There are parts of Nazarenedom who'd love to join with the UMC for the Wesleyan and sacramental emphasis. And then there are parts that would love to join with The Wesleyan Church and maybe even Salvation Army for the AHM emphasis.Originally Posted by Jim Chabot
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 1 John 3:18
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. 1 John 4:18a
Become an organ donor ~ donatelife.net ~ www.organdonor.govPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingJim Chabot - "thanks" for this post
But we must not abandon the sacraments, no matter what our denominational heritage may be. To do so would be to abandon the teachings and instructions of Christ (I would say that they are rather essential based upon Christ's commandments to the apostles), and also to abandon our Wesleyan heritage. Wesley held very firmly to baptism and the Lord's Supper as is evidenced in multiple of his sermons.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Michael, you have drawn a line in the sand. In your own wisdom, you have declared something as "essential". You will now be refered to by some as narrow-minded old duddy-duddy. Any time we do this, we make God in the image of man, which is the running theme in modern/post/neo-ist and now emergent thought process. I am primarily refered to as a fundamentalist because I draw the line in the sand at Gen 1:1
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm fine with that, we have to draw the lines at some point (and on this line I stand by Scripture, tradition, and faith). I don't see any reason why I should be looked down on for holding on to that which Christ has commanded/instructed. I consider the sacraments to be an essential form of our worship/celebration of God. And if someone wants to call me a "narrow-minded old duddy-duddy" that is their right/opinion, although I fail to see how a 25 year old can be an "old" anything.
[for the record I also hold to the statement of Genesis 1:1, though it doesn't matter to me how God chose to do it (six days, theistic evolution, etc.). I will however, preach and teach that God did so in six days, until someone can bring to me evidence that he didn't that is accurate beyond any shadow of doubt (which I highly doubt is possible)].
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well said, Susan. While I do believe that we should observe communion and baptism, I must admit to a certain discomfort with the term sacrement. Of course it doesn,t help me to know that sacrement is considered a curse word in french, ha ha.
Seriously though, until we elevate marriage to the level of sacrement, my preference would toward considering baptism and communion to be observances. I think this better fits Christ's instructions. But as I've said, it's not a big deal to me the way we have codified communion as a sacrement of memorial.
Yes you can count me as one for the AHM side. While I like and find much agreement with Wesley in regards to holiness and theology. His views on the structure, authority and function of the organized church, I have little use for. I view these views as vestigial remains from his unconverted state.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Oh, I wouldn't dream of abandoning them, not at all.
I suppose that I should restate the frame from which I am viewing this conversation. There is no merger in the works, the paper we are discussing is from that brief period when this eas explored. We have decided instead to cooperate and associate as like minded holiness peoples. Something along the idea of the old campmeeting association of which we and the Wesleyans were member denominations.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If I seemed to indicate that you were advocating for that, I do apologize as that was not my intent.
I also noticed that it currently does not appear to be in the works, particularly in light of the conversations that have taken place over the past year between multiple denominations with whom we have formed a coalition of sorts. Thank you for reminding us of this important point in this discussion.
Any thoughts about the length of the 6 days?I'm fine with that, we have to draw the lines at some point (and on this line I stand by Scripture, tradition, and faith). I don't see any reason why I should be looked down on for holding on to that which Christ has commanded/instructed. I consider the sacraments to be an essential form of our worship/celebration of God. And if someone wants to call me a "narrow-minded old duddy-duddy" that is their right/opinion, although I fail to see how a 25 year old can be an "old" anything.
[for the record I also hold to the statement of Genesis 1:1, though it doesn't matter to me how God chose to do it (six days, theistic evolution, etc.). I will however, preach and teach that God did so in six days, until someone can bring to me evidence that he didn't that is accurate beyond any shadow of doubt (which I highly doubt is possible)].
Friend,
Wes
Well everyone knows that a day is 24 hours long!
The question then becomes just how long is an hour?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Well, I'm more than twice as old as you are and I would be joining you on your side of the line in regards to the sacraments. IMO, they are essential.I'm fine with that, we have to draw the lines at some point (and on this line I stand by Scripture, tradition, and faith). I don't see any reason why I should be looked down on for holding on to that which Christ has commanded/instructed. I consider the sacraments to be an essential form of our worship/celebration of God. And if someone wants to call me a "narrow-minded old duddy-duddy" that is their right/opinion, although I fail to see how a 25 year old can be an "old" anything.
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Wow, quoting my mis-quote: That should read "narrow-minded old, Fuddy-Duddy" I type terrribbllleee.... and I typed it wrong to begin with, sorry. Count me in for sacraments: Baptism, Communion, and Marriage (one man, one woman..dot period)
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm assuming you know that we Nazarenes don't recognize marriage as a sacrament, right? Personally, I'd be opposed to calling it one (as much as I love being married to my wife).
I don't see anything in Scripture that would lead to calling marriage a sacrament (maybe Paul's use of it as an analogy for Christ and the church comes closest?), and I find it extremely problematic to label something a sacrament that many of our brothers and sisters in Christ will never get to experience... and in fact may be called NOT to experience, as the Apostle Paul was.
I thought about posting that earlier, after Jim mentioned it, but didn't get around to it until now.
Perhaps it would be best not to call it a sacrament, but simply say that it can certainly be sacramental, in the sense of being a means of grace. I would not hesitate to call a good Christian marriage by that designation. As much as it can be hell, it can also be heaven and hence, a channel of God's grace. At least, in my experience it is. There is something so profoundly good in a good marriage, that it does bring one closer to God.
But I agree, I think it was the 2005 General Assembly that rejected a resolution to call marriage a sacrament, though I think the delegates did appreciate the intention of the submitters - to strengthen it.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You are correct, regarding most Protestants, on a technicality --- Count me in for the Sacraments: Communion, Batpism, and Marriage (one man, one woman, dot, period)
I'd much rather see Ordination understood as a Sacrament than marriage. However, yes. Christ's marriage to the Church is the Scriptural precedent. As such, to be married is to participate in the life of Christ, and thus, it becomes sacramental. A friend of mine wrote a pretty good paper on the subject a couple of years ago. I need to get that from him.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I'd much rather see Ordination receive its sacramental value than marriage if we're only going to be adding one more. However, I say let's go all the way. All 7. Why not?
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Let's start at the beginning: define the word "sacrament".
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Honestly? We are a nation of priests, every one of us, all are ordained by Christ. All of us!
Man's corruption of ordination whereby it would be considered a sacrament is against the Spirit of Christ, it is against the one who set us free from a religion determined by man. He has written his law upon our hearts, the office of priest is forever to be gone, replaced by those who are gifted as ministers, or better described as servants or helpers, who's role is to equip the saints. So long as ordination is basically just a card that says, this person may be trusted to follow the doctrines and precepts of a particular denomination and that we can pull the ticket for cause. Then fine. To elevate ordination beyond this borders on blasphemy. The AHM folks may have gotten a couple of things wrong, what they did get entirely right is that we are seriously, thoroughly, and unequivocally protestant!
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
This is probably a very good idea!
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 LaughingHans Deventer - thanks for this funny post
Except that we aren't. We didn't come out of the Protestant side of the Reformation. We came out of the Anglican which really remained much like Catholicism, the only reason it wasn't Catholic is because Henry wanted permission from the Church to marry another woman which the Pope would not grant. It is easy to want to lump us into the same category as everyone else but the truth is that we are not "seriously, thoroughly, and unequivocally protestant" but neither are we "Catholic".The AHM folks may have gotten a couple of things wrong, what they did get entirely right is that we are seriously, thoroughly, and unequivocally protestant!
I would tend to qualify this and support Jim here at least somewhat. The Anglican church clearly did neither become Calvinistic nor Roman Catholic (Bloody Mary), but I would dare to say that its theology as it eventually emerged out of the 16th century was much, much closer to protestantism than to Catholicism. Wesley himself, as far as I remember, did consider himself to be a protestant, though obviously never a Calvinist. His influences, as has been well documented, through the Anglican Church, do include much of the Eastern church fathers.
So although much of the forms remain Roman Catholic, the 39 Articles breathe a Protestant spirit.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Defining a sacrament is a bit of a tricky task. Classically, Protestantism has defined it as a rite (1) instituted by Christ; (2) to which scripture attaches a promise of salvation; (3) that uses an outward sign to communicate/mediate the inward grace. This indeed leads to only two possible sacraments. The tricky bit is getting our ecclesiology pinned down. The question is, is the gospel the only possible way Christ can institute a sacrament? or can Christ institute a sacrament through the Church, which IS his body? Those who take a higher view of the relationship between Christ and the Church say that Christ can and does act/speak through the Church and thus institute sacraments accordingly. Those who take a lower view of the relationship of Christ and the Church say there can only be two sacraments. So before we can define the sacraments we have to define the church.
It is intesting that in traditions that accept the 7 sacraments, B&E are understood significantly different than the other 5.
Last edited by Eric Frey; April 21st, 2012 at 10:46 AM.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I need to do a little refreshing before making a better argument. I do recall though that our official theology as expressed by Wiley maintains that we are protestant. Most assuredly I agree that we are not calvinists though.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Maybe 7 would be okay. I would not like to see ordination as a sacrament simply because we have too many cock-sure elders already. It would make that group of elders unmanageable. Making ordination a sacrament would lead to "infallable elders." That would be untenable for many reasons already played out in the Catholic Church. For the ones truly called of God, It would make no difference.
My primary concern with my observations of the Cathilics is that I have observed so many people who observe the sacraments and rituals who have no idea as to their meaning. The typical congregant has no idea why there is a candle on the altar for example. I have seen the frustration of Priests who tries to move their flocks from rote to meaning. That is one of the reasons, that I am alarmed with the increase and formalizations of rituals in the CoTN, I not only view the increase in rituals, in some cases, as a lazy way to construct an hour of worship, bt also as to where it has been shown to lead for the congregants, it becomes a lazy way to meet your spiritual obligations: rote without meaning.
It takes a long time to write a good, effective speech or sermon. The Passionist Monk I served with in Desert Storm would spend aproximately one hour of preparation for each minute of his homily. His daily homilies were 1-3 minutes and his weekend homily were normally 3-5 minutes. He is one of the most effective homilists I have ever encountered. He weighed every word choice in the context of to whom he was speaking. I am quite a bit slower, I spend about 3 hours on prep for every minute of public speech.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I've seen this fallacy quoted often. It is a true statement only if you trace our roots back to the 19th century and stop there. You have to ignore a ton of church history to make this argument. To hold to this argument you have the difficult task of explaining why Nazarenes, and much of the rest of the holiness movement rejected almost all of the Catholic/Anglican ritual and most of the sacraments.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Absolutely correct. By our baptism, we are not only united with Christ in his death and resurrection, but we are also united with him in his mission to the world. The problem is how this notion is understood and applied by most. In the Petrine text you allude to the purpose of being a priesthood is clear. We are a priests for the salvation of the world. Too often, I hear this passage invoked when issues of ordination come up. "I don't need a priest to go to God for me. I am a priest and I can go to God for myself." While this is true, it certainly misses the point. The point of being made a part of a holy race, a royal priesthood, etc. is so that I may be a priest to the world. In that verse the word priesthood is hierateuma from hiereus - "a sacrificing priest" - the Greek equivolent of the OT priesthood. As such, as a baptized Christian, your job is to represent the world in God's presence and to make God/Christ present to the world. It has nothing to do with me representing myself.
This is certainly the opinion of some. That some are set apart for spiritual leadership in the church, however, is throughout the epistles. Acts recounts that this setting apart is accomplished by the apostles laying their hands upon the person, thus ordaining them. The New Testament uses episkopos, presbyteros, and diakonos to describe those the church sets apart through ordination (notice hiereus is not among the list). At first there was just one order sometimes episkopos, elsewhere called presbyteros -- but both referring to the oversight of the ministry and worship of the church. The ministry of this order was simply the expansion of the Apostles' work. The difference is that Apostles were called directly by Jesus. The Episkopos was called by the Apostles. The ministry was the same. As early as Acts 6-9 the work became too much for just the apostles, so they (the apostles of the Lord) instituted a second order - the diakonos. As time passed and the church grew, the episkopos/presbyteros could not do all the work and thus split so that the episkopos was the overseer, but the presbyteros was the active minister in the local church. Presbyteros is the word from which we get Elder. Sometimes it is translated priest, but notice this is not the same kind of priest as hiereus. Which is why we don't call them priests. I am quite happy to use either Elder or Presbyter.Man's corruption of ordination whereby it would be considered a sacrament is against the Spirit of Christ, it is against the one who set us free from a religion determined by man. He has written his law upon our hearts, the office of priest is forever to be gone, replaced by those who are gifted as ministers, or better described as servants or helpers, who's role is to equip the saints. So long as ordination is basically just a card that says, this person may be trusted to follow the doctrines and precepts of a particular denomination and that we can pull the ticket for cause. Then fine. To elevate ordination beyond this borders on blasphemy. The AHM folks may have gotten a couple of things wrong, what they did get entirely right is that we are seriously, thoroughly, and unequivocally protestant!
That said, our ordination ritual (both implicitly and explicitly) makes it clear that Elders are ordained to carry our the ministry of Christ for/in the church. Christ's ministry was threeforld: prophet, priest, and king/shepherd. The elders work, then, is threefold. The elder has a prophetic function: proclaiming the good news (most often in the preaching ministry). The elder has a priestly function: representing the church before God and making Christ present to the church in the sacraments. The elder has a kingly function - taking our understanding of king from the OT kingship which was shaped by the king as shepherd. As such the pastor is responsible for the care and nurture of the church.
Again, I suspect we are going to disagree. At the root of that disagreement, as I mentioned in another post, is that we disagree about the nature of the church. We would do well to come to a denominational ecclesiology before we try to do too much else as it all comes back to that one crucial issue.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This conclusion simply does not follow... because there is no connection between sacramental status and infallibility. No tradition, whether they understand ordination as a sacrament or not, even comes close to suggesting that their presbyteros are infallible. The two are unconnected in any way.
As you pointed out, this is not unique to Roman Catholics. Nor is it a good reason to dismiss the sacraments. Because some don't understand, or because some abuse, is in fact a terrible reason to get rid of something. I know many people that you would likely agree don't understand their freedom or even abuse it. That is no reason to take freedom away from everyone...
Last edited by Eric Frey; April 21st, 2012 at 12:06 PM.
I'm not saying some don't understand, I'm staying its the vast majority, 99 out of every 100 if I had to put an percent to it. I only use Catholics as an example, not as the only group with a problem, and also because of my extensive experinece with supporting catholic congregations. I had meant to point out earlier but forgot, that in my support of Jewish congregations, the opposite was true. I have yet to meet a practicing Jew who cannot explain the reason and background for every item on display during a service. Us Protestants simply can't do that on the long haul and I think it is primarily because we are too lazy to do so.
Note: when you state a conclusion "doesn't follow" it is your obligation to state why you think thus. Even were you the world's most renown professor on the subject, you would not be afforded such a luxury.
Teachable moment ---- Here is one way to rebut what I stated: "This conclusion does not follow because you did not establish a causal relationship between holding ordination as a sacrament and infallability of the priesthood (to include papal infallacy). Demonstrating linkage between the two would cause me to reconsider your point"
Just an interesting observation. In our tradition elders are typically known a "the pastor" or "the preacher." Pastor is a direct reference to the kingly (shepherdly) function. Preacher is a direct reference to the prophetic function. Why is "priest" so off limits since it is likewise a simple reference to one of the three functions of an Elder?
Yes. One of the big mistakes the Church made: it narrowed down the Biblical richness and variety of gifts to one person. Nowhere in the NT can one find the idea that it is one person who should "carry our the ministry of Christ for/in the church". The ministry of Christ was to be carried by various people, having various gifts. Notice though I am not at all against ordaining those who are called. But, I would not call it a sacrament.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Just to be clear, Hans, I am not arguing here for it to be a sacrament either. Nor would I disagree that the ministry of Christ was to be carried out by various people with various gifts. We however, choose to lump the various people and various gifts into two broad categories. Deacons are those called to carry out the ministry of Christ the servant. Elders are those called to carry out the three-fold office outlined above. I am not arguing this is the best model. I am just seeking to clarify the model we have adopted as our own.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
John Wesley preached and published a sermon on this subject "The Ministerial Office", It appears that he states that the call to preach does not neccisarily give the right to administer sacraments. I also think he concedes that we have combined the offices for human convenience (imagine paying a separate salary for all three offices).
Thanks. I've not read that sermon. I will look it up. Historically, preaching was a ministry shared by deacon, presbyter and bishop. Wesley also utilized a system of lay preachers. But he maintained that ordination is required to administer the sacraments.
I am very glad we've been having these conversations recently. I am so glad to be out of a church where anything like this is thought.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Not to discourage you, but if you want to get out of a church where something is taught you don't like, you'll pretty soon find yourself to be a one man church.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, you should know that's not my goal. It is just certain ideas I want to get incredibly far away from. And that isn't even to say that those ideas are inherently evil, at all. Just that I have no interest being around them. For my own health.
Most particularly, a disdain for the Liturgy.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thank you, well said. With one exception. While the Apostles did confer ordination, they did so with the mistaken premise that this was theirs to administer. The apostles ordained and chose Matthias, while Jesus ordained Paul. Throughout the Pauline letters it is stated that Paul is ordained of God and not of men. I believe that Paul calls us to reject the idea that it is permissible for men to presume the power and authority of ordination. I believe that our process actually reflects this as we "affirm" the ordination already conferred by God. Although I may be mistaken on the last part.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Liturgy isn't for everyone you know. As Dan has said, without understanding it is more of an impediment to worship than it is an aid. As much as I must admit disdain for liturgy, it is also true that I am pretty much the most liturgical person in our church, same at the last church. I will introduce things from time to time to help folks understand, but it's mainly done so that they can appreciate other traditions, I don't believe that our people would stand, sit and kneel for it, not one bit.
But you know what? For those who have an understanding and an appreciation for the various elements of high church liturgy, well good for you and I'm happy for you. I do believe that there is a depth and a richness there that us low church folks miss out on.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Yes, yes, yes a thousand times yes!!!
I am always struck with the purpose given for those who are gifted to the church. For the καταρτισμός, the equipping, perfecting, furnishing, completing of the saints! Equipped for what? For service in the priesthood by which we are all members, Paul speaks of a body with many parts!
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Jim, I read two Wiley chapters last night (courtesy of free kindle downloads) on the inspiration of the Bible and the canon. I stopped counting (too many) the number of times he used "inerrant", "without error", and other derivative phrases, either in quoting or his own words, in the chapter on inspiration.
Are those who state the CoTN has never held a position on inerrancy ingoring Wiley?
I also noted that I was corrected earlier about how we got our Canon in which I was technically wrong but effectively correct. The councils I alluded to did not select our canon, but they did ratify them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
