Crucial: How We View Scripture

[Dennis M. Scott]

Several threads recently may remind us of how pivotal can be our understanding of scripture. It isn't simply our theory of inspiration and breadth of inerrancy. How we deal with authority, context, and even an understanding of intent of the human instrument all come into play. In the COTN, different people don't all have to have the same concept in those arenas.

If we all had the same personal context, including education - and what I will for a moment call "regional temperament" - we would likely find it easier to think alike. It isn't too awkward at the local level, or maybe even district level, because we can either "convince" others of our position, or help them understand that they don't "fit in." When instant communication literally around the world and across language barriers comes into play, we discover that we can't assume everyone else started from the same place we did. Even thought in one educational institution can change dramatically: the NTS days of Eugene Stowe differ significantly from those of Ron Benefiel, for example. The same may be said of NBC and most our universities.

The internet - including Naznet - becomes a caldron of widely differing understandings, assumptions, temperaments and levels of study. One person can't see why we can't take scripture at face value - and that person may mean a specific English translation. Another has discovered additional information - and maybe began the journey with different assumptions, and feels the first person is just being stubborn and irrational. I'm a little surprised we can have conversations at all. Maybe there's some grace at work somewhere.

My opinion is that the discussions are good, as long as we don't insist everyone else behave like any one of us, or dialogue only on our personal assumptions.

The Articles of Faith, and other points of agreement were not written originally as a biblical theology, or even a systematic theology. They were an experiential common ground centering on a number of holiness experiences. Frankly, in part because those experiences are not as common now as earlier, we are moving away from what brought us together, to a desire to see some other unifying theme - likely a more biblical (how can it be not systematic, too?) theology. Maybe it's something else. Yet there is also a continuing desire for inclusiveness.

Contrary to what some of our spouses may think, (!!!) this really isn't idle chit-chat. It is a conversation like we've never had before. Even delegates to GA don't take into consideration such wide positions. May the Lord give us a spirit of respect and mutual appreciation. It might be that all of us are right --- or wrong. Surely we want a right spirit among us: make that a right Spirit among us.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

As Oswald Chambers said: "It takes God a long time go get us out of the way of thinking that unless everyone sees as we do they must be wrong."

[Doug Ward]

Good post.

[Heidi Anderson]

I think the quadrilateral can give us a great perspective. With Wesleyan heritage we do embrace that idea and it certainly gives me peace in the midst of some difficult scriptures. Excellent post!

[Hans Deventer]

It might be that all of us are right --- or wrong. Surely we want a right spirit among us: make that a right Spirit among us.

That seems to me to be more crucial than our view of Scripture. And add to that a willingness, a desire, to stick together. Without it, nothing will keep us.

[Peggy Gray]

The Articles of Faith, and other points of agreement were not written originally as a biblical theology, or even a systematic theology. They were an experiential common ground centering on a number of holiness experiences. Frankly, in part because those experiences are not as common now as earlier, we are moving away from what brought us together, to a desire to see some other unifying theme - likely a more biblical (how can it be not systematic, too?) theology.

Could you elaborate on this?

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm referring to about 1908, when different groups joined resources around their varying holiness experiences. We weren't united over baptism, or even how we understood scripture, but rather because of various second works of grace that each generally understood to be called sanctification. How sanctification was preached and experienced varied considerably, but it was a very distinct and usually emotional occurrence. Recipients testified to a cleansing and to heart holiness. Their experience was not especially a result of any intense study of scripture, and others have described it as more experiential that scriptural. Over a century, Nazarene scholars have worked to first systemize and later biblicize a theology. Over time even many of the various terms used in 1908 have been consolidated or abandoned. Most Nazarenes a hundred years later don't claim that a distinct second work does as much as people a hundred years earlier did. Additionally, there is now generally an acknowledged continuing growth aspect of sanctification; one that was previously emphasized less.

Broadly, there seems to be less value placed on a common theology based on various experiences, and more on a common understanding of what scripture says about theology. I personally don't feel qualified to register a judgment on whether it is good or bad, but that is essentially to what I referred.

[Dennis M. Scott]

That seems to me to be more crucial than our view of Scripture. And add to that a willingness, a desire, to stick together. Without it, nothing will keep us.

That desire is somewhat difficult to maintain on an instrument as impersonal as the internet. The language barrier is also a challenge. A hundred years ago we thought the American North/South thing was the cultural gap needing grace. We had no idea about the multiplicity of culture factors involved now. A couple hundred people gathered in Pilot Point, represented a couple thousand people. Now twenty-five thousand who might gather at General Assembly represent two million people globally. We now have ten times as many churches as we then had people. Gathering on the internet isn't the same as gathering nose to nose, heart to heart. We have yet to experience on the internet the moving of the Holy Spirit remotely resembling what happened at Pilot Point. Yet, that, it seems, is what would rekindle that desire to stick together.

Perhaps the internet IS an instrument of the Holy Spirit to bring unity, fellowship, and mutual commitment to the Cause. Let's not manipulate it, but maybe we could pray the Lord to use it in such a way.

[Hans Deventer]

Perhaps the internet IS an instrument of the Holy Spirit to bring unity, fellowship, and mutual commitment to the Cause. Let's not manipulate it, but maybe we could pray the Lord to use it in such a way.

The internet has good uses, but only among those who are willing to understand one another. For it takes a lot more effort to understand the other through internet communication than in real life. If there is a desire to bridge the extra layer of communicative distortions, it can be useful and actually be a blessing, for it does connect people that otherwise would not be able to.

At least, this view is where the years of internet communication have brought me.

[Billy Cox]

I'm referring to about 1908, when different groups joined resources around their varying holiness experiences. We weren't united over baptism, or even how we understood scripture, but rather because of various second works of grace that each generally understood to be called sanctification. How sanctification was preached and experienced varied considerably, but it was a very distinct and usually emotional occurrence. Recipients testified to a cleansing and to heart holiness. Their experience was not especially a result of any intense study of scripture, and others have described it as more experiential that scriptural. Over a century, Nazarene scholars have worked to first systemize and later biblicize a theology. Over time even many of the various terms used in 1908 have been consolidated or abandoned. Most Nazarenes a hundred years later don't claim that a distinct second work does as much as people a hundred years earlier did. Additionally, there is now generally an acknowledged continuing growth aspect of sanctification; one that was previously emphasized less.

Broadly, there seems to be less value placed on a common theology based on various experiences, and more on a common understanding of what scripture says about theology. I personally don't feel qualified to register a judgment on whether it is good or bad, but that is essentially to what I referred.

Why do you suppose that as the 19th century drew to a close, disparate holiness groups started thinking about burying their differerences and joining forces? The holiness movement wasn't exactly a new thing after all. I have a theory, but I am curious as to what you think.

I think that the answer to this question has bearing on understanding where things are today.

[Ryan Scott]

Why do you suppose that as the 19th century drew to a close, disparate holiness groups started thinking about burying their differerences and joining forces? The holiness movement wasn't exactly a new thing after all. I have a theory, but I am curious as to what you think.

I think that the answer to this question has bearing on understanding where things are today.

I think it likely came from the eschatelogical conception that Christians could, in fact, build a holy world, a holy society in which to live. Many of our founders were quite certain that they could reform society - if that is going to happen, why not get united as soon as possible to ease the transition.

It was a pretty common belief at the time that was pretty well squashed by WWI.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Why do you suppose that as the 19th century drew to a close, disparate holiness groups started thinking about burying their differerences and joining forces? The holiness movement wasn't exactly a new thing after all. I have a theory, but I am curious as to what you think.

I think that the answer to this question has bearing on understanding where things are today.

Another reason is that there we many who felt ostracized and fledgling. The holiness message was disdained by some, and those who were operating as various types of rescue missions felt isolated and without resources. Curiously, most of those kinds of ministries a century later have a similar feeling.
Most were not especially independent thinkers, but had "come out" of other denominations. their background was to be associated with like minders. Don Irwin has expressed that he feels one of the reasons that the COTN has not been as strong in the Northeast is that the primary holiness theologian and leader of that broad time in that part of the country was Daniel Steel, who remained in Methodism, committed to rekindling holiness sentiments in the Methodist church. There consequently was a hope within Methodism for holiness folk. They therefore remained where they were. The COTN in the Northeast has never had the strong Methodist influence that we did in other parts of the US. Hiram Reynolds spoke for Vermonters, and eventually had strong influence across the new movement, but he was not especially influential in bringing many others out of Northeast Methodism into what was becoming the COTN. The early Nazarenes tended in the Northeast to be more Congregationalists and immigrants from Canada, who were not especially episcopal in leaning.

[Billy Cox]

I think it likely came from the eschatelogical conception that Christians could, in fact, build a holy world, a holy society in which to live. Many of our founders were quite certain that they could reform society - if that is going to happen, why not get united as soon as possible to ease the transition.

It was a pretty common belief at the time that was pretty well squashed by WWI.

Would you say that this eschatological optimism (post-milennialism) was endemic to the holiness movement or that it was grafted on by the 2nd generation of the Holiness Movement?