"I am a Concerned Nazarene" by Kevin Ulmet in "Holiness Today. March/April 2012.

[Doug Ward]

Bob! Please,, knock it off.

Why? He is speaking complete, unadulterated truth.

[Manny Silva]

But you don't operate that way, heck I can't post at all on your site. Like so many others, I've been banned, blocked and blacklisted.

A bit of a childish response, in my opinion. You were banned for good reasons, including pretending to be someone else.

[Dan Henderson]

Why? He is speaking complete, unadulterated truth.

Because it is Snarky and it is with the intent to incite. There is no new or relevant information being posted by these exchanges. He just keeps digging.

[Doug Ward]

Because it is Snarky and it is with the intent to incite.

Incite exactly what? Perhaps it will incite Manny to operate with 1/25th of the openness he seems to demand from everyone else.

[Dan Henderson]

Incite exactly what? Perhaps it will incite Manny to operate with 1/25th of the openness he seems to demand from everyone else.

Don't make me have to stop this car... I don't care who started it. It has no value. While he may be speaking truth he is not speaking in Truth. You like quoting fallacies. This is an appeal to emotion.

[Doug Ward]

This is an appeal to emotion.

I could swear you are talking about Manny and a certain elder Henderson. This is exactly their MO. This is what they do, and it is destroying churches, relationships, and our witness to the world. But it is self-aggrandizing.

[Dan Henderson]

I could swear you are talking about Manny and a certain elder Henderson. This is exactly their MO. This is what they do, and it is destroying churches, relationships, and our witness to the world. But it is self-aggrandizing.

I have been enjoined, since the 5th grade from defending my father. I am required to let you say what you will, and even agree with you if you like, on anything you say about him. By the same token, I have his permission, were you to make derogatory statements about my mother, to seek you out with extreme predjudice. But on decades, of reflection, I think he was joking on that last part.

[Doug Ward]

I have been enjoined, since the 5th grade from defending my father. I am required to let you say what you will, and even agree with you if you like, on anything you say about him. By the same token, I have his permission, were you to make derogatory statements about my mother, to seek you out with extreme predjudice. But on decades, of reflection, I think he was joking on that last part.

I respect a strong defense of one's wife. I have a sense he might only be half-joking. So, of course, no statements about mom.

[Benjamin Burch]

Be careful what you ask for. The CoTN is in dire financial straits. If this Church splits, neither group will survive the split. We need to work this out.

Not going to happen. There will be a split.

[Craig Laughlin]

I have been enjoined, since the 5th grade from defending my father. I am required to let you say what you will, and even agree with you if you like, on anything you say about him. By the same token, I have his permission, were you to make derogatory statements about my mother, to seek you out with extreme predjudice. But on decades, of reflection, I think he was joking on that last part.

Reminds me a little of my dad. I could get away with challenging him and was even given a certain amount of latitude with disrespect. - However, treat mom bad, or worse disrespect her... Sure and swift justice!

[Paul DeBaufer]

From what I heard, it was pretty uneventful. Manny and whoever else wore their Concerned Nazarenes tees so people would notice them and asked if they could be given a platform to speak about the emergent church and Jesse Middendorf essentially said no. I do not believe they were asked to leave and I do not believe they were heckling anyone (from the account I heard) but I am sure Manny can give an accurate account if he so chooses.

Thank you for correcting me. Faulty memory, it seems.

Added: My apologies to Manny, Tim and Joe for faulty memory leading to a mischaracterization/misrepresentation of their role in the event.

[Hans Deventer]

That's because of the use and misue of the term Fundamentalist, Five-Point-Fundamentalist, and the more derogatory term, "Fundie", all three terms, as I have pointed out, are generally used in modern language, as pejorative terms. I am not going to go into the etymology of Fundamentalist. In short it was originally a reaction to modernism. Fundamentalism is the counter-point to modernism. In that Five-Point list, is a very narrow view of inerrancy. However, in the light of what the church was trying to counter, I can understand why this movement took an extreme position. It is much easier to loosen up a tight position than it is to tighten up a loose position. Generally, once you loosen your stance on a position, that becomes the new norm and it can never be moved back. Some may call this a slippery slope fallacy, but in this case, it is a valid use of the slippery slope argument. So when you are facing a moderinst world that is stating that Scripture is not authoratative, it is easy to see why the movement would need to take an extreme position. They would need to do so to be heard above the fray of the modernist - science is the order of the day, anything that does not support science must be wrong - and whatever else they were facing.

Dan, this is helpful, but I have a question and a remark. To start with the question: if "fundie" and "fundamentalist" are pejorative terms, what terms should be used that designate the same but are not pejorative?

Secondly, I would say the current debate is not against Modernism. As I understand it, Fundamentalism (for lack of a better title) is a response within a modern mindset, against the Post Modern influences in the church.

[Dan Henderson]

Not going to happen. There will be a split.

I actually believe that a merger proposal is in the works for presentation at the 2013 General Assembly. This is my sense based on my interpretation of current CoTN events. I have not proof. I cannot prove it. I am not an insider. .... Did I mention that I am guessing here.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Dan, this is helpful, but I have a question and a remark. To start with the question: if "fundie" and "fundamentalist" are pejorative terms, what terms should be used that designate the same but are not pejorative?

Secondly, I would say the current debate is not against Modernism. As I understand it, Fundamentalism (for lack of a better title) is a response within a modern mindset, against the Post Modern influences in the church.

Isn't it Fundamentalism was a reaction to Modernism and neo-Fundamentalism it the reaction to post-Modernism?

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, this is helpful, but I have a question and a remark. To start with the question: if "fundie" and "fundamentalist" are pejorative terms, what terms should be used that designate the same but are not pejorative?

Secondly, I would say the current debate is not against Modernism. As I understand it, Fundamentalism (for lack of a better title) is a response within a modern mindset, against the Post Modern influences in the church.

A good rule of thumb (from the AP Stylebook) is to refer to a person or group they way they refer to themselves. Following that simple rule would have widened the audience for "A Charitable Discourse" tremendously. If I could, I would define myself as a fundamemtalist meaning "one who focuses on our basic beliefs", however since it has been co-opted, I won't try to get it back.

As for modern/Post-Modern, After recently reading "Heretics" and then "Orthodoxy" by GK Chesterson, I was shocked to learn how similar Modernism and Post Modernism were to each other. If it weren't for the "Kings English" word usage, I might have thought the books were written recently rather than 1904 and 1908. But I think your statement rings true for the reasons stated. Practically speaking, if the Bible is not authoritative, we have nothing on which to hang our faith. The slippery slope danger, comes to us when we get to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are authoritative. Picking convenient truths out of our Bible while ignoring that which doesn't fit for us, is not a new concept in our midst. Cafeteria Christians abound yesterday, today, and tomorrow. What I think is relatively new, or at least I hope it is new, is these ideas coming from our clergy. So now the "attack" on our Scripture is coming from our learned, the ones people like me have historically relied on to help me understand what is being said. The natural reaction is to retrench.

Lets take the Creation account. The best explaination that I have heard about Gen 1 is that it describes why not how. What is the point in arguing with a 6-day literalists. I serve a God who CAN create the universe in six days. Did He? I would say that's one of those things I'll ask about when I get to heaven, but I'm guessing it won't matter at all by then. If my Bible says six days, I'm fine with that. I do not NEED it to agree with what science says happens and I don't NEED to agree with a 6-day literalist.

Some really smart men got together and decided our current canon. I think they did a good job. I doubt I could do as well. It is bad enough that the world is discounting our Scripture. Now, we are doing it to ourselves.

[Randy Wise]

Yes, obviously they were viewed as "holy" and no one in the Church (I should hope) would argue that the Bible is not the "Holy Scriptures" (any religion will state that their text/scripture is 'holy' to some degree). However, that is not the question which I posed.

Why do you call the scriptures "Holy" if you don't see in them the sayings and teachings of God? Like acts I think the scriptures also contain events that took place as well as how the Lord responded to Israel in those events. Including unbelief in those events in the people. In Jesus time you had sadducies and pharisees so you might get a mixed answer if they were alive to answer your question. In scripture when it states "thus saith the Lord" "I" tend to view what follows as from above not the scribe.

Randy

[Jim Chabot]

Be careful what you ask for. The CoTN is in dire financial straits. If this Church splits, neither group will survive the split. We need to work this out.

While this is true, still we must remember that God's work, done God's way, will never lack God's supply.

I'll surely agree that working this out is God's way, and I'll go you one further and suggest that our financial peril is a warning.

I have no idea how this is going to work out. I would strongly suggest that those who look down on their hands and perhaps notice that the are carrying a rock ask themselves where this rock came from.

I've been tempted to jump into the fray regarding whether we have or have not embraced innerancy, but the truth is simple. Yes we have, and no we have not. Is it possible for us to trust and pray for those who are working on a position to the mission bring back to the GA? Is it possible that we can trust and pray for our leaders?

We do have diversity among our leadership on this issue, I suspect that we have at least one or more general's who have come up from the side of the tent where innerancy was foreign to them, and suspect that we have one or more who came where innerancy was the norm.

If we inevitable work this out with a split and with rocks in our hands. I believe that God will allow the desires of our hearts, a pyrric victory for both sides.

[Hans Deventer]

I've been tempted to jump into the fray regarding whether we have or have not embraced innerancy, but the truth is simple. Yes we have, and no we have not.

But officially, we have not. Proof: that's why the inerrant group want to change the article, while the other group simply seeks to maintain it. Hey, I don't often get to side with the conservatives, don't take this from me!

Is it possible that we can trust and pray for our leaders?

You know the answer.

If we inevitable work this out with a split and with rocks in our hands. I believe that God will allow the desires of our hearts, a pyrric victory for both sides.

Jim, there's only a battle if people refuse to listen. Things can be worked out with people who do want to listen. That's the determinatative factor.

[Michael Flowers]

And let's face it, just as the Manual is not the Bible, so also the Bible is not God, although it does seem at times in these arguments/dialogues/conversations and others like them held elsewhere that the Bible is elevated to the status of God in an idolatrous manner. True Wesleyan Christians remember that while God is revealed most vividly in his Scriptures, that he is also revealed through tradition, reason, and experience (Wesleyan Quadrilateral). Experience is not going to be the same for everyone.

[Michael Flowers]

Why do you call the scriptures "Holy" if you don't see in them the sayings and teachings of God? Like acts I think the scriptures also contain events that took place as well as how the Lord responded to Israel in those events. Including unbelief in those events in the people. In Jesus time you had sadducies and pharisees so you might get a mixed answer if they were alive to answer your question. In scripture when it states "thus saith the Lord" "I" tend to view what follows as from above not the scribe.

Randy

I do not recall saying that the Scriptures do not contain the sayings and teachings of God, I know that I have stated the exact opposite in fact (though perhaps not in this thread). I rather asked how the Jews/Israelites viewed their Scriptures in light of the inerrant or infallible discussion. My thought is that I do not understand why we would assign an understanding to the Old Testament that was not even held by the original adherents, if they did not have an inerrant or infallible view/understanding of it. The other thought is whether or not such a discussion was even on their radar.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Why does it matter? You are arguing about a term, "inerrancy", that has absolutely no practical purpose in the life of a Christian. The Bibles we have today are based on numerous textual variants and no version or translation of the Bible is "inerrant". We don't have the autographs, we aren't sure the autographs ever existed since the stories were more than likely transmitted orally, we couldn't recognize the autographs even if they exist and were found. If inerrancy is so important, why didn't God preserve Scripture all the way to today?

Wow, this just went over Tim's head and he completely misses the point. Let me try again:

Why is it that when I read various translations of the Bible, they frequently have notations that say "Some manuscripts say ..."? Why didn't God preserve Scripture completely, including the Bibles that we have today? Shouldn't all of the manuscripts have been identical?

Even the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has so many exceptions that it essentially changes the definition of "inerrant".

From the Reformed Blog:

http://reformednazarene.wordpress.co...-the-nazarene/

While the inerrancy of Scripture is more than adequate to show the terrible apostasy from the faith...

And there my friends, is an example of adding to the essentials of the Christian faith. I guess that confessing with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in my heart that God raised Him from the dead is no longer good enough.

[Jim Chabot]

But officially, we have not. Proof: that's why the inerrant group want to change the article, while the other group simply seeks to maintain it. Hey, I don't often get to side with the conservatives, don't take this from me!

Well so glad to hear this! We will get you enrolled in classes immediately!

You know the answer.

Yes I do.

Jim, there's only a battle if people refuse to listen. Things can be worked out with people who do want to listen. That's the determinatative factor.

This is exactly true, and this conversation shows that there is some pretty severe entrenchment on both sides of this issue. And there are good folks on both sides, emotions are running high and I believe that folks on both sides are failing so see each other in that favorable light that Paul instructs us to view each other.

I think I've already said this, I have no issue with the current wording of our article, excepting that I believe that it is under duress. My take, and I freely admit that I could be wrong, is that at the university level we have stretched our statement toward and beyond what was either intended or written, and I believe that Manny and others in their response to this while properly indignant and "concerned" may have inadvertently gored a couple of oxen that didn't need goring.

But you are right, there must be a willingness to listen and dialog. Or as I'm praying for, our leadership will bring forward a statement that will bring unity and cohesiveness. We are at a crossroads, I think that we probably all can agree that we aren't likely to raise Phoebe Palmer from the dead and bring back tha alter theology, while at the same time there are, I believe, a lot of us who have no intentions of seeking out our supposed Anglican roots.

I'm willing to wait and I'm willing to remain hopeful that we will hear positive things from our leaders at the next GA. You have asked privately if it is possible to converse and come to agreement, I'll answer you publicly. Humanly, no it's not possible, I have to agree with you, yet with God all things are possible. And I don't say that lightly, I actually believe this. We must pray, not only for each other, and not only that others will see the light that we believe is ours, but that His light will be revealed to all of us. Each one of us must be willing to search our own hearts.

[Dennis M. Scott]

The article ends with this challenge:

Will You?

• Will you seek these ends, rather than divisive and destructive ends?
• Will you refute the methodologies of those who demand perfect adherence to a narrow list of agenda items and join those who seek to rationally discuss and discern areas of concern among us?
• Will you leave the bloggers’ E-mails and sites more often, seeking a clean mind and pure heart and loving means in all you do and say?
• Will you pray that God’s truth will prevail, that God’s people are blessed, and that God’s chosen servants, churches, and institutions of influence have unprecedented spiritual power in these days?

yes, yes, yes - including naznet, yes

[Michael Flowers]

Perhaps we need to keep the following Scripture in mind: 2 Timothy 3:14-17

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (NIV, 1984)

Each of us has been taught and is convinced that our view is correct, and we hold to that with firm conviction because we know the reliability of those who have assisted in our learning. There is also not a single person in this forum (nor hopefully in church) who would argue against this statement (even though is speaking of the OT when it refers to Scripture). However, we often forget the purpose of that "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" which is that the people of God would be equipped to do the good work which God has called us to ("For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do"). If people are being reached for the Kingdom and God is not being profaned, then why are we so ready to tear one another apart for the sake of personal belief/opinion/disagreement over how we state a view of Scripture? We state that Scripture is "given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation" because that is what matters. Salvation is what we are seeking for those apart from Christ. If we are seeking to make sure that everyone has the exact right view of inerrancy and the like, then we are not paying attention to the focus/intent of the Gospel and our commission to make disciples. None of us are against Christ and the proclamation of his word and thus we should quit treating each other as such.

Kevin has pointed out the structure that has been put in place to ensure that people are preaching and teaching what is in line with Scripture. If we find what someone is teaching to be out of line with the Gospel message then we should bring it to the attention of those in authority in the Church (capital "C" meaning the entire body of Christ) and trust that they will handle the situation based upon the wisdom God has granted to them. This is the model of the Early Church (the Apostles) in Acts and it carries on to the present.

[David Morris]

Looking at Rev. Ulmet's article, here is the part that struck me. It is under the Mutual Respect section:

Consider this: If we had applied the same approach to the Apostles in some of their well-documented, early-church battles, we would have summarily dismissed them.

If we had applied the same approach to the giants God raised up in Christian history to change the course of His church, we would have rejected them and ignored the Spirit’s working through them.

We have so many more resources available to us today to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet we often look back at the good ol' days of Acts, amazed at what God was able to do through a small band of believers. Please pray for me, that I would rely on God's Spirit that is at work in me, and not my own opinions, strengths, and abilities.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Last night in an Introduction to the Bible class, one of my students said, "This has been a great week. All my life I've been taking the Eucharist, but I never understood the Body and Blood part. This week when doing our assigned reading, for the first time, I really 'got it.' I got this warm and loving feeling, and I really believed. It's wonderful, and Easter is real!"

I know that's not what this thread is about. But it should be.

[Randy Wise]

I do not recall saying that the Scriptures do not contain the sayings and teachings of God, I know that I have stated the exact opposite in fact (though perhaps not in this thread). I rather asked how the Jews/Israelites viewed their Scriptures in light of the inerrant or infallible discussion. My thought is that I do not understand why we would assign an understanding to the Old Testament that was not even held by the original adherents, if they did not have an inerrant or infallible view/understanding of it. The other thought is whether or not such a discussion was even on their radar.

Even so I think they (Israelite's) argued with each other in matters of the Law and religion.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

This is exactly true, and this conversation shows that there is some pretty severe entrenchment on both sides of this issue. And there are good folks on both sides, emotions are running high and I believe that folks on both sides are failing so see each other in that favorable light that Paul instructs us to view each other.

Can't speak for others, but I don't see any movement whatsoever, Jim. You know that if I do, I'm only too eager to talk. We've had our fair share of discussions, and you know there are enough issues where we differ, sometimes deeply. Yet, you have never been unwilling to admit a mistake if you made one, or apologize if needed. And that is why I call you a friend. Friendship is not based on having the same opinions (though disagreeing on literally everything will make a relationship hard to maintain), but on how people (who make mistakes by definition) are able to say "I'm sorry". Hell is where no one ever apologizes and everybody is always right. C.S. Lewis was right with his image in the Great Divorce: people in hell move away from each other in order to live alone in their being right.

But you are right, there must be a willingness to listen and dialog. Or as I'm praying for, our leadership will bring forward a statement that will bring unity and cohesiveness. We are at a crossroads, I think that we probably all can agree that we aren't likely to raise Phoebe Palmer from the dead and bring back tha alter theology, while at the same time there are, I believe, a lot of us who have no intentions of seeking out our supposed Anglican roots.

I'm willing to wait and I'm willing to remain hopeful that we will hear positive things from our leaders at the next GA. You have asked privately if it is possible to converse and come to agreement, I'll answer you publicly. Humanly, no it's not possible, I have to agree with you, yet with God all things are possible. And I don't say that lightly, I actually believe this. We must pray, not only for each other, and not only that others will see the light that we believe is ours, but that His light will be revealed to all of us. Each one of us must be willing to search our own hearts.

I think this is the dilemma of Arminian theology and the very reason why I don't believe in process theology. We want to be optimistic, but cannot be deterministic. A Calvinist theology can expect everything from God, since He will get his way by whatever means.
We, however, take the human response seriously. And there, I can't be all that optimistic, considering 2000 years of Church history. So process won't do it for me, and I cannot believe Calvinism is true. Which leaves me with hope in God, but fear for what humans can do. Both heaven and hell are real options.

[Kevin Rector]

Its too bad. I would have preferred that everyone's comments would be shown. But that's your call, Kevin.

Sorry, Manny. Sometimes people say things in the heat of the moment in ways that are less than graceful. At Naznet, we want to help people overcome that, and one of the mechanism is that we delete posts that are particularly un-gracious. Everyone one of us is guilty of it from time to time, but we are not released from the admonition in 1 Peter 3:8-9:

8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

To clarify: I am NOT saying you are evil Manny, I'm saying that when Christians disagree with each other, they must still be very kind, humble and compassionate.

[Gary Creely]

Wow- what a fire storm!

I would say I disagree with both Manny's content and approach in regards to his disagreements with the church.

However- props to Manny for venturing in to unfriendly waters to plead his case. I did not expect to see him here.

[Dan Henderson]

Shouldn't all of the manuscripts have been identical?

The differences tend to authenticate/validate. Identical texts after so much time would be, well, suspicious at best.

[Daniel Hamlin]

The differences tend to authenticate/validate. Identical texts after so much time would be, well, suspicious at best.

But Scripture is supposed to be "God-breathed". From the typical "God-dictated" point of view wouldn't we expect God to perfectly preserve it? Why did God allow the differences? That is the question. Two manuscripts with differences can't BOTH be right. In fact, whole stories have been added later. Look at Mark 16:9-20, it's a mess.

From the NIV:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

That is why the term "inerrant" means nothing. When you allow for errors, differences or whatever-you-want-to-call-them, you've redefined "inerrant".

[Dan Henderson]

The earliest manuscripts of this post do not contain the word "this"

[Billy Cox]

That's how I read this. Obviously... I'm reading A LOT between the lines... and I'm inferring things that I have no way of knowing. But that's my strong suspicion.

You are inferring that the GMC and/or BGS is a monolith of agreement. That's probably overly optimistic, but they do try to preserve the illusion of solidarity.

[Billy Cox]

I've been thinking a lot about this in the last few hours. You know, we spend so much time talking about the Bible without really applying it to our discourse. It is not like the Bible is silent on the subjects of conflict, division in the church, beliefs, false prophets, etc.

Here are some passages that have been ringing in my ears in the last few hours -

Matthew 21:28-32

Which son pleased the father in this story? Not the one who said the right things, but the one who obeyed. Jesus says that believing is not giving mental ascent to the correct set of facts about God or ascribing to the most accurate understanding of the nature of scripture, as the scribes and Pharisees in His audience certainly did, but doing what Jesus said to do - living righteously.

I Corinthians 3:1-9

The Corinthian church had become a church of churches. They had divided themselves into competing wisdom groups, perhaps based on who had baptized them. Rather than focus on the mission of the church, which was to proclaim God's truth in preparation of God's return, they gave their energy to constant debates about which wisdom group had the most correct understanding of the Gospel. At the risk of being anachronistic, I can't help but read "I follow Paul" and "I follow Apollos" but hear "I'm a total Innerrantist" and "I'm a soteriological Innerrantist". We forget that what we have in common - we have based our lives on following Jesus as revealed through scripture - is so much greater than the little pieces on which we choose to focus.

So, for myself, I don't believe God's will is being done when we continue this debate. I would say to both sides - and I place myself firmly on a side - rather than try to shed light on the misinformation and misdeeds of the other camp, let us let our light so shine before men, and let God deal with error. What a relief to know it is not my calling to prove to anyone how wrong they are, nor warn them of how wrong someone else may be. I no longer want to commit the sin I've so often committed in my marriage; that of being so right, I'm wrong.

In conclusion, I would rather call a 5 point Calvinist 6 day creationist 7th day worshipping KJV-only "Concerned" who loves Jesus and takes care of their neighbor and treats strangers with kindness "brother" or "sister" than fight with them.

Playing devil's advocate here... What about those New Testament passages that teach 'zero-tolerance' for false teaching?

It's not so difficult to take a difference in theology/practice, blow that up into a false teaching, and then declare jihad on that false teaching. In that way of thinking/acting, tactics like character assassination are fair game.

[Marsha Lynn]

Jim, your pre-NazNet experience reflects mine. Occasionally, I may have heard an explanation of the Wesleyan view of scripture, but it wasn't seen as justification for setting aside what the Bible plainly says -- say, the truth of the creation account or Job's actual existence.

Just recently a 50-year-old lifetime Nazarene, in making a point, talked about God dictating the text of the first five books of the Bible to Moses. If I were to question that dictation scenario, I would be out of step with what he has heard all his life in the Church of the Nazarene. If I talked about the "creation myth" I would be introducing a new (and dangerous) teaching which he has never before encountered.

The great theologians of the church may have always had a more fluid view of how scripture came to be and which parts are based on actual historical truth, but it hasn't made it down to the grass-root level. Not now and certainly not for my parents generation. Inerrancy as a battleground may be new, but practical inerrancy ("God said it and I believe it and that settles it for me") has always been the norm from my point of view out here in the hinterlands.

I think the biggest change that has brought about the rise of the "Concerned Nazarenes" is enhanced communication. In the past, few of us knew what was happening in intellectual circles in the denomination. Our pastors weren't seminary graduates. Many times they didn't even have a bachelor's degree in religion. Not nearly so many laypeople had college degrees. Even those who did go to college didn't necessarily notice a difference between what they were taught at a Nazarene college and what was being preached in their local church. (35 years ago I learned all the omni's of God at Olivet and that God's omniscience includes complete foreknowledge because God exists outside of time.)

Evangelists have seldom been representative of the intellectual community within the church. Even our general superintendents tend to preach "old-time holiness religion" rather than deal with subjects such as the nature of scripture or varying views concerning the foreknowledge of God or the atonement. Until the internet came along, it was easy to go a lifetime as a member of the Church of the Nazarene without ever encountering the beliefs that concern the Concerned Nazarenes within our ranks. I, personally, struggled for years after figuring out that the "Left Behind" scenario wasn't in the Bible before I discovered I didn't have to believe it to be a good Nazarene. What a relief!

There are few Concerned Nazarenes where I live simply because the things that concern such people have yet to reach us. It's not that we are actively fighting the "Battle for the Bible". We're still smug in the assurance that we have it figured out and don't need to fight for the right to believe what we read in the Bible.

In that setting, people like me are seen as mavericks (influenced by radicals on the internet) with not enough influence to be of any real concern. And it seems like it should simply be a formality to change our official statement concerning the authority of Scripture and the nature of creation to more closely reflect what we have always believed to be true.

Marsha

My apologies Bob, I reached for the wording that would get me close without a whole lot of explanation and I've come up short.

If it helps, the view of scripture that I have encountered with Nazarene's pre naznet is this, or something close. I've encountered folks who read scripture plainly, they take it for what it says. I fully realize that everyone has a lens and that there is no such thing as a plain reading, but humor me if you can. I'm talking about folks who read that the earth was created in six days and they say, ok I'll accept that. Or that Jesus was buried for three days and nights, and rose from the dead to be seen by many people. They read that we are to be entirely sanctified and they say how do we do this and where do we sign up.

I have not encountered Nazarene's who believe that grace is irresistable.

I have not encountered Nazarene's who deny our freedom of choice.

I have not encountered Nazarene's who believe that we are not called to a deeper walk and holy living

I have not encountered Nazarene's who embrace reformed doctrine, or seperation.

But yes I have met many, many Nazarene's who believe in innerancy. In fact I did an informal survey of somewhere near a hundred Nazarene's the summer before last. Each one affirmed that their belief is that scripture is innerant, and that they had been taught that since their youth. Six or seven of these folks are pastors. One of them has been involved in ministry for over 50 years and he tells me unequivocally that innerancy was his understanding while attending ENC way back when Dean Munro was there. I mentioned to him that our official statement says otherwise, to which he replied "well we always thought that it did, it's been twisted out of shape."

So yeah, you guys are the very first nazarene's that I have met who aren't innerantists. Or at least the first ones who have told me so. In my case it's ok, I realize that there are no "original autographs" nor will we be able to establish provenance even if we were to find them. For me it is imperative that the message be without error, and I believe that it is.

Hope this helps, although I feel it may be inadequate. I'll try again if I need to.

[Lucas Finch]

Posted on the Concerned Nazarenes facebook group this morning regarding John Henderson's response to the original article:

FYI, the blog received the most visits in one day than any other day since it started. Almost 3000 visits. Thanks John. May many more Nazarenes be alerted and join us in fighting apostasy in the church.

That verifies my conviction that most Nazarenes are not emergent, they are generally kept unaware by emergent Nazarene leaders (as I was), and once they begin to see this stuff, they will wise up to a massive return to holiness as they know it to be. It is one thing to glibly talk about being led by the Holy Spirit. It is another matter to walk in the power of the Holy Spirit as He does His work--a work none of us can accomplish without Him.

I think that it is interesting that just because many people read that response that they must all be "not emergent". I imagine that many people here, regular posters and lurkers alike, went to at least skim the response. And we all know that the CNs view us as "emergent".

My own observation yesterday was this: I had a number of Facebook friends, none of whom I have seen post here and at least one of which I have read consider himself a "fundamentalist", link to the original Ulmet article, but none of them posted the Henderson response. For what it's worth.

[Gary Creely]

I think that it is interesting that just because many people read that response that they must all be "not emergent".

I thought that as well, heck I was one of those 3000. That kind of errant conclusion is very typical of how many conclusions seemed to be reached over there.

[Doug Ward]

Yeah, I'm waiting to see if Manny will respond. Not sure if it will happen though. But Manny, if you are out there, we are hoping you will answer Scott & Kevin's request.

Anyway, I was amazed at the activity on FB yesterday, many folks that are not even remotely involved in the debate posted a link to the article. If the CNs had 3,000 hits, I just wonder how many Holiness Today had? Probably 3 times that! I did not see one negative comment posted on FB toward Ulmet's article. But I read a variety of comments from folks who were unaware of a growing threat to our denomination. So I think this can all work for the good and stiffen our resolve to be Nazarenes and not reformed Nazarenes.

Bob, I even received phone calls yesterday from people I knew, and some I didn't who wanted to talk about the presence and influence of the COncerned in our midst. If there was not an awareness of this growing issue before, there certainly is now. I think this has been helpful, even for those who do not regularly post. I know many lurkers are following the conversation.

[Steven Martinez]

Well here is my two cents:
First I think Rev. Ulmet's article was spot on. I think the language was harsh but accurate. John the Baptist refereed to people as a brood of vipers, Jesus was not above calling people thieves who acted as such and the Apostles were not unknown to pull punches (John referring to people in the Church as antichrist). Rev. Ulmet has been personally targeted by individuals who happen to associate together. Although, Rev. Ulmet never mentioned a specific group, we can safely assume by the title of the Article that he is specifically directing his disapproval toward the Concerned Nazarene group. Having observed the posts of the Concerned Nazarene Facebook page as well as other online pages that are overseen, created by, or approved by this group, the charges brought up by Rev. Ulmet appear to have solid footing as being truthful. Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when those who are guilty of such actions are brought into the light of God's Truth.

As far as the response by John Henderson and company, I found it lacking in its own pursuit. Not once did the response show biblical grounds to disprove the comments, theories or suggestions of Rev. Ulmet. Instead the response used arguments that labeled Rev. Ulmet as being Marxist, Liberal, Emergent, etc without any definition of what these terms mean and how Rev. Ulmet is guilty of such charges. To argue that someone you disagree with is Emergent is not a solid argument in any way, shape or form. Instead of attacking the merit of Rev. Ulmet's article, the response merely disagreed with the tone and choice of words which were interpreted as being hurtful to Nazarenes who are concerned. The response then makes a logical leap that this choice of words and tone somehow discredits the merit of Rev. Ulmet's arguments. This is simply poor forensics. Continuing on the forensic line (forensics being the pattern of debate) the response is overly long winded. The response is nearly three times the length of the article. While length of response does not automatically disqualify the response as valid, there is also no inherent validity in a response based upon length. In other words, a lengthy response that fails to address the issue of the original article is simply bloviating. Mr. Henderson and Co. simply wrote a length response with little to no substance of actual information other than to express their anger/concern with the Church of The Nazarene in what they believe is heresy. Sadly they do not effectively explain why the current stance, trend or actions of the CoTN are heretical in a historic manner.

Heresy by definition is any doctrine that is counter to an already established position by a body of faith. For example, Martin Luther was a heretic to the Roman Catholics because he spoke against their established beliefs. To speak against Article IV as is currently written and currently understood by the one who wrote it and those who affirmed it would make one on verge of heresy, not the other way around. In other words, some of the best Christians were found to be heretics but stood for the truth of God. Therefore for the CN's claim of heresy to be valid the CNs must be seen as a group or body of faith that stands outside the tent of the CoTN for they are calling those in agreement with established, official and therefore orthodox beliefs in the CoTN as being heretical.

Therefore, the split has already occurred and the question is, can there be reconciliation?