New BGS Statement on the Emerging Church

[Ryan Scott]

http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/s...t/display.aspx

As a denomination of 2 million members in 156 world areas, there are conversations on a variety of topics taking place within the Church of the Nazarene.

One discussion centers on “emergent” or “emerging” churches. This subject creates confusion and conflict in some circles. There are several issues related to “the emergent church.” Some are helpful and positive; others are problematic and troubling. This is compounded because those who self-identify as “emerging” reflect a wide array of positions and perspectives and differ among themselves.

There are authors with a significant readership who readily identify themselves as “emergent church leaders.” They are aware of the Church’s need to increase its engagement with society. Some are completely orthodox in their theology and views of Scripture, but others embrace positions that the Church of the Nazarene would view as unorthodox and therefore unacceptable.

Some of our pastors, superintendents and lay members believe that there is a certain segment within the Church of the Nazarene who is embracing a new “movement” filled with risks to our theological coherence as a denomination. They fear this direction will only serve to undermine the Church of the Nazarene with heresy.

Their concerns are seemingly reinforced by a few “emergent” leaders who have made statements that to them are troubling. These comments reflect theological positions denying several of the basic tenets of Scripture and orthodox Christianity as held by the Church of the Nazarene in our Articles of Faith.

There are others within our denomination, including pastors, superintendents and scholars, who view the concept of an “emerging” church as a positive and hopeful expression of what it means to be the Church. They are seeking to genuinely come to terms with ministry in a complex and rapidly-changing culture. Their goal is to demonstrate the relevance of biblical truth through incarnational and transformational living.

This latter group is deeply committed to the authority and infallibility of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives, communities, and nations. They are often engaged with the brokenness in society through active, compassionate ministries working diligently to bring renewal, conversion, and transformation.

The Board of General Superintendents neither endorses nor affirms “emergent churches” or leaders who are not orthodox in their theology. “We Believe,” the statement issued by the BGS, clearly articulates the position of the Board regarding the Articles of Faith, the values, and the mission stated in the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, encouraging Nazarenes everywhere to join them in embracing these vital truths. (See “Official Statements” on the nazarene.org website.)

The involvement of many Nazarenes in this conversation reveals a sincere desire to embrace our missional objectives. They are attempting to reach the emerging cultures around us while clearly articulating an orthodox interpretation of Scripture and theology.

John Wesley, founder of Methodism and a firm believer in the power of the Holy Spirit to sanctify and cleanse the heart of all unrighteousness, was intentionally and forcefully engaged in the social needs around him. In that same tradition, P. F. Bresee established the first “Church of the Nazarene” with a focus on both the physical and spiritual needs of people while calling men and women to make a total commitment to Christ and to the fullness of the Spirit in cleansing and heart purity.

This is the objective toward which Nazarenes, including those engaged in ministry to emerging cultures, are committed.

Any conversation of this nature carries with it the risk of being misunderstood or being classified with positions that are not healthy or appropriate. Issues involved in discussions such as these are often complex. The communication is sometimes at inappropriate volume levels.

Nonetheless, it is our hope and prayer that those in the Church of the Nazarene who are engaged in this conversation will do so with grace and humility. We believe it is possible to move beyond mischaracterizations, embrace what is legitimate, and reject any unorthodox positions without hesitation.

The Board of General Superintendents is engaged in study and conversations with numerous Nazarene scholars, pastors, districts superintendents and laity on this subject. Each general superintendent continues in prayer and in a careful search for what is true and best in all things related to Scripture and mission.

While the Board does not embrace anything that is heretical it does encourage healthy conversations among Nazarenes who are part of a holiness and Great Commission church.

Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus Christ who lived, died, and was resurrected to save the lost and broken of the whole world. He is coming again, to set to right all things. The mission He gave to His Church was to announce and embody the Kingdom, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to visit the sick and imprisoned. His mission is our mission as well.

Board of General Superintendents
August 2010
bgs@nazarene.org

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Does it seem that the BGS is pounding home the Agreed Statement of Belief as the essentials that many of us are asking for?

(By the way, I think it's clearer now from this statement that, according to our interpreters of the Manual, it is okay to be involved in the emergent conversation and be a member of the Church of the Nazarene.)

[Hans Deventer]

Well, at least we don't need to endlessly discuss if this is "just" from Dr. Middendorf. And I see very little difference in his approach and this one. Let's call that justification in retrospect.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I see here an acknowledgment that, from our denomination's point of view, some in this conversation have gone too far into unorthodoxy. They have, in our view, set themselves adrift from foundational beliefs necessary to following Jesus.

However, speaking from our "side" just as big a problem is people who have overreacted to that error and painted every person who sees value in having this emergent/emerging conversation as endorsing these most extreme views.

I see people do this in political circles all the time. The left wing finds one nutty fringe person who associates themselves with the Tea Party and then pretends all who are involved with the Tea Party are like that. Slap a label on them and then it's easy to discount everything they say. Of course, the same thing happens from the other direction too.

So...since one person who says they're emergent (or even writes books in the name of the emergent church) makes some outlandish statements about atonement, eternity, or some current moral issue, it must be that all who are involved in the emergent conversation believe the same thing....they're bad, bad, bad!

This statement from the BoGS calls us to not park our brains at the door on this topic. Some, we're told are carefully listening to what's being said and seeking answers that might help the Church to better minister to a post-modern culture. They understand that this isn't a "take it or leave it" proposition.

It's clear from this statement that the BoGS are in favor of paying attention to what emergents among us are saying. Most of "our" emergents aren't numbered with those who have bought into some of the more fringe stuff, instead, they're trying to minister to their own generation and culture.

I think the key statement in the entire statement is this: "Nonetheless, it is our hope and prayer that those in the Church of the Nazarene who are engaged in this conversation will do so with grace and humility. We believe it is possible to move beyond mischaracterizations, embrace what is legitimate, and reject any unorthodox positions without hesitation."

[Dave Mann]

I see here an acknowledgment that, from our denomination's point of view, some in this conversation have gone too far into unorthodoxy. They have, in our view, set themselves adrift from foundational beliefs necessary to following Jesus.

Not that this distinguishes them from others in our midst in any way.

The church has regularly dealt with people and ideas that are outside of our stated core beliefs and continues to do so. Past issues include the necessity of speaking in tongues. Another past and persistent issue is the view that "plenary inspiration" mean inherent, as in Chicago-style inherency.

I think the key statement in the entire statement is this: "Nonetheless, it is our hope and prayer that those in the Church of the Nazarene who are engaged in this conversation will do so with grace and humility. We believe it is possible to move beyond mischaracterizations, embrace what is legitimate, and reject any unorthodox positions without hesitation."

Two issues immediately jump to mind.

1) What is orthodox? I think it's wonderful and refreshing to see the Generals giving such a clear, non-ambiguous endorsement of the "Shared Statement of Belief" as being the center of Nazarene orthodoxy. That goes a long, long way towards answering the question of what is essential. All I can say is praise God for the Feb 2010 GS affirmation of the Shared Statements of Belief and praise God that the Generals linked the question of the emergent church back to this statement of orthodoxy. Isn't it wonderful to see what can happen when we are agreed on the essentials?!?!

2) Where's the orthopraxy? In my mind, orthodoxy is not enough to define what it means to follow Christ and not enough to define what it means to be either Christian or Nazarene. In my mind, the Generals need to follow up on their "We Believe" statement of Feb 2010 with a parallel, "We Do" statement which affirms the centrality of the Covenant of Christian Character (the General Rules) to Nazarene orthopraxy. IMO, insistence that what we do is essential to who we are is one of the great gifts that our tradition has to offer.

[Marsha Lynn]

This latter group is deeply committed to the authority and infallibility of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives, communities, and nations. They are often engaged with the brokenness in society through active, compassionate ministries working diligently to bring renewal, conversion, and transformation.

I'm glad for the statement, but I sure wish they had either left the word "infallible" out of this paragraph or included the qualifying words from our Article of Faith with it. The way this is worded leaves the door open for including those who view Scripture from a Wesleyan perspective among the unorthodox.

[Jon Twitchell]

I'm glad for the statement, but I sure wish they had either left the word "infallible" out of this paragraph or included the qualifying words from our Article of Faith with it. The way this is worded leaves the door open for including those who view Scripture from a Wesleyan perspective among the unorthodox.

It may seem like hair-splitting... but I have no problem identifying scripture as infallible. I see a claim to infallibility as markedly different from a claim to inerrancy. Inerrancy speaks to a static state---what something is, while infallibility speaks to a dynamic state---what something does. Scripture is infallible, in that it accomplishes precisely the purpose that it was intended to accomplish.

[Dave Mann]

I'm glad for the statement, but I sure wish they had either left the word "infallible" out of this paragraph or included the qualifying words from our Article of Faith with it. The way this is worded leaves the door open for including those who view Scripture from a Wesleyan perspective among the unorthodox.

Thumbs up. Way, way, way, way up.

I wonder, and this is ignorant speculation on my part, if they are trying to move the discussion from inherency (i.e. literal) towards "capable of doing God's intention" (i.e. infallible perhaps) and in so doing, provide a weasel word that is agreeable to both sides?

I think that's lame, btw. The church can no longer afford such weasel words because the Internet allows us to too quickly figure out that we still don't agree. IMO, nothing short than the GSes coming out and stating that they agree with the Seminary, Colleges and Universities that Gen 1-11 is not to be read as history is going to put this debate to an end.

[Marsha Lynn]

It may seem like hair-splitting... but I have no problem identifying scripture as infallible. I see a claim to infallibility as markedly different from a claim to inerrancy. Inerrancy speaks to a static state---what something is, while infallibility speaks to a dynamic state---what something does. Scripture is infallible, in that it accomplishes precisely the purpose that it was intended to accomplish.

Thanks, Jon. Would you mind attaching that definition to the BoGS statement wherever it goes to make sure no one misunderstands it?

[Jon Twitchell]

Thanks, Jon. Would you mind attaching that definition to the BoGS statement wherever it goes to make sure no one misunderstands it?

Ummm... sure... 'cause I really have that authority!

[Jon Twitchell]

Thumbs up. Way, way, way, way up.

I wonder, and this is ignorant speculation on my part, if they are trying to move the discussion from inherency (i.e. literal) towards "capable of doing God's intention" (i.e. infallible perhaps) and in so doing, provide a weasel word that is agreeable to both sides?

I think that's lame, btw. The church can no longer afford such weasel words because the Internet allows us to too quickly figure out that we still don't agree. IMO, nothing short than the GSes coming out and stating that they agree with the Seminary, Colleges and Universities that Gen 1-11 is not to be read as history is going to put this debate to an end.

I actually don't think it's lame... or 'weaseling'. I think it's what we believe... and we ought to carefully define the words... and proclaim what it is that we believe.

[David Pettigrew]

I'm glad for the statement, but I sure wish they had either left the word "infallible" out of this paragraph or included the qualifying words from our Article of Faith with it. The way this is worded leaves the door open for including those who view Scripture from a Wesleyan perspective among the unorthodox.

I have staked my life on the infallible and authoritative Word of God. His name is Jesus.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I have staked my life on the infallible and authoritative Word of God. His name is Jesus.

Unfortunately, Dave, the section that Marsha's referring to is titled, "We believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture." I had tried to squeeze in what you're saying into that paragraph, but it's quite certain that they're referring to the Bible.

[David Pettigrew]

Unfortunately, Dave, the section that Marsha's referring to is titled, "We believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture." I had tried to squeeze in what you're saying into that paragraph, but it's quite certain that they're referring to the Bible.

There are others within our denomination, including pastors, superintendents and scholars, who view the concept of an “emerging” church as a positive and hopeful expression of what it means to be the Church. They are seeking to genuinely come to terms with ministry in a complex and rapidly-changing culture. Their goal is to demonstrate the relevance of biblical truth through incarnational and transformational living.

This latter group is deeply committed to the authority and infallibility of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives, communities, and nations. They are often engaged with the brokenness in society through active, compassionate ministries working diligently to bring renewal, conversion, and transformation.

Hmm...I went back and read this again, including the preceding paragraph, and I'm still not seeing the connection with scripture. When I see a capital "W", I just automatically assume Jesus. They may very well have intended it as a reference to scripture, but I'm not reading anything in this context the precludes my interpretation.

Even if they are saying that scripture is infallible, I'm ok with it. In a statement from BGS on a topic like this, everyone's gonna come away from the table with something.

[Hans Deventer]

Unfortunately, Dave, the section that Marsha's referring to is titled, "We believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture." I had tried to squeeze in what you're saying into that paragraph, but it's quite certain that they're referring to the Bible.

Sure, but we should not be so scared of the word infallible. Jon is right, with infallible, the question is always towards goal and intention. I would certainly reckon myself among those that are "deeply committed to the authority and infallibility of the Word of God". Ever more reason to strive for a sound interpretation of that Word of God.

And David, I agree, with a capital W my first thought it Jesus.

[Jim Chabot]

It may seem like hair-splitting... but I have no problem identifying scripture as infallible. I see a claim to infallibility as markedly different from a claim to inerrancy. Inerrancy speaks to a static state---what something is, while infallibility speaks to a dynamic state---what something does. Scripture is infallible, in that it accomplishes precisely the purpose that it was intended to accomplish.

Pressing thanks wasn't enough! Very well said Jon!

Infallibility is the key, Innerrancy is a distraction. Do we really care if there could be small or even scriveners errors it the text that we have? What is important to me is that we can place our full and complete confidence in a text that is entirely reliable in every area of our faith and practice.

The promises of God are yea and amen, while the errors in scripture are so what and who really cares.

[Shea Zellweger]

Yeah, I'm struggling with this "infallible" thing as well. I also have difficulty with the exact things that some of the opposition will not like- specifically, that there are no specifics. We know that at least one of our GS' is opposed to Open Theism and Process Theology- does that belong on the list? Are those of us who believe that "Jesus is the only name that saves, but Christianity is not always the only route to Jesus" among the group that have taken things too far? How about if we practice Lectio Divina, use Prayer Beads, accept Evolution, fellowship with Catholics, or think Brian McLaren is a helpful resource? These are all things that have been highlighted in the past week by one opponent of "Emergent Nazarenes" as things that should be specifically asked of a pastoral candidate. Other than Process Theology, they're also a pretty solid descriptor of "things Shea might do in any given week." Without being clear, I see plenty of room for opponents to continue to oppose, supporters to continue supporting, and those stuck in the middle for one reason or another to throw up their hands in frustration because there is very little help. The one thing that appears to be conclusive is the bit about the "infallible word of God," which will no doubt be treated as a win by those who are seeking to purge the denomination of this "heresy."

[Hans Deventer]

Since we NazNetters of course like to analyse stuff till there's nothing left to analyse , I thought if would be nice to post Dr. Middendorf's letter again and let you guys seek out the similarities and changes:

We appreciate your concerns regarding the conversations surrounding “the emergent church.” The issues related to this topic are many. Some are helpful and positive; others are problematic and deeply troubling.

“The emergent church” is really somewhat of a misnomer. While there are many attributions which imply that there is a single focus or movement called “the emergent church,” in reality, the conversations range all over the map. Some people believe that there is a monolithic kind of conspiratorial entity that is seeking to undermine the church with heresy and immoral license.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are people who view the whole concept of an emerging church as a positive and hopeful expression of the church seeking to genuinely come to terms with ministry in a complex and rapidly-changing culture, while seeking to make Biblical truth relevant. These people depend heavily on the authority of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to radically change lives, communities, and nations. They are often radically engaged with the brokenness in society through active, compassionate ministries that work hard to bring renewal and conversion.

Nazarene Theological Seminary (NTS) and some of our universities are engaged in the conversation in order to help correct some of the aberrations that are associated with some of the “emergent” churches.

There are widely-read authors who readily identify themselves as “emergent church leaders.” While some of them are orthodox in their theology and views of Scripture, others embrace positions which we would view as far away from what is orthodox and acceptable. Yet even those authors and pastors who are not orthodox in their views of Scripture and its authority have an awareness of the need to make the church more engaged in society so as to bring about a radical change and improvement.

We do not endorse those “emergent churches” or leaders who are not orthodox in their theology. The involvement of many of our young pastors and students in the conversation is an attempt to embrace the positive dimensions while clearly articulating an orthodox interpretation of Scripture and theology.

By most definitions of what is genuinely meant by “emergent,” John Wesley more than fits the description. He was radically engaged in the social needs around him while clearly calling men and women to a radical commitment to Christ and to the fullness of the Spirit in cleansing and heart purity. That is the objective toward which Nazarenes, engaged in the conversations regarding the emergent church, are committed. It is a vital conversation, but one that also carries with it the risk of being misunderstood or being classified with positions which are not healthy or appropriate.

We hope these thoughts are helpful to you. The issues are complex, and the rhetoric is sometimes shrill and angry. We are hopeful that we can be patient with what is a phase in a conversation that is already beginning to wind down in some areas even while it is just now being engaged in by others. Hopefully, we can move beyond the mischaracterizations and embrace what is legitimate while we readily and without hesitation reject the aberrations.

We pray for you as you work with your people through this issue. We are not at all embracing anything heretical, but we want to engage in conversations with our young Nazarenes who want a vibrant church that is committed to our theology and actively engaged in ministry to the lost and broken people around us.


Jesse C. Middendorf
General Superintendent
Church of the Nazarene

[Eric Frey]

Boy... whether infallibility is consistent with our belief of scripture or not, it sure is going to become the focus of this statement [for many]. It would have certainly been better to find a clearer, less nuanced, less contentious word. Of course this is coming from the person who was so agitated that Dr. Diehl kept referring to Baptism as a "symbol" rather than a "sacrament." I guess we all are willing to split hairs to bolster our position.

[Hans Deventer]

We know that at least one of our GS' is opposed to Open Theism and Process Theology- does that belong on the list? Are those of us who believe that "Jesus is the only name that saves, but Christianity is not always the only route to Jesus" among the group that have taken things too far? How about if we practice Lectio Divina, use Prayer Beads, accept Evolution, fellowship with Catholics, or think Brian McLaren is a helpful resource? These are all things that have been highlighted in the past week by one opponent of "Emergent Nazarenes" as things that should be specifically asked of a pastoral candidate. Other than Process Theology, they're also a pretty solid descriptor of "things Shea might do in any given week." Without being clear, I see plenty of room for opponents to continue to oppose, supporters to continue supporting, and those stuck in the middle for one reason or another to throw up their hands in frustration because there is very little help. The one thing that appears to be conclusive is the bit about the "infallible word of God," which will no doubt be treated as a win by those who are seeking to purge the denomination of this "heresy."

Actually, the generals say nothing about orthopraxis, only about orthodoxy. And they refer to our Articles of Faith and more importantly, the Agreed Statement of Belief.

So what you DO is apparently not that crucial, and if what you believe falls within the teachings described above, you're safe.

[Dave Mann]

I actually don't think it's lame... or 'weaseling'. I think it's what we believe... and we ought to carefully define the words... and proclaim what it is that we believe.

The problem is, we don't define what "infallible" means.

Marsha is right to be worried, imo. Inerrentists can and do see nod when they hear "infallible" and turn right around and say, "Those of you who don't read Genesis 1-11 as literal history need to leave because you don't view the scriptures as being "infallible"."

Quoting Saint Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."



Note, I'm not holding my breath for GS clarification on this (although I want it desperately) as its something of a church splitter.

[Shea Zellweger]

Pressing thanks wasn't enough! Very well said Jon!

Infallibility is the key, Innerrancy is a distraction. Do we really care if there could be small or even scriveners errors it the text that we have? What is important to me is that we can place our full and complete confidence in a text that is entirely reliable in every area of our faith and practice.

The promises of God are yea and amen, while the errors in scripture are so what and who really cares.

Except that for the past however many years, the CotN has been trying to justify its use of the word "inerrantly" in Article IV. We can't very well switch gears now, can we? Also, the "Word of God" in the statement, if it is intended to be Scripture, is not indicated as being "infallible in every area of our faith and practice," which to me is a noted distinction. The Scriptures are never wrong, but before we can say such a thing, there are so many other terms we need to define- what makes a Scripture wrong? If it tells us something inaccurate about God, God's relationship to humans, or the rules of Faith and practice, it's wrong. If, on the other hand, it tells us that the smallest seed the Israelites planted was a mustard seed (they most likely had bananas by then), or grasshoppers have 4 legs, or the Earth has four corners, or even if one is an evolutionist, these things are so irrelevant to the purpose of the text that to say the Bible is "wrong" would be like saying a Math book is "wrong" because it contains a word problem about how long it takes to ride a train from New York to Chicago, and all evidence shows that the number is off- the number is not the point, it's the math that counts, so we wouldn't tell people they can no longer trust that math book. Likewise, I don't mind saying Scripture is never wrong, so long as we're speaking in regard to Scripture's purpose. The closest thing we have for a "statement of Purpose" regarding Scripture begins with "All Scripture is God-breathed" (or "of God's Spirit") and tells us that among Scriptures uses are "Teaching, Rebuking, and Correcting" in the specific area of "righteousness," with the end goal of each of us being "thoroughly equipped for every good work." Something tells me that having an in-depth knowledge of scientific processes, although helpful, is not a matter of righteousness, nor does it equip us for "every good work." Likewise, the name of Amasa's father, or who saw the resurrected Christ first, are not answers that will help us be prepared for every good work. Those details are generally irrelevant (though some of us still draw conclusions from some versions that aren't available from others) when it comes to teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training others in matters of righteousness.

[Shea Zellweger]

Actually, the generals say nothing about orthopraxis, only about orthodoxy. And they refer to our Articles of Faith and more importantly, the Agreed Statement of Belief.

So what you DO is apparently not that crucial, and if what you believe falls within the teachings described above, you're safe.

And yet, I think many would agree with me in saying that action is a reflection of belief. If I'm fellowshipping with a Catholic (which I do) and discussing theological matters with her (Which I do), and we are seeking to learn from one another (which we are), then whether the CotN views Catholics as heretics is vitally important, as I would then have to choose whether to continue learning from my Catholic sister OR to stay with the CotN. If the "official" stance of the CotN is that Evolution is a heresy, I'm faced with another choice... I simply cannot separate what I do from what I believe and still claim to have any measure of integrity.

[Billy Cox]

Does it seem that the BGS is pounding home the Agreed Statement of Belief as the essentials that many of us are asking for?

(By the way, I think it's clearer now from this statement that, according to our interpreters of the Manual, it is okay to be involved in the emergent conversation and be a member of the Church of the Nazarene.)

I'm just glad that the BGS finally got up the courage to say that "the Board does not embrace anything that is heretical."

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm just glad that the BGS finally got up the courage to say that "the Board does not embrace anything that is heretical."

Hey, you're shortchanging them. They also said the Board does not reject anything that is not heretical.

[Billy Cox]

It may seem like hair-splitting... but I have no problem identifying scripture as infallible. I see a claim to infallibility as markedly different from a claim to inerrancy. Inerrancy speaks to a static state---what something is, while infallibility speaks to a dynamic state---what something does. Scripture is infallible, in that it accomplishes precisely the purpose that it was intended to accomplish.

Nice try...but that is hair-splitting. The written text of Scripture is ink on paper (or 1's and 0's on a storage medium), unable to do anything. Scripture becomes dynamic in the hands of a reader/interpreter...and that person is most certainly not infallible.

[Billy Cox]

I'm glad for the statement, but I sure wish they had either left the word "infallible" out of this paragraph or included the qualifying words from our Article of Faith with it. The way this is worded leaves the door open for including those who view Scripture from a Wesleyan perspective among the unorthodox.

C'mon Marsha, don't you know that a statement worded thus aims to make all factions feel vindicated that the BGS finally came down on *their* side?

Look at all the mentions of 'orthodox'. That means different things to different people and if you don't go into any detail beyond a very circumspect statement of belief, the various parties can all declare victory, then we can finally have peace.

[Billy Cox]

Very interesting...almost like the same letter except with a few bones for fundamentalist-leaning Nazarenes.

We pray for you as you work with your people through this issue. We are not at all embracing anything heretical, but we want to engage in conversations with our young Nazarenes who want a vibrant church that is committed to our theology and actively engaged in ministry to the lost and broken people around us.

I'm glad that the more recent statement omitted this unfortunate inference that the emerging church/conversation is a 'young Nazarene' thing.

[Billy Cox]

Boy... whether infallibility is consistent with our belief of scripture or not, it sure is going to become the focus of this statement. Would has certainly been better of finding a clearer, less nuanced, less contentious word. Of course this is coming from the person who was so agitated that Dr. Diehl kept referring to Baptism as a "symbol" rather than a "sacrament." I guess we all are willing to split hairs to bolster our position.

Actually the statement comes from the BGS, and not from one particular person. They say that the camel is a horse designed by committee. Likewise, a statement written by committee (or board) is going to have some anomalies that stick out like a sore thumb.

[David Pettigrew]

Since we NazNetters of course like to analyse stuff till there's nothing left to analyse ,

I read the statement on the nazarene site before coming to this thread. While reading it, I thought "Wow. I hope we don't nitpick this to death on naznet." Of course, we includes me.

[Dave Mann]

I read the statement on the nazarene site before coming to this thread. While reading it, I thought "Wow. I hope we don't nitpick this to death on naznet." Of course, we includes me.

While I missed the whole dial-up modem bulletin board thing, I was on Usenet by 1990 and have gone on to moderate mailing lists and forums as a part of professional job.

Nitpicking is one of the primary things that happen on Internet forums. Ideas get expressed with lots of detail, things get misunderstood easily (usually around definitional issues) and when the volume grows with more participants, forums end up splitting. Look the proliferation of forums within NazNet, as an example.

Another aspect to this is that differences and commonalities are found based on ideological lines, not geographical or even organizational lines. Some who study informatics argue that social media and forums help drive radicalization and polarization. Look at the distinctions among the Concerned Nazarenes, Reformed Nazarenes, and Emergent Nazarenes as an example.

In the past, saying that we agree on the essentials, when in fact we didn't, was possible because we didn't have to get in each others' faces about it. This is no longer true thanks to the 'net, which includes NazNet.

Would we consider a person to be Christian if they believed that The Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan were to be interpreted as historical truth? Probably so. Would we consider a such a person fit for the clergy? Probably not. Could the church hope to survive if decided to stay silent on the question in the face or rising numbers of members asserting the historicity of those passages? I don't think so.

The generals and the church is in a tough spot on this, which is why so much hinges on weasel words like "infallible".

[Jim Chabot]

IMO, nothing short than the GSes coming out and stating that they agree with the Seminary, Colleges and Universities that Gen 1-11 is not to be read as history is going to put this debate to an end.

In a way I agree with you Dave. This is the issue that so many have at the forefront of their thoughts, in fact this came up in conversation last night after the service at Smith Mills. (and it was not brought up by me) What I am hearing around me is a chorus of voices wishing that the BoGS would declare this as historical and expel those from the universities who disagree. I did interject that this needs be done by the General Assembly and that it had failed at the last one in Orlando.

Of course the problem with a decision of this sort being made will cause a split, many will leave either way the axe falls. Although even without this decision, I believe that we have a split of sorts going on. I hear more and more parents (including Nazarene pastors) sending or making plans to send their children to Liberty instead of ENC, and I believe that this is the issue driving these decisions.

[Dave Mann]

In a way I agree with you Dave. This is the issue that so many have at the forefront of their thoughts, in fact this came up in conversation last night after the service at Smith Mills. (and it was not brought up by me) What I am hearing around me is a chorus of voices wishing that the BoGS would declare this as historical and expel those from the universities who disagree.

The only change I can suggest in what you wrote Jim is that I think "those from the universities" would include pretty much the entirety of the Seminary and all Religion faculty.

Are there any religion professors in any of our universities or the seminary that teach that a historical reading of Gen 1-11 is acceptable, much less preferred? I'll bet that the number is between 0 and 5. If I'm right (and I'm pretty sure that I am) you'll need to get a really, really big platter to hold all the heads that'll roll.

Related, what does is say about a clergy that they have more loyalty to non-Nazarene institutions of higher learning?

I wish I could claim this line but I can't but will gladly state it. IMO, there is nothing more "Nazarene" in the denomination than the faculty members of our Religion department and our Seminary. When significant numbers of the clergy have lined up against their collective voice (as they have on this issue), something has to give.

[Jim Chabot]

The only change I can suggest in what you wrote Jim is that I think "those from the universities" would include pretty much the entirety of the Seminary and all Religion faculty.

Are there any religion professors in any of our universities or the seminary that teach that a historical reading of Gen 1-11 is acceptable, much less preferred? I'll bet that the number is between 0 and 5. If I'm right (and I'm pretty sure that I am) you'll need to get a really, really big platter to hold all the heads that'll roll.

Related, what does is say about a clergy that they have more loyalty to non-Nazarene institutions of higher learning?

I wish I could claim this line but I can't but will gladly state it. IMO, there is nothing more "Nazarene" in the denomination than the faculty members of our Religion department and our Seminary. When significant numbers of the clergy have lined up against their collective voice (as they have on this issue), something has to give.

Oh I also think that you are right as to your estimates. I can tell you that some are very coy with their answers to questions in this regard, they don't show their cards to the general public.

The clergy/faculty question is a good one. I have a couple of thoughts on it, just guesses really. One is that the position of the universities has changed in the last twenty years, leaving some clergy at odds with this change. Another possibility is that we may have had many pass through our universities who listened to the professors well enough to pass their exams, yet held their teachers views as incorrect.

Now since you brought this up, I have to ask. Are you the six fingered man?

[Dave Mann]

The clergy/faculty question is a good one. I have a couple of thoughts on it, just guesses really. One is that the position of the universities has changed in the last twenty years, leaving some clergy at odds with this change.

According to Ingersol's research, the historical reading didn't enter the Nazarene church until the rise of the inherrency movement (external to the Nazarene Church) and the "Anglican" view of scripture dominated. Anecdotally, my dad told me last night (I *did* bring it up) that this was his experience growing Nazarene. Nobody talked seriously about a 6 day creation. I recall that some colleges have had creationists on faculty at times in the past but in all my dealings with colleges, this has always been in the tiniest of minorities.

I think some things have changed in the past 20 years. First (and this goes back probably 30 or 40 years) is there is less expectation for college education among the clergy. One DS in the past few years told me that college education reduced church growth and he was proud that only 2 pastors on his district had degrees.

Second, with the rise of the Christian media industry, the Nazarene Church is less capable of keeping foreign teachings like innerancy out of the church. Bennefield (and Crow et al) have been telling us this for a long, long time that the majority of Nazarenes look to writers and authors who are OUTSIDE of the Nazarene church. In this way, the Religion departments now compete for the minds of the clergy in ways they didn't previously.

Third, fueled by the Internet and global funding, the Creationism movement has gained greater prominence and visibility.

Fourth, I think environmental theology has demanded that theologians revisit Gen 1-11 and my sense is that our Religion faculty and seminary have pretty much (correctly) concluded that discussions of the historicity of those passages undercut and divert attention away from the critical message of scripture, in much the same way that demands of a historical reading of the Prodigal Son would. In this way, I think the theological position has hardened.

Lastly (and hear it would be good for OT scholars to weigh in), I think the question has been considered deeply by our OT scholars and they've concluded and re-affirmed the traditional Anglican understanding of those passages. They are to be understood as mytho-poetic passages (or pick your favorite classification term), not as history.

The deep abiding sadness here is that there is a bigger more wonderful God waiting to be revealed when one drops the unjustified historical demand on those passages, just like there was a bigger more wonderful God waiting to be revealed when we considered dropping literalist interpretations that were used to justify slavery. I still pray that the GSes will issue a statement on Gen 1-11. It's a wonderful moment in history for bringing the church into a deeper understanding of God.

Now since you brought this up, I have to ask. Are you the six fingered man?

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who can count in binary and those who can't.

[Benjamin Burch]

In a way I agree with you Dave. This is the issue that so many have at the forefront of their thoughts, in fact this came up in conversation last night after the service at Smith Mills. (and it was not brought up by me) What I am hearing around me is a chorus of voices wishing that the BoGS would declare this as historical and expel those from the universities who disagree. I did interject that this needs be done by the General Assembly and that it had failed at the last one in Orlando.

Of course the problem with a decision of this sort being made will cause a split, many will leave either way the axe falls. Although even without this decision, I believe that we have a split of sorts going on. I hear more and more parents (including Nazarene pastors) sending or making plans to send their children to Liberty instead of ENC, and I believe that this is the issue driving these decisions.

Maybe these parents should join the SBC.

The fact is that if we removed the professors who didn't hold to Genesis 1-11 as historical, we'd have no one to replace them with. Not within the denomination. We might find some in Wesleyan Scholarship who might, but it will be incredibly small and we'll lose all credibility with anyone not in our sect.

The fact is that the number of OT professors at our universities and seminary who view Genesis 1-50 as a whole (not just 1-11) as historical is most likely lower than 5.

[Ryan Scott]

The fact is that the number of OT professors at our universities and seminary who view Genesis 1-50 as a whole (not just 1-11) as historical is most likely lower than 5.

OK, so instead of scolding the nitpickers, I'll join in. The word "historical" is incredibly loaded there. History includes anything that's happened. Clearly the book of Genesis is entirely historical. In the same way the Bible is entirely inerrant. The problem comes, and always does, when we begin to interpret.

I sort of regret even posting this here simply because all we do is complain. The problem isn't with the wording or even the intention of these statements, the problem is with stubborn people on all sides who refuse to act with grace.

[Benjamin Burch]

OK, so instead of scolding the nitpickers, I'll join in. The word "historical" is incredibly loaded there. History includes anything that's happened. Clearly the book of Genesis is entirely historical. In the same way the Bible is entirely inerrant. The problem comes, and always does, when we begin to interpret.

I sort of regret even posting this here simply because all we do is complain. The problem isn't with the wording or even the intention of these statements, the problem is with stubborn people on all sides who refuse to act with grace.

I agree. But my point was that by the standards of these "parents" historical seems to have a clear definition. They desire that Religion professors apply this definition and claim such of Genesis 1-11. My point is that the issue runs deeper than even this. Not only would they be willing to do so with Genesis 1-11 (the typical point of discussion), they would be unwilling to do so with the whole book of Genesis (and Exodus, and Judges, and Jeremiah).

My point is that we MUST begin to reconsider the way the Bible is viewed in Evangelical circles because we're not even close. It isn't only Genesis 1-11 that doesn't fit, it is the whole of the O.T.

[Gary Creely]

The problem is, we don't define what "infallible" means.

Marsha is right to be worried, imo. Inerrentists can and do see nod when they hear "infallible" and turn right around and say, "Those of you who don't read Genesis 1-11 as literal history need to leave because you don't view the scriptures as being "infallible"."

I think you are right, the choice of that word was no accident. For that matter the choice of words in the entire letter were chosen very carefully. This is a no win for BG, they are in a position much like Obama and the Mosque, no matter what they say they are going to take heat for being too much of this or too little of that.

[Jim Chabot]

Maybe these parents should join the SBC.

The fact is that if we removed the professors who didn't hold to Genesis 1-11 as historical, we'd have no one to replace them with. Not within the denomination. We might find some in Wesleyan Scholarship who might, but it will be incredibly small and we'll lose all credibility with anyone not in our sect.

The fact is that the number of OT professors at our universities and seminary who view Genesis 1-50 as a whole (not just 1-11) as historical is most likely lower than 5.

Ben; The "parents" of which I speak, make up much of the Nazarene clergy in my area. This kneaejerk reaction, which places blame with our clergy and laity alike is misplaced. We sorely need scholastic introspection in our universities, for simple arrogance will not pass muster. Some long time dedicated Nazarenes are casting off our universities, we need change in our universities, they need to be beholden to our denomination, and not the other way around. I would challenge those who disagree, to study how we did exactly this with our educational system here instead Massachusetts. We heard the loud weeping and gnashing of teeth right here, but the results are clear.