Resolutions?

[Hans Deventer]

Is anyone aware of resolutions being submitted to the GA?

[Craig Laughlin]

Anything that moves us toward internationalism. Especially the "every member's vote counts the same" rather than only the rich countries votes counting. Additionally I think the basic rules need to changed so that the General Assembly can be done via electronic networking and voting. Folks could gather at regions and then be connected electronically. Voting would take longer as we waited for those areas that are asleep to vote but it would be a much fairer system. 1/3 ? of Nazarenes live in the US. Time to come to grips with that.

[David Morris]

Anything that moves us toward internationalism. Especially the "every member's vote counts the same" rather than only the rich countries votes counting.

Taking it a step further, anything that takes us from an inward focus to an outward one.


Additionally I think the basic rules need to changed so that the General Assembly can be done via electronic networking and voting. Folks could gather at regions and then be connected electronically. Voting would take longer as we waited for those areas that are asleep to vote but it would be a much fairer system. 1/3 ? of Nazarenes live in the US. Time to come to grips with that.

I'd even go as far as having everyone vote at the same time.

In 2009, NYI did this with 8 (I think, might have been fewer) sites all around the world. I remember the delegates in India voting in the early morning hours since that is when business was being conducted in Orlando, FL.

If I were a delegate to that convention again, I'd be fine staying up past bedtime to do denominational business. We have incredible technology available to us these days...let's take advantage of that!

[Jon Twitchell]

I'd like to see Hans resubmit his resolution about the advance publication of resolutions.

I think it's important that people are able to discuss and debate at home... in local churches... at district gatherings... with the elected delegates... and even on the internet. I think that the elected delegates ought to be able to solicit feedback from their districts... and to do so really requires the resolutions to be made public.

[Eric Frey]

I'd like to see Hans resubmit his resolution about the advance publication of resolutions.

I think it's important that people are able to discuss and debate at home... in local churches... at district gatherings... with the elected delegates... and even on the internet. I think that the elected delegates ought to be able to solicit feedback from their districts... and to do so really requires the resolutions to be made public.

In addition to advance publication of resolutions, I think there ought to be a requirement for publishing committee decisions. I like the model of the Supreme Court where one opinion is written for the majority (explaining their decision) and one is written for the minority (why they objected). I think this would go a long way to showing transparency and gaining trust.

[Steven Martinez]

In addition to advance publication of resolutions, I think there ought to be a requirement for publishing committee decisions. I like the model of the Supreme Court where one opinion is written for the majority (explaining their decision) and one is written for the minority (why they objected). I think this would go a long way to showing transparency and gaining trust.

Interesting. I like the idea in thought. I think in practice it could be quite cumbersome for an opinion on every decision. If we did adopt something like this, I would suggest that the opinions be written anonymously, not to hide, but in order to avoid influence by name recognition. Also it would allow people to perhaps change their minds in the future without having to worry about having a negative reputation. For example, if I wrote an opinion on why I disagreed with a resolution not adopted by the committee I would not want to be forever known by the entire denomination as the one guy who disagreed with the committee.

[Ryan Scott]

I think the published committee vote is good enough, especially for the sheer volume of resolutions they go through in a short amount of time.

[Ryan Scott]

One resolution I'd like to see is a small change to Article XVI

I'd resolve to remove the last four words "suffer eternally in hell" and be replaced with "be hopelessly and eternally lost."

Reasons: 1) Consistency, the same phrase is used in Article VII on prevenient grace and while similar the phrases do not mean exactly the same thing. 2) Scriptural Authority - scripture talks about the finally impenitent being hopelessly and eternally lost, but in some places refers to punishment and in others doesn't mention it. To be consistent with the scriptural witness, we should allow for differences on the specifics of that end.

[Hans Deventer]

One resolution I'd like to see is a small change to Article XVI

I'd resolve to remove the last four words "suffer eternally in hell" and be replaced with "be hopelessly and eternally lost."

Reasons: 1) Consistency, the same phrase is used in Article VII on prevenient grace and while similar the phrases do not mean exactly the same thing. 2) Scriptural Authority - scripture talks about the finally impenitent being hopelessly and eternally lost, but in some places refers to punishment and in others doesn't mention it. To be consistent with the scriptural witness, we should allow for differences on the specifics of that end.

And you think it is a small change? I've thought of proposing it, even drafted a resolution. But although I've submitted several to the GA, I have not dared to do so when it comes to this subject.

[Ryan Scott]

And you think it is a small change? I've thought of proposing it, even drafted a resolution. But although I've submitted several to the GA, I have not dared to do so when it comes to this subject.

I think it's small given the consistency with the other article.

[Hans Deventer]

I think it's small given the consistency with the other article.

Well, please try to get it through your district's committee of delegates!

[Ryan Scott]

Well, please try to get it through your district's committee of delegates!

I might give it a try. You never know, we could probably find five individual delegates to submit the resolution outside the district process.

[David Pettigrew]

I doubt we'll ever get the hell out of the Manual.
One resolution I'd like to see is a small change to Article XVI

I'd resolve to remove the last four words "suffer eternally in hell" and be replaced with "be hopelessly and eternally lost."

Reasons: 1) Consistency, the same phrase is used in Article VII on prevenient grace and while similar the phrases do not mean exactly the same thing. 2) Scriptural Authority - scripture talks about the finally impenitent being hopelessly and eternally lost, but in some places refers to punishment and in others doesn't mention it. To be consistent with the scriptural witness, we should allow for differences on the specifics of that end.

[Ryan Scott]

We could make it "be hopelessly and eternally lost in hell" if you really think it would sell better.

[David Pettigrew]

It probably would. We Christians want hell to be hot and long. Could you work something about "the worm dieth not" in?

[Hans Deventer]

We could make it "be hopelessly and eternally lost in hell" if you really think it would sell better.

Would be much better!

[Kevin Rector]

It seems rather difficult to consider putting forth resolutions when it appears that the entire manual may get a major overhaul by Dave's committee.

[Ryan Scott]

It seems rather difficult to consider putting forth resolutions when it appears that the entire manual may get a major overhaul by Dave's committee.

Not the constitution, articles of faith, agreed statement of belief or covenant of christian character; they're really only working to redo the organizational sections and perhaps the covenant of christian conduct.

[Lucas Finch]

We Christians want hell to be hot and long.

The more fire and brimstone, the better! Let's make those wretched sinners suffer long and hard!

[Hans Deventer]

The more fire and brimstone, the better! Let's make those wretched sinners suffer long and hard!

Yeah. And God forbid He'd have mercy on those who don't deserve it!!!!!!!!!!

Or...... wait a minute...... mercy.......... don't deserve.........

[Lucas Finch]

Or...... wait a minute...... mercy.......... don't deserve.........

Indeed.

[Billy Cox]

I'd like to see Hans resubmit his resolution about the advance publication of resolutions.

I think it's important that people are able to discuss and debate at home... in local churches... at district gatherings... with the elected delegates... and even on the internet. I think that the elected delegates ought to be able to solicit feedback from their districts... and to do so really requires the resolutions to be made public.

I think that NazNet is the most democratic thing going on in the Church of the Nazarene. I am aware of no other venue in which rank and file Nazarenes have access to delegates, with the opportunity to discuss the business to be conducted at GA.

[Jon Twitchell]

I think that NazNet is the most democratic thing going on in the Church of the Nazarene. I am aware of no other venue in which rank and file Nazarenes have access to delegates, with the opportunity to discuss the business to be conducted at GA.

This may be the case, but NazNet has graciously and willingly complied with the General Church's request that resolutions not be published.

Now... historically some delegate out there has leaked the resolutions onto the internet, and so we've considered it open season for discussion. But NazNet has not (at least not 4 years ago) hosted the documents and made them available. My support is for the resolution that was submitted four years ago (and defeated unanimously in committee), that the resolutions be made public.

[Eric Frey]

This may be the case, but NazNet has graciously and willingly complied with the General Church's request that resolutions not be published.

Now... historically some delegate out there has leaked the resolutions onto the internet, and so we've considered it open season for discussion. But NazNet has not (at least not 4 years ago) hosted the documents and made them available. My support is for the resolution that was submitted four years ago (and defeated unanimously in committee), that the resolutions be made public.

Which is a perfect example of why a rational ought to be published with the decision...:smilies0161:

[Billy Cox]

This may be the case, but NazNet has graciously and willingly complied with the General Church's request that resolutions not be published.

Now... historically some delegate out there has leaked the resolutions onto the internet, and so we've considered it open season for discussion. But NazNet has not (at least not 4 years ago) hosted the documents and made them available. My support is for the resolution that was submitted four years ago (and defeated unanimously in committee), that the resolutions be made public.

That's my denomination... Still living with the belief that they control the flow of information.

[David Stevens]

My Very Humble Opinion is that the "resolution process" will not survive much longer. It is much too North American.

[Dan Henderson]

I'd like to see Hans resubmit his resolution about the advance publication of resolutions.

I think it's important that people are able to discuss and debate at home... in local churches... at district gatherings... with the elected delegates... and even on the internet. I think that the elected delegates ought to be able to solicit feedback from their districts... and to do so really requires the resolutions to be made public.


I agree but I think for a different reason. I don't think secrecy is appropriate in a church government. I don't think there is a truly acceptable reason for not being totally transparent (executive decisions concerning discliplining individuals by name excepted).

[John Kennedy]

I doubt we'll ever get the hell out of the Manual.

Thank God, that document has, to be best of my knowledge, absolutely nothing to say about dams.

[Ryan Scott]

Well, please try to get it through your district's committee of delegates!

So, funny story. I got a phone call today from a member of my district's GA resolution committee. Apparently someone on the district (a district I've only lived on three months and am still in the process of transferring membership and credentials to) took my resolution from this thread and formally submitted it to the committee. My name isn't on it, necessarily, but it was attached to it during discussion.

They're going to discuss and decide on whether to put it forward tomorrow. He didn't think there was a great chance of it getting passed (although perhaps if we keep the word "hell" in but remove suffering), but I found it fascinating that it even happened.

Watch what you post here. You never know where it will show up again.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I might give it a try. You never know, we could probably find five individual delegates to submit the resolution outside the district process.

Ryan - Can you give more information on how this is a provision for the GA? I couldn't find it quickly in the Manual, only that districts sponsor resolutions.

[Ryan Scott]

Ryan - Can you give more information on how this is a provision for the GA? I couldn't find it quickly in the Manual, only that districts sponsor resolutions.

I don't think it's in the Manual; I think I remember seeing it in the delegate information.

http://web.nazarene.org/site/DocServer/GAResolutionInstructions.pdf?docID=661 - This was from 2009.

As far as I know this has always been practice. I suspect there is a committee that recommends rules for the whole body to approve.

[David Pettigrew]

Ryan I hope your resolution gets some traction. Kevin had a wild idea about gender neutral language last time, and it ended up changing the whole book.

I'm pretty surprised this whole thread/forum isn't seeing more activity. It seems to me in 2008 we were abuzz with GA talk at this point in the process. Of course, we were all hopeful that some significant and real change would take place - need it or not. Perhaps we're keeping our expectations lowered this time around.

[Steven Martinez]

Ryan I hope your resolution gets some traction. Kevin had a wild idea about gender neutral language last time, and it ended up changing the whole book.

I'm pretty surprised this whole thread/forum isn't seeing more activity. It seems to me in 2008 we were abuzz with GA talk at this point in the process. Of course, we were all hopeful that some significant and real change would take place - need it or not. Perhaps we're keeping our expectations lowered this time around.

I think the discussion will pick up post November. I think there are a few factors for the inactivity. One, the leadership of our denomination has been very proactive in some serious theological and social issues. This eliminates the need for manual revisions on such matters. Two, those who are truly in the know (DS and the like) understand that the committee report that Dave McClung and others are/were working on will change things if there are resolutions in it so i think many people are in a wait and see mode. Three, there seemed to me, that there were several retirements of DSs and many districts focused on replacing them than other things. Also many resolutions are essentially raised or killed by the DS before they reach the DA.
Like I said, I see more discussion after the election and lots more discussion if we actually see the resolutions beforehand.

[Kevin Rector]

I have this theory that resolutions gain more traction when submitted by more than one district/world area. Hans seems to like it, so he should submit it via his district as well.

[Cam Pence]

Is anyone aware of resolutions being submitted to the GA?


That's what I come to you guys for! :)

[Hans Deventer]

I don't think it's in the Manual; I think I remember seeing it in the delegate information.

http://web.nazarene.org/site/DocServer/GAResolutionInstructions.pdf?docID=661 - This was from 2009.

As far as I know this has always been practice. I suspect there is a committee that recommends rules for the whole body to approve.

The GA always adopts its rules at the very start of the meetings. In those rules that provision can be found. 5 GA delegates can submit a resolution, I've done it before.

[Larry Parsons]

One resolution I'd like to see is a small change to Article XVI

I'd resolve to remove the last four words "suffer eternally in hell" and be replaced with "be hopelessly and eternally lost."

Reasons: 1) Consistency, the same phrase is used in Article VII on prevenient grace and while similar the phrases do not mean exactly the same thing. 2) Scriptural Authority - scripture talks about the finally impenitent being hopelessly and eternally lost, but in some places refers to punishment and in others doesn't mention it. To be consistent with the scriptural witness, we should allow for differences on the specifics of that end.
It sound like you don't believe the lost will suffer eternally in hell they will just be wondwering around lost in Hell. I don't see why Hans is agree with you when he claim to be conditionist who believe both body and soul will be destroy in Hell.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

It sound like you don't believe the lost will suffer eternally in hell they will just be wondwering around lost in Hell. I don't see why Hans is agree with you when he claim to be conditionist who believe both body and soul will be destroy in Hell.
Thanks
Larry

Very simple, Larry. Annihilism means that people will indeed "be hopelessly and eternally lost." So it is pretty easy to agree with Ryan's statement.
And I completely agree with aligning the Articles of Faith with the Agreed Statement of Belief.

I also believe what the Psalm says: "His anger is but for a moment; his favour is for a lifetime". It's a matter of God's character.

Lastly, I think those who really believe people will burn in hell for all eternity but are not busy warning them by day and by night, run a huge risk of ending up there themselves.

[Larry Parsons]

Very simple, Larry. Annihilism means that people will indeed "be hopelessly and eternally lost." So it is pretty easy to agree with Ryan's statement.
And I completely agree with aligning the Articles of Faith with the Agreed Statement of Belief.

I also believe what the Psalm says: "His anger is but for a moment; his favour is for a lifetime". It's a matter of God's character.

Lastly, I think those who really believe people will burn in hell for all eternity but are not busy warning them by day and by night, run a huge risk of ending up there themselves.
I thought the annihilationist believe that the lost will finally be destroyed both body and soul in hell. If you believe this I can't see how you can agree even with the manual,
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

I thought the annihilationist believe that the lost will finally be destroyed both body and soul in hell. If you believe this I can't see how you can agree even with the manual,
Thanks
Larry

Not with the Articles of Faith, no. But it does agree with the Agreed Statement of Belief. If you cannot see that, than I'll take that statement as such: YOU can't see it. I can.

[Ryan Scott]

The key phrase is "suffering eternally." Scripture gives us two pictures of what happens to those judged unworthy in the end. It talks once of suffering and it talks three times of a "second death" or something similar.

I personally don't see enough in scripture to take any particular stand on the matter - the finally impenitent will be hopelessly and eternally lost. Those who don't come to Christ will be lost. It's pretty simple.

I would hate to see us exclude anyone over something so relatively trivial as to the details of what "hopelessly and eternally lost" actually means.

[Larry Parsons]

Not with the Articles of Faith, no. But it does agree with the Agreed Statement of Belief. If you cannot see that, than I'll take that statement as such: YOU can't see it. I can.
If the annihilationist believe that the lost will finally be destroyed in hell. Then how can they be eternal lost if they are killed in hell. I think you will agree that the word destruction is ofen used in relation to the final state of the lost.
Thanks
Larry

[Rich Schmidt]

Then how can they be eternal lost if they are killed in hell.

How would they be "found" again if they're destroyed/annihilated? That seems like a pretty permanent way to be lost... Which means they are "eternally lost."

[Larry Parsons]

How would they be "found" again if they're destroyed/annihilated? That seems like a pretty permanent way to be lost... Which means they are "eternally lost."
Being lost in Hell is type of punishment which mean the soul is still alive in Hell and not killed which the scripture tell us both body and soul will be killed in hell.
Thanks
Larry

[Rich Schmidt]

Being lost in Hell is type of punishment which mean the soul is still alive in Hell and not killed which the scripture tell us both body and soul will be killed in hell.
Thanks
Larry

OK.... I was just trying to help you see how "annihilated" and "eternally lost" can fit together, since you seemed to have trouble making them fit.

In the case of annihilation, "eternally lost" doesn't mean that forever and ever that person's soul is "lost" in hell. It means that with their annihilation they are "lost" for good, permanently, eternally, forever. They are no longer "there" to be found. They are eternally lost.

Does that make sense?

It would be like losing irreplaceable family photos in a house fire. They burned up completely. They were eternally lost, never to be restored.

[Hans Deventer]

OK.... I was just trying to help you see how "annihilated" and "eternally lost" can fit together, since you seemed to have trouble making them fit.

In the case of annihilation, "eternally lost" doesn't mean that forever and ever that person's soul is "lost" in hell. It means that with their annihilation they are "lost" for good, permanently, eternally, forever. They are no longer "there" to be found. They are eternally lost.

Does that make sense?

Of course.

[Hans Deventer]

Being lost in Hell is type of punishment which mean the soul is still alive in Hell and not killed ...
Thanks
Larry

Larry, this doesn't make sense to me at all. Can you please explain?

Thanks,
Hans

[Jon Twitchell]

which the scripture tell us both body and soul will be killed in hell.


This actually sounds to me like an argument for annihilation.

[Hans Deventer]

This actually sounds to me like an argument for annihilation.

It is, but the point is that Larry thinks that these people are not eternally lost. Why that is, I don't understand.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry, this doesn't make sense to me at all. Can you please explain?

Thanks,
Hans
Hans after reading Rich statement I now understand how you are using the word lost and if lost mean it was destroy then I'm ok with that. What I had in mind of someone that was lost in the wood and being lost in the wood is frighted and scare feeling can you imagine to have that feeling throughout eternal it would be hell. again how you and Rich are using the word I think I can agree.
Thanks
Larry