Denominational Doctrine Distinctions...fact or fantasy?

[JD Sherrow]

A generation or two back, mainline denominations were known by two distinctive characteristics:

1. Doctrinally
2. Socially

In other words, if you attended a Nazarene church, you knew what to expect in these two areas. If you attended a Baptist or Lutheran or Presbyterian, etc...

Socially it may still be relatively unchanged. Not so Doctrinally. Changing times have imposed what I term, "ecumenical homogenization" on denominations in that, on the surface it is hard to detect doctrinal distinctions after occasional attendance at a worship service.

The following are not my words but they speak for me.

"We live in a world of theological diversity, ignorance and indifference, even among Christians. Theological distinctives of denominations are not even known among the professing members of some congregations, and furthermore, the denomination of many churches is not even known to many of the attendees. Several of the things which our culture highly esteems set us up for this theological indifference, highly esteemed values such as acceptance, diversity, community and experience.

These things aren't inherently bad, but we must acknowledge the role they play in the status we afford to theology. When we highly value diversity as a whole, it also affects the particulars, and so we have a wide variety of acceptable theologies. Given our accepting culture, it is hard to not end up in a place where it is not necessary to pin down ones particular theological leanings as long as we know we all share the same basics.

We are in a consumer driven society and the church has been greatly influenced by this. We have the freedom to buy just about anything. We get to choose what we will live in, and what variety of shampoo we desire to use. We are used to having options and to picking that which works best for us, and in general, we are pretty content to let our neighbors buy what works for them. Is it any wonder that we carry this attitude over to theology?

This has potential to be a good thing if we can put it within the guardrails of a church that is heavily into the Word of God. There is certainly room for diversity, acceptance, experience, etc. in the kingdom of God, but if we don’t - across the board - have a high regard for, and knowledge of Scripture then we put ourselves greatly at risk of falling prey to heresy or relativism."

OK, congregation...?

[Roland Hearn]

JD, I agree with a lot that is written here. I disagree with some of the reasons that are stated for the result but I am not sure that matters.
One of the great tragedies I see in the development of the Church of the Nazarene is that in the midst of our push for internationalization there has also been a push for main line acceptance. We were once considered a sect (very different from a cult), we weren't mainline. That said something about our theology but it also said something about our passion. I think, to our loss, we are less focused on the former and we have all but lost the latter.

[JD Sherrow]

JD, I agree with a lot that is written here. I disagree with some of the reasons that are stated for the result but I am not sure that matters.
One of the great tragedies I see in the development of the Church of the Nazarene is that in the midst of our push for internationalization there has also been a push for main line acceptance. We were once considered a sect (very different from a cult), we weren't mainline. That said something about our theology but it also said something about our passion. I think, to our loss, we are less focused on the former and we have all but lost the latter.

Roland, you're right about the reasons not mattering. I would guess that they are "geography specific." I mean, I'm in northern Illinois, USA and you are in Australia. I'm pretty sure the cultural influences are different.

However, your observations about our beloved denomination is spot on. Your description is exactly my experience since the legalistic days of the 1950s-1970s.

Your closing statement,

"That said something about our theology but it also said something about our passion. I think, to our loss, we are less focused on the former and we have all but lost the latter."

is as profound as I have read anywhere.

[Kevin Bowser]

JD,

This is very similar to a discussion that my wife and I had on the way to church this past Sunday morning. We were discussing some of this all in the context of the small/medium/large churches and the roles that various ministries play in reaching the world for Jesus Christ.

I agree with Roland's statememt that we have lost a great deal of our doctrinal distinctiveness and that has had a negative impact on our passion. And in many large churches today we are trying to recapture the doctrinal high-ground through passionate worship. To me, passionate worship flows out of a right relationship with God. And our view of who God is and how He interacts with us is driven by our doctrinal positions.

My point to my wife was that we have let much of the whole "seeker sensitive" movement shape not only our worship style, but also our doctrine and teaching lest we be too confrontational or "offensive."

Just my quick 2 cents. Thanks for posting the thought and question.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

My point to my wife was that we have let much of the whole "seeker sensitive" movement shape not only our worship style, but also our doctrine and teaching lest we be too confrontational or "offensive."




As i have eavesdropped and read this part, i couldn't resist not responding. For to me you have posted a broad general statement. To me, your statement implies that all *seeker sensitive* worship experiences are with less confrontation or offensive thought. i have found that those who are seeking are eager to learn and aren't offended with the truths found in God's Word. i have found that there are Christians and unbelievers alike, who are offended with the principles in God's Word - because it means a change on their part. A seeker is usually already dissatified with their life and are seeking to change. A Christian or unbeliever are usually trying to find scriptures or philosophical thought to support why they are okay and don't have to make any changes.



Just from my experience, which seems to be different from yours. Both accurate - but different.

[Bruce Carriker]

What, exactly, is our doctrinal distinctive? As Dr. Mark Quanstrom points out in his book of a couple of years ago, we are not in fundamental agreement WITHIN the church about our supposed "doctrinal distinctive". So I guess the real question here is, do we continue to operate without a clearly defined distinctive, accepting both schools beneath the broader "Wesleyan" umbrella? Or do we force the issue to a resolution? And if we opt for option 2, what do we do when 1/2 the church forms a new church, or leaves for other denominations?

I'm not sure the passion thing has as much to do with our doctrinal distinctive, or lack thereof, as it does with the transition from being a movement to being an institution. A movement is passion driven, and concerned with broadening the movement. An institution is primarily concerned with the care and feeding of the institution. It's a question of looking inward or looking outward. And we could look outward, if we wanted to, even without 100% agreement on theological issues.

[Kevin Bowser]

i have found that those who are seeking are eager to learn and aren't offended with the truths found in God's Word.

Here is where slogans and cliches fall apart. Is the "seeker sensitive" movement really driven by seekers seeking God? Or is it driven by churches seeking to grow? My experience is that it is not caused by an over abundance of seekers in the church and no way to effectively minister to them. Instead many churches that have moved to the seeker sensitive model have done so due to the latter and not the former. By that I mean they have NO seekers at there church so they morph into something that world tells them will be appealing to the microwave, fast food and TV generation and in so doing they will attract (you can also read the word "trick" into this) people to their church so that somehow they can unwittingly become saved. (Apologies for a little sarcasm)

I understand churches that may be overrun by folks seeking the Lord and therefore changing to meet that need. But, I just haven't seen that happen very often. And if it did, that would be a terrrible problem to have! I would love to see the altars of my church lined every Sunday with seekers! I bet once they got saved, they wouldn't care what music we used, how new our facilities were or whether or not we had the latest gadgets and gizmos and multimedia slide backgrounds for our sermons. In fact, I bet those new seekers would be busy going out to find their lost friends and family and bring them in that they might get saved too!

OK, I am calming down now...

I just can't get away from John 12:32 and 33:
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Consider Matthew Henry's commentary on that passage:
The strange method he took to accomplish his design by being lifted up from the earth. What he meant by this, to prevent mistake, we are told (v. 33): This he spoke signifying by what death he should die, the death of the cross, though they had designed and attempted to stone him to death. He that was crucified was first nailed to the cross, and then lifted up upon it. He was lifted up as a spectacle to the world; lifted up between heaven and earth, as unworthy of either; yet the word here used signifies an honourable advancement, ean hypsoµthoµ—If I be exalted; he reckoned his sufferings his honour.

Was Christ's death, in fact, a "seeker sensitive" act? YES!
But the very nature of His life and sacrificial death are very hard to separate from what He is calling me to do if I am to take up my cross daily and follow Him. And that message, central to the Gospel, is hard to make "seeker sensitive" as it is commonly understood in the 21st century church.

Ok, almost completely calm now...

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

As i have already stated, our experiences are different.

Your definition is nothing like what i have ever seen or heard. i don't understand what you are saying at all. i have heard some speak of what you describe but it isn't anything like what i know; therefore, i can't relate. The only reason i peeked in is that if perchance someone out there would have an experience like mine, i wanted them to know they weren't alone.

All about the seeker.
All about the saint.
Either *style* would be wrong.
When it is all about the Savior - that is where i belong. It seems that that is what you are saying, too.

As far as your statements about the settings that establish the atmosphere - i think that is as relative to the community of which the church is established as anything else.

You will see a power point in our Sanctuary - but you will also see the Eucharist elements that are used weekly.

As always, i enjoy the exchange with you.

[Kevin Bowser]

OUCH!

I wish I didn't agree with what you wrote. But I do.

And Quanstrom points out some interesting observations. I am nervous any time we ascribe an acid test for orthodoxy as one of the two sides is more likely to do. (Unfortunately for me, that is the side I find myself on...) I think there is room for expression of how we experience sanctification and how we define it publicly. I do not necessarily need the term "second" in that definition. But I do need a definable change and impact on my life as a result of whatever it is that happens as a direct result of my infilling with the Holy Spirit and my daily walk with Jesus Christ.

As for option two... What denomination would be a likely candidate for taking half of us that isn't also having this same internal discussion?

[JD Sherrow]

As i have already stated, our experiences are different.

Your definition is nothing like what i have ever seen or heard. i don't understand what you are saying at all. i have heard some speak of what you describe but it isn't anything like what i know; therefore, i can't relate.

Belinda, I found this description of the Seeker Sensitive church. If you think this is isolated or far-fetched, take a look at the results of your poll:

Full of fellowship = 62.5%
Joyful = 55%

Educational = 27.5%
Theological = 17.5%

These numbers mirror the description that follows. I've never met Kevin in my life but his observations are on the mark.

I have become quite familiar with a number of churches that are patterned after the seeker model. Apparantly several of the pastors have been heavily influenced by churches such as Willow Creek and Saddleback Community. My own experience, as well as some reading on the subject, has caused me to be alarmed about this trend in modern churches. Here are just a few of my concerns:

1. The emphasis seems to be on meeting "felt needs" rather than procalaiming the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, the gospel is often re-packaged as the answer for low self-esteem, marital discord, career problems, psychological distress, etc. Rather than seekers being perceived as sinners in need of salvation, they are perceived as lonely singles, bored executives, victims of disfunctional families, or whatever. Rather than presenting a bold, truly Biblical message, too often the pastor presents the type of message that he hopes will appeal to the seekers and meet their "felt needs".

2. The seeker model of the church does not quite square with my understanding of the theological and Biblical definition of a church. This is not the church as the "Body of Christ", as a gathering of saints, the local assembly of the elect, or any of the definitions commonly held over the ages within orthodox Christianity. Instead, it is what someone described as a "sort of halfway house for recovering nonreligious people".

3. The focus of the seeker model seems to be too often on the seeker rather than on God.

4. Because of the issues raised in points 2 & 3, this brings the whole idea of "worship" into question. I believe that the Bible teaches us that worship should take place when we gather together. However, I believe that any attempts at "worship" (usually in the form of music) within the seeker model of church will only result in a false worship that will be displeasing to God. How can anyone worship Someone they do not know?

5. There is a lack of solid teaching in seeker churches. I know many will disagree with me. I would argue, however respectfully, that there is such a dearth of true, solidly Biblical teaching within most churches in America that people don't even know what they are missing. Most of the sermons that I have heard coming out of seeker churches, no matter how wonderful their delivery, how "inspiring" and "moving" and even "convicting", were little more than ear tickling or extemely dumbed-down pseudo-teaching with a few Scriptures flung in for good measure.

6. The whole concept of seeker and market-driven churches is based on a worldly, materialistic mindset. Somehow, evangelism has ceased to be proclaiming the message of our Lord Jesus Christ and instead has become a series of techniques and strategies--as if we could manipulate people and the work of the Holy Spirit.

7. Thus, though many seekers may come, I fear that what they find will be a watered-down version of the Truth, a pseudo-Christianity, a self-help gospel, a "faith" that will not save.

The answer? I believe that churches should focus their efforts on real teaching, on discipleship, on equipping the saints--instead of on making themselves palatable to the unsaved. Then evangelism will take place all the time, out in the world where the sinners are. Instead of "seeker services", we should be having in-depth studies of God's Word--and yes, even of doctrine and theology--so that those who have supposedly already found God can know enough to live holy lives and lead others to Him.

[Kevin Bowser]

I really enjoy yours as well. I have been a little pre-occupied with family and work for much interchange on NazNet. And today I got caught up a little too much in the exchange.

Nevertheless, I think the thread is a valuable one. And one that needs more debate within the family of the Body of Christ.

[Bruce Carriker]

OUCH!

As for option two... What denomination would be a likely candidate for taking half of us that isn't also having this same internal discussion?

I wasn't implying (or didn't mean to) that half the church would move en masse to another denomination; just that half the church would likely find its way, eventually, to other places.

As for candidates, the Wesleyan Church seems like an obvious candidate. Some conservative United Methodist districts would work for some. The Free Methodists. If there is a split in the Episcopal Church USA, I can see the conservative branch of that split being a home for wayward Nazarenes. Not to mention the thousands of independent congregations around the country.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

*laughs* :) :)

From what i have read at NazNet - we have more traditional churches represented here than seeker churches. That idea causes me to think that the poll interpretation is more what traditional churches are saying rather than seeker churches.

We are very theologically correct and much depth of teaching. i saw that in the poll, and frankly was puzzled. Our church is a fellowshipping church but also one of teachings.

Your post is what people who are opposed say - but it isn't about those who have experienced it.

[Kevin Bowser]

I didn't mean to imply a mass exodus. Rather a winnowing away. But I know that the Wesleyans are having this same discussion as are the CMA churches. I don't know about the Free Methodists or the EC USA.

Do you think it would be hard to feel completely comfortable in an independent? One of the things I like about the CotN is that we are a large enough denomination to offer many advantages, such as our colleges, seminary and our support of a world-wide missions organization.

[BobHunt]

so by saying a church is seeker sensitive, are you saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach? ohhhh did I just say that???

[Barb Bouldrey]

I have a problem of definition. Is the only definition of a "seeker church" a contemporary church?

Can't a traditional church be a "seeker church?"

I have always understood the difference in the terms "traditional" and "contemporary." But it aggrevates me to label all contemporary churches as "seeker friendly churches" and then that makes me think that all traditional churches are considered "non-seeker friendly."

I understand what Kevin is saying....I do not see seekers flocking to churches labeled as "seeker churches." I see seekers going to on-fire, friendly churches that are making an effort to reach out.

Changing worship style does not automatically guarantee that people are going to rush into my church.

To be a seeker church my church needs to seek the lost and get them here. We have to have the Presence and convicting Power of the Holy Spirit to seek the lost...no matter what the label is on that church or the style of worship.

And, it depends on locale I am sure, but I still believe there are young people out in the world who would enjoy coming to a traditional service and seek the Lord.

Now, I am in favor of necessary change. In the 6 years we have been here we have made a lot of changes...slowly.

I just would be offended if my church would not be considered a "seeker church" just because we are not totally contemporary in our worship.

Barb

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

Good point, Barb. i agree with your post.

[John Kennedy]

What, exactly, is our doctrinal distinctive? As Dr. Mark Quanstrom points out in his book of a couple of years ago, we are not in fundamental agreement WITHIN the church about our supposed "doctrinal distinctive". So I guess the real question here is, do we continue to operate without a clearly defined distinctive, accepting both schools beneath the broader "Wesleyan" umbrella? Or do we force the issue to a resolution? And if we opt for option 2, what do we do when 1/2 the church forms a new church, or leaves for other denominations?

I'm not sure the passion thing has as much to do with our doctrinal distinctive, or lack thereof, as it does with the transition from being a movement to being an institution. A movement is passion driven, and concerned with broadening the movement. An institution is primarily concerned with the care and feeding of the institution. It's a question of looking inward or looking outward. And we could look outward, if we wanted to, even without 100% agreement on theological issues.



This is an observation from an NNN (non-Naz Naznetter). Having spent the first 35 + years of my life as a Naz PK, pastor while a student, and layman, I think I have at least a passing acquaintance with Nazarene doctrine and ways of thought.

It seems to be the concensus that there are two schools of thought about the Nazarene 'doctirnal distinctive' - those who hold to the American Holiness Movement point of view and those who are inclined to the classic Wesleyan point of view, unfiltered by the AHM perspective.

I think there are actually three: the classic Wesleyan view, the AHM view, and a very large segment whose question addressed to both camps would be "Hey, what are you guys talking about?"

It has been pointed out numerous times that many Nazarenes often get their doctrinal and theological teachings from non-Nazarene sources. This has certainly been the case with 'end-time' issues. There is no reason to think that the Nazarene 'doctrinal distinctive' has enjoyed some sort of immunity in this respect.

Once again, this is simply an observation from a friendly 'outsider'. I certainly don't have a horse in this race.

[Hans Deventer]

To me, passionate worship flows out of a right relationship with God. And our view of who God is and how He interacts with us is driven by our doctrinal positions.

And I may hope, more and more out of the interactions themselves than out of our doctrinal positions, or there would be something terribly wrong here.

[Roland Hearn]

It seems to be the concensus that there are two schools of thought about the Nazarene 'doctirnal distinctive' - those who hold to the American Holiness Movement point of view and those who are inclined to the classic Wesleyan point of view, unfiltered by the AHM perspective.

I think there are actually three: the classic Wesleyan view, the AHM view, and a very large segment whose question addressed to both camps would be "Hey, what are you guys talking about?"

I think you are completely right John. I consider myself a classic Wesleyan but I certainly understand the reasons for the development of the AHM perspectives and I don't think they are totally invalid. I think anything pushed to an extreme won't hold. I agree that most people don't know the distinction.
I would say this however, our distinctive is the concept that we can encounter God at a deeply transformational level that deals with the very core issue and leaves a person capable of reflecting perfect love. That is something worth living for and something worth giving your life for. Such an encounter with grace is well reflected in a crisis experience and equally well reflected in a love well lived. I think the debate between the perspectives has merit but I think the grander issue is the call to a deeper level of grace. At their very best that was at the centre of the AHM. Nazarenes are born to call people to grace and experience the very best of God and experience all of God. We should never settle for the kind of experience that leaves us all consumed by incidentals but by press on with a passion for an encounter with God that leaves us wanting more of Him and the ability to live out the privilege of giving our lives away for the Master.

[Cindi Hammons]

I think there are actually three: the classic Wesleyan view, the AHM view, and a very large segment whose question addressed to both camps would be "Hey, what are you guys talking about?"


John, how true! I would say that 95% of the people in my church don't know what the AHM is, much less be able to compare/contrast it with pure Wesleyanism.

Unfortunately, I don't believe my percentage is an exageration.

[JD Sherrow]

so by saying a church is seeker sensitive, are you saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach? ohhhh did I just say that???

You got it, Bob. That's what Church Suppers are for!

[Bruce Carriker]

I didn't mean to imply a mass exodus. Rather a winnowing away. But I know that the Wesleyans are having this same discussion as are the CMA churches. I don't know about the Free Methodists or the EC USA.

Do you think it would be hard to feel completely comfortable in an independent? One of the things I like about the CotN is that we are a large enough denomination to offer many advantages, such as our colleges, seminary and our support of a world-wide missions organization.

To the folks who find those things important, then belonging to an independent church might be an issue. But the truth is, I don't think those things matter to a lot of people...at least not like they did when I was a kid.

It would not bother me if our colleges went away. I think much could be accomplished, at least in terms of economy of scale, if the Wesleyans and the CON could figure a way to combine our higher education goals.

I would hate to see the seminary go away, because I think it offers a fairly unique...and balanced...treatment of English Wesleyanism versus the American Holiness Movement version of Wesleyanism.

I support world-wide missions, and I would not want to belong to a church that was not outward focused in some way. But I could just as easily belong to a church that was willing to dedicate a substantial portion their tithes and offerings to compassionate ministry and outreach here.

[John Kennedy]

To the folks who find those things important, then belonging to an independent church might be an issue. But the truth is, I don't think those things matter to a lot of people...at least not like they did when I was a kid.

It would not bother me if our colleges went away. I think much could be accomplished, at least in terms of economy of scale, if the Wesleyans and the CON could figure a way to combine our higher education goals.

I would hate to see the seminary go away, because I think it offers a fairly unique...and balanced...treatment of English Wesleyanism versus the American Holiness Movement version of Wesleyanism.

I support world-wide missions, and I would not want to belong to a church that was not outward focused in some way. But I could just as easily belong to a church that was willing to dedicate a substantial portion their tithes and offerings to compassionate ministry and outreach here.


*****

I think there's a strong case to be made that one of the most far-sighted things the early CotN did was to establish and support, financially and numerically, a strong system of higher education .

(As I sit here writing this, I'm recalling the amount of time I seemed to spend with the Dean of Students at Bethany - had they known I was gonna' say all these nice things, maybe they would've been inclined to cut me more slack - oh well, maybe that makes these kind words more altrustic)

The decision to establish and support accredited liberal arts institutions was especially significant. It meant that Nazarene colleges were competitive in attracting students who would go on to graduate and professional schools.


It also enabled the colleges to turn out not only preachers but teachers and business people who would form a strong financial and numerical nucleus for many congregations. This had the interesting side-effect of not only opening the community to the church but also, opening the church to the community. It served to prevent or limit some of the social isolation that would result from its relatively strict standards of behavior.

It greatly increased the likelihood that Nazarene boys would marry Nazarene girls and produce Nazarene children, etc. That, along with affirming a pretty strong sense of denominational identity played a strong role in the progression of the church from a movement, a 'gathered' church, into more of a 'traditional' church.

Now, I realize that a number of you regard this transition from movement into 'settled' body as a tragedy. Get over it. Movements don't really have a very high survival rate - they either institutionalize to some degree to consolidate their gains, or they cease to be.

Some 'bean counter' somewhere could probably put together the data supporting the idea that since college graduates demonstrably have higher incomes, Naz grads who stayed in the church (and a majority have) repaid the church 's financial investment in their education many times over.

The GI Bill was probably the most cost effective thing the US Government Probably one of the most cost-effective things the denomination has ever done was to develop and support a strong higher ed system.

[John Kennedy]

I don't think the full impact of what I'm trying to say has made it through.

I think that third group...."hey, what are you guys talking about?"... isn't just confused by the AHM-Classic Wesleyan dialogue about the 'doctrinal distinctive'. . There's a strong possibility they're not all that conversant with
the doctrinal distinctive itself. JMO.

[Bruce Carriker]

I'm not arguing against Christian colleges, John. I'm not even arguing against Nazarene colleges, specifically. They provide good educations and produce good kids...at least based on the grads I've met.

I'm simply saying that I find it a little redundant to have Kansas Wesleyan, Nebraska Wesleyan, Oklahoma Wesleyan, SNU, and MNU all within about four to six hours driving time of one another. With as much as those two denominations have in common, and as much as both stress higher education, you'd think they could find a way to cooperate in this area. Think of the resources that could be freed up for other pursuits like compassionate ministry? Or, if you want to put the savings back into higher education, think of all the scholarships that could be funded with the savings?

As for the inbreeding issue, I'm much more concerned that my daughters marry Christians. If they happen to be Nazarenes, so much the better.

[Bruce Carriker]

On the Wesleyan doctrine issue, I agree with you completely, John. If you asked the average Nazarene to discuss the differences between Classic Wesleyanism and the American Holiness Movement, most wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about.

Somewhere...twenty-five years ago or so...when the Greathouse/Dunning/Wynkoop v. Taylor/Grider contest was officially declared a "draw" by the Generals, we stopped worrying about the different theologies of sanctification, and their implications. In most churches its just not taught anymore.

I know there ARE churches where this is still taught in Sunday school, small groups, and from the pulpit. My statement is made in general terms.

[Scott Daniels]

Two quick thoughts on the loss of denominational distinctives.

1. Read sermons from Wesley, Calvin, Luther, etc... They have titles like: "On the Nature of the Trinity." "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection." "On Justification by Faith." These sermons today would be considered theological lectures.

Most sermons today fall in one of two categores. [A] Pragmatic sermons, "5 Ways to a Happier Marriage." "God's Will for Your Work." "God's Plan for Your Sexuality."

Or they are [B] exegetical sermons and not systematic theologies. For example, an eight week series through 1 John, or six weeks on the parables in Luke. These may deal with theological ideas but they are not systematic in nature.


2. The loss of theological articulateness by the average layperson may be a bad sign, or it may be a positive sign that we are beginning to see "faith" or "belief" less as cognitive assent to certain propositions and more as following the living way of Jesus. I hope this de-emphasis of distinctives is at least in part due to the elevation of ortho-praxy (right living) over orthodoxy (right thinking). I am not opposed to systematic theology - but we must recognize that neither the Bible nor the teachings of Jesus are remotely systematic in their approach to relationship with God.

[Randy Dillon]

The loss of theological articulateness by the average layperson may be a bad sign, or it may be a positive sign that we are beginning to see "faith" or "belief" less as cognitive assent to certain propositions and more as following the living way of Jesus. I hope this de-emphasis of distinctives is at least in part due to the elevation of ortho-praxy (right living) over orthodoxy (right thinking). I am not opposed to systematic theology - but we must recognize that neither the Bible nor the teachings of Jesus are remotely systematic in their approach to relationship with God Hmmm...Can Christians be “following the living way” without some degree of ‘systematic’ forethought? What does ‘cutting straight the word of truth’ mean? (2 Tim. 2:15) Nevertheless, why bother when "5 Ways to a Happier Marriage" "God's Will for Your Work" "God's Plan for Your Sexuality" wins the approval of the crowd? ;-)

I’m sold on the necessity of biblical exegesis, and when done properly, even the scripture yields theological ideas systematically. Consider the Epistle of James and how he systematically builds toward a second work of grace. But that's the problem, it's not done properly --- and in too many places no one seems to care much about it. Just keep the numbers up and be a "hail-fellow-well-met"! (Heartily friendly and congenial) The Bible opens itself up to theology, anthropology, hamartiology, Christology, soteriology, ecclessiology and eschatology, with all its subdivisions. Systematic understandings of grace, faith, justification, regeneration, initial sanctification, entire sanctification, humanity, sin, the place of the church, last days, love, relationships, compassion, evangelism, nurturing, etc.. all come about as crucial elements for “following the living way”. ;-)

When was the last time a true expositor of the word topped the list of desirables in searching for a new pastor? Was it even on the list? Does anyone know what it is?

My heart goes out to all preachers and teachers in ministry today, we're living in a time where, as one author labels it, "theotainment" takes center stage, TV mindsets, and oh... that does not bid well for the doctrinal/exegetical preacher. - Randy

[John Kennedy]

I'm not arguing against Christian colleges, John. I'm not even arguing against Nazarene colleges, specifically. They provide good educations and produce good kids...at least based on the grads I've met.

I'm simply saying that I find it a little redundant to have Kansas Wesleyan, Nebraska Wesleyan, Oklahoma Wesleyan, SNU, and MNU all within about four to six hours driving time of one another. With as much as those two denominations have in common, and as much as both stress higher education, you'd think they could find a way to cooperate in this area. Think of the resources that could be freed up for other pursuits like compassionate ministry? Or, if you want to put the savings back into higher education, think of all the scholarships that could be funded with the savings?

As for the inbreeding issue, I'm much more concerned that my daughters marry Christians. If they happen to be Nazarenes, so much the better.

Bruce -

I ceretainly hope I didn't leave the impression you were arguing against Christian colleges in general or Nazarene colleges in particular. That was not my intent.

I was simply stating that IMO the Nazarene denomination would probably never have become what it is without that substantial commitment to higher education.

Don't really think I came out in favor of 'inbreeding'. Simply noted that Nazarenes who went to Nazarene colleges were somewhat more likely to marry other Nazarenes.

My remarks were meant as 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive'.

Your point about the consolidation of existing institutions is well taken. It is, also, highly unlikely. It would probably require a denominational merger that will never take. place. You spent a career in the military, I in education. We both know that logic and human behavior rarely are found together.

I think the chief factor that will preclude any merger between the Nazarenes and the Free Methodists or Wesleyans is the relative size of the denominations in question. The much smaller FM and Wesleyan denominations would probably view it as a case of 'swallowship' rather than 'fellowship' - a case of absorption rather than merger.

[Scott Daniels]

I’m sold on the necessity of biblical exegesis, and when done properly, even the scripture yields theological ideas systematically. Consider the Epistle of James and how he systematically builds toward a second work of grace.

When was the last time a true expositor of the word topped the list of desirables in searching for a new pastor? Was it even on the list? Does anyone know what it is?

- Randy

Don't misunderstand me Randy (and stop winking at me). I am not a fan of "A" and the best life you can have now. I am with you that we need all the "B" we can get. But I don't think going back to scholasticism and/or doctrinalism is the only alternative. In the same way that thematic preaching can start with a presuppostion and then go look for the proof-text, there are theological presuppositions that are treated in the same manner. My anecdotal experience as a professor was that most students believed all sorts of theological propositions for which they had little biblical basis and no ability to demonstrate biblically.

Since you brought up James, "even the demons believe and shutter." Current studies in ethics seem to indicate that belief does not precede action but that they are highly reciprocal. For example, the disciples didn't first believe Jesus to be Messiah and then come and follow him. They followed him and came to experience him as Messiah.

My only point was perhaps - to use a hermeneutic of charity - the move away from denominationalism is in part due to the idea that although we can't do without either, acting Christianly is as important as believing Christianly. Those actions we have in common: prayer, sacrament, praise, love, self-sacrifice, etc. end up being more unifying than the diversity of cognitive beliefs. Which may be a good thing.

BTW - I'd be interested in the system that comes out of James. It would seem to me that the only way to derive a system from James is to start with the system (; You will have to forgive me - I'm off to teach an OT class tonight with the premise that Ecclesiastes and Job are written to be counter-voices to the sytematic thinking of Proverbs, which makes me either a systematician or un-systematician - I'm not sure.

I think the biblical text - like our understanding and relationship with God - is messy and in the end defies our attempts at systematization. We will by nature keep attempting systems, but like Aquinas writing the Summa Theologica, when we get to the end of the system we have to quit before its over and know we have created a "bail of straw."

[Randy Dillon]

Scott: Don't misunderstand me Randy (and stop winking at me). Thanks, then I'm to speak freely. Guess I'm a bit gun shy.

Since you brought up James, "even the demons believe and shutter." Current studies in ethics seem to indicate that belief does not precede action but that they are highly reciprocal. For example, the disciples didn't first believe Jesus to be Messiah and then come and follow him. They followed him and came to experience him as Messiah. The dynamic of faith should be viewed more as a proper response to God’s instigations rather than the consequent perceptions thereafter. (Faith is the reaction - prompting actions.) This lively faith is apparent in the ‘following’ of the disciples. Grasping who Jesus was came by way of this special divine disclosure to the seekers soul, implying to the reader that a high point in properly responding to God’s call is in gaining spiritual understanding -- As recorded in the affirmation of Peter’s emphatic faith confession in Matthew 16:16-17. This is a key ‘component’ to James’ system of belief. For while featuring the demons non-salvific faith, he skillfully refutes the mere intellectual assent of monotheism. Where there is no movement, there is no life. For the body without the spirit is dead. So faith without works is dead.

A suggested premise to James is that there must be purity in motivation through a single undivided loyalty to God’s will for faith to come into full fruition. He appears to systematically arrange this in his letter. Let’s just take a brief glimpse at his opening.

James begins with the ideal

The perfect model, counting it all joy when we fall into various difficulties is the standard of a healthy faith. When was the last time you heard a stirring joyful testimony from a saint having a hard time? But hey… if you’re having a time applying some good recourse through it all, just ask God for wisdom and he’ll give it liberally.

James moves to the inconsistent

But you better ask in faith, or you’ll get nothing. Don’t want to be like the waves of the sea, moving in…. moving out ….. moving in….. moving out….. for a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Now, can you picture this letter being read out loud to a congregation after you’ve been whining and complaining to everyone about the hardships you’ve recently fallen into?

I won’t go though the entire outline as you get the picture of his systematic theology of faith. The ideal, the inconsistency, the initiation, (every good and perfect gift is from above and comes down to us… 1:17) My only point was perhaps - to use a hermeneutic of charity - the move away from denominationalism is in part due to the idea that although we can't do without either, acting Christianly is as important as believing Christianly. Acting is believing - believing is acting – they cannot be separated as my brother is fully aware. Those actions we have in common: prayer, sacrament, praise, love, self-sacrifice, etc. end up being more unifying than the diversity of cognitive beliefs. Which may be a good thing. True, but on the other hand, how can two walk together except they be in agreement? A ‘cognitive of beliefs’ to be consistent, must prompt a corresponding behavior. “What we have in common” sounds good on the surface Scott, but how does it actually play out? I think the biblical text - like our understanding and relationship with God - is messy and in the end defies our attempts at systematization. We will by nature keep attempting systems, but like Aquinas writing the Summa Theologica, when we get to the end of the system we have to quit before its over and know we have created a "bail of straw." No philosophy of speculation here, but an attempt at an hermeneutical investigation should yield a coherent set of beliefs – biblically. I hope I illustrated that somewhat with a quick look at James' opening.

[Hans Deventer]

Acting is believing - believing is acting – they cannot be separated as my brother is fully aware. True, but on the other hand, how can two walk together except they be in agreement? A ‘cognitive of beliefs’ to be consistent, must prompt a corresponding behavior. “What we have in common” sounds good on the surface Scott, but how does it actually play out? No philosophy of speculation here, but an attempt at an hermeneutical investigation should yield a coherent set of beliefs – biblically. I hope I illustrated that somewhat with a quick look at James' opening.

Randy, I've seen great discipleship from any kind of denomination, and a total lack of it from any denomination, with any set of beliefs. There is no relation between the two. I have been pursuing theological truth for most of my life. I've come to a place where I finally realise I don't need theological truth, I need Jesus. Pretty much like Job, who got no answers (in fact, he got more questions directed at him) but in the end, he found God.

I'd rather walk together with any believer who really knows God, than with a Nazarene who does not but agrees with every theological position I may have.

In my 48 years I found out that searching for truth as such issues in hot heads and cold hearts, in judgementalism, in schisms.

There is one truth that sets me free, and that truth is not a thought, idea, doctrine or teaching, it is a Person who is the truth, the way and the life.

Obviously much about Him can be found in the Scriptures, but the goal of the Scriptures is not to provide information, it is to testify of Jesus and lead us to Him.

36"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

I want the Word to dwell in me, and come to Him to have life.

[Randy Dillon]

Hans: Randy, I've seen great discipleship from any kind of denomination, and a total lack of it from any denomination, with any set of beliefs. There is no relation between the two. Hi Hans, this student of scripture trusts your observations and values them. My brother’s capable eye to see the genuine among various denominations will not be challenged. When you refer to “any set of beliefs” it’s assumed this is within the parameters of good and wholesome orthodoxy. However, by its very title and definition, the significance of ‘denominations’ indicates a declaration to clearly express a distinctive doctrinal or systematic theology. So one might quibble a bit concerning the degree of relationship involving discipleship and denominational doctrines. There is some elementary discipleship throughout them all, but the depth is dependent upon the expectations of each faith community. For example, if all the church demands are good worship services, a growing attendance and attainment of resources, the message of bearing one’s cross may not factor in much to any prospective development in grace. One can maintain a carnal momentum, even in Christ, so long as that need for self-placating is somewhat satisfied. This is a critical holiness distinctive that is diminishing without much notice.

To illustrate this just examine the level of spiritual expectation when worship is unquestioned or left without analysis. While the worship and praise bands take center stage and pump up some excitement, people “feel” they’re in the Presence of God, but some of these same people are moved with equal and greater excitement at a country star’s concert. What do they “feel” there? There’s no essential difference if doctrine is not needed, for lyrics are communicating ideas, aren’t they? That’s why some see the lack of theology in popular praise choruses, songs that are too often shallow mantras, while others don't really care, for they measure spiritual vitality in the emotive impulses generated. For them, that’s good enough. But is it? HANS: I have been pursuing theological truth for most of my life. I've come to a place where I finally realize I don't need theological truth, I need Jesus. Pretty much like Job, who got no answers (in fact, he got more questions directed at him) but in the end, he found God….. There is one truth that sets me free, and that truth is not a thought, idea, doctrine or teaching, it is a Person who is the truth, the way and the life. But who is Jesus? As soon as one starts to answer that question, they're doing theology. We can have theology without Christ, but not Christ without theology. Everyone has beliefs about God. Everyone is a theologian. The question is not whether or not one is a theologian, but whether one is a biblical or unbiblical theologian. Theology isn't some idea of man that is intended to displace a living experience with Christ -- it’s the intellectual side of the courtship.

We agree that a good theology without changed lives is useless, but if we're brandishing the experience to the forefront, we may be making light of the proper knowledge of Christ. THIS is out of sequence with grace. Peter closes his epistles with “… grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Hans: In my 48 years I found out that searching for truth as such issues in hot heads and cold hearts, in judgmentalism, in schisms. Truth conjures up what is previously hidden and undisturbed within the hearts of men. (Heb. 4:12) That’s not a fault of a truth searcher, but the redeeming quality of a Heart Searcher. Emphatic personal pronouns are to blame for schisms, not sincere quests in theology. Hans: Obviously much about Him can be found in the Scriptures, but the goal of the Scriptures is not to provide information, it is to testify of Jesus and lead us to Him.

"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

I want the Word to dwell in me, and come to Him to have life. Yet the scripture previous to your quote is not placing the blame on searching the scriptures Hans, but in not believing what one finds! (5:38) They were seeking to kill the very Messiah they were looking for, scriptures -- properly searched -- should lead them to Him. But their motivation was not relationship but political restoration, for we can rightfully infer it was a selfish restoration to power as a nation they were seeking, not a cross bearing Christianity. The 'sacred writings' are able to make one wise unto salvation. (2 Tim. 3:15) - Randy

[Hans Deventer]

When you refer to “any set of beliefs” it’s assumed this is within the parameters of good and wholesome orthodoxy.

The Apostle's Creed. As broad as that. Do notice our Lord never set out to write a systematic theology, but instead taught a life to live. "Follow Me" was the word to His disciples.

However, by its very title and definition, the significance of ‘denominations’ indicates a declaration to clearly express a distinctive doctrinal or systematic theology. So one might quibble a bit concerning the degree of relationship involving discipleship and denominational doctrines. There is some elementary discipleship throughout them all, but the depth is dependent upon the expectations of each faith community.

I don't think so. Even in the worst of times, the Lord still had a remnant who did not bow for the Baal. The faith community in those days was hardly producing healthy and spiritual expectations. And the story has repeated itself over and over again through the ages.
Of course a healthy community of faith is a great help (haven't seen a lot of those though). But thank God, the Lord's grace is not limited to the health of their theologies.

To illustrate this just examine the level of spiritual expectation when worship is unquestioned or left without analysis. While the worship and praise bands take center stage and pump up some excitement, people “feel” they’re in the Presence of God, but some of these same people are moved with equal and greater excitement at a country star’s concert. What do they “feel” there? There’s no essential difference if doctrine is not needed, for lyrics are communicating ideas, aren’t they?

Obviously, a non theological church does not exist. That much is clear. The other extreme is one always searching for "truth" and splitting up in endless divisions and denominations because someone thought he/she found better truth.

The theology we need is one a child can comprehend, Jesus says. And we all know if some form of worship leads us to Christ or just gratifies some spiritual feeling. You don't need a lot of theology for that.

That’s why some see the lack of theology in popular praise choruses, songs that are too often shallow mantras, while others don't really care, for they measure spiritual vitality in the emotive impulses generated. For them, that’s good enough. But is it?

I'm not discussing choruses versus hymns.

But who is Jesus? As soon as one starts to answer that question, they're doing theology. We can have theology without Christ, but not Christ without theology. Everyone has beliefs about God. Everyone is a theologian. The question is not whether or not one is a theologian, but whether one is a biblical or unbiblical theologian. Theology isn't some idea of man that is intended to displace a living experience with Christ -- it’s the intellectual side of the courtship.

And, to stick to personal knowledge, there has been a time in my life when there wasn't much of another side

But this intellectual side is limited at best. I'm not going to get the answers to the questions I really want to ask in this life. That much is clear. And I don't care a lot anymore about other answers. I just want to know Jesus. Not as in, "I know George Bush (or any other famous person for that matter)". I know who he is, heard about him, read about him, know some of him. I could start to study the man, and gain "theological" knowledge.

In stead, I want to know Jesus like I know my wife. I don't know her in a "theological" way. I know her from living with her, communicating with her, and sometimes just being together, quietly. That is a different kind of knowing in which the intellectual part of the courtship plays a very limited role.

We agree that a good theology without changed lives is useless, but if we're brandishing the experience to the forefront, we may be making light of the proper knowledge of Christ.

I actually think that the only proper knowledge is experiential knowledge. Like there is no correspondence course on boxing, there can be no correspondence course on knowing Jesus. We get to know Him to the extent that we obey what He is saying to us, and how He is leading us.

THIS is out of sequence with grace. Peter closes his epistles with “… grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Sure. But what kind of knowledge is that? It is not like Peter wrote, "grow in grace and get yourself a Doctor of Divinity degree".

Yet the scripture previous to your quote is not placing the blame on searching the scriptures Hans, but in not believing what one finds! (5:38) They were seeking to kill the very Messiah they were looking for, scriptures -- properly searched -- should lead them to Him.

Indeed. Which shows that though knowing the Scriptures inside out (and I think both of us could learn a thing or two from the Pharisees at that point), they did not know the Author. The very point I was making.

Now let me be clear. I have not thrown my Bibles away. I have not stopped reading theological books. I have not shut down my mind. I am not saying that all religions are the same or that it does not matter what you believe. I believe the basic confession of our faith is very important and does indeed matter. A matter of life and dead indeed. But it is important only as so far as it leads us beyond the theological discussions to personally knowing the risen Lord. That is the knowledge that Peter refers to.

As Paul wrote:

7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

"Whatever was to my profit". That would include his thorough theological training. Now I am more than willing to agree that the Lord used Paul at least also because of this training to write such a big part of the New Testament. But that is the very point. The Lord COULD use him because Paul had learned that only one thing really mattered: knowing Christ. Had he stuck with his theologies, he would have been useless to God.

Now there is a big risk here. You will no doubt reply and if I don't take care, I will be caught doing the very thing I belief is unprofitable - engaging in endless discussion.
Also, I don't really think I can explain myself much better. So this is it! You may agree or disagree as you please.

I've come to ask myself the question, do I love theology or do I love the Lord? And I have to answer, it used to be the former. But praise to God, who has mercy on me and is slowly (because I can't take it in any faster) showing me what it all is really about.

[Billy Cox]

*****

It greatly increased the likelihood that Nazarene boys would marry Nazarene girls and produce Nazarene children, etc. That, along with affirming a pretty strong sense of denominational identity played a strong role in the progression of the church from a movement, a 'gathered' church, into more of a 'traditional' church.


This made me think of a humorous article that I saw on Nazarene **** sometime back:

http://nazarenenews.blogspot.com/2006/09/american-jews-looking-to-private.html

[Larry Wilson]

JD,

I agree with Roland's statememt that we have lost a great deal of our doctrinal distinctiveness and that has had a negative impact on our passion. And in many large churches today we are trying to recapture the doctrinal high-ground through passionate worship. To me, passionate worship flows out of a right relationship with God. And our view of who God is and how He interacts with us is driven by our doctrinal positions.

My point to my wife was that we have let much of the whole "seeker sensitive" movement shape not only our worship style, but also our doctrine and teaching lest we be too confrontational or "offensive."


Passion flow from doctrine? Maybe. Or, perhaps a diminishing passion has allowed us to be lax about doctrine! Whatever the case, your are quite right about passionate worship flowing from from a passionate love relationship with God! It is this passion that we crave, that "seekers" crave, too.

It is true that doctrinal distinctives, initially, don't matter much to seekers. They will respond to love and caring. If they don't experience this -- people who actually fulfill Christ's command to love others as he loved us, with passion and honesty, then our doctrinal distinctives don't mean much to them. The church that lives this out is the true seeker sensitive church!

John Maxwell was fond of saying, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care!"

Who said church worship was to be seeker sensitive? The biblical model is that it is believer sensitive! Altars lined? Okay, but most seekers won't relate to that. They will seek and find God in the home, in cars, in the market place, in a retreat. Oh, and isn't it really the case that it is we believers who are supposed to be the seekers? To seek the lost. To seek out the seekers?

[Kevin Bowser]

Oh, and isn't it really the case that it is we believers who are supposed to be the seekers? To seek the lost. To seek out the seekers?

I think you nailed it! We are to go out and seek the lost. The parable of the lost sheep jumps to mind. There was a comforting sheepfold and shepherd there all along and the lost sheep did not enter in. It was the shepherd who risked life and limb that went out and found the sheep. My point was and is that we are trying to make the whole worship experience appealing to the lost. And frankly it is not, nor will it ever be. Because in it's essence worship is communion between a Holy God and a Child of God. The seeker does not understand that and in fact the whole concept is foreign to them.

What the lost do understand is someone who loves them and who meets them at their point of need. Someone who is Jesus to them in a context of everyday life. Wait a minute... I remember something like that... What was it called 30 years ago? Oh, I remember... It was called "Friendship Evangelism". I think we were winning people to Christ without PowerPoint in those days. (sorry, my sarcasm slipped out again!)

I am not opposed to making our worship experience as excellent as it can be. But, I'd rather have Sister Pauline Pewsitter's little girl playing the offertory on Sunday night over 3 or 4 paid worship leaders any day of the week. And while we are at it, I'd like to hear brother and sister "So and So" sing a duet once in a while.

And, I don't want to hijack this thread into a contemporary versus traditional worship discussion. There have been plenty discussions on that. But, they are somewhat intertwined. I can't recall seeing very many traditional style churches who would classify themselves in the seeker sensitive mold.

I just wonder sometimes if we are losing more than our denominational distinctives. I wonder if we are losing some doctrinal distinctives in order to become more appealing to a crowd that the Bible says views what we do as foolishness in the base case.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1st Corinthians 1:18 KJV

[Don Sherman]

As I recall, back in the 70's there was this non-denominational movement - people had denominational pride and to get away from this - many went to the "I'm just a Christian" ideal. With this, came a watering down of theological/doctrinal distinctions in general - then it filtered down to all churches. Now we have mega-churches dominating the evangelical landscape and the rest of the churches seem to just fall in line.


=== This is an automatically generated message ===

This is the first post from this user. Please go to the Welcome Forum: http://www.naznet.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=29 to post a message making them welcome here on NazNet.

=== This is an automatically generated message ===

[Kevin Bowser]

people had denominational pride

I think that some degree of "sanctified denominational pride" is OK. What I think we (and many other mainline denominations) had back in the 70's was denominational arrogance. We could not see our way clear to work together with the Baptists or the Presbyterians in a cooperative way. The closest thing to cooperation was when there was a Billy Graham Crusade coming to town. That would draw churches together. But not much else would.

And, welcome to NazNet Don! :fav18

[David Cash]

I've spent a lifetime crossing denominational lines. I've even changed with regard to some of the distinctives over the years. It's only hard when I wonder how my Baptist friends from out of state would react if I told them I was a Nazarene now.

I will say this. We do well to hang onto our convictions and our beliefs. But we need to be hanging onto them because we've actually seen them in Scipture and experienced them in life. If all it were about was keeping our denominational identity, it wouldn't have much to do with truth or with spiritual power.

I have to agree with what I think was posted earlier that people who are seeking a close walk with God will have a lot in common regardless of their denominations. In fact, I suspect that the closer we all get to God, the more similar our theology will be. We might still be using different terms and different logical constructions, but as God works, our experiences and our beliefs will be more and more the same. After all, I doubt if we're going to theological ethnic groups so to speak in Heaven.

David Cash

[Don Sherman]

I've spent a lifetime crossing denominational lines. I've even changed with regard to some of the distinctives over the years. It's only hard when I wonder how my Baptist friends from out of state would react if I told them I was a Nazarene now.

I will say this. We do well to hang onto our convictions and our beliefs. But we need to be hanging onto them because we've actually seen them in Scipture and experienced them in life. If all it were about was keeping our denominational identity, it wouldn't have much to do with truth or with spiritual power.

I have to agree with what I think was posted earlier that people who are seeking a close walk with God will have a lot in common regardless of their denominations. In fact, I suspect that the closer we all get to God, the more similar our theology will be. We might still be using different terms and different logical constructions, but as God works, our experiences and our beliefs will be more and more the same. After all, I doubt if we're going to theological ethnic groups so to speak in Heaven.

David Cash

I can identify with much of what you say here.

[Ronald McClincey]

Good afternoon,

I was looking at the replies and found somthing very amazing! I thought I was on the United Mehodist website! As i have said many times in these last few months I am a former UM pastor looking for where God wants my tree planted. I have been amazed at what i have found. In my search through the variious part of the Wesley tree, we all are basically the same. You could attend a UMC service and in many cases you would think you were in a Nazerene church or many other denominations with roots in the Wesley brothers. Do all of you know that there about 53 million of us? WOW what a chruch? Well maybe not. Let me give you my take on what I see as the reason for the luke warm non doctrinally sound church. In my world that is a church based on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and directed by His spirit. I don't care if it is UMc, Nazerene, Wesleyian, Free Methodist, EMC, EC, Holiness, Assemblies of God, CMA and those are the ones I can think of. We all have lost our first love ! I keep wondering why I am coressponding with a Nazerene website and a United Methodist website. Maybe the ghosts of john and Chuck and Old GW -George Whitfield want us all to get our house back in order and focus on the most important theoloy- sharing Jesus!!!!! I love you all and may the HOLY Spirit or HOLY Ghost help us to have one huge camp meeting!!!!!

Ron

Oh and if you are interested the UMC website is UMC.org- you would find many born again folk there to -