Reformed Nazarenes

[James Diggs]

Manny Silva attends the International Church of the Nazarene in New Bedford, MA, he is comfortable with the teaching here, I personally haven't heard him object to anything at our church....He is concerned with what he sees going on within the denomination, and he has that right.

I wonder if Manny would really object to much of what he might hear in the churches of the many ordained elders he condemns as unchristian heretics and wolves and sheep's clothing. Most of the things he has objected to seems to come from what he has read online, and that has been filtered and mischaracterized by "discernment ministries" like the lighthouse. Manny just passes that stuff on and has accepted that kind of filter and lens as he continues to look. But, I wonder if he took the time to really hear if he would be nearly as concerned as he is.

I am not negating any possible real disagreement or concerns. Jim, you and I have had disagreements about even big issues, but we have not put each other in the category of not being "real Christians" and being "heretics" and "wolves in sheep's clothing". We sometimes misunderstand each other, but we also recognize that their is sometimes a "language barrier" in the way we talk about these things. We do our best to try to listen rather than condemn.

Perhaps if the knives could be lowered on both sides, a reasonable albeit lengthy dialog could take place. And let's not kid ourselves, not all dialog has been nice heading in Manny's direction.

I am all for that Jim!!! I have even dedicated many posts on Emergent Nazarenes to making peace. I made some headway with Tim Wirth who finally said that he would accept me as a real Christian and a brother in the Lord, but he has so far not wanted to build on that.

I would love to see Manny accept the many ordained leaders that he has condemned in the past as not being "real Christians" and embrace them as brothers in Jesus instead. Then as brothers, love each other enough to sit down and work things out. I would be more than happy to do this. I know others would be too. What a wonderful story of reconciliation it would be!!!!!!

[Jim Chabot]

I wonder if Manny would really object to much of what he might hear in the churches of the many ordained elders he condemns as unchristian heretics and wolves and sheep's clothing. Most of the things he has objected to seems to come from what he has read online, and that has been filtered and mischaracterized by "discernment ministries" like the lighthouse. Manny just passes that stuff on and has accepted that kind of filter and lens as he continues to look. But, I wonder if he took the time to really hear if he would be nearly as concerned as he is.

I am not negating any possible real disagreement or concerns. Jim, you and I have had disagreements about even big issues, but we have not put each other in the category of not being "real Christians" and being "heretics" and "wolves in sheep's clothing". We sometimes misunderstand each other, but we also recognize that their is sometimes a "language barrier" in the way we talk about these things. We do our best to try to listen rather than condemn.




I am all for that Jim!!! I have even dedicated many posts on Emergent Nazarenes to making peace. I made some headway with Tim Wirth who finally said that he would accept me as a real Christian and a brother in the Lord, but he has so far not wanted to build on that.

I would love to see Manny accept the many ordained leaders that he has condemned as not real Christians in our denomination as brothers in Jesus and then as brothers love each other enough to sit down and work things out. I would be more than happy to do this. I know others would be too. What a wonderful story of reconciliation it would be!!!!!!

Such wisdom at an early hour! Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors, rather he seeks to warn against influences from outside the denomination and our willingness to embrace them without serious question. I think that Manny sometime gets discouraged that few Nazarene Pastors will come along side of his efforts. Those who do stand with him do so very cautiously. Bear in mind that is just off the cuff, there may be notable exceptions to this.

I continue to hope and pray that our Generals will step up to the plate with some definition. I understand that this is a difficult task for them, and I realize that doctrinal guidance from them is not a given. But I do hold out hope that they can bring a reconciliation to this, the little that we have heard from them is encouraging!

And yes, what a wonderful story of reconciliation that would be indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[James Diggs]

Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors.....

Actually Manny’s criticism HAS been directed at Nazarene Pastors, I personally have been a target of him and Concerned Nazarenes. They tell people that I am a "heretic" and “do not follow the real Jesus”, and that I am “deceiving my church” with heretical teaching. I have been told that I am a "wolf in sheep's clothing". To them, I am one of the false teachers they warn about. Of course, Manny and others have never been to my church.

I am not the only one, there are countless list of other Nazarene Pastors and professors they personally attack as “heretics”.

Even so.....we are willing to make peace, forgive, and reconcile.

[James Diggs]

In fairness I would ask if Ben actually responded to Manny's question. It doesn't appear to me that he did. Ben took the word "fruits" out of Manny's context and applied his own while responding. Perhaps if Manny had used a different word there? Regardless of the word choice, it is clear by the context that he spoke not to the fruit of the spirit, but rather to the "result" of false teaching.

Jim I appreciate that you are being an advocate for Manny. He needs to see that the people of NazNet are not about ganging up on him.

I am not sure that “fruit” is taken out of context because fruit is in scripture is largely synonymous with “result”. And you are right, is was the word Manny used, so ben’s response was reasonable. Still, Manny is going to have to engage Benjamin in a real conversation so they can work through any misunderstanding. I am sure Ben intended to answer his question, and if he did not he needs to say so. I am also sure Ben is willing to listen.

I still am curious to see if Manny will engage in conversation that actually digs deep into the scripture even when the scripture may not say what HE wants it to say.

[Jim Abrams]

Jim C., I am noting several exceptions. I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of slander and have to deal with the undermining of ministry and authority. I know what it is like to have to answer the charge of being a false teacher, unqualified pastor and someone who fails in his responsibility to preach the whole council of God. I am thankful that the CON has a process in place to address these issues but CN's do so much damage when they try to circumvent that system and launch their own smear campaign. I can not agree that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene pastors. It has been and continues to be. In addition I believe that an assault on the flock is an assault on the shepherd and that an assault on the shepherd is an assault on the flock. CN have not only been unchristian in dealing with Nazarene ministers but they have been the cause of great division, hurt and pain for local congregations. It amazes me that someone on such an offensive crusade can be sooooo good at playing the role of the victim. In my personal experience I have found the Concerned Nazarene to be perpetrator, not the victim. The victim is usually the church, the local ministry and many times the pastor and staff.

I do believe the Generals have address the issue. I could be wrong but I think they have said all their going to officially say about the issue. I have found that Concerned Nazarenes will continue to ask the question until they get the answer they want to hear. I am just not convinced they are open to anything else.

[Rich Schmidt]

Such wisdom at an early hour! Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors, rather he seeks to warn against influences from outside the denomination and our willingness to embrace them without serious question.

Hmmm... He names ordained Nazarene elders on his blog and aims criticism directly at them, Jim. Clicking the "Nazarene Denomination Losing its Way" link at the top of the page takes you to an article (a very even-handed and calmly written article) that includes the following:

Contemplative spirituality practices, which are nothing more than “Christianized” transcendental meditation, are being taught in Nazarene universities, seminaries, and churches. Professors such as Thomas Oord of Northwest Nazarene University are teaching Open Theism, the heresy that God does not know the future, among other heresies. Professors such as Karl Giberson at Eastern Nazarene College are teaching that evolution is fully compatible with the Bible. Trevecca Nazarene University has a prayer labyrinth on campus, and some Nazarene churches now use prayer labyrinths, which is a practice from pagan cultures that was invented and used thousands of years before Christ. There is nothing Christian about it, but now it is becoming more commonplace in the Nazarene church. Leaders at Point Loma Nazarene University and others are promoting contemplative spirituality practices. Even Nazarene Theological Seminary is going “contemplative”, promoting a “spiritual formation” retreat at a Catholic retreat center a few days before General Assembly.

His post from this past March titled, "NazNet's Pastors and their Dubious Theology," includes the following:

What is disturbing to me, is that many of the participants on Naznet, including pastors, are trying to pass off some very distorted thinking as orthodox Christian doctrine, or as traditional Nazarene doctrine and beliefs. ...

And as my friend Tim Wirth described it, NazNet is a breeding ground for emergent heresy. I agree. And I applaud the writings of Grant Swank, a hardhitting, former Nazarene minister, who is doing the hard work of exposing the many heretical viewpoints that are being allowed to go unchallenged by the moderators of the “supposedly Nazarene-friendly” forum at NazNet.

Later in that post he calls Dan Boone, president of TNU, "a deceived college president," and Ron Benefiel, president of NTS, "a deceived seminary president." These are two ordained Nazarene elders who have given and are giving their lives to the work of the gospel. That doesn't mean they can't be deceived... but it does mean they deserve more respect than to be called "wolves in sheep's clothing," to use the words of ordained Nazarene elder Beverly Turner at the beginning of the Concerned Nazarene DVD that Manny promotes, the video clip of which Manny posted on YouTube.

I'm not begrudging Manny his opinion on these matters. I just wanted to make clear that I believe it would be quite inaccurate to say that he has not directed criticism toward Nazarene pastors.

[Edited to add: Sorry if this post feels like "piling on." That wasn't my intent. I was delayed in posting it, so I didn't see that James & Jim had already addressed the issue... and now that I've done all that writing and quoting and linking, I'm hesitant to just hit the delete button! ]

[Jon Twitchell]

Is there a process in the Manual by which Manny can bring formal complaints or file charges against these individuals? If he truly believes them to be so dangerous, shouldn't he avail himself of it? (Or is the process not something that a layperson can engage? I've not read that section in a while.)

[Dennis Bratcher]

You have said this twice now, and you may be correct in most instances I do not know. Manny Silva attends the International Church of the Nazarene in New Bedford, MA, he is comfortable with the teaching here, I personally haven't heard him object to anything at our church. I can tell you that he did a great job narrating our Christmas program.

He is concerned with what he sees going on within the denomination, and he has that right. Perhaps if the knives could be lowered on both sides, a reasonable albeit lengthy dialog could take place. And let's not kid ourselves, not all dialog has been nice heading in Manny's direction. Do you honestly think that he keeps his guard up for no reason?

Please take note that my defense is limited to Manny, I have read the online attacks against Hans, Scott and Dave, and I am quite troubled by them.

Sorry, Jim, but this is inaccurate. It is a very one-sided picture. I know it has been the practice of some to say that both sides are equally guilty. I do not know the reason for that and would not guess. But it is just not true.

I have read every post that Manny has made here and read most everything on his blog, as well as his posts on other blogs. In that context, I will stand by what I have said in other posts in this thread (without repeating them here). Manny is the attacker and the one trying to lop off heads in the name of God and his own truth.

There is a huge difference between a knife and a shield. I think most of us will keep the shield up as long as Manny is swinging the knife.

As I have said repeatedly, the issue is not that Manny or anyone else is "concerned." The issue is the aggressive posture toward others, which has devolved to outright slander, without any solid foundation or evidence beyond vague association with things and people he does not like.

In any case, the church is not about "rights." It is about mutual responsibility and servanthood.

Dialog? All of the concerned Nazarene folks, including Manny have been invited to dialog repeatedly, even to being offered free airfare and meals (at least to Tim). But they have refused. Manny refuses to discuss anything here, and will not tolerate challenge on his blog. Perhaps that is a reality that also needs comment.

And let's not kid ourselves, not all dialog has been nice heading in Manny's direction. Do you honestly think that he keeps his guard up for no reason?

I have seen nothing comparable to what Manny has thrown at others directed back at him. In fact, nearly everyone has been more than gracious to Manny, something that I have not seen from him. I and others have challenged him to provide more evidence than quoting Reformed and Southern Baptists, or using online resources that are inaccurate, or working solely from assumptions beyond evidence. I and others have also challenged him to deal with aspects he has presented that are simply false. He has never responded to a single challenge beyond throwing more quotes from other people back.

I have said that what Manny and the others are doing is sinful based on biblical injunctions about how to deal with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I will stand by that until there is some change of tactics. I suppose that could be considered "not nice." But it is ludicrous to assume that this is the reason for Manny's actions. His is not and has never been in a defensive posture.

Also, as I have repeatedly said, I do not know and cannot know anyone's spiritual status before God. I know that God is gracious and longsuffering, and believe that there is grace within a commitment to God that does not force us out of the Kingdom because of a single sin. It is really a matter of the heart that only God can judge. And yet, I also believe that God calls us to repentance from within that relationship.

Manny's actions are still sinful and need repentance. Most of us here (of whom I am aware) are quite willing to intercede for Manny, to pray for his repentance, yearning to redeem a brother before sin gives birth to death.

Bottom line: This needs a reality check.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Rich Schmidt]

I am thankful that the CON has a process in place to address these issues but CN's do so much damage when they try to circumvent that system and launch their own smear campaign.

I've asked Manny and other Concerned Nazarenes more than once if any of them have followed the process given in the Manual (that they agreed to follow when they became members) and filed charges against any of these ordained Nazarene elders that they continue to criticize. I've never received an answer.

[Shea Zellweger]

Such wisdom at an early hour! Let me just throw out one small observation. I'm thinking that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene Pastors, rather he seeks to warn against influences from outside the denomination and our willingness to embrace them without serious question. I think that Manny sometime gets discouraged that few Nazarene Pastors will come along side of his efforts. Those who do stand with him do so very cautiously. Bear in mind that is just off the cuff, there may be notable exceptions to this.

Sorry, Jim, but yes, he has very much directed criticism toward Nazarene pastors. I've made his list on more than one occasion.
I'm Sorry, Jim and Manny, that Manny gets discouraged that few Nazarene Pastors will come alongside of his efforts, but many of us feel that his efforts are inaccurate and misguided. When several men and women who I highly respect and from whom I have received invaluable assistance in my spiritual journey via their books, lectures, and other media are being assaulted as false teachers and heretics, I don't much feel comfortable coming alongside the person slinging the accusations. If there are a few valid points from the Concerned Nazarenes, they are so buried in insults, anti-Catholic claims, and literalist dogma that they are nearly impossible to identify. I know that you, Jim, do not take the entire Bible as literal fact, and yet Manny insists that those who do not are misled at best and heretics at worst. I've also seen a disturbing trend of guilt by association to villify those Manny opposes, combined with turning a blind eye to those he supports. For example, Dan Boone is attacked for bringing students to a Catholic monastery, yet Grant Swank claims on his site to be comfortable worshipping in a Catholic (or Jewish) setting, and is applauded by Manny. This lack of consistency is so incredibly consistent that it calls into questions the motives of the one doing it. Another example, this from Tim Wirth. On the CN facebook page, Tim accused me and others of disorting the truth by saying something along the lines of "I don't agree with everything the author says, but he makes some good points." This was, in Tim's estimation, an example of what "emergents" do. And yet less than 72 hours later there was a discussion going on on their page about a teacher, and Tim claimed that he made a lot of good points, but the gentleman in question was wrong for being a Calvinist.

If they would at least start by showing some consistency about who's "in" and who's "out," I might be more willing to listen, but as it stands the claims are so incredibly subjective that the most postmodern of us blush at the blatant relativism.

I continue to hope and pray that our Generals will step up to the plate with some definition. I understand that this is a difficult task for them, and I realize that doctrinal guidance from them is not a given. But I do hold out hope that they can bring a reconciliation to this, the little that we have heard from them is encouraging!

And yes, what a wonderful story of reconciliation that would be indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...The generals released a paper on the Emerging Church, did they not?

[James Diggs]

I've asked Manny and other Concerned Nazarenes more than once if any of them have followed the process given in the Manual (that they agreed to follow when they became members) and filed charges against any of these ordained Nazarene elders that they continue to criticize. I've never received an answer.

It is odd and hypocritical that they ask for "accountability", but refuse to operate in any way within systems and community of accountability. Instead, they appointed themselves the leaders of "concerned nazarenes" and they control who joins and can participate in that group so they don't have any accountability there either. If you don't agree with them, they will just kick you out because they are in charge. I don't see any evidence that they are interested in anything that requires them to "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ".

[David Troxler]

Jim C., I am noting several exceptions. I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of slander and have to deal with the undermining of ministry and authority. I know what it is like to have to answer the charge of being a false teacher, unqualified pastor and someone who fails in his responsibility to preach the whole council of God. I am thankful that the CON has a process in place to address these issues but CN's do so much damage when they try to circumvent that system and launch their own smear campaign. I can not agree that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene pastors. It has been and continues to be. In addition I believe that an assault on the flock is an assault on the shepherd and that an assault on the shepherd is an assault on the flock. CN have not only been unchristian in dealing with Nazarene ministers but they have been the cause of great division, hurt and pain for local congregations. It amazes me that someone on such an offensive crusade can be sooooo good at playing the role of the victim. In my personal experience I have found the Concerned Nazarene to be perpetrator, not the victim. The victim is usually the church, the local ministry and many times the pastor and staff.

I do believe the Generals have address the issue. I could be wrong but I think they have said all their going to officially say about the issue. I have found that Concerned Nazarenes will continue to ask the question until they get the answer they want to hear. I am just not convinced they are open to anything else.

Jim,
I just want to say how proud I am of your response. It is measured and exhibits a great deal of wisdom. I am especially gratified by your restraint, when I realize your personal investment in this issue.
Your brother in Christ,
dave t

[Rich Schmidt]

...The generals released a paper on the Emerging Church, did they not?

If you're referring to the paper that Hans shared here before the crash, it didn't give any details. It said, basically, that there are some helpful things about the emerging conversation but also some who have clearly stepped away from orthodox Christianity. Manny has asked for clarification. Who, in their estimation, has crossed the line? And where is that line for us as a church/denomination?

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

If you're referring to the paper that Hans shared here before the crash, it didn't give any details. It said, basically, that there are some helpful things about the emerging conversation but also some who have clearly stepped away from orthodox Christianity. Manny has asked for clarification. Who, in their estimation, has crossed the line? And where is that line for us as a church/denomination?

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

I think the "statement of affirmation" from the BoGS of April 21 is an indirect reply to those who are trying to redefine our beliefs in narrow, exclusionary terms. They say there are eight "nonnegotiable elements" of our beliefs.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/n...sp?id=10009167

These, then, are the primary doctrinal stands of the Church.

A person who attacks Nazarene leaders who hold to them is mistaken at best and sinful at worst.

Apparently, the BoGS wants people who are "concerned" about other things to stop distracting the church from it's core beliefs and mission. They conclude: "Let us set aside anything and everything that distracts from our mission to make Christlike disciples in the nations."

[Bob Hunter]

I'm with Gary on this one. Sorry, Bob. Let's model respectful dialogue, filled with grace and truth. Both for the sake of our brothers and sisters in the Concerned camp and for those who aren't in either camp but are asking questions and looking for answers.

I just Googled "Reformed Nazarene" (w/o the quotes), and this thread was the 4th or 5th result.

Okay, guys but when is enough enough? And I would add that you don't always model respectful dialog because Silva and Wirth you drag into a bare knuckle internet brawl that makes you all look bad and causes outsiders to wonder if we are even Christians (and I can't help but wonder what members of our church must think when their pastor spends an inordinate amount of time dealing with a cyber church bully from afar). All I'm saying is this: WHEN THE HORSE IS DEAD...Dismount. This group doesn't even attend a Nazarene Church! I agree with your content, you all are brilliant and have such a heart, but its time to pull the plug and exercise the sacrament of failure...dust your feet off fellas and move on.

[Dennis Bratcher]

If you're referring to the paper that Hans shared here before the crash, it didn't give any details. It said, basically, that there are some helpful things about the emerging conversation but also some who have clearly stepped away from orthodox Christianity. Manny has asked for clarification. Who, in their estimation, has crossed the line? And where is that line for us as a church/denomination?

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

Apart from all the hysteria, misinformation, and histrionics from the concerned Nazarenes folks, I have said from the beginning that the range of what passes as "emergent" needs examination and honest questions. It cannot be lumped under the same rubric as catholic, inerrancy, contemplative, etc., and we cannot assume that all "emergents" are the same. But in an effort to distance ourselves from the CN grunge we cannot afford to ignore asking those questions and dealing with them candidly.

I think that is really what the GSs were trying to say indirectly.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jim Abrams]

Ben, I wonder how the Generals can name specific people, ministries, and practices in any way that will satisfy Concerned Nazarene and not essentially vilify those named by them for clarification. By clarifying particular people, ministries and practices as unorthodox will they not essentially be seen as endorsing everything else as acceptable?

I guess I am struggling with what a fair statement of clarification would look like and wondering if it would provide any resolution at all? I think the best way to address it is to clearly affirm who we are, what we are about and why. I believe the paper Hans shared BC - (before crash) does that.

[Dennis Bratcher]

I think the "statement of affirmation" from the BoGS of April 21 is an indirect reply to those who are trying to redefine our beliefs in narrow, exclusionary terms. They say there are eight "nonnegotiable elements" of our beliefs.

http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/n...sp?id=10009167

These, then, are the primary doctrinal stands of the Church.

A person who attacks Nazarene leaders who hold to them is mistaken at best and sinful at worst.

Apparently, the BoGS wants people who are "concerned" about other things to stop distracting the church from it's core beliefs and mission. They conclude: "Let us set aside anything and everything that distracts from our mission to make Christlike disciples in the nations."

I agree. But as a practical matter, we as a Community of Faith need to say this more plainly in the Manual (which is anything but clear at this point).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Kevin Rector]

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Hebrews 13:17

The authority that members of the COTN must submit to is the General Assembly which has delegated certain functions to certain people in various positions (General Secretary, GS, DS, pastors, etc.). The General Assembly ratified the 500s in our manual which describe the proper procedure for lodging complaints against other members and clergy.

So the Concerned Nazarenes (and all Nazarenes everywhere) have one and only one acceptable course of action according to Hebrews 13:17. They have the right to file a complaint with the proper person according to the provisions of the authorities in their church (manual paragraphs 500-515.6). If that person in authority feels there is no merit to their complaints then the complainant, according to Hebrews 13:17, MUST submit to that decision.

Making claims against members of the COTN and clergy of the COTN on the internet and DVDs is out of harmony with the manual and is a direct violation of Hebrews 13:17 and if the CNs are truly interested in being biblical they will recognize Hebrews 13:17 and submit to the proper channels and proper authorities in the church.

[Manny Silva]

Actually Manny’s criticism HAS been directed at Nazarene Pastors, I personally have been a target of him and Concerned Nazarenes. They tell people that I am a "heretic" and “do not follow the real Jesus”, and that I am “deceiving my church” with heretical teaching. I have been told that I am a "wolf in sheep's clothing". To them, I am one of the false teachers they warn about. Of course, Manny and others have never been to my church.

I am not the only one, there are countless list of other Nazarene Pastors and professors they personally attack as “heretics”.

Even so.....we are willing to make peace, forgive, and reconcile.

Okay, James, when did I ever call you a heretic or a false teacher? Can you document that, I don't believe I ever have done that, yet you say it with certainty.
This is exactly why I ignore much of what you say, because you twist much of what I say or you assume that you know exactly how and what I think!

[James Diggs]

I think the statements by the Generals was helpful, because it made clear that we're not going to simply reject everything that falls under the "emergent" or "emerging" umbrella. But I also think Manny's request for clarification is fair.

I am not sure it is. What they seem to want is to have certain words and phrases of how we talk about Christianity either to be endorsed or banned. They say "tell us plainly" is "emergent/emerging" right or wrong, yet they are not unwilling to unpack what that might mean. They just wait an answer that will either give them permission to get rid of heretics or include the Generals among the heretics.

In John 10 it was once demanded of Jesus that he tell them plainly if he was the “Messiah” or the “Christ” or not. The terms "Christ" or “Messiah” refer to the Jews anticipation of the coming of an “anointed one”. We should remember that this anticipation did not include the idea that the Messiah would be God himself, and many Jews were not even convinced it would be just one person. Some looked for the return of a King in the line of David, others looked the return of a strong priestly order through an “anointed” High Priest. Some looked for both.

With all these different expectations the request to “tell them plainly” was in a reality an impossibility as any such direct statement becomes obfuscated by the preconceived notions of the hearers. It might seem simple enough to ask Jesus to just come out and say if he is the “Messiah” or not, but Jesus did not think so.

Jesus instead claims he is the “Good Shepherd”; which initially seems to confuse the issue further as the hearers understood that the prophets said that God himself would assume this role after so many “shepherds of Israel” failed to live up to what shepherds were supposed to be. The idea that the “Messiah” would be God was not what they were expecting. When the hearers of this claim pick up stones to kill Jesus for claiming to be God, Jesus asks for what works and miracles do they stone him for?

Jesus then points to Psalm 82 which speaks of Kings (gods) that fall like a mere prince. A Prince is one that never reaches his destiny to be King, and in the case of the Psalm it was because they were judged for not reflecting what a true and good King should be. In this Jesus says that what he does identifies who he is better than any claim, regardless of how “plainly” it is stated. Jesus does not want to be Christ, Messiah, King, High Priest, or even God if by those terms you would mean something by them that fails to reflect who he really is. He does not want those words to define him when they come with such baggage. Jesus wants us instead to be defined by what he does and let those things breath new life into the terms.

This gets back to the issue of fruit. Jesus said, “Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.” The CN’s argue about “words”, they don’t really want to deal with the concepts behind those words and how we are to live into those concepts. They want to argue which words are the right words and that’s it.

2 Timothy 2:14-15 “keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

“Correctly handling the word of truth” is as much about being a “workman” and bearing good fruit as we follow good teaching as anything else. When others were out looking to condemn Jesus based on getting him to confess words that could mean different things to different people he did not do it. He instead pointed to the fruit of his works if anyone had any doubt about who he was.

It is not so simple for the Generals to come out and “answer plainly” when people are more worried about which words you use than they are about the substance behind them and how we are live into that substance as we follow the Way of Jesus.

Looking at the teachings and fruit of the Concerned Nazarenes and then looking at the teachings and fruit of those they attack. I feel pretty comfortable with which of all this I have come down on. In the mean time the Generals have done the wisest thing by not trying to pigeonhole certain words used in a conversation as either good or bad.

They have been given clarification, it just doesn't come in the over simplified answers they can use to continue to call people heretics.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim C., I am noting several exceptions. I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of slander and have to deal with the undermining of ministry and authority. I know what it is like to have to answer the charge of being a false teacher, unqualified pastor and someone who fails in his responsibility to preach the whole council of God. I am thankful that the CON has a process in place to address these issues but CN's do so much damage when they try to circumvent that system and launch their own smear campaign. I can not agree that Manny's criticism has not been directed toward Nazarene pastors. It has been and continues to be. In addition I believe that an assault on the flock is an assault on the shepherd and that an assault on the shepherd is an assault on the flock. CN have not only been unchristian in dealing with Nazarene ministers but they have been the cause of great division, hurt and pain for local congregations. It amazes me that someone on such an offensive crusade can be sooooo good at playing the role of the victim. In my personal experience I have found the Concerned Nazarene to be perpetrator, not the victim. The victim is usually the church, the local ministry and many times the pastor and staff.

I do believe the Generals have address the issue. I could be wrong but I think they have said all their going to officially say about the issue. I have found that Concerned Nazarenes will continue to ask the question until they get the answer they want to hear. I am just not convinced they are open to anything else.

On the first part, I'm thinking that it would be better left to yourself and Manny to sort out, there was an obvious problem there, my statement was made not specifically but more to how I read him. I admit that he can be abrasive, but I think his goal is a return to what the CotN has stood for traditionally, yes there has been division, how can there not be unless one side decides to simply follow the other. I don't see his goal as divisive, even though his writing has caused some, I think that he want's reconciliation, I think that he is looking for agreeable terms. Maybe I'm dreaming, some say that I am. I'm quite concerned myself, I try to be minimally abrasive though.

My understanding is that we have two documents from the Generals, one written by GS Middendorf and endorsed by GS Porter without objection from the others, and I understand that there is a second document recently issued to the DS's of which I have read only a small part. I do need to re read this thread, I thought I saw a reference to another piece. I'm hoping, maybe in vain, that the Generals will address this in a way that mediates things. Perhaps something like this; "Ok emergent thinkers, we find that the following to be objectionable, while the following is ok, and Hi Concerned, we agree with you on a couple of things and have taken steps to address them, while we disagree on other matters and ask that you stop complaining about them." Ok maybe I'm dreaming, but something decisive would be nice.

[Cam Pence]

"I don't see his goal as divisive, even though his writing has caused some, I think that he want's reconciliation, I think that he is looking for agreeable terms."

im sorry jim but there is no way i can buy this since we both know that the only agreeable terms manny sees are his own terms. there is no search for reconciliation from the CN....it is simply divide and conquer. agree with us or be a heretic. what they want is really a Pyrrhic victory. if they can drive all the emergents, false teachers, and wolves in sheeps clothing out of the church, than in the end looking at all the damage they have caused and churches they have torn apart, they can smile knowing that they proved that they were "right".

[Jim Abrams]

Jim C.
My comments were not specifically related to Manny Silva although he does factor into them. I am honestly glad that your interactions with CN do not reflect the majority of mine and I pray the Lord will use you help bring about a constructive, redemptive duologue. I can only speak from my experience and from what I have publicly observed from others. I don't understand how the ends justify the means. The GOAL of many CNs may not be division but when it is apparent that division is the RESULT those who cause such division must take responsibility. I have not in any of my encounters with CN found anyone willing to take responsibility or a willingness to be held countable for those actions.

I think many CNs have a gross misunderstanding of what the CotN has stood for traditionally. For example let me point to a recent article on a Reformed Nazarene blog that bemoans Nazarene involvement in social justice, "Nazarene Social Justice and It’s Socialist Connections." This gross misunderstanding of what the CotN has traditionally stood for is a large part of the problem. The accusation sometimes takes the form: that some Nazarene Pastors are introducing strange new practices and emphasis into the denomination when the reality is that some of those accused are simply calling the church to recapture what she has been traditionally about all along.

I am glad, truly glad, that you have not had the same experiences as I. My experiences however have moved me to a different conclusion than yours have lead you to. Perhaps the Lord will use you to bring about the reconciliation you believe is being being desired.

As for the statements by the Generals I'll refer you to my comments to Ben above.

Blessings,
Jim

[Dennis Bratcher]

im sorry jim but there is no way i can buy this since we both know that the only agreeable terms manny sees are his own terms. there is no search for reconciliation from the CN....it is simply divide and conquer. agree with us or be a heretic. what they want is really a Pyrrhic victory. if they can drive all the emergents, false teachers, and wolves in sheeps clothing out of the church, than in the end looking at all the damage they have caused and churches they have torn apart, they can smile knowing that they proved that they were "right".

I really do not want this to be true and pray that it is not.

We will have to wait for history to demonstrate whether it is or not.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[James Diggs]

Okay, James, when did I ever call you a heretic or a false teacher? Can you document that, I don't believe I ever have done that, yet you say it with certainty.
This is exactly why I ignore much of what you say, because you twist much of what I say or you assume that you know exactly how and what I think!

Really? So are you saying I am not a heretic and I am a real Christian?

You sound just like Tim Wirth your co-leader of Concerned Nazarenes who wrote on, 04/05/2009 :

Tim Wirth: James I have never said you are not a Christian. Do I consider you a brother in Christ? No because of what you teach and promote.”

I love the way he denied saying he ever said I wasn’t a Christian, but then said it. What about you? Am I a Christian? Am I a false teacher? Just answer yes or no to each.

The Concerned Nazarenes (and you are a leader of that group) first targeted me on September 15, 2008, when a concerned nazarene blog said that I was the “tip of the iceberg of what’s going on in the Nazarene Denomination”, as a “false movement” has "hit the Nazarene Church". HERE is the Concerned Nazarenes Post

Here is another quote from your Co-leader of Concerned Nazarenes Tim on 03/06/2010:

Tim Wirth: Im sorry james it does grieve me because you do proclaim to be a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ. But you follow a different jesus other than the real Jesus that is written in scripture. I cannot call someone a brother in the Lord who promotes heresy and false teaching and teachers like you do. I would pray again that you would step down as pastor and as a leader. Repent and reject the false teaching and teachers you promote and then come back in the tent that Jesus Christ.

Tim would eventually say he changed his mind about me not being a Christian, and so in an email with you recently I told you so- trying to get you both to work on a way we can work things out as brothers in Jesus. I said to you,

James Diggs: Your good friend Tim Wirth recently retracted his belief that I wasn't a Christian and now says he accepts me as such. I have told him that I would much rather work with him as fellow Christians and Nazarenes than against him. As brothers in Jesus and as Nazarenes we have more common ground than differences. I offer you the same thing Manny, to work together to build on our common ground in a way that even if we do not agree on other things we will not tear down the body of Christ around us just to win an argument.

You replied to that statement saying,

Manny Silva: it seems that you have twisted Tim's words around.

So by that you are saying that Tim still thinks I am not a Christian and that I am still a false teacher? Has he told you so? I asked you this in the email, but you never responded. Are you saying you stand by Tim's original statements about me that I "follow a different jesus other than the real Jesus"? Are you saying that Tim really never retracted those statements and that you and he still stand by them as leaders of the Concerned Nazarenes? Please clear this up for me.

If I am wrong, set me straight. Say “James Diggs is a Christian, a brother in Jesus and as is NOT a heretic or false teacher”. Then you can do the same with Jon Middendorf, Dan Boone, Dennis Bratcher, Rich Schmidt, Ron Benefiel, Thomas Oord, Karl Giberson, and many, many, many other names.

If I have twisted things up and misunderstood you then you can fix that right now.

[Manny Silva]

"I don't see his goal as divisive, even though his writing has caused some, I think that he want's reconciliation, I think that he is looking for agreeable terms."

im sorry jim but there is no way i can buy this since we both know that the only agreeable terms manny sees are his own terms. there is no search for reconciliation from the CN....it is simply divide and conquer. agree with us or be a heretic. what they want is really a Pyrrhic victory. if they can drive all the emergents, false teachers, and wolves in sheeps clothing out of the church, than in the end looking at all the damage they have caused and churches they have torn apart, they can smile knowing that they proved that they were "right".

Cam,
My goal is not to divide for division's sake- my goal is to speak the truth (I know some disagree on my view of truth, that's fine) but division is going to happen is it not when we preach the truth? Christ said He came to divide.

Those who preach another gospel will cause division, won't they? So division according to scripture is bound to happen, when those who disobey Christ, go up against those who obey Christ, is that not true?

So, setting aside whether you agree that I'm right or wrong, those who believe the emergent church movement is bringing in a lot of false teaching into the church, believe that they are causing the division by their false teaching. I welcome the division in one sense- because it will separate those who uphold the gospel that Paul talks about in Galatians 1; that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed.

I know some here will clearly disagree with me, others here agree with me in part, perhaps in whole. But regardless, I just want to do God's will and speak the truth and continue to expose the false teachings going on in our great denomination. I'm not here in a search for popularity, so you won't here anything from me that does not come from the heart.

I would affirm with what you said at the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

[Cam Pence]

Cam,
My goal is not to divide for division's sake- my goal is to speak the truth (I know some disagree on my view of truth, that's fine) but division is going to happen is it not when we preach the truth? Christ said He came to divide.

Those who preach another gospel will cause division, won't they? So division according to scripture is bound to happen, when those who disobey Christ, go up against those who obey Christ, is that not true?

So, setting aside whether you agree that I'm right or wrong, those who believe the emergent church movement is bringing in a lot of false teaching into the church, believe that they are causing the division by their false teaching. I welcome the division in one sense- because it will separate those who uphold the gospel that Paul talks about in Galatians 1; that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed.

I know some here will clearly disagree with me, others here agree with me in part, perhaps in whole. But regardless, I just want to do God's will and speak the truth and continue to expose the false teachings going on in our great denomination. I'm not here in a search for popularity, so you won't here anything from me that does not come from the heart.

I would agree with what you said a the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

thanks manny....you said it better than i could....ill continue to pray for you as you seek to destroy our denomination for the sake of being "right"

[Jon Twitchell]

I would affirm with what you said at the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

Manny,

If you truly believe what you say, I fail to understand why you have not filed charges against the individuals who are teaching a false gospel and poisoning the minds of our youth. If you truly love this denomination, then you ought to be exhausting every possibility available to you in order to protect it.

Question: have you filed charges against any Nazarene elders because of their false teaching?

[Kevin Rector]

I know some here will clearly disagree with me, others here agree with me in part, perhaps in whole. But regardless, I just want to do God's will and speak the truth and continue to expose the false teachings going on in our great denomination. I'm not here in a search for popularity, so you won't here anything from me that does not come from the heart.

I would affirm with what you said at the end... I would like to see all false teachers or misguided pastors and teachers either repent, or if not, leave the denomination so that they stop poisoning the minds of the youth and many other Christians in our churches.

Manny,

What about Hebrews 13:17? Seriously, are you not required to abide by Hebrews 13:17? Is not your speaking out against ordained Nazarene elders rather than going to their authorities not in direct contravention of Hebrews 13:17?

If the spiritual authorities placed over the Nazarene leaders that you call out as heretical (James, Rich, Dan Boone, etc) discount or disregard your claims, does Hebrews 13:17 not REQUIRE you to submit to them?

I am genuinely curious how you continue your behavior in light of Hebrews 13:17.

[James Diggs]

I welcome the division in one sense- because it will separate those who uphold the gospel that Paul talks about in Galatians 1; that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed.

Manny, here you go again doing just what Ben said you do; you quote verses that say things like “that anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed” yet, you decided for yourself what “another gospel” is.

Ironically the context of the passage you chose was Paul talking about how he used to wrongly persecute the church and wrongly tried to destroy it. Saul thought he was stamping out heresy- just like you do now. Paul then talks about his conversion and how he tried to meet with the Apostles whom he once persecuted. In chapter two Paul describes that “other gospel” you mention and says, “This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.” The issue of the true gospel was that it provided liberty not to have to become a Jew in order to follow Christ. He then tells of how he met with Peter and the others and they agreed that he was to take the gospel to the gentiles, even though he had to confront Peter himself later about this as Peter struggled momentarily with the idea. I also like how the gospel is also associated with “remembering the poor” which Paul said Peter had asked him to do and he was eager to do himself.

I guess the context of statements like “anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed” mean nothing as you just apply the statement to whatever context you want.

I think Hans has said it before, but I pray that you will have a Saul to Paul kind of change of heart concerning the way you wrongly persecute the church.

By the way, you have so far just ignored Ben as he engaged in scripture answering your question. (as I thought you might) And you have failed so far to take an opportunity to affirm me (or all the others) as your brother(s) in Christ and tell people that you don’t think we are heretics, false teachers, or wolves in sheep’s clothing. If it is a mischaracterization that you think we are all heretics, then you can set it straight and tell us and everyone else that you believe we are your Christian brothers and that we are NOT heretics.

[Bill Morrison]

Manny,

If you truly believe what you say, I fail to understand why you have not filed charges against the individuals who are teaching a false gospel and poisoning the minds of our youth. If you truly love this denomination, then you ought to be exhausting every possibility available to you in order to protect it.

Question: have you filed charges against any Nazarene elders because of their false teaching?

Jon:
Is it even possible in the Church of the Nazarene to do what you are urging Manny to do? (i.e. to bring charges against an elder who is not even part of your local congregation?) I am doubting it, otherwise we would have constant turmoil in the denomination. Please show me if I am wrong. Otherwise let's not put Manny down for failing to do something he can't possibly do!

BILL

[Kevin Rector]

Jon:
Is it even possible in the Church of the Nazarene to do what you are urging Manny to do? (i.e. to bring charges against an elder who is not even part of your local congregation?) I am doubting it, otherwise we would have constant turmoil in the denomination. Please show me if I am wrong. Otherwise let's not put Manny down for failing to do something he can't possibly do!

BILL

Bill, I refer you to the latest manual which can be found at http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/Manual2009-2013.pdf. Pages 224-245 (Paragraphs 500-516.6) deal with church discipline.

I refer you specifically to paragraph 505.1:

505.1. If a member of the clergy is accused of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a minister, or of teaching doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statement of the Church of the Nazarene, or of serious laxity in the enforcement of the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the church, such accusations shall be placed in writing and shall be signed by at least two members of the Church of the Nazarene who are at the time in good standing. Accusations of sexual misconduct cannot be signed by any person who consented to participate in the alleged misconduct. The written accusation must be filed with the District Advisory Board of the district where the accused has ministerial membership. This accusation shall become part of the record in the case.

[Jon Twitchell]

505.1 - If a member of the clergy is accused of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a minister, or of teaching doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statement of the Church of the Nazarene, or of serious laxity in the enforcement of the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the church, such accusations shall be placed in writing and shall be signed by at least two members of the Church of the Nazarene who are at the time in good standing....

(Emphasis mine)

Manny need only find one other member of the CotN to file formal accusations against any of the elders that he has called out. He does not need to be a member of the same local church.

So: Is he unable to find someone else willing to file charges?
OR: does he not really believe the things that he is saying?

Is there another option?

[Bill Morrison]

Kevin:
THANK YOU for your response on the legality of this issue. I am still very skeptical that in practice this could ever happen , i.e that someone like Manny, or me, or you along with a second person could charge an elder outside of our local church with an issue like this. I don't wish to reopen the unfortunate pre-crash harsh criticism of D.S.'s, but this is an instance where my gut instinct and 59 years in the Church of the Nazarene tell me that our District and General leadership would nip this in the bud if any peon member tried to do it!

BILL

[Manny Silva]

The authority that members of the COTN must submit to is the General Assembly which has delegated certain functions to certain people in various positions (General Secretary, GS, DS, pastors, etc.). The General Assembly ratified the 500s in our manual which describe the proper procedure for lodging complaints against other members and clergy.

So the Concerned Nazarenes (and all Nazarenes everywhere) have one and only one acceptable course of action according to Hebrews 13:17. They have the right to file a complaint with the proper person according to the provisions of the authorities in their church (manual paragraphs 500-515.6). If that person in authority feels there is no merit to their complaints then the complainant, according to Hebrews 13:17, MUST submit to that decision.

Making claims against members of the COTN and clergy of the COTN on the internet and DVDs is out of harmony with the manual and is a direct violation of Hebrews 13:17 and if the CNs are truly interested in being biblical they will recognize Hebrews 13:17 and submit to the proper channels and proper authorities in the church.

Kevin,
So are you saying that we should submit ALWAYS to authority, even if they are promoting false teachings? What do you do with the scriptures that command us to expose false teaching, to rebuke false teachers?
How do we deal with that problem when it occurs if an authority over us is promoting the wrong gospel? Do we continue to submit to them, and just keep quiet because they are our authority?

Is it not also a violation of scripture, and a sin, IF we refuse to DO what is right? Sins of omission, of looking away from evil and doing nothing about it, are just as bad as sins of commission.

[Bill Morrison]

Jon:
THANK YOU for your response. I refer you to what I said in post #195, apparently typed at the same time you were posting an answer to my question!

BILL

[Kevin Rector]

505.1. If a member of the clergy is accused of misconduct, conduct unbecoming a minister, or of teaching doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statement of the Church of the Nazarene, or of serious laxity in the enforcement of the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the church, such accusations shall be placed in writing and shall be signed by at least two members of the Church of the Nazarene who are at the time in good standing. Accusations of sexual misconduct cannot be signed by any person who consented to participate in the alleged misconduct. The written accusation must be filed with the District Advisory Board of the district where the accused has ministerial membership. This accusation shall become part of the record in the case.

Please note that accusations "shall" be from at least two members in good standing, and they "shall" be in writing and they "shall be signed and the "shall" be filed with the District Advisory Board.

It is not permissible for any of those steps to be skipped. What this means is that:

1. A single person can not accuse a clergy person.
2. A person who is not a member can not accuse a clergy person.
3. A person who wished to remain anonymous can not accuse a clergy person.
4. A person can not accuse a clergy person in an open forum, but must do so to the District Advisory Board.

[Jon Twitchell]

Jon:
THANK YOU for your response. I refer you to what I said in post #195, apparently typed at the same time you were posting an answer to my question!

BILL

Yeah... you... and me... and Kevin... were all posting at the same time!

Perhaps it is my inexperience, but I have greater optimism in our district and general leadership than that. I think that this process ought to be followed more often, and more deliberately... for it is surely more healthy then the sort of back-channel communication that we see far too often around the denomination. The accused is generally injured more by the informal process then by the formal process... which is why I suspect that most people shy away from the formal process.

[Todd Erickson]

Kevin,
So are you saying that we should submit ALWAYS to authority, even if they are promoting false teachings? What do you do with the scriptures that command us to expose false teaching, to rebuke false teachers?
How do we deal with that problem when it occurs if an authority over us is promoting the wrong gospel? Do we continue to submit to them, and just keep quiet because they are our authority?

Is it not also a violation of scripture, and a sin, IF we refuse to DO what is right? Sins of omission, of looking away from evil and doing nothing about it, are just as bad as sins of commission.

I think what Kevin is saying is that the bible clearly states that if you believe there is false teaching, it should be brought before the leaders of the group.

Kevin has pointed out how such a thing would offficially be done, and has asked if you have done so. Since your response is that we cannot submit to authorities who promote false teachings, this would seem to indicate that you believe that all of the leaders of the COTN are currently false teachers, which then would negate the effect of filing the complaint as officially stated by the church. Is this correct?