Church Authority and Hebrews 13:17

[Kevin Rector]

I ask my dad for a short monograph on the title of this thread. This is the shortest response you will likely ever see:

If not it is not because we are crass and rude. Respect is earned, not automatic. It is presumed, however, until it is found to be undeserved. Just as in the military, superior rank must often be respected even if the person wearing it i...s not respectable--but that same officer or NCO might want to watch his back in combat if he does not deserve the respect that is required. David respected Saul's office as king and would not attack him for that reason. He did, however, decline to stand in God's way in dealing with Saul. He did nothing to protect Saul from the inevitable consequences of his own behaviors. Will that do as a mini-monograph?

Also, that is reminiscent of that old saw that Ray Dunning went around espousing about the authority of the church because "salvation is not possible outside of the church." That was an attempted setup to bring us under a Nazarene papacy.

So, while I hate to have conversations via proxy, I have to ask if your father is saying that the leaders will be respected but that it would be justifiable to go behind their back if they don't actually deserve respect? Hebrews 13:17 (NIV) says, "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority..." it very clearly does not say, "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority if you agree with them" or "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority if they have earned your respect."

[Kevin Rector]

Don't forget Heb 13:9.

What does that have to do with submission to the leaders in the church? If a minister or leader is teaching "strange teachings" then an accusation can be filed per Hebrews 13:17.

[Dan Henderson]

So, while I hate to have conversations via proxy, I have to ask if your father is saying that the leaders will be respected but that it would be justifiable to go behind their back if they don't actually deserve respect? Hebrews 13:17 (NIV) says, "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority..." it very clearly does not say, "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority if you agree with them" or "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority if they have earned your respect."

If this were the only thing the Bible had to say about people in authority, you might have an argument here. As is, this is just a proof text, not even in the context of the chapter. You can ask him direct questions if you like, just not here. He has been writing monographs that he sends to people who wants to read them for about 10 years. He has only written about "Emergent Ideology" for about a year and that subject covers a very small portion of what he writes about. He writes mostly about prayer and holy living.

I can state for a fact that my dad has never stated anything about anybody that he has not stated to that person face-to-face.

[Rich Schmidt]

I honestly don't see any way around the Manual's provisions for dealing with someone in leadership who is teaching falsehood.

1. If someone is a member of the Church of the Nazarene, then they agree to allow the Manual to guide us in our life together. That's kind of the whole point of having membership and a Manual, isn't it?

The Foreword of the 2009-2013 Manual ends with this statement by the General Superintendents:

With the Bible as our supreme Guide, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and the Manual as our official agreed-upon statement of faith, practice, and polity, we look forward to the new quadrennium with joy and unswerving faith in Jesus Christ.

2. The Manual says that if you believe a member of the clergy is in error, you follow this certain process involving formal, written accusations that are then submitted to the District Advisory Board. Kevin gave the details earlier.

If that hasn't been done... well, that's a problem.

If it has been done, and the process was followed, and the decision was made that those accused are innocent... well, then it's settled.

3. Then you're left with the decision to either submit to the decision (as Hebrews 13 describes) or leave. To try to stay in the church while railing against its leaders seems like it would go against the commitments made in the Covenant of Christian Character:

They shall evidence their commitment to God—
...
27.2. SECOND. By avoiding evil of every kind, including: ...
(5) Quarreling, returning evil for evil, gossiping, slandering, spreading surmises injurious to the good names of others.
...
27.3. THIRD. By abiding in hearty fellowship with the church, not inveighing against but wholly committed to its doctrines and usages and actively involved in its continuing witness and outreach.

[Bob Hunter]

This is something I'm not all that interested in. I grew up on the Olivet region (which includes the Indianapolis and SW Indiana districts) so I have always known that there are fundamentalists in the Church of the Nazarene. But the ones I've known have not worked outside the system and authority of the church. My question stems around some of the CNs who are not getting the answers they want from leadership, so they simply ignore the authority of the church as biblically granted in Hebrews 13 and continue their campaign. I simply want a simple answer as to why Hebrews 13:17 doesn't apply to Manny, especially as he often says that scripture is his only authority.

Hopefully I'll get one.

I can totally appreciate that and I fundamentally agree. By Manny's own admission, the authority of scripture and his view of Biblical innerancy are front and center. So it only made sense to address that issue and try to expose any who might be reading these threads to the historical development of our position which is quite different than what the CN's currently hold.

But what the heck, it would be nice if he would answer both of us!

[Dan Henderson]

What does that have to do with submission to the leaders in the church? If a minister or leader is teaching "strange teachings" then an accusation can be filed per Hebrews 13:17.

About as much as Heb 13:17

[Cam Pence]

Even a cursory reading will show that the two passages are not speaking to the same issue and do not stalemate. Hebrews 13:17 does not in any way preclude the searching out and exposing of false teachers. However, Hebrews 13:17 indicates that there is a way to do this that is appropriate, a way that is in line with submission to the leaders of the church that you have chosen to align yourself with. So go ahead and make the claim of false teaching, but do so according to the proper procedure and then submit to the decision of your leaders or leave.

About as much as Heb 13:17

What "leaders" do you think are being discussed in Heb. 13:7? How Is Kevin's use out of context?

[Dan Henderson]

If that hasn't been done... well, that's a problem.

When necessary, it has been done. You don't know about it because the people who are dealing in that area are much more discrete. You should also recognize that what you are suggesting would be an inquisition. Formally charging everyone with which you disagree. Our Church Judiciary cannot support more than an occasional charge. I'm not going to support a Nazarene Supreme court. While a few on all sides might have crossed a line, the vast majority are no where near crossing any lines. Someone pointed out that complaining loudly does not fit into our idea of needing judicial action.

In the first place, the extreme suggestions here are nothing more than a strawman. There is no requirement to agree with our leaders and disagreement does not imply disrespect. There is a trend, especially in the South of beatifying our leaders, the idea that they can do no wrong or even be wrong. Most people who complain in our denomination, especially in the South, are just told to shut up and color. Guess what? Not gonna' happen.

[Bob Hunter]

Rich,

A number of years ago, I found myself in a situation where grave concerns surfaced about a certain licensed minister who was up for ordination. This individual caused a great deal of hardship at the Church I pastored. He moved around quite a bit over the years as an evangelist and a pattern of divisiveness emerged. Before Assembly, I contacted the DS on the District where he was soon to be ordained and expressed my concerns. The DS was very matter of fact and simply directed me to this portion of the manual. I was then given the opportunity of writing out a formal accusation. I chose not to level an official accusation as I did not feel I had a strong enough case. Other churches and pastors had a much more compelling case than myself, so I felt that if the process were to work, there needed to be other voices that could more directly speak to this individual's conduct. Don't know what became of it, but the gentleman in question was ordained. I can't say he has been enthusiastically welcomed into Nazarene churches, but in that situation I felt that I could not make an open and shut case so it was better to leave it well enough alone.

For what it is worth....

[Rich Schmidt]

For those not following the comment thread over on Holiness Today's Facebook page, it appears that Manny has decided that he will not be returning here to answer the question. He feels like he has already answered it there in the thread. I think he (and Tim Wirth) must be referring to these posts of Manny's as his answer. I bolded some sections that I believe contain his answer to Kevin's question.... kind of.

This is particularly for those who have not yet fallen for the emergent church and its fallacies, and are hearing about this for the first time. Please keep an open mind to the facts of what is happening in the church.
First, you can go to www.concernednazarenes.org and read some basic statements, see the preview of the DVD we passed out at GA 2009, and read some testimonies. Second, you can visit my blog, www.reformednazarene.wordpress.com. It has become the most active blog that reports and comments on the things going on that are worrisome to a lot of Nazarenes around the world. From there, there are other Nazarene blogs and sites for further information. We report the facts of what is going on, and we state our biblical reasons why we believe these things to be evil.

Secondly, do not fall for the false notion that this is a concern of one or two disgruntled people, or a small group that does not care about the church. It is not that, it is serious, and we warn you because we care about the church. Nazarenes across the spectrum of the denomination, including pastors, evangelists, other leaders in the church, and many laypeople, are concerned about the infiltration of the following:

The basic problem, which is the denial of the Bible as sufficient for our faith; the promotion of the idea that the Bible is full of mystery and cannot be understood; the disdain for anyone who believes there are absolute truths in Scripture; the teaching that much of the Bible, like Genesis account, and Adam and Eve, were only myths created simply to teach a concept, but they were not real; the denial by such popular leaders as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, that the Bible is NOT the inspired word of God, but that it is just a book written by men and that it has errors.

The teaching in our schools that God cannot know the future (open theism), and that God makes mistakes and learns from them (process theology);

The infiltration of Roman Catholic mysticism in the form of things such as prayer labyrinths, contemplative prayer techniques such as practicing the silence, and ecumenical services with the Roman Catholic Churches, which teach a works-based salvation;

The extreme emphasis on the social justice “gospel”, and environmental care of the earth, which has resulted in the dilution of the true Gospel message that man’s basic need is a Saviour to save him from his sins. Sin, hell, and the coming judgment have been watered down and are preached less and less in the pulpits of the emergent church pastors;
Church services have become entertainment venues, rather than worship of God. Secular like performances, dances, secular plays, secular jazz music in worship, all these things are worship of self instead of worship of God.

Books, and more books, are taking over for plain study of Holy Scripture, and sermons are peppered with quotes of mystics such as Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen, and other Roman Catholic monks who teach heretical ideas that you can have a deep, personal EXPERIENCE with God if you practice certain things, if you do certain steps. This negates the all sufficiency of Christ and His word which He has given us.

There is a lot more to tell you. I ask again, that anyone reading this who is shocked to hear this, and thinks that this cannot really be true, please consider what we have seen and heard in three years. Consider the fact that Nazarene churches have and still are losing members because of this movement. Families have been devastated and separated from other family members because of pastors who have demonized them for simply asking, why are these strange things being introduced to my church? Why is not the Bible being taught anymore they ask? Why is the pastor quoting people whose belief systems do not line up with Nazarene holiness preaching?

We are a growing group, albeit an unofficially organized group. The name Concerned Nazarenes is meant to be used for any Nazarene who is troubled by what is going on, and does not mean that person has joined the group on Facebook or signed a membership form. There is none.

I believe that the article by Rev. Ulmet should not have been put on HT, unless there is an opportunity for someone to write an opposing viewpoint. But I also believe that God will and has taken this, and has allowed us to open another door here, and around the world, for opening a few more eyes. We do not fret about numbers of people. We are only concerned with warning one person at a time. When false teaching is blatantly promoted to thousands on a regular basis, there is no such thing as “going through proper channels” (even though on a local level, many of us have tried, and have been rejected and not even been allowed to speak to our church boards). I was one of those, a board member myself, who was refused the opportunity to present my concerns to the leaders of the church. The District leaders refused to listen. I have addressed the national leaders as well, and have been given replies that have not answered specific questions. So have others.
My story is the story of many Nazarenes who love their church, and are heartbroken to see what is happening. Yet, we are called haters.

We now try to ignore those from groups such as NazNet, a website that we believe is home to many of the core movers and shakers of the emergent church within our denomination. I will no longer waste time answering their questions again, because we have dealt with that many times over. Our concern now is for those who are willing to listen, and to at least consider some of the evidence we present, and let you make up your minds. Its only fair that you know everything that is happening, is it not?

May God help the people in the church to understand what is happening. We believe that if this continues as it is going, that one of the results will be judgment coming down on the COTN, if it’s not already happening.

Again, there is much material and documentation of facts on my blog and the other websites. Please prayerfully consider all that we present to you, and if you come to the same conclusion that there is a serious problem in the church, perhaps you will decide to join us also. If any are seriouslt interested in getting a free copy of the DVD, please contact me.

Friday at 7:33am

It was after the above post that Tim Wirth started saying that Manny had already answered the question.

Hi Bob,
The Nazarene world does not revolve around me, even though some NazNetters act like it does.
1. The thread is now closed at NazNet, so I can't comment there now.
2. Even if it was open, some wonderful friends advised me yesterday to ignore NazNet again, and focus on getting the truth out to the people.
3. That advice was validated last night when a sister in the Lord who is visiting for a few days literally scolded me and said, don't waste your time- just keep sending out the info to the people instead of responding ot every question.

Sorry to disappoint all who are waiting on NazNet for my answer- however, all my positions on scripture, emergent church, and everything else practically are on my blog. Feel free to go there and read it all. You'll get the answers there.
This is also a recording.

5 hours ago

I wonder, perhaps I'll pose a scenario for anyone here:

1. John Doe sees false teaching happening in his church. Serious, bad stuff.
2. John warns his pastor. Repeatedly.
3. Pastor and church board rebuff John D.
4. John D. tries to alert the District leaders. Nothing. No help, no concern to get information from John D.
5. John D. even asks for help at Gen Assembly, asks of a voice will be given to people concerned about false teaching. Told by national leader- that's not likely.
6. John D. goes away, having gone thru all proper channels possible. Has a heavy heart, because John D. is safe now and away from that false teaching.

But what about those friends and relatives and others in the church who may possibly fall into deception? And maybe even walk away from the Lord.

WHat does he do now? He's exhausted his appeals to church authority. Does he save himself, and walk away from it all, and not warn anyone? What should he do?

Anyone? Biblical response as to John D. responsibility now? Souls are at stake.

(David, Bob, hope this answers your question in some way)

2 hours ago

I replied to that last one with the following:

Manny, if you're going to follow the Manual, then you need something in between numbers 4 and 5 that says, "John D. filed written charges against his pastor with the District Advisory Board." That's the process we all agreed to follow when we committed to membership in this church. Until that's been done, John D. has NOT "exhausted his appeals to church authority." Kevin is asking if you've done this. If your scenario is meant as an answer, then apparently your answer is "No."

6 minutes ago

So it appears we have our answer: Manny has not followed the guidelines laid out in 505.1. And he's not coming back here to talk about it.

[Rich Schmidt]

When necessary, it has been done. You don't know about it because the people who are dealing in that area are much more discrete. You should also recognize that what you are suggesting would be an inquisition. Formally charging everyone with which you disagree. Our Church Judiciary cannot support more than an occasional charge. I'm not going to support a Nazarene Supreme court. While a few on all sides might have crossed a line, the vast majority are no where near crossing any lines. Someone pointed out that complaining loudly does not fit into our idea of needing judicial action.

In the first place, the extreme suggestions here are nothing more than a strawman. There is no requirement to agree with our leaders and disagreement does not imply disrespect. There is a trend, especially in the South of beatifying our leaders, the idea that they can do no wrong or even be wrong. Most people who complain in our denomination, especially in the South, are just told to shut up and color. Guess what? Not gonna' happen.

Apparently, Manny believes that many Nazarene clergy have indeed "crossed a line," as he is accusing them on his blog and on Facebook of teaching heresy, false doctrine, etc. I'm not saying we should file formal charges against everyone with whom we disagree. Far from it! I'm a fan of healthy disagreement, iron sharpening iron, etc.

But if we believe someone should be removed from office (leading a church, university, district, etc), then certainly that merits filing formal written charges. If we believe that a pastor is teaching false doctrine and leading a whole church astray, then certainly that merits filing formal written charges.

If not... then what does merit it?

You say that it has been done? This is the first I've heard of it in relationship to any situation mentioned by those calling themselves "Concerned Nazarenes." And I've been in conversation with Manny and others on this topic for years.

[Hans Deventer]

While the CNs are no friend of mine, invoking Hebrews 13 is laughably ineffective. They simply invoke 2 Peter 2 and then we have an exegetical stalemate. Do we then launch into dueling proof-texts? Arm wrestling?

Billy, you forgot something. The Bible is inerrant in each and every word, and doesn't contradict itself. So the challenge is much bigger to them, than it is to you.

[Hans Deventer]

If not it is not because we are crass and rude. Respect is earned, not automatic. It is presumed, however, until it is found to be undeserved.

Quite a post modern thought. I only respect a person if he has gained my personal respect. I care nothing if others assigned authority, he must earn mine. Extreme individualism. Has little or nothing to do with the Church.

David respected Saul's office as king and would not attack him for that reason. He did, however, decline to stand in God's way in dealing with Saul. He did nothing to protect Saul from the inevitable consequences of his own behaviors.

Seems like a good approach to me. Don't see it among the CN's though.

Also, that is reminiscent of that old saw that Ray Dunning went around espousing about the authority of the church because "salvation is not possible outside of the church." That was an attempted setup to bring us under a Nazarene papacy.

Looks to me like a personal interpretation, if anything. I'd need a lot of solid proof to buy that.

[Michael Flowers]

If this were the only thing the Bible had to say about people in authority, you might have an argument here. As is, this is just a proof text, not even in the context of the chapter. You can ask him direct questions if you like, just not here. He has been writing monographs that he sends to people who wants to read them for about 10 years. He has only written about "Emergent Ideology" for about a year and that subject covers a very small portion of what he writes about. He writes mostly about prayer and holy living.

I can state for a fact that my dad has never stated anything about anybody that he has not stated to that person face-to-face.

13:9 is a far greater example of the use of a proof text as the context of that verse appears very evidently to relate to those who were still trying to hold to the Old Testament laws of redemption via sacrifice "9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat." (NIV, 1984) I have not heard of any pastor saying that the "emergent teachings" must be followed to be a Christian, rather such things are encouraged merely as an assist to those who use them in order to draw into a closer relationship with Jesus Christ. If we are proclaiming Jesus Christ then Hebrews 13:7-8 states what one is to do in regards to those in leadership, particularly those who have been called to provide pastoral leadership (preaching and oversight of the congregation): "7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Thus far I have not read anything on the Silva blog that indicates any consideration of how these "false teachers" live and practice their faith. Rather, I have read that because they promote this/that way of drawing closer to God, or this/that specific understanding of the translation/interpretation of Scripture then they are wrong and are not to be trusted. So long as someone is not compromising the Word of God and is preaching and teaching Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the only way to heaven, then there is no grounds within the Church for their removal or dismissal. This may not sit well with some, but it is the matter of fact.

In conclusion I submit to you Mark 9:38-41: “Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."

[Michael Flowers]

Also, that is reminiscent of that old saw that Ray Dunning went around espousing about the authority of the church because "salvation is not possible outside of the church." That was an attempted setup to bring us under a Nazarene papacy.

Let us remember though that salvation is not possible outside of the church (and this does not mean in literal sense of a building/location). That has been an established belief since the very beginning. What person is saved and does not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? All Christians are members of Christ's body (the church). This is not to say that this has not been misused or characterized improperly by some, but it remains true regardless of its use. I am not a part of the church because I attend; I am part of the church by virtue of the redemption from sin which God has worked in my life through Jesus Christ.

[Jim Chabot]

You say that it has been done? This is the first I've heard of it in relationship to any situation mentioned by those calling themselves "Concerned Nazarenes." And I've been in conversation with Manny and others on this topic for years.

I would agree with Dan. Yes it's been done. Manny and others have written many complaints, and they have addressed them to many in leadership positions, resorting to "open" letters when they have not heard back.

If you are saying that Manny has filed these "written charges" with the wrong authority. And if you are saying that specific written charges filed with the appropriate authority will guarantee a hearing and a decision? I think that Manny would be quite interested in heeding your advice.

I guess that my answer brings a question. Is there a guarantee that those on the other side of a properly filed complaint will grant a hearing and render a decision?

[Hans Deventer]

I guess that my answer brings a question. Is there a guarantee that those on the other side of a properly filed complaint will grant a hearing and render a decision?

To me, it seems that an oficially filed complaint regarding a member of the clergy or a layman in the church requires a hearing. However, if it appears the accused has done nothing that goes beyond the borders of what a Nazarene in good standing can do, that verdict will quite likely not be pleasing to the accuser.

But let's make this less theoretical. I've been accused of a lot. What exactly have I said or done that would warrent church discipline? What is it that I believe that is incompatible with being a Nazarene in good standing? I've never been silent on what I believe, it must be very easy to bring forth accusations. Jim, you know me, you know Manny. What's the problem?

[Jim Chabot]

But let's make this less theoretical. I've been accused of a lot. What exactly have I said or done that would warrent church discipline? What is it that I believe that is incompatible with being a Nazarene in good standing? I've never been silent on what I believe, it must be very easy to bring forth accusations. Jim, you know me, you know Manny. What's the problem?

In two words, incredible misunderstanding.

This is something that has been part of my prayer life for a very long time. So many times, I know that I am misunderstood, yet unable to bridge the gap. So many times I can see two very good people so completely misunderstanding each other that conversation is impossible. My heart is broken each time I contemplate this, and yet I feel the unction to do more that fret about it. I feel compelled to do whatever I can to stand in the gap, however vulnerable and stupid I might be perceived.

While I could never dream of seeing agreement between yourself and Manny, I pray often that mutual respect may someday form. And yes I realize fully how naive and stupid that statement may sound, it is my prayer just the same.

[Rich Schmidt]

For those not following the comment thread over on Holiness Today's Facebook page...

If you're not following it, you can here: http://www.facebook.com/holinesstoda...09858145794127

Otherwise, here's the rest of the conversation between Manny and myself:

Manny:

You have an answer for everything, Rich.

2 hours ago

Manny:

Assume John D. HAS done what you said. What then?

2 hours ago

Me:

I *don't* have an answer from
you, Manny. That's why I'm having to try to deduce one from your scenario.

To try to answer your question: it would depend on what happened next. If John D followed
the process properly, then the DAB has a process it needs to follow in order to come to a decision. Did they? What was their decision?

If they conclude the charges are baseless... I don't have a Manual in front of me to know if there's any sort of appeal-to-the-generals process after that. But let's assume that John D goes all the way to the top, and the leaders disagree with him. Does Hebrews 13:17 apply? Or do we only submit to our leaders when they agree with us?

As I mentioned on NazNet, to stay and continue to fight at that point seems like it would go against the membership commitments "John" made when he joined the church.

about an hour ago

Manny:

My friends, please understand what is going on. The selective use of Scripture by the NazNetters is done to suit their needs- not to answer a question biblically. They will use a Scripture passage to pose a question, and even though some of them are pastors, will then be unable or unwilling to give the Scriptural answer for the question. They turn to the manual to find the "answer" all of a sudden.

So they suddenly shift to the authority of the Church manual, instead of going to THE MANUAL- the Bible- for the answers. They then lead you to erroneously think that since the manual- which they seem to rever very highly- says certain things need to be done, and nothing more, that you have reached a dead end. You can't do a thing now that you reached the final option in the "manual." You are paralyzed, and now you have no choice but to shut up or go away.

These NazNetters who challenge me will NEVER give an appropriate, Scripturally sound answer to the scenario I posed- because they cannot. It would go against their philosophy of non-judgmentalism. It is nearly impossible for them to do that here. I do have the answer- not from me, but from Scripture. However, I will defer to the more learned pastors with two or three degrees to teach us by giving the appropriate answer from THE MANUAL (the Bible) not the "manual."

I'll wait for any pastor out there to provide guidance on this manner. But spare me the "manual" please, and show us through the Scripture how to deal with false teaching and false teachers. If that answer cannot be given after a while, I'll be glad to provide the answers for them, as I have all along.

about an hour ago

Apparently, instead of engaging in conversation and answering questions, Manny would prefer to dodge and strongly imply that the Manual doesn't apply to him. Sad.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I honestly don't see any way around the Manual's provisions for dealing with someone in leadership who is teaching falsehood.

1. If someone is a member of the Church of the Nazarene, then they agree to allow the Manual to guide us in our life together. That's kind of the whole point of having membership and a Manual, isn't it?

The Foreword of the 2009-2013 Manual ends with this statement by the General Superintendents:



2. The Manual says that if you believe a member of the clergy is in error, you follow this certain process involving formal, written accusations that are then submitted to the District Advisory Board. Kevin gave the details earlier.

If that hasn't been done... well, that's a problem.

If it has been done, and the process was followed, and the decision was made that those accused are innocent... well, then it's settled.

3. Then you're left with the decision to either submit to the decision (as Hebrews 13 describes) or leave. To try to stay in the church while railing against its leaders seems like it would go against the commitments made in the Covenant of Christian Character:

I don't know what you're doing up so late on a Saturday night - but in light of the "no response" I think you've nailed it. Thanks.

[Dan Henderson]

I don't know what you're doing up so late on a Saturday night - but in light of the "no response" I think you've nailed it. Thanks.

That is the argument from silence defense and in this particular case, I think does not apply.

[Cam Pence]

If you're not following it, you can here: http://www.facebook.com/holinesstoda...09858145794127

Otherwise, here's the rest of the conversation between Manny and myself:

Manny:

Manny:

Me:

Manny:

Apparently, instead of engaging in conversation and answering questions, Manny would prefer to dodge and strongly imply that the Manual doesn't apply to him. Sad.

In reguards to his last statement, the "manual" DOES show us through Scripture how to deal with what you THINK may be false teaching and false teachers for those who choose to be a part of the Church of the Nazarene. He blatantly disregards the Manual whenever it does not jive with his own personal interpretation of Scripture.

[Hans Deventer]

In two words, incredible misunderstanding.

Probably! I just wanted to make this theoretical discussion more practical by using myself as an example. We can talk about anyone out there who is a false teacher, be it Dan Boone, Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, Henri Nouwen, the list is endless, but that person likely isn't going to defend him/herself here. Which is part of a decent process. So I figured it would be more helpful if one who is also accused of such would get a hearing too, without being nailed to the digital cross, deprived of any defence.

I figured you, knowing Manny well, would be able to bring forth his accusations, understanding you don't share them though!!!!!!
Or perhaps Dan can? We don't have that many people here who could. Or perhaps Grant's words, with which Manny apparently agrees, would be sufficient?

Perhaps this is no use, but I feel that if we don't make this practical, we're not really getting anywhere in the discussion.

[Dan Henderson]

I would agree with Dan. Yes it's been done. Manny and others have written many complaints, and they have addressed them to many in leadership positions, resorting to "open" letters when they have not heard back.

If you are saying that Manny has filed these "written charges" with the wrong authority. And if you are saying that specific written charges filed with the appropriate authority will guarantee a hearing and a decision? I think that Manny would be quite interested in heeding your advice.

I guess that my answer brings a question. Is there a guarantee that those on the other side of a properly filed complaint will grant a hearing and render a decision?

Might want to start a new thread on this one. Opinions on this one are lengthy and varied. For me, its a very short answer. If your definition of the church is "the Body of Christ" then the argument is moot because it is just a descriptor. If you are in the Body of Christ you are saved, if not, you are not. If your description of the Church is anything but "the Body of Christ" (such as the organization made up of supt's, preachers, teachers, and other leaders) then it becomes an argument for power, something my dad has chosen to summarize a "Nazarene Papacy" The Pope is infallable according to the Catholic church, which is what most arguments I've seen here tend to support with respect to our Superintendents, Pastor's and University professor's. Most people (including me) have a hard time accepting that some of these people are simply wrong and some of them are simply just not saved. We want to think that they are perfect, after all, we selected/elected/appointend them. At the end of the day, it boils down to the fact that we don't want to admit that we were duped, that we might have made a mistake in selecting professor X or Pastor Y.

I have no one in mind when I make these statements. I just follows that we won't always select properly. We can be duped. There are some who are teachers and preachers who do not belong. I don't know which ones. I'm not that smart.

[Rich Schmidt]

I don't know what you're doing up so late on a Saturday night - but in light of the "no response" I think you've nailed it. Thanks.

Up late & up early both. Should make for a fun Sunday!

[Hans Deventer]

I have no one in mind when I make these statements. I just follows that we won't always select properly. We can be duped. There are some who are teachers and preachers who do not belong. I don't know which ones. I'm not that smart.

In general, I agree. I don't believe in infallible people. Ever. Yet what I see is that especially in the educational system, many consider administrators and teachers fair game to hunt down, and rarely if ever follow proper procedure, let alone our Lord's teachings in Matthew 18. So I tend to be on the defence side of teachers and administrators, while understanding they are fallible people and none is above mistake, error and faults.

Perhaps it also helps that I'm part of the system. This very morning I talked to the chairman of the District Church Properties Board, who had attended a DAB meeting last Thursday (I'm part of that DAB). We agree that we rarely if ever get thanked for what we do, and generally, there's always people who disagree and will certainly let you know. If we didn't do this for Jesus, we'd be masochists.

[Jim Chabot]

Probably! I just wanted to make this theoretical discussion more practical by using myself as an example. We can talk about anyone out there who is a false teacher, be it Dan Boone, Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, Henri Nouwen, the list is endless, but that person likely isn't going to defend him/herself here. Which is part of a decent process. So I figured it would be more helpful if one who is also accused of such would get a hearing too, without being nailed to the digital cross, deprived of any defence.

I figured you, knowing Manny well, would be able to bring forth his accusations, understanding you don't share them though!!!!!!
Or perhaps Dan can? We don't have that many people here who could. Or perhaps Grant's words, with which Manny apparently agrees, would be sufficient?

Perhaps this is no use, but I feel that if we don't make this practical, we're not really getting anywhere in the discussion.

Hans; I am at church right now and will be traveling to two other churches this afternoon. But yes, I'll do what I can to participate on this. I've just re-read Grant's words and yes I can feel the sting. Sorry for the way he has treated you and others.

[Kevin Rector]

About as much as Heb 13:17

I think you've missed my point, I'll take the blame for that. Hebrews 13:9 and other passages tells us to be on the watch for false teaching. Be alert, keep an eye open. Compare teaching to scripture, etc. I'm all for that. I'm all for the exposing and calling out of false teachers. The question I am interested is, "When I see false teaching in the church, HOW am I to go about determining that it is in fact false teaching (aka that I'm not the one that's wrong) and HOW am I to go about exposing it to the light?" This question (in two parts) is what I submit verses like Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:15-18 are talking about.

Per Matthew 18, if someone is a false teacher (sinner) you take your concerns to them privately. If they will not answer you take two or three witnesses (again privately). If they still will not listen you take it to the church. This is where the manual comes into play. For those who have voluntarily joined the Church of the Nazarene our mechanism for "taking it to the church" is to follow the procedures of the manual. When that is done, Matthew 18 tells us what to do when the person will not listen to the church - they are to be treated like a pagan or tax collector. However, Matthew 18, does not tell us what to do when the church does not agree with OUR accusations. If the church does not agree with out accusations then we have to look to some other source for biblical guidance. The best example is Hebrews 13:17 which tells us to submit to the leaders of the church. There are other passages that tell us to submit to "all earthly authority" etc, but for the sake of clarity I've stayed with just this one passage.

What I find most frustrating in this whole process is that I am trying to engage the question from a biblical framework and that is just being ignored when the biblical witness does not line up with preconceived notions.

There is no requirement to agree with our leaders and disagreement does not imply disrespect.

You keep talking about agreeing and respecting. I am talking about submitting. They are not the same thing.

Furthermore, our manual does not place a single individual into the role of judge or pontiff. The manual provision has accusations being made to the DAB which is a board composed of lay and clergy leaders elected by the district assembly. While there may be one or two corrupted people on that board, if they entire board is corrupted then we've got much bigger problems than one or two "false teachers".

[Bob Hunter]

I can translate and condense Manny's response to 5 simple points (with a little help from Ben B.):

1) The manual has no authority, we do things on our own way and on our own terms. We only answer the questions we want to answer.
2) Bible is our sole authority, and a Christians interpretation of the Bible gives them the right to call others false teachers without consequence.
3) Individuals interpret because we're all priests, so we can say and do what we want.
4) We can correct the Church because its Biblical to do so even if this means circumventing Church polity and causing division.
5) I'm going to ignore NN (for the 10th time), but I will continue reading the site and if I get really mad I'll come back and defend myself.

I think that pretty much sums it up for me. Thanks Rich and Kevin for your efforts.

[Benjamin Burch]

I ask my dad for a short monograph on the title of this thread. This is the shortest response you will likely ever see:

If not it is not because we are crass and rude. Respect is earned, not automatic. It is presumed, however, until it is found to be undeserved. Just as in the military, superior rank must often be respected even if the person wearing it i...s not respectable--but that same officer or NCO might want to watch his back in combat if he does not deserve the respect that is required. David respected Saul's office as king and would not attack him for that reason. He did, however, decline to stand in God's way in dealing with Saul. He did nothing to protect Saul from the inevitable consequences of his own behaviors. Will that do as a mini-monograph?

Also, that is reminiscent of that old saw that Ray Dunning went around espousing about the authority of the church because "salvation is not possible outside of the church." That was an attempted setup to bring us under a Nazarene papacy.

Lord, hear our prayer. Have mercy on us. Kyrie eleison.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

By the way, I am disappointed that Manny said he would post his response to this issue and then didn't do it, especially after he posted to me personally that he didn't need any advisers to formulate a response. I feel kind of silly for cautioning people to be patient and let him have time to answer when, apparently, he didn't intend to.

The passage in play is easy enough to understand and it obviously limits how believers are to interact with leaders. Also, our church Manual outlines exactly how discipline is to be accomplished within the church. We aren't free to behave as vigilantes.

At this point, my only defense for calling for patience is this: I'm coming to view Manny's "no answer" to be his answer -- that is, he doesn't have one.

I'm moving on. This "no answer is my answer" pretty much sums up this entire exchange.

[Jon Twitchell]

By the way, I am disappointed that Manny said he would post his response to this issue and then didn't do it, especially after he posted to me personally that he didn't need any advisers to formulate a response. I feel kind of silly for cautioning people to be patient and let him have time to answer when, apparently, he didn't intend to.

The passage in play is easy enough to understand and it obviously limits how believers are to interact with leaders. Also, our church Manual outlines exactly how discipline is to be accomplished within the church. We aren't free to behave as vigilantes.

At this point, my only defense for calling for patience is this: I'm coming to view Manny's "no answer" to be his answer -- that is, he doesn't have one.

I'm moving on. This "no answer is my answer" pretty much sums up this entire exchange.

And now... of course... the great irony...

is that now Scott, who is arguably one of the more traditional and conservative voices on NazNet, will now be simply disregarded, because clearly the emergents must have gotten to you too!

How deep does the rabbit hole go???

[David Pettigrew]

Nearly every exchange with Manny since 2009 - "I notice how you don't use scripture in any of your answers. Why don't you base your answers on scripture, like I always do."

The current exchange with Manny - "I notice how you conveniently pick and choose scripture."

So if you don't use scripture, your posts have no merit.
If you use scripture, your posts have no merit.

There will never ever be an an answer given that will satisfy these people.

[Wilson Deaton]

If I find that a movie critic hates all the movies I love and loves all the movies I hate, I stop paying any attention to that movie critic. In the Biblical/theological realm, I long ago found myself at that place with the CNs. I have simply LOST ALL INTEREST in anything they have to say.

I find their logic very flawed. (For example, the idea that finding any value in a book means you are OK with anything that author ever said.)

I find their procedures lacking Christian courtesy. (For examples, their labeling people, their entering/exiting conversations at their whim, etc.)

I don't think they are interested in keeping the Nazarenes Nazarene. I think they are interested in making Nazarenes into their Nazarene mutation. (For example, the inerrancy debate.)

For a while, I maintained SOME interest in the conversation with them but only from the perspective of hoping to see THEIR minds changed. But I soon realized that they have "locked out changes, " and thus even lost interest in that aspect of their debates.

I believe (seriously, not flippantly) that 2 Timothy 2:22-23 applies to debating with the CNs: "... pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, ..."

If it were not for the sad fact that some good-hearted people are falling under the CNs influence, I would be in favor of completely ignoring them. Because of those people, I concede that the CNs rantings must be addressed. However, I think it most effective to address those rantings directly to those being influenced by the die-hard CNs and not by direct address with the diehard CNs.

Wilson

[Debi Peck]

Scott, I very much appreciated your call for patience.


Edited to remove potentially hurtful comments.

[Chad Harvey]

I think one of the main issues is, this (and forgive me for I am a little late to the CN debate that has been going on over these years), namely to whom would they file a written complaint as instructed from the Manual? Those in charge are a part of this "emergent conspiracy" so to take the charge to them would be absolutely pointless, so the cause of purifying the church must be done aside from the Manual because the Bible says so.

[Jon Twitchell]

Do you suppose they really think that every single DAB in the US is part of the conspiracy?

I guess if I really believed that, I would find a different church.

[Chad Harvey]

Do you suppose they really think that every single DAB in the US is part of the conspiracy?

I guess if I really believed that, I would find a different church.

I'm not sure how far they think it goes other than my observation is that if you disagree with their position, you must be emergent, so since they haven't gotten "equal time" then the leadership must surely be emergent as well or they would join forces to rid the church of this evil invasion of Catholicism.

[Bob Hunter]

Nearly every exchange with Manny since 2009 - "I notice how you don't use scripture in any of your answers. Why don't you base your answers on scripture, like I always do."

The current exchange with Manny - "I notice how you conveniently pick and choose scripture."

So if you don't use scripture, your posts have no merit.
If you use scripture, your posts have no merit.

There will never ever be an an answer given that will satisfy these people.

Which is one of the tell tale signs of a pathological antagonist. It's never enough...because they will always be right no matter what. Manny and his group are special. In fact, they are are so special they are entitled. And because they have assigned special privileges to themselves, they are the exception to the rule. Rules that apply to us do not apply to them. Which is why they can violate the rules of decency and caring that most Christians try to follow. They have made themselves so unique that many naive church members actually believe that they are raising legitimate issues. But in the end, they are not interested in real reform, they are actually bent on our destruction. Any attempts to appease Manny & Co. with scripture are usually met with more demands...it is unstoppable and insatiable. It is how they maintain total control (or so they think).

[Kevin Rector]

Ok, let's spend no more time talking about them. The point of this thread is to have a discussion about the principles of submission to the authority of the church as laid out biblically.