the job of leadership is to lead.

Paul Whitaker

7th June 2006, 03:43 PM (15:43)

Absolutely.

For example, 'career-minded' clergy would say that it is stupid to decline the General Superintendency when a stadium full of Nazarenes has just elected you.

From a 'staying alive' point of view, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was really stupid to return to Nazi Germany.

In the interest of Church unity, the Apostle Paul returned to what he knew was a hornet's nest in Jerusalem. That was stupid and it cost him his freedom and eventually his life. But I would think he was driven by the Holy Spirit or by the Love of Christ Jesus to return.

From anything less than an eternal perspective, the direction of the Spirit will sometimes call on us to do something stupid.

Thank you. You are right.

I often wonder if the Apostle Paul would have written all of his letters if he had not been in jail.

In the case of the elected GS choosing not to accept the position would be considered by some to be stupid but I don't think they consider what the "Will of God" might be for that person. I had no problem with that person not accepting the election.

From an eternal perspective I believe the action of the man was 'not stupid' to the Holy Spirit. I think the Holy Spirit will use that decision for the on-going of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Gina Stevenson

7th June 2006, 05:03 PM (17:03)

My biggest fear regarding the Holy Spirit is the spiritual battle that can follow something the Holy Spirit led me to do. Sometimes that battle hits beforehand.

For sure ... sure many of us can speak of this from experience. Here, along with other basic things/activities in life, there was a point in time when hit in such a way after writing something people I knew loved (music/lyrics), that I decided something like, "If that is what I have to feel like because of writing something decent, then I don't know if I want to write anymore!" Well, I didn't quit ... but saw it as warfare (through friends who bro't it to my attention that it seemed to happen whenever I wrote a lot) ... to keep me from writing. So, know of what you speak, Andrea.

Not surrendering to the Holy Spirit is simple--my selfishness. :basic04

Yes, sometimes ... yet with fear too much a part of one's history, at times it can also be just as this thread started out about ... fear of the unknown future.

Kevin Bowser

7th June 2006, 09:27 PM (21:27)

Hans,

I think you nailed it! Having had to be out of the Nazarene for a few years and no being back in the denomination I can tell you that several local churches of the nazarene that I have experience with have some thoroughly Calvinistic, or at least Reformed Theology, in their daily theology!

I think we are fooling ourselves if we deny that there are Calvinists or folks with a Reformed background in many of our local churches. That is certainly true here in Texas! Again, I have direct and first hand experience with it and it is very damaging to the doctrine of holiness and entire sanctification.

I see some practical aspects of being somewhat unconcerned about denominationalism as I believe Wilson rightfully states. But, we do risk even greater and greater influx and therefore influence into our Wesleyan heritage.

John Kennedy

8th June 2006, 12:55 AM (00:55)

Dave, with all due respect, how many of the long time Nazarenes have actually become Calvinists? The evangelical culture in the US is for the most part Calvinistic, and its influence through preachers, magazines and broadcasting is immense.
If you'd ask how many Nazarenese believe that believers baptism by immersion is the only true baptism, I think we'd be amazed.
How many would believe in "once saved, always saved"?
How many don't accept women preachers?

Hans -

I'm not sure the items you cited necessarily point to Calvinism. I grew up Nazarene and had always assumed Baptist = Calvinist. Actually Baptists, are Anabaptists - and Anabaptism was a reaction to, and split from, Calvinism.

Ironically the critical issue there was that of baptism. The Calvinists practiced, and still do, infant baptism - the Anabptists practiced adult re-baptism by immersion only.

The strongest tie between Baptists and Calvinists is the belief in the perserverance of the saints - eternal security. Otherwise, on many, if not most issues, they are in almost diametric opposition. Or at least that's the case with the good Dutch Reformed of my acquaintance (we have a lot of Dutch Reformed churches in an around the part of southern California I live in). As far as viewing Baptists as Calvinists, most of the Reformed people i know wouldn't 'spit on 'em'.

I believe it's fair to state that the Nazarene Church is solidly within the Evangelical mainstream. I think what we're seeing is that most of American evangelicalism is what I would call 'stealth Baptist'. They're Baptist to the core - they just don't wear the denominational label. The overwhelming majority of most non-denominational mega churches (and lots of smaller ones) are what I would call 'stealth Baptist'. And from what i've been able to determine, a fair number of their aldherents who wear a Nazarene denominational label.

Phil Michaels

8th June 2006, 11:17 AM (11:17)

I believe, more fervently the longer I live, that THE cardinal sin of mankind is spiritual pride and that those who make a great deal about how filled with the Spirit they are, are probably uniquely vulnerable and susceptible to spiritual pride.

This should sound a warning to every person who calls themselves a Nazarene. Because of all churches/denominations (with the possible exception of, yes, certain "charismatic" groups), Nazarenes far and away make the biggest deal about how "filled with the Spirit" they are. Why are most of us so able to see the speck of sawdust in our brother's eye (placing "tongues" on a higher level than it should be) but refuse to acknowledge the plank in our own eyes (extreme "spiritual pride", as John put it)?

phil

Phil Michaels

8th June 2006, 11:35 AM (11:35)

1 Thes. 5:19-21
Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.

I think Paul was telling us two things.

1) Not everything that claims to be of the Spirit is of the Spirit.
2) If something proves to be of the Spirit, embrace it.

I think we have let number 1 rule the roost have decided that if we are going to err it will be on the side of skepticism.

Why are we like this? I think that "moderns" are overly concerned with control. When the Holy Spirit moves things can get out of control.

Besides the issues discussed above relating to emotions/tongues, etc., there are also more "big picture" issues involved. For example, movements of the Spirit in third world countries where we find ourselves needing to start churches without properly trained/credentialed pastors.... This "out of control" growth is scarey to some people.

Wilson

OK, Wilson, I'm going to ramble on endlessly here, some in response to your post, and some to the thread in general (sorry I haven't gotten back to you on other threads- been out of town or with family the last two weeks).

I would say that moderns aren't just "overly concerned" but are obsessed with control issues.

And what happens if a movement of the Spirit in our OWN country requires needing to start churches without "properly approved" pastors....hmmm....I'll bet that wouldn't fly so well, would it?

I think the one thing I am getting out of this whole thread is just a reinforcement that (and I'm NOT referring to anyone in particular, just making a general observation) judgmentalism and fear do indeed still reign not only in the COTN but in all denominations/churches. Why must we always be "right" about every nook and cranny of doctrine? As if ANY human could EVER get God completely "right." God is not an object to be controlled (there it is again) by our doctrinal statements. He is a person with whom we (individuals AND the Church) have a relationship. And I think this goes right back to Billy's original post. We are afraid of the Holy Spirit, in the sense that we want everything to be tightly controlled and logical from a human point of view. That's foolish thinking. There are things we can (almost) all agree on - the Apostles and Nicene Creeds are two of them- why are we so worried about losing our "doctrinal purity"? So what if a Church of the Nazarene publicly practices speaking in tongues? Oh no! All is lost! Of course not. I am just reminded how very far we have to go towards being open minded and accepting of our brothers and sisters who have experienced faith in a slightly different manner than we have.

I love the COTN. Even though they've beaten me up multiple times. Because our tribe has something special to offer and could be used mightily by God both now and in the future, if we could just get over 1.) our own sense of self importance, 2.) high modern thinking as the ultimate foundation of faith/practice, 3.) judgmentalism and fear.

OK, random thoughts inspired by this thread will now end.....:fav18

phil

Paul Whitaker

8th June 2006, 11:37 AM (11:37)

Those who are followers of Rick Warren would say that "It's no about creeds, it's about deeds"

If we adopt this - there is no reason to question those who might be Calvinists, etc.

Kevin Bowser

8th June 2006, 11:44 AM (11:44)

Nazarenes far and away make the biggest deal about how "filled with the Spirit" they are.

phil

I am not sure that I agree with that statement. I do think the Nazarene church far and away makes the biggest deal of how important it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. And that is why I am happily a member of the church. I do not necessarily agree with the way that you phrased it.

Phil Michaels

8th June 2006, 11:58 AM (11:58)

I am not sure that I agree with that statement. I do think the Nazarene church far and away makes the biggest deal of how important it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. And that is why I am happily a member of the church. I do not necessarily agree with the way that you phrased it.

Kevin-

I'm not sure I see the difference between what I wrote:

"makes the biggest deal about how filled with the Spirit they are"

and what you wrote:

"makes the biggest deal of how important it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit."

One would hope that if Nazarenes make a big deal of how important it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit that they would then practice what they preach and actually be filled with the Spirit (thus my saying "how filled with the Spirit they are"). One would hope, anyway. I guess I'm not seeing the difference between the statements. In either case, spiritual pride appears to play a large factor (i.e. "we have the doctrine right and everyone else doesn't" or "we have the experience right and everyone else doesn't").

Could you clarify the differences in the way we said it that you are pointing out? :)

phil

Kevin Bowser

8th June 2006, 12:14 PM (12:14)

Marsha Lynn

8th June 2006, 12:44 PM (12:44)

Kevin-

I'm not sure I see the difference between what I wrote:

"makes the biggest deal about how filled with the Spirit they are"

and what you wrote:

"makes the biggest deal of how important it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit."

But there is a very big difference. There is no pride in the statement: "There is an experience in which one can be filled with the Spirit of God and changed to the very core of their being." That's an offer of hope, of something more, of freedom from the things that keep us bound up in despair. It says nothing about the one saying it other than that they believe in the possibility of the experience.

On the other hand, the statement: "I am a Spirit-filled Christian," emits warning signals right from the first word -- "I".

One would hope that if Nazarenes make a big deal of how important it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit that they would then practice what they preach and actually be filled with the Spirit (thus my saying "how filled with the Spirit they are"). One would hope, anyway.

Being filled with the Spirit and going around saying, "I am a the best example you have around here of what Spirit-filled believer looks like," are still two different things. It looks to me like this hits at the root of the very thing that you claim bothers you. How do you propose that Spirit-filled people duck your charge of spiritual pride other than to talk more about the Spirit and less about themselves and their personal infilling?

On one hand you hope that Nazarenes will practice what they preach. On the other hand, you complain of those who claim to have experienced what they preach and go on to express concern about those who extol one outward sign as the one true evidence of the Spirit's indwelling. Do you want them to quit preaching sanctification, quit claiming it, or quit being bothered by those who preach to their friends and family that only those who speak in tongues can claim it?

Marsha

Phil Michaels

8th June 2006, 01:21 PM (13:21)

I am trying to draw a distinction between the way you phrased it: "...how filled with the Spirit THEY are." which I took to be an emphasis on the person and the way that I rephrased it: "... how important it is to be filled with the Holy Spirit" which I feel emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit.

Kevin- Thanks for the clairification. That's what is great (and dangerous) about communication: If we take the time to ask questions and truly understand what the other is saying, we learn something and advance our understandings and relationships. The dangerous part is when we assume we know what the other is saying and don't ask questions to clarify and understand, we often wind up in arguments or worse. I am glad we are taking the former path and not the latter!

But another facet of the thread remains. There persists this "control" issue that weaves in and out of several of the serious threads here on NN. I think it would serve us well as a denomination to explore that further and see what is at the root of it.

I absolutely agree with you that our denom. needs to fully explore the control issue. It is a serious problem at all levels of the church. I've experienced this first hand in countless numbers of ways as both a "lay person" and as an associate pastor. One of the major underlying issues is that our entire system of church government is built on an extremely heirarchal model, that also heavily favors/priviledges clergy, and that not only doesn't play well in a postmodern world, but it invites abuses of power of all kinds.

Someone recently in the thread posed the question of what would be Kansas City's response to overwhelming growth in the U.S. that necessitated lay pastors and lay people to pastor those churches. Would it be handled the same way as new churches in Africa and Asia? My guess is "No." And that begs the even greater question: Why are we not seeing that kind of growth here in the part of the world where there is the greatest freedom and opportunity to hear about Jesus Christ and His love for us?

I can say without reservation that it would be handled differently, and to our detriment. Actually, it is my belief that that kind of overwhelming growth is actually begging to burst forth in our country, that the Spirit of God is moving mightily and powerfully across our land, but that we are already quenching Him by our refusal to let go of our power structures and control issues and simply let God do what He wants in our lives and the life of the Church (BIG C!). I think we don't see that growth here because while politically and socially we may have "the greatest freedom and opportunity" as compared to other places in the world, spiritually we are bound and held captive by power, control, oppression, judgment, and fear that all come from our own (the Church's) doing. Other countries may be politically/socially oppressed, but the Spirit is free to do what He wants to do in the life of the Church. We have political/social freedom, but the Spirit is not free to do what He wants to do in the life of the Church. The issue, then, isn't about how much social/political freedom/opportunity we have- it is about whether or not the Church is open to the leading and freedomof the Holy Spirit. So what are the implications for our own tribe? How do we deal with this? Because those with the power and control don't really want to deal with it, do they, since it might mean losing those things?

phil

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 01:30 PM (13:30)

One of the major underlying issues is that our entire system of church government is built on an extremely heirarchal model, that also heavily favors/priviledges clergy, and that not only doesn't play well in a postmodern world, but it invites abuses of power of all kinds.

phil

Hi, Phil - don't know if i have met you or not - but welcome to NazNet.

i totally agree and disagree with your statement. i have seen abuses of power. i have also seen those who absolutely refuse to be a team player. Ever heard the saying, "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians?"

How do you purpose a balance?

Football - - do we ignore coach or not? Do we play our own plays regardless of what we are being instructed to play or not?

Sometimes i think we are trying to play tennis in and among ourselves while playing a football game.

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 01:35 PM (13:35)

On the other hand, the statement: "I am a Spirit-filled Christian," emits warning signals right from the first word -- "I".

agree 100%

Testimonials - - -*smiles*

They should not be focused on what *i* am or have done but rather on what He has and is doing.

Phil Michaels

8th June 2006, 01:41 PM (13:41)

But there is a very big difference. There is no pride in the statement: "There is an experience in which one can be filled with the Spirit of God and changed to the very core of their being." That's an offer of hope, of something more, of freedom from the things that keep us bound up in despair. It says nothing about the one saying it other than that they believe in the possibility of the experience.

Hi Marsha-

I would agree with you. Unless, as is often the case, that statement is followed by (either in actual words or in actions/attitudes displayed), "...and I have it and you don't, which makes me better (more holy, closer to God, whatever) than you, so you need to be how I am or else you aren't as good a Christian as I am." I wish this never happened. But it often does. Just ask anyone outside the COTN about their impressions of Nazarenes. To me, this is absolutely no different than those who claim tongues as some sort of superior spiritual experience. We Nazarenes do the same thing, only instead of tongues, it is "being filled with the Spirit/entire sanctifcation" that makes us "better" than everyone else.

Being filled with the Spirit and going around saying, "I am a the best example you have around here of what Spirit-filled believer looks like," are still two different things.

I absolutely agree. I find many more of us (and I used to be one of them- oh, did I ever! I'm still recovering...) doing the latter rather than the former.

It looks to me like this hits at the root of the very thing that you claim bothers you. How do you propose that Spirit-filled people duck your charge of spiritual pride other than to talk more about the Spirit and less about themselves and their personal infilling?

Well, your suggestion is an excellent place to start! Also, we ought to stop dividing the body of Christ into "innies" and "outies," and recognize that the Spirit of God is at work trying to transform all people- pre-Christian, new Christians, sanctified Christians, older than dirt Christians- ALL of us. We don't need to have two classes of Christians - "Spirit-filled" and "not Spirit-filled." That artificial division strikes at the heart of the problem, which is humanity wanting to create groupings in which some people are "in" and therefore better (and more full of pride) than those who are "out." When we recognize that we are ALL incredibly needful of the grace of God and begin to worship and seek Him anew each day regardless of what experiences we may have had already, those divisions melt away.

Do you want them to quit preaching sanctification, quit claiming it, or quit being bothered by those who preach to their friends and family that only those who speak in tongues can claim it?

None of the above. I don't claim to have all the answers. And I think that such a claim is a good place to start. We need to admit that we neither have God "all figured out" nor have a "special experience" that somehow makes us better than others. Many "tongues people" claim this and they are wrong in my opinion. Many "entire santification people" claim this, too, and they are also wrong, in my opinion. Why not dialogue with other Christians who have different experiences from our own and each learn from the other new and different aspects of what God is like and what He is doing in our lives and in the Church and in the world and in all of Creation, rather than insisting that any one group "has it right"?

phil

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 01:48 PM (13:48)

"innies" and "outies,"

phil

*grins with twinkling eyes*

Know why some have *innies* and others have *outies*?

John Kennedy

8th June 2006, 02:11 PM (14:11)

This should sound a warning to every person who calls themselves a Nazarene. Because of all churches/denominations (with the possible exception of, yes, certain "charismatic" groups), Nazarenes far and away make the biggest deal about how "filled with the Spirit" they are. Why are most of us so able to see the speck of sawdust in our brother's eye (placing "tongues" on a higher level than it should be) but refuse to acknowledge the plank in our own eyes (extreme "spiritual pride", as John put it)?

phil

I wish to make it clear that the above quote is based on what Phil may have thought I said - I have much better things to do than issue a "warning to every person who calls themselves a Nazarene".

I've known all kinds of Nazarenes - good, bad, and indifferent - and they are no more or less likely to manifest spiritual pride than anyone else. I once knew a Nazarene layman who would testify, interminably it seemed, to his having a super abundance of humility. Fortunately he was viewed as the laughing-stock of his congregation.

Whether there are Nazarenes who manifest spiritual pride is a matter far beyond my knowing. Since spiritual pride is a phenomenon that crops up in a lot of different settings, the fact that some Nazarenes may manifest it, along with some Methodists, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, and Charismatics (plus all the church listings in the Yellow Pages), is not entirely surprising. - spiritual pride is a truly ecumenical thing.

It should be noted that in my original quotation, the group that seemed to have the problem of spiritual pride was NOT Nazarene - they sort of looked down on the Nazarenes as not having enough of the Spirit.

I have, in a different post, qiuoted my own church's affirmation of faith relating to the Holy Spirit: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, who takes the things of Christ and reveals them to us, comforting, renewing, and inspiring our souls." I believe that the Spirit dwells in my heart, helping me to see Christ and enabling me to follow him. I am quite satisfied with that as a statement of my belief. Whether that satisfaction amounts to spiritual pride is a matter between myself and God.

Billy Cox

8th June 2006, 02:23 PM (14:23)

I absolutely agree with you that our denom. needs to fully explore the control issue. It is a serious problem at all levels of the church. I've experienced this first hand in countless numbers of ways as both a "lay person" and as an associate pastor. One of the major underlying issues is that our entire system of church government is built on an extremely heirarchal model, that also heavily favors/priviledges clergy, and that not only doesn't play well in a postmodern world, but it invites abuses of power of all kinds.

Farmer Joe was the sort of guy who was always POPULAR with his farmyard animals. They loved him. And always wanted to please him. One day the chicken says to the pig, 'Hey pig, why don't we do something nice for farmer Joe? Why don't we give him BACON AND EGGS for breakfast tomorrow?' The pig thinks about it for a couple of seconds. And then says to the chicken, 'That's going to call for a PRETTY BIG COMMITTMENT. All you've gotta give is a couple of eggs. I've gotta GIVE UP EVERYTHING to do that!'

To make bacon and eggs, the chicken only needs to give a casual commitment. A couple of eggs. But for the pig, giving farmer Joe some tasty fried bacon means the chopping block. He has to GIVE UP HIS LIFE.

If a church (local, district, or general) has an Enron-style collapse, the laypeople (chickens) can choose from dozens of other area churches, but for clergy (pigs) it would be a career catastrophe.

In light of that, why would anyone be surprised that the clergy calls the shots in the institutional church. They have far more at stake, thus they are entitled to control their own destinies. (right?)

Kevin Bowser

8th June 2006, 02:39 PM (14:39)

In light of that, why would anyone be surprised that the clergy calls the shots in the institutional church. They have far more at stake, thus they are entitled to control their own destinies. (right?)

I was right there with you until the last statement (question?)

That is the very essence of the issue. Many are trying to control their own destinies and in so doing try to control the church in much the same way. And heaven help you if you get crossways with someone who needs that kind of control. I have and it is the kind of situation that often drives laymen away rather than stand for what is best for the church instead of what is best for the pastor.

I feel we have gotten off the original track. But, some of these posts have a surface issue and an underlying issue. The surface issue, although not always easy, is certainly easier than the deeper issue.

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 03:08 PM (15:08)

I was right there with you until the last statement (question?)

That is the very essence of the issue. Many are trying to control their own destinies and in so doing try to control the church in much the same way. And heaven help you if you get crossways with someone who needs that kind of control. I have and it is the kind of situation that often drives laymen away rather than stand for what is best for the church instead of what is best for the pastor.

I feel we have gotten off the original track. But, some of these posts have a surface issue and an underlying issue. The surface issue, although not always easy, is certainly easier than the deeper issue.

Question - do you support the parenting advise given by Dr. Spock?

Kevin Bowser

8th June 2006, 03:18 PM (15:18)

I was never a big Dr. Spock fan. And I know my folks weren't either. It still hurts to sit down some times!

Why do you ask?

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 03:20 PM (15:20)

I was never a big Dr. Spock fan. And I know my folks weren't either. It still hurts to sit down some times!

Why do you ask?

Because it seems that your concepts on organizing a church are very similar to how Dr. Spock suggests to organize a family structure.

Kevin Bowser

8th June 2006, 03:23 PM (15:23)

I am not aware of his organizational ideas. I was (am) more aware of his discipline ideas.

What would Dr. Spock have to say about how to organize a church?

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 03:24 PM (15:24)

I am not aware of his organizational ideas. I was (am) more aware of his discipline ideas.

What would Dr. Spock have to say about how to organize a church?

Basically he supports the child being in charge - parent doing what the child wants. This provides for a safe, secure and well-balanced child; thus, a home that operates in harmony.

Kevin Bowser

8th June 2006, 03:41 PM (15:41)

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 03:51 PM (15:51)

Ah, I see what you mean. That is an interesting parallel to draw. Church to Family. But I don't see it that way.

I guess I view the pastor and lay relationship as much more of a peer relationship than some do. Maybe it is because I have know too many too closely and was able to see them as they really were and not how they appeared to be on Sunday morning.

Ah - so - - you don't see them as someone to be respected as your authority?

You see, i am personal friends with several of my professors at school and a few of my charge nurses on my unit. i draw a distinct line in my own heart between what hat i am wearing at a present time; friend - follower. i am their peer for we are the same age and have many things in common, but when we cross the line of the doorway - our roles change and i keep our relationship safe by respecting their position and purpose in my life.

I guess what I am saying is I don't need to be controlled. I need to be led. And if the pastor is led by the Holy Spirit, then I will have no problem following along.

What constitutes proving to you and the congregation that his leading IS of the Holy Spirit?

When you say you need to be led? Are you needing a barking leader or a gentle voice leader?

And one final thought on your family analogy. I guess I see why the protestant church has eschewed some of the trappings of catholicism. Like calling the pastor "Father" for one. I know there are other implications and representations for calling a catholic priest "Father". But, I for one am not looking for a father figure in my pastor. Rather, I am looking for a fellow laborer in those fields that are white unto harvest!

Ah - this isn't even in the same chapter of my family analogy.

Someone has to lead and someone has to follow. i can tell you that it has been rare for my children to thank me for not allowing them to have their demands and wishes granted. i have to tell you that my self-esteem can't rise and fall upon their enjoyment and acceptance of my role in their life.

Teaching is in my opinion the REAL job of any parent.
Perhaps, instead of being lead by your pastor - you need to be taught by your pastor. Perhaps, there are lessons to be learned more than places to go.

Marsha Lynn

8th June 2006, 03:53 PM (15:53)

Hi Marsha-

I would agree with you. Unless, as is often the case, that statement is followed by (either in actual words or in actions/attitudes displayed), "...and I have it and you don't, which makes me better (more holy, closer to God, whatever) than you, so you need to be how I am or else you aren't as good a Christian as I am." I wish this never happened. But it often does. Just ask anyone outside the COTN about their impressions of Nazarenes.

Hmm... I have asked that question and had it answered without asking it. The impression I get locally is that people don't really know much about the Church of the Nazarene because we keep to ourselves rather than being involved in the community. I suppose that our aloofness might be rooted in the fact that we're so holy, but I'm not sure people know us well enough to figure that out. Personally, as one who spends hours every week out in the heart of this small community (working at the public library), I don't find the Church of the Nazarene label I wear to be a social handicap. I run into more curiosity than hostility.

As an "innie," my take on the isolation from the community is that we're constantly reminded that our purpose in life as individual Christians and as a church is to evangelize sinners. With that as our primary goal, we have no reason to interact with people from other churches and don't really know where to find sinners and build relationships with them without endangering our own spiritual health. So we just stay "home" and enjoy our own company. It's not so much that we're better than all the other Christians, we just have no motivation to build relationships with them. After all, they're already saved. What would be the point? Our sole purpose in life is to win converts.

This was one of my primary beefs with The Purpose-Driven Life (which was definitely not aimed toward Nazarenes). None of the purposes included interacting with people wherever they were along their spiritual journey. Rather, it divided the world into the saved (our church family) and the unsaved (all the sinners "out there"). We were to serve and enjoy fellowship with the saved and evangelize the unsaved. That leaves everyone who claims to be a Christian but isn't part of our local congregation in some kind of no-man's-land. We can't afford to expand our service and fellowship to include them, but they don't need our evangelism. What is there to do but ignore them? It's not so much that we're better than they are. We just don't have anything to say to them. We're Nazarenes and they're not. Their culture is different than ours. They emphasize different things. What would we have in common with them?

I don't think this is so much a spiritual superiority problem as a "modern" problem that categorizes people into distinct groups and dictates our relationship with each of the groups.

From my viewpoint, which may be a little skewed.

Marsha

Kevin Bowser

8th June 2006, 04:10 PM (16:10)

OK. I think it best to try to clarify my thoughts and then let this one go.

I respect them without respect to their authority. That is NOT to say that I do not respect their authority. The Bible is clear about that. Although the Bible also speaks directly of praying for them more than respecting them. But I respect them also as a fellow believer.

As to the leading question that you posed... I believe that if I am in tune with the Holy Spirit then He will bear witness with my spirit and I will know. If someone is trying to lead outside of the bounds of Scripture then I don't care if they are a General Superintendent or the Pope. I will not follow them down that path.

I am not sure what you mean in your self-esteem comment. So I won't comment on that.

I agree that teaching is important as a parent. We homeschooled our kids so I am fully aware of that important aspect. But hopefully, more than teaching them about God, my wife and I have lived a life before them and demonstrated God's love for them in such a way that has led them to a point in their lives where they have made Him real and personal to themselves. They have become followers of Christ similarly to how Paul stated it to the Church at Corinth. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ."

I am not trying to pick a fight. I just don't view the role of pastor as some do. My reasons are personal and have developed with experiences over time.

For the record. I love the church. And I have loved and respected every pastor that I have had. Unfortunately that has not always been returned.

Thanks for the dialog.

Belinda Y. Edwards

8th June 2006, 04:16 PM (16:16)

I am not trying to pick a fight.
Thanks for the dialog.

Neither am i ...i do desire for discussion that can be clarifying. You see, we have lurkers of whom aren't all established in the faith -let alone the church. Sometimes we speak in languages that are understood by those who have been within the Church for a while.

Garry and i have made purposeful strides to not be on a pedestal. To be seen as a fellow human being attempting to walk the horizontal Cross in our vertical world. After reading your post about you knowing them outside the realm of the Church position - it caused me to wonder if perhaps we have done a bad thing.

Have a good day.

Billy Cox

8th June 2006, 05:19 PM (17:19)

I was right there with you until the last statement (question?)

That is the very essence of the issue. Many are trying to control their own destinies and in so doing try to control the church in much the same way. And heaven help you if you get crossways with someone who needs that kind of control. I have and it is the kind of situation that often drives laymen away rather than stand for what is best for the church instead of what is best for the pastor.

I feel we have gotten off the original track. But, some of these posts have a surface issue and an underlying issue. The surface issue, although not always easy, is certainly easier than the deeper issue.

I was representing a point of view that I have seen more than once in the local church. I don't agree with it, but I can see why it is so compelling.

The emphasis on planting new churches is a good thing, but the entrepreneurial power granted to church planters is an ominous thing to behold.

Wilson L. Deaton

8th June 2006, 05:54 PM (17:54)

... why are we so worried about losing our "doctrinal purity"? So what if a Church of the Nazarene publicly practices speaking in tongues? Oh no! All is lost! Of course not.

Why do we care so much about things that God doesn't care about?

Can you imagine on judgement day God saying any of the following?

"You never did repent of that time you served communion at a young adult retreat without an Elder present."

"You kept using the wrong pronoun when you recited the creed."

"You did (or didn't) speak in an unknown tongue."

"You worshiped me on Saturday evening instead of Sunday morning."

"You were only sprinkled when you were baptized."

"You read the wrong version of the Bible."

"You didn't tithe on your garage sale income."

"You were skeptical of Job being a historical figure."

"You sang the wrong style of music in worship."

"Not only did you go to movies but you also danced!"

"You dressed too casually for worship services."

"You adhered to the wrong theory of atonement."

"You prayed pre-written prayers."

"You voted to cancel Sunday evening services."

What if we started only caring about the things God cared about?

Wilson