Petition to Clarify the Emergent Church

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I received this via e-mail from a good pastor friend. The actual petition is attached.



September 15, 2008

Dear Fellow Nazarenes,

We are looking for thousands of Nazarenes who will join with us in asking the General Board of the Church of the Nazarene to make a clear declaration of the General Church’s stance on the Emergent Church. If you are aware of the Emergent Church, you have likely formed an opinion of it already. If not, we strongly urge you to educate yourself. We will provide a few information sources, but you will need to do some homework on your own..

There is current controversy within The Church of the Nazarene and other denominations about what the Emergent Church really is, and if it is a good thing or a bad thing. One thing is certain, the Emergent Church is real. In fact, the theology, doctrines, and practices of the Emergent Church are already an integral part of our denomination. Without the general membership being informed or educated in this regard, the Emergent Church has exerted strong influence on Nazarene Youth International (NYI), Nazarene Missions International (NMI), many upstart congregations, and on Nazarene universities,
and our seminary.

For example, several workshops on different aspects of the Emergent Church were offered at the 2007 Nazarene Missions Conference. Jon Middendorf, and others who hosted workshops on the Emergent Church, described the phenomenon as a “conversation”. Actually, the “conversation” appears to be occurring within a rather elite subgroup of our denomination and has not included the membership at large. We find that disturbing. Is it possible that our well-educated theologians and general church leaders deem most of the membership as too ignorant or uneducated to understand these newer, more sophisticated doctrines?

Considering what we have learned about the Emergent Church, “conversation” seems a puny word to describe a phenomenon so volatile that it has the potential to split our denomination. A common criticism of the Emergent Church is that it eschews traditional Nazarene doctrine and practices in order to gain wider appeal within the world. A phenomenon of this criticality demands more than “conversation” among an elite few. It demands open communication between the General Church and the membership at large. This has not occurred. Rather, Emergent Church theology has quietly and subtly invaded the highest levels of denominational leadership. If this were not so, workshops advancing the cause of the Emergent Church would not be sponsored at denomination-wide conferences.

The Emergent Church accuses traditional religion of being irrelevant to today’s post-modern world. While we admit many Nazarenes do not live or worship in a manner that is appealing to anyone, we view this as a spiritual problem – one that can only be remedied by an unhindered move of the Holy Spirit in the lives of individuals. We believe there is nothing more appealing than spirit-filled lives that truly represent Christ to the world. At present, revival fires are burning in many regions of the world. However, the U.S. and Canada constitute a relatively small percentage of new converts reported each year. What we need is revival and that only happens when individual Christians make heart holiness a priority and give of their time, resources, talents, and very selves the way Jesus did.

We hope to provide enough information to pique your interest in the Emergent Church and to motivate you to do your own homework. A simple Google Search for “Emergent Church” will tell you all you want to know and more. You may also go to www.churchofthenazarene.com and do a search for “Emergent Church”. You will have opportunity to listen to audio versions of a few of the workshops on the Emergent Church which were held at the 2007 Nazarene Missions Conference. In the workshop on Emergent Theology, the “Nazarenes” who presented the workshop were self-described as “. . . Nazarenes in some way, shape, or form.” The presenters also discuss their connection to Emergent Village. We strongly encourage you to visit www.emergentchurch.com . While there, listen to the “testimony” of an emergent Christian if available. We believe many of you will be concerned.

Once adequately informed, we hope you will join with us in signing a petition exhorting the General Board to make a clear statement to the general membership regarding their stance on the Emergent Church. We would sincerely like to know how the General Board reconciles the theology, doctrines, and practices of the Emergent Church with the content of the 2007 General Board Report. (You may view the video version of the report, or read it, when you go to www.churchofthenazarene.com) and do a search for “2007 General Board Report.” In our opinion, the General Board’s report appears to align with traditional Nazarene doctrine, theology, and practice. There is little or no indication that the General Board is officially supporting a movement that advances significant departure from the above. We would like an explanation of the discrepancy between official policy and reality.

Please do your own homework then join us in requesting open communication from the General Board in regard to the Emergent Church. You may copy the attached petition, circulate it among church members, and mail your completed copy to:

Grace Church of the Nazarene
540 E. Walnut Lawn
Springfield, MO 65807

We will be accepting petitions through October, 2008. We would appreciate prompt return of your petitions. If there is need to take the Emergent Church issue to the 2009 General Assembly, we want to be prepared well in advance.

Yours in Christ,
Concerned Members of
Grace Nazarene Church

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I replied to the pastor and church with this e-mail, inviting them to Naznet, since I think we've had quite a bit of conversation on these things here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor Thayer & Members of the Springfield Grace Church of the Nazarene -

I received your drafted petition for clarity on the "relationship" between the emerging conversation and the Church of the Nazarene (pasted below).

I am sorry that you have felt an "elite" and "closed conversation" in regards to those members of the Church of the Nazarene who are dialoging about the emergent conversation. It is not supposed to be that way.

I invite you to join in thoughtful and mature conversations in a number of places where no one has been turned away:

• Perhaps the oldest and most extensive dialogue on the internet has taken place at Naznet.com. Themes and topics usually attributed to the emerging conversation were taking place at Naznet.com before anyone even knew what "emerging" was. So come on out to Naznet to discuss (www.naznet.com).
  
• The next site with extensive conversations is at www.emergentnazarenes.com. You'll find a couple of years' worth of conversations there. You'll also find links to the blogs and sites of several individuals within the CotN who have been thinking on these things for a while.
  
• There is also a relatively new group on www.facebook.com called "Emerging Nazarenes".
  
• Lastly, Nazarene Theological Seminary has every once in a while had a conference or seminar somehow relating to emerging conversations. While the conferences are generally geared for pastors & leaders, you might check with NTS about lay people coming as well. Check their website for details (www.nts.edu). Actually, one current conversation is coming up soon (http://nts.edu/reclaiming-paul).

I hope this helps.

For & Through Christ,
Jeremy D. Scott

Pastor & Teacher
North Street Community Chapel
...a church of the Nazarene...
235 North Street
Hingham, MA 02043

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm guessing that a "clear declaration" that embraces the Christ-inspired values of the emergent church and presents them in a positive light is not what they have in mind?

[James Diggs]

I was sent copy of this email earlier in the week. It was also sent to my DS in the same email, and he referred to it as a “witch hunt”. The Pastor who forwarded it to me said the he didn’t think there was “much 'grace' coming from 'Grace Church’”. I thought about posting it here myself, but frankly I didn’t want to treat it with more weight than it held on its own. Clearly the intent is to build consensus against the influences of the emergent church, and it seems to me that the reason the author wants to this is because there isn’t much consensus in that regard.

There are a few particular statements the author makes that I have an issue with.

The Grace Church representative writes, “Actually, the “conversation” appears to be occurring within a rather elite subgroup of our denomination and has not included the membership at large. We find that disturbing. Is it possible that our well-educated theologians and general church leaders deem most of the membership as too ignorant or uneducated to understand these newer, more sophisticated doctrines? …common criticism of the Emergent Church is that it eschews traditional Nazarene doctrine and practices in order to gain wider appeal within the world. A phenomenon of this criticality demands more than “conversation” among an elite few. It demands open communication between the General Church and the membership at large. This has not occurred. Rather, Emergent Church theology has quietly and subtly invaded the highest levels of denominational leadership. If this were not so, workshops advancing the cause of the Emergent Church would not be sponsored at denomination-wide conferences”

This simply isn’t accurate. The conversation actually started as a grassroots conversation from the bottom up rather than the top down. Local Pastors and Nazarenes have been having these conversations long before the denomination more officially started listening to the conversation and generously decided to listen. There certainly are theologians within our denomination that resonate with the conversation, and had before it had a name, and they have been extremely helpful in helping others not be fearful when other words are used to describe our Christian faith other than the culturally Christian buzzwords that some in our denomination are used to.

The conversation is not taking place among “elitists”, it is taking place by everyday people in our denomination. I think we can see this reflected on NazNet.

The Grace Church representative writes, “The Emergent Church accuses traditional religion of being irrelevant to today’s post-modern world. While we admit many Nazarenes do not live or worship in a manner that is appealing to anyone, we view this as a spiritual problem.”

It is a common misconception that the emergent conversation is about catering to our “post-modern world”. I think the emergent conversation emphasizes the fact that we have a spiritual problem.

The Grace Church representative writes, “What we need is revival and that only happens when individual Christians make heart holiness a priority and give of their time, resources, talents, and very selves the way Jesus did.”

This sets up a crazy idea that the conversation we are having is against “revival”, “holiness”, and following in the path of Jesus. In reality the conversation is about what it actually means to live into these realities.

The Grace Church representative writes, “We hope to provide enough information to pique your interest in the Emergent Church and to motivate you to do your own homework. A simple Google Search for “Emergent Church” will tell you all you want to know and more.”

There isn't much evidence of doing one’s “homework” here. A few "google searches", as the author suggest as telling us "all you want to know and more", does not really constitute doing one's homework. This will only lead people to tap into some of the fear-based reactions of just really, uninformed, hyper fundamentalists. If peope want to do their homework, they should be encouraged to actually take part in the conversation before they are asked to sign petitions of protest.

The Grace Church representative writes, “We strongly encourage you to visit www.emergentchurch.com . While there, listen to the “testimony” of an emergent Christian if available. We believe many of you will be concerned.”

I am concerned that they give a dead link as a “recourse”, another example of not doing their own homework.

The Grace Church representative writes, “In our opinion, the General Board’s report appears to align with traditional Nazarene doctrine, theology, and practice. There is little or no indication that the General Board is officially supporting a movement that advances significant departure from the above. We would like an explanation of the discrepancy between official policy and reality.”

The conversation is not a “departure” from “traditional Nazarene doctrine, theology, and practice”. If anything, many of us resonate with the conversation because of it’s consistency with the spirit and history of our Nazarene tradition in which we gladly take part in.

________________________

Jeremy has graciously invited the author of this petition to participate in the conversation. I hope he or she does. NazNet would be a great place for them to start. I am not sure though if they really want to participate in it- it seems as if they have already made up their minds. We will just have to see. Thank you Jeremy for your Christ-like example in trying to build bridges and make peace.

Peace,

James

[Susan Unger]

This sets up a crazy idea that the conversation we re having is against “revival”, “holiness”, and following in the path of Jesus. In reality the conversation is about what it actually means to live into these realities.

I like this statement the best.

[Craig Laughlin]

My first reaction to this petition is sadness. I hear a great deal of fear in this pastor. Our brand of Christianity has preached a great deal of fear over the years. “What if Jesus came back while you were in a movie...” I suspect we are reaping what we have sowed. Saddest of all is that much of this sort of fear runs to some of the highest levels of our church.

[Kevin Rector]

What I don't understand is why they don't petition the Board of General Superintendents. That is the body that is responsible for clarifying our positions on issues where the General Assembly or manual are silent.

Anyway, I'm guessing that this has no chance of gaining any traction at all as the General Board (and the Board of General Superintendents) will have little interest in highlighting divisions within the body (real or perceived).

Within the petition they write, "We are prepared to assertively advocate for a referendum on The Emergent Church at the 2009 General Assembly."

What sort of standing does the pastor of a local church have to "assertively advocate for a referendum" at the General Assembly? This sounds like it's coming from someone who doesn't really know how our structures work. unless of course the only real intent of circulating this is to whip up fear in certain quarters of the church to "motivate the base" so to speak.

"We are requesting straight answers to our questions well in advance of that by whatever means necessary to bring the Emergent “conversation” to the Nazarene membership as a whole."

I just don't get the logic here... it's as if the petitioner is asserting that the Emergent Dialogs are held in private by some secretive Illuminati in a private room at HQ. The very facts that there were workshops (that were free) at M7 which were open to anyone that wanted to go seems to indicate that the denomination is in fact already bringing the Emergent conversation to the Nazarene membership as a whole.

[Kevin Rector]

I too wrote to Pastor Thayer, and this is what I said:

Hello Brother Thayer,

I recently was informed of your petition drive in regards to the Emergent Church. I came across this information on Naznet.com. There is a thread discussing your petition at: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=22558

I would strong encourage you to join Naznet and participate in the discussion of your petition as we can only guess at to your "side" of this issue. In the interest of full disclosure I am a Nazarene pastor who has self-identified with "some" parts of the Emerging Church ethos and conversation. I have even written a few posts over at www.emergentnazarenes.com (to be honest, I've been lousy at participating regularly). I've evolved somewhat and I personally identify more with the missional church movement than the emergent church conversation however I see a number of really good synergies between the two (in some ways they are two sides of the same coin).

Please understand, I am deeply committed to making wholly devoted followers of Jesus Christ. If you met me we'd probably get along just fine and you'd see that my theology, which is built around the principles of love, is nothing to be afraid of and is built upon the strong foundation of scripture and is certainly a holiness theology.

If you won't come and dialog with us at Naznet, please at least understand this: The Emergent Church is by no means monolithic - just as the Church of the Nazarene is not monolithic. If you put two Nazarenes together in the same room there is little chance that they will agree on everything, the same goes for those who resonate and participate in the Emergent conversations. You can no more say, "Brian McLaren has said 'x' and therefore that's what emergents believe" than you can say, "William Greathouse has said 'y' and therefore that's what Nazarenes believe".

Ultimately we must trust each other within the body of Christ that we are all striving to make Christlike disciples in the nations. You can no more say that you don't need me than I can say that I don't need you (I may be the left hand and you might be the right, but we are part of one body).

In the interest of full disclosure I will be posting a copy of this email to the discussion at naznet in the thread I listed above. I really truly would love for you to come and get to know myself and the other people on Naznet (some very conservative, some very liberal, some very middle of the road) who are all very devoted to Jesus Christ and the holiness message of the Church of the Nazarene.

Kevin Rector
Pastor
Wausau Church of the Nazarene
Wausau Wisconsin

[David Pettigrew]

At first glance, this appears to be another example of Billy Cox's proposition that the biggest problem in our movement is fear as our motivation, rather than faith.

Why does Jon Middendorf always bear the brunt of these types of things?

[Kevin Rector]

Why does Jon Middendorf always bear the brunt of these types of things?

Probably because of his visibility and his last name.