CN list of approved books and Bible translations

[Dan Henderson]

If such a person has yet to encounter Henri Nouwen, it might be worth wading through the mud and gunk to discover him here. Sort of like dumpster diving in an area where people are tossing out gems along with their garbage because they see no value in them. It might be worth the stench to gather up the gems.

Funny, I say the same things about NazNet, but generally my words aren't as strong as your word picture. Good one though.

[Daniel Hamlin]

I really, really don't understand their opposition to "Ashes to Fire". I'm curious as to why they rip it so much. I've read the whole thing and there is NOTHING in there that is against anything orthodox or Nazarene.

[Cam Pence]

I really, really don't understand their opposition to "Ashes to Fire". I'm curious as to why they rip it so much. I've read the whole thing and there is NOTHING in there that is against anything orthodox or Nazarene.

The usual...mysticism, Catholic, apostate....sigh

http://reformednazarene.wordpress.co...ritual-damage/

[Jim Chabot]

I really, really don't understand their opposition to "Ashes to Fire". I'm curious as to why they rip it so much. I've read the whole thing and there is NOTHING in there that is against anything orthodox or Nazarene.

Trying to stay on the informative side of this, not looking for a debate. Long and short is Ash Wednesday, it's a deal breaker pure and simple. Some folks see this as adopting Roman practices and they want no part of it. As far as the rest of it goes, there is a lot of good stuff in there, we used it at our church.

Our church is populated with BN's (Blissful Nazarenes) Would they become CN's? Yes I think that they would. So yes we used Ashes to Fire this year, and I think we used it somewhat along the lines that Roy is contemplating here. We didn't use or push the journals, I have one and my Pastor has one, that way we could coordinate our efforts. His sermon's reflected the messages set forth in the journal and with a few exceptions we kept to the schedule and the progression of the larger message. Some of the music was pretty good, we used the good stuff. Some of it wasn't conducive to congregational singing, and some of it bore no real relation to the message, so we didn't use some of it. We didn't play any of the music, we learned it and sung it together. In short, we fished the baby out of the bathwater and we used what we felt would minister to our people.

We have an added dimension in our church as we are considered a "safe church" by a local treatment center working with folks who have escaped from abusive group religious situations. We have some really damaged folks in our flock, we need to be careful. I'm thinking that for someone who found Catholicism to be wanting, and then to be recruited into a cult and eventually escape. Well, I'm thinking that liturgy and ancient practices is something that will trigger a run to the door, we don't need that.

It's perfectly ok for folks to have issues with things that are perfectly Orthodox, that's why we have denominations isn't it?

[Bob Hunter]

Sort of like dumpster diving in an area where people are tossing out gems along with their garbage because they see no value in them. It might be worth the stench to gather up the gems.

You have such a way with words!

[Dan Henderson]

If you want to understand what a CN hears when you use terms like Open Theology, Post Modern, or Emergent a good start would be "The Death of Truth" to which I offered earlier. I may be the only one of the group who has read this book so its not a CN reading list item.
If you want to understand Dan Henderson better, read: THe Courageous Follower by Ira Challif.

If, however, you already know the "correct" definition of those terms I listed, and don't want to be bothered with those of us who don't have the "correct" definition (how dare we mis-represent your terms), then by all means, don't bother to try to underrstand. We can go on indefinately using the same terminology and fail to communicate just as we have up to now. I have already demonstrated that the majority of the people on this board hold to the vast majority of 5 point fundamentalism, yet those same people who would admit to being a 4.5 fundamentalist insist that Nazarenes have never been fundamentalist.

Yet I have taken the time to learn what you hear when I say I am a fundamentalist where most of you have failed to even try to understand where I am coming from. And that is at the heart of why a group like CNs exists. They are just simply tired of being ignored. Something will have to happen and you can spectulate all you like on what that will need to be. I have said of myself that you it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with me, however ignoring me is not an option...that will not be one of the outcomes of this conversation at the corporate level.

[Roy Richardson]

If you want to understand what a CN hears when you use terms like Open Theology, Post Modern, or Emergent a good start would be "The Death of Truth" to which I offered earlier. I may be the only one of the group who has read this book so its not a CN reading list item.
If you want to understand Dan Henderson better, read: THe Courageous Follower by Ira Challif.

If, however, you already know the "correct" definition of those terms I listed, and don't want to be bothered with those of us who don't have the "correct" definition (how dare we mis-represent your terms), then by all means, don't bother to try to underrstand. We can go on indefinately using the same terminology and fail to communicate just as we have up to now. I have already demonstrated that the majority of the people on this board hold to the vast majority of 5 point fundamentalism, yet those same people who would admit to being a 4.5 fundamentalist insist that Nazarenes have never been fundamentalist.

Yet I have taken the time to learn what you hear when I say I am a fundamentalist where most of you have failed to even try to understand where I am coming from. And that is at the heart of why a group like CNs exists. They are just simply tired of being ignored. Something will have to happen and you can spectulate all you like on what that will need to be. I have said of myself that you it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with me, however ignoring me is not an option...that will not be one of the outcomes of this conversation at the corporate level.

Thanks Dan. I'll add that to my reading list.

I would also add Stanley Grenz's "A Primer on Postmodernism" to reading lists if you haven't read it. Post-modernism isn't just a religious phenomenon, it is societal, and really isn't something one "chooses" any more than medevial folks, or enlightenment folks chose to be part of their era.

I'll confess I am a child of the post-modern era, and I see some of the characteristics in my own beliefs, especially the cause of the oppressed and the emphasis on community.

Truth is truth, but I believe we have to change our tactics in presenting it. We cannot assume people will believe the Bible is true. For much of our world, it is just another book of religious teachings. That may be the hardest adjustment for us to make.

[Dan Henderson]

Truth is truth, but I believe we have to change our tactics in presenting it. We cannot assume people will believe the Bible is true. For much of our world, it is just another book of religious teachings. That may be the hardest adjustment for us to make.

I'll read that one. I disagree that't the hardest part. The hardest part for me is not being able to assume that Nazarene Clergy believe the Bible is true. That hurts deeply. I am prepared to deal with a world that does not believe the Bible is true. I am not prepared to deal with my own leaders (leaders I had chosen to follow) openly stating such.

Granted that the vocal ones who have made such claims are not Nazarene clergy, however I believe in something I will call "representative opinion". I can't help but wonder if we have "sleepers" amongst our clergy who hold to these more radical beliefs and would espouse them if they believed they could do so and remain gainfully employed in the CoTN.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I'll read that one. I disagree that't the hardest part. The hardest part for me is not being able to assume that Nazarene Clergy believe the Bible is true. That hurts deeply. I am prepared to deal with a world that does not believe the Bible is true. I am not prepared to deal with my own leaders (leaders I had chosen to follow) openly stating such.

Granted that the vocal ones who have made such claims are not Nazarene clergy, however I believe in something I will call "representative opinion". I can't help but wonder if we have "sleepers" amongst our clergy who hold to these more radical beliefs and would espouse them if they believed they could do so and remain gainfully employed in the CoTN.

I have no actual knowledge but my assumption would be you are correct, not just in the CotN but in all Christian denominations and even in the non-denominational churches.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I don't think a credentialed Nazarene pastor should allow a fringe group to dictate what they read or don't read. I think that anything published by our own publishing house and it's affiliates is automatically acceptable reading material. I also think that if we suspect a particular version or translation of the Bible is out of bounds that that we can turn to our theologians and educators to warn us about it and explain to us why it is a problem.

We need to use our own best judgment, tempered by the Holy Spirit, and informed by our church to help us seek out that which is of value to us and not allow those who are operating out of the mainstream of the denomination to have influence on such decisions.

[Dan Henderson]

I don't think a credentialed Nazarene pastor should allow a fringe group to dictate what they read or don't read. I think that anything published by our own publishing house and it's affiliates is automatically acceptable reading material. I also think that if we suspect a particular version or translation of the Bible is out of bounds that that we can turn to our theologians and educators to warn us about it and explain to us why it is a problem.

We need to use our own best judgment, tempered by the Holy Spirit, and informed by our church to help us seek out that which is of value to us and not allow those who are operating out of the mainstream of the denomination to have influence on such decisions.

A statement I agree with. I'm not sure it fits with what Roy was asking though.

I re-read this and do not agree with one part. I do not agree that it is automatically acceptable reading if NPH publishes it. If I completely trusted their vetting process, I would still think that would not be an acceptable approach to recommending books. I would also not accept a doctrine merely because it was uttered by a GS, DS, Pastor or Professor. To me that is equivalent to letting other people do your thinking for you.

[Cam Pence]

Trying to stay on the informative side of this, not looking for a debate. Long and short is Ash Wednesday, it's a deal breaker pure and simple. Some folks see this as adopting Roman practices and they want no part of it. As far as the rest of it goes, there is a lot of good stuff in there, we used it at our church.

Our church is populated with BN's (Blissful Nazarenes) Would they become CN's? Yes I think that they would. So yes we used Ashes to Fire this year, and I think we used it somewhat along the lines that Roy is contemplating here. We didn't use or push the journals, I have one and my Pastor has one, that way we could coordinate our efforts. His sermon's reflected the messages set forth in the journal and with a few exceptions we kept to the schedule and the progression of the larger message. Some of the music was pretty good, we used the good stuff. Some of it wasn't conducive to congregational singing, and some of it bore no real relation to the message, so we didn't use some of it. We didn't play any of the music, we learned it and sung it together. In short, we fished the baby out of the bathwater and we used what we felt would minister to our people.

We have an added dimension in our church as we are considered a "safe church" by a local treatment center working with folks who have escaped from abusive group religious situations. We have some really damaged folks in our flock, we need to be careful. I'm thinking that for someone who found Catholicism to be wanting, and then to be recruited into a cult and eventually escape. Well, I'm thinking that liturgy and ancient practices is something that will trigger a run to the door, we don't need that.

It's perfectly ok for folks to have issues with things that are perfectly Orthodox, that's why we have denominations isn't it?

So you didn't throw the baby out with the bath water...an ideal notion that we can learn much from Jim. Thanks

[Roy Richardson]

I don't think a credentialed Nazarene pastor should allow a fringe group to dictate what they read or don't read. I think that anything published by our own publishing house and it's affiliates is automatically acceptable reading material. I also think that if we suspect a particular version or translation of the Bible is out of bounds that that we can turn to our theologians and educators to warn us about it and explain to us why it is a problem.

We need to use our own best judgment, tempered by the Holy Spirit, and informed by our church to help us seek out that which is of value to us and not allow those who are operating out of the mainstream of the denomination to have influence on such decisions.

I agree. The Common English Bible has been attacked by many of the CN types for reasons I cannot explain. I know people who helped translate it, and I use it without hesitation. Arguing about the issue with those who are opposed would be a waste of the days that the Lord has given me.

I'm not looking for people to tell me what to do. I'm asking for a map of the minefield, if I can use that metaphor. I will read what I want. I just want to know what the "automatic triggers" are so that if I trip them, I do it on purpose. Does that make sense?

[Roy Richardson]

Thanks Dan. I'll add that to my reading list.

I would also add Stanley Grenz's "A Primer on Postmodernism" to reading lists if you haven't read it. Post-modernism isn't just a religious phenomenon, it is societal, and really isn't something one "chooses" any more than medevial folks, or enlightenment folks chose to be part of their era.

I'll confess I am a child of the post-modern era, and I see some of the characteristics in my own beliefs, especially the cause of the oppressed and the emphasis on community.

Truth is truth, but I believe we have to change our tactics in presenting it. We cannot assume people will believe the Bible is true. For much of our world, it is just another book of religious teachings. That may be the hardest adjustment for us to make.

Thinking more on this, we really ought to find some kind of common reference point on terms that seem to be lightning rods.

Ones that I know of are:

Missional
Missio Dei
Postmodern
Open Theology
Emergent
contemplative
lectio divina

[Billy Cox]

So you didn't throw the baby out with the bath water...an ideal notion that we can learn much from Jim. Thanks

I'm beginning to think that not every conflict is a matter of babies and bathwater. Not every storm is the perfect storm. Most either-or questions cannot be legitimately answered with a both-and.

[Ryan Scott]

I'll read that one. I disagree that't the hardest part. The hardest part for me is not being able to assume that Nazarene Clergy believe the Bible is true. That hurts deeply. I am prepared to deal with a world that does not believe the Bible is true. I am not prepared to deal with my own leaders (leaders I had chosen to follow) openly stating such.

Granted that the vocal ones who have made such claims are not Nazarene clergy, however I believe in something I will call "representative opinion". I can't help but wonder if we have "sleepers" amongst our clergy who hold to these more radical beliefs and would espouse them if they believed they could do so and remain gainfully employed in the CoTN.

Of course you know that no* ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene really believes scripture isn't true - even if they say it that way. Really it's just that we don't know how to talk about truth and our varying definitions (and some like to be provocative, ruining relationships in the process).

I can say without reservation that all scripture is true - but I'm almost positive that my definition of the word truth won't make everyone out there happy.

*I say "no" with the understanding that there might be some fringe elder who has adopted this position, but anyone with a regular audience or position is going to follow this line - anyone who disagrees will likely not have influence or credentials for long.

[Jim Chabot]

Thinking more on this, we really ought to find some kind of common reference point on terms that seem to be lightning rods.

Ones that I know of are:

Of course we can play definition wars all day long, however if the goal is to be Christlike and make Christlike disciples, I'm thinking that we should be more about the mission and less about the terms. Educating folks on what terms actually mean is almost pointless especially when communicating in a dynamic language where the definitions and terms change over time.

Here's what I hear folks saying about these terms.

Missional

People hear "missional" and they think missions, then they hear something else and they start to think that there is a move about to replace missions with something else, then they get mad and insist that people not mess with their term.

I've heard the word "missional" used in a sermon, and it was used specifically to mean missions. I realize that this is a somewhat incorrect or potentially incorrect use of the term. I also realize that the fellow using this term in this way is a GS. Maybe a better term is in order? Then again, do we need to use the term at all? My Pastor preaches often on missional subjects, our folks are missional, reaching out wherever we can. And yet I've not once heard this term in our church.

Missio Dei

Too Catholic. This coming from a DS. Seems easy enough to talk about the mission of the church without using the term.

Postmodern

I hear folks liken postmodern to the fine art of nailing jello to a wall. Postmodern brings visions of folks that are slipperier than an ice cube. Personally I think that it's just another descriptor for the generation gap, doesn't seem to be anything new.

Open Theology

I hear things from liberalism to heresy. I'm not the best one to explain it to people, but the standard answer when I try is "your kidding?"

Emergent

Just plain bad news, conjures up visions of eastern mysticism and occult practices. Remember that it wasn't very long ago that the Roman Catholic Church was referred to by most Nazarene's as the Cult of Rome.

It doesn't help that emergent's aren't amenable to being defined. I think the result is that "emergent" has become a word with almost universally negative connotations.

contemplative

Eastern mysticism, Yoga, Transcendentalism etc. If you talk with folks about finding quest time to be alone with God, there is a positive response. The image of the praying father or mother is common among Nazarenes. Contemplative stuff is viewed as hocus pocus. I'll admit that I've read Foster's book on prayer, and I'll admit to throwing it across the room on a couple of occasions, just plain creepy stuff.

lectio divina

Hey is that latin? Why yes it is. Ok, then it must be bad. Again, the thought of reading scripture while praying that God will make the passages real to us is a common theme for Nazarenes. Used to call it devotional time, I've heard many times that the ideal Nazarene father will awaken an hour or so before everyone else and spend an hour or so quietly reading and praying. Just don't call it lectio divina.

[Dan Henderson]

Jim, I think you did quite well in describing what a CN hears when these terms are uttered. Good job.

[Michael Flowers]

Of course we can play definition wars all day long, however if the goal is to be Christlike and make Christlike disciples, I'm thinking that we should be more about the mission and less about the terms. Educating folks on what terms actually mean is almost pointless especially when communicating in a dynamic language where the definitions and terms change over time.

Here's what I hear folks saying about these terms.



People hear "missional" and they think missions, then they hear something else and they start to think that there is a move about to replace missions with something else, then they get mad and insist that people not mess with their term.

I've heard the word "missional" used in a sermon, and it was used specifically to mean missions. I realize that this is a somewhat incorrect or potentially incorrect use of the term. I also realize that the fellow using this term in this way is a GS. Maybe a better term is in order? Then again, do we need to use the term at all? My Pastor preaches often on missional subjects, our folks are missional, reaching out wherever we can. And yet I've not once heard this term in our church.



Too Catholic. This coming from a DS. Seems easy enough to talk about the mission of the church without using the term.



I hear folks liken postmodern to the fine art of nailing jello to a wall. Postmodern brings visions of folks that are slipperier than an ice cube. Personally I think that it's just another descriptor for the generation gap, doesn't seem to be anything new.



I hear things from liberalism to heresy. I'm not the best one to explain it to people, but the standard answer when I try is "your kidding?"



Just plain bad news, conjures up visions of eastern mysticism and occult practices. Remember that it wasn't very long ago that the Roman Catholic Church was referred to by most Nazarene's as the Cult of Rome.

It doesn't help that emergent's aren't amenable to being defined. I think the result is that "emergent" has become a word with almost universally negative connotations.



Eastern mysticism, Yoga, Transcendentalism etc. If you talk with folks about finding quest time to be alone with God, there is a positive response. The image of the praying father or mother is common among Nazarenes. Contemplative stuff is viewed as hocus pocus. I'll admit that I've read Foster's book on prayer, and I'll admit to throwing it across the room on a couple of occasions, just plain creepy stuff.



Hey is that latin? Why yes it is. Ok, then it must be bad. Again, the thought of reading scripture while praying that God will make the passages real to us is a common theme for Nazarenes. Used to call it devotional time, I've heard many times that the ideal Nazarene father will awaken an hour or so before everyone else and spend an hour or so quietly reading and praying. Just don't call it lectio divina.

If you want to read a good book about the Missio Dei (Mission of God, or God's mission) the faculty of NTS have put forth a great one by that very name: Mission Dei - A Wesleyan Understanding. I read it as an optional text in a class and it was great. It really sets out from a biblical perspective what it means to be a truly missional church.

[Mike Schutz]

Of course we can play definition wars all day long, however if the goal is to be Christlike and make Christlike disciples, I'm thinking that we should be more about the mission and less about the terms. Educating folks on what terms actually mean is almost pointless especially when communicating in a dynamic language where the definitions and terms change over time.

Jim,
I really appreciate how folks are truly working hard on this thread.
But I'm not sure what to do with your statement above. I'm not sure if you are speaking for others, or for yourself. It sounds as if you are suggesting that we are to be held captive to the lowest level of comprehension - which I know you don't mean.
If we take a standard theological term, say "kingdom of God," we immediately recognize that while it's denotative meaning is clear, what we mean when we use the term is nuanced. Are we not to bother helping people understand the various shadings of meaning - and the new horizons that such shadings open up for our imagining of God? This seems to be what Christ was doing when he offered parables indicating that the kingdom was not at all what the people thought it was.

Please understand - I am not looking to change the irenic spirit of this thread. I just want to understand.

[Michael Flowers]

Trying to stay on the informative side of this, not looking for a debate. Long and short is Ash Wednesday, it's a deal breaker pure and simple. Some folks see this as adopting Roman practices and they want no part of it. As far as the rest of it goes, there is a lot of good stuff in there, we used it at our church.

Our church is populated with BN's (Blissful Nazarenes) Would they become CN's? Yes I think that they would. So yes we used Ashes to Fire this year, and I think we used it somewhat along the lines that Roy is contemplating here. We didn't use or push the journals, I have one and my Pastor has one, that way we could coordinate our efforts. His sermon's reflected the messages set forth in the journal and with a few exceptions we kept to the schedule and the progression of the larger message. Some of the music was pretty good, we used the good stuff. Some of it wasn't conducive to congregational singing, and some of it bore no real relation to the message, so we didn't use some of it. We didn't play any of the music, we learned it and sung it together. In short, we fished the baby out of the bathwater and we used what we felt would minister to our people.

We have an added dimension in our church as we are considered a "safe church" by a local treatment center working with folks who have escaped from abusive group religious situations. We have some really damaged folks in our flock, we need to be careful. I'm thinking that for someone who found Catholicism to be wanting, and then to be recruited into a cult and eventually escape. Well, I'm thinking that liturgy and ancient practices is something that will trigger a run to the door, we don't need that.

It's perfectly ok for folks to have issues with things that are perfectly Orthodox, that's why we have denominations isn't it?

Ashes to Fire is definitely something which should be tailored by the pastor to fit the style and need of their individual congregation(s). I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed the good parts that you found in it.

As far as why they are upset about it: if you have the actual program disk for service planning, there is a document of ideas you can use in prayer. This includes options for a prayer walk type setup, different meditating things, and some others. I don't remember exactly what all is in that document as I looked at it a few months ago and instantly decided against using it in order to avoid the controversy that would inevitably arise in my congregation.

I'm not sure I'll use the program again next year, but the devotional books were fantastic (and the daily prayers of John Wesley I found immensely helpful).

[Dale Cozby]

I'm beginning to think that not every conflict is a matter of babies and bathwater. Not every storm is the perfect storm. Most either-or questions cannot be legitimately answered with a both-and.

Being such a conciliatory guy I prefer either" either-and", or "and-or-both" combos myself.

[Ryan Scott]

I appreciate your attempt to speak for a specific group of people, Jim - and certainly a pastor needs to know the people to whom she is sent (otherwise you end up with the tragic example Dan gave earlier about truth). At the same time, people, real people, do understand these "new" terms in different ways.

Missional is missions - it's just a paradigm shift between an us/them relationship to something we all do in our own local contexts.

Postmodernism is a real thing - it's already taken place in philosophy and culture; the Church is always 30 years behind in these things. If you're going to write it off as "nothing new," you're going to write off a whole generation of us (and I'm 30 now - we're not even young people anymore) who don't have any other frame of reference for viewing the world.

Yes, absolutely we have to work with people - help them understand the meaning more than throwing around buzzwords - but we also have to recognize that the buzzwords have real meaning, essential meaning for the continued mission of the Church in the world.

[Dan Henderson]

In keeping with the intent of this thread, allow me to offer a recent monograph (aka today) written by my dad. I have to admit that I like his shorter monographs best (my short attention span I guess). Keep Jim's explaination of emergent in mind as you read otherwise you will shut down at the 1st reference to "emergents." Its an exercise in attempting first to understand and then to be understood (to steal from Covey). I think the message from this monograph is relevant to all on any side of these issues, to me first, then to you:

It Is Always About The Issue and Nothing Else

I am on Eric Barger’s mailing list and get some pretty good stuff from him at least monthly. Something in his latest struck a chord with me that I have often talked about in writing and conversation and thought I would like to say something once more. The part I reference is his quoting another writer:
“I fear that ‘contending for the faith’ has often become the mantra for an ultra narrow, legalistic, and unjust form of ministry assassination by some with computers and mailing lists. Can we agree on the central themes of Scripture and agree to disagree on the peripherals? I guess not, at least in the minds of some.”.
It is not only the emergents who do personal attacks (although that is part of their pattern). Some evangelicals/fundamentalists/holiness folks are no less vile in some of the things they say of emergents in personal ways. It is just as wrong. We must never confuse having to name people in reference to their public statements and going after the person himself or herself. Yes, many emergents do that but we Christians should never stoop to that level. Many emergents are lost and we should keep that in mind, desiring to win them to Christ. Allow me to offer an example that is related, but not identical, to my point.
Several years ago “Lower Broadway” in Nashville had become run down and was filled with drunks, whores, and addicts. A church group decided to go there and share the gospel on the sidewalks. News cameras “happened along” and what I am about to say made the evening news.
There was an encounter between one of the church representatives and a man of the streets. The man of the streets was making the usual remarks when faced with the claims of the gospel. He was argumentative. Unfortunately, the church guy also became belligerent and was condemning the street man’s lifestyle with that old “Bible-thumping” approach instead of sharing Christ with him. Guess who won that debate! Of course, the devil won!
I am still haunted with the memory of when I was a young man who had won a debate with a baptismal regeneration advocate to the point he walked away in abject silence. When I told it to a wise friend, his only response was: “John, you won the argument. Did you win the soul?”
May God help us to keenly remember that our mission is not how many people we defeat, but how faithfully we represent the truth of the Scriptures! The faces and names will change among them. So it will among us as well. You and I are expendable. We will not be long-missed much beyond our funerals. The influence we leave behind is all that matters.
I watched an interview with William Murray, the son of Madelyn Murray O’Hare. Mrs. O’Hare was singularly responsible for removing prayer and the Bible from public classrooms, using William as her catalyst. William later became an ardent born-again Christian and his mother was eventually murdered by one of her own atheist organization’s members. There is little doubt, if any, that she is in Hell but the effects of her evil influences continue with us today.
We will never know how far-reaching the effects of the simplest things we do and say are. The only string attached to an arrow is the one that thrusts it into the air. Recall James when he wrote:
“And if we put bits into the mouths of horses to get them to obey us, then we guide their entire bodies. Look at ships too: Though they are so large and driven by harsh winds, they are steered by a tiny rudder wherever the pilot’s inclination directs. So too the tongue is a small part of the body, yet it has great pretensions. Think how small a flame sets a huge forest ablaze. And the tongue is a fire! The tongue represents the world of wrongdoing among the parts of our bodies. It pollutes the entire body and sets fire to the course of human existence – and is set on fire by hell. For every kind of animal, bird, reptile, and sea creature is subdued and has been subdued by humankind. But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people made in God’s image. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. These things should not be so, my brothers and sisters. A spring does not pour out fresh water and bitter water from the same opening, does it? Can a fig tree produce olives, my brothers and sisters, or a vine produce figs? Neither can a salt water spring produce fresh water” (James 3:3-12, NET).



Dr. Gran'pa
(John Henderson)
[NOTICE: ANYTHING I write over this signature may be copied or shared with others
and is deemed as published material unless otherwise stated herein]

[Ryan Scott]

I liked a lot of what he was saying - right up until he condemned someone to hell. That just doesn't jibe with the rest of the piece.

Also, keeping in mind Jim's definition of "emergent" - where does that idea come from? Eastern mysticism and occult practices? I, myself, have a number of issues with self-proclaimed Emergent folks, but those aren't even on the radar.

At what point do we tell people their perceptions are just out in left field?

(By the way - one simple fix to avoid the "e" word and mean the same thing, just say "up and coming" or "next generation," because that's all it means to most people who use it to describe themselves - especially when using a lower case e).

[Dan Henderson]

I liked a lot of what he was saying - right up until he condemned someone to hell. That just doesn't jibe with the rest of the piece.

Also, keeping in mind Jim's definition of "emergent" - where does that idea come from? Eastern mysticism and occult practices? I, myself, have a number of issues with self-proclaimed Emergent folks, but those aren't even on the radar.

At what point do we tell people their perceptions are just out in left field?

(By the way - one simple fix to avoid the "e" word and mean the same thing, just say "up and coming" or "next generation," because that's all it means to most people who use it to describe themselves - especially when using a lower case e).

I have to apologize up front for baiting you Ryan. I should have anticipated your response. Keep in mind that you are not the target audience for this monograph? The assumptions he has made does not need to be explained to his audience. If he was writing to you as the primary audience, be assured that you would understand every word and there would not be a lot of room for double-meaning or misunderstanding.

He believes hell exists and that the finally impentitant are destined for that location ... being a Nazarene elder and all, I think that is a pretty reasonal belief considering our articles of faith. I've heard MMO speak, granted that I could be wrong but I can't imagine a different outcome either. If anyone condemned her to Hell it was MMO herself and not me or my dad. I think he is assuming her final disination based on what we know of her public life. I think it is a logic jump to say that his assumtion of her outcome is "condemning her to hell". Conversely, James Dobson is conviced that Ted Bundy is in heaven based on his final interview with the serial killer. This is an assumption that most evangelicals cannot support, yet it is James Dobson's view (assumtion) based on what he knows about Ted Bundy. Its no different, its still an assumption.

Dad usually says emergent ideology which = Brian McLaren and Co. Its references are short-hand for the conclusions of his research. However, I had hoped that we would focus on the intended message rather than focus on his terminology. In absence of that, there is a lesson to learn. If you can't do it, don't expect a CN to be able to. It takes two to tango.

You and many others have rejected using alternate terminology when in your own wheel-house, instead insisting that people like me conform to your definitions. Reference your ardent defense of the term Social-Justice. It is really easy to point to others' aparent misunderstandings and ignore your own. I do it all the time and am appaled when I discover it. The purpose of using MMO was to highlight the far reaching effect of our words and deeds and to serve as a warning to us. Yet you missed that because you shut down because you perceived that he had condemned somebody to Hell.

[Steven Martinez]

Let us also remember that many in the CN crowd do not agree with the Manual (infant baptism, women as senior pastors, Article IV, etc) as well as the works of William Greathouse and H. Ray Dunning. Is it reasonable to conclude that many who proclaim themselves CN have problems with what Nazarenes believe and therefore should seriously ask themselves, "are we truly Nazarenes to begin with in our belief?" I know this is a difficult proposition and I wish to extend apologies for those who were mislead over the years on what Nazarenes really believe but where is the integrity of believers who remain as members when they cannot in any way agree with the ritual and vow of membership in the Church of The Nazarene.

[Ryan Scott]

Yeah, well I don't think anyone ends up in heaven or hell until after the resurrection - that seems pretty clear to me in scripture. I also know it's not for us to decide, so I try no to do it.

I also have a hard time condemning someone to hell for doing something good. I don't want prayer or scripture taught in a public school - I think it's a detriment to our society and our faith for it to be there. She may have had less than pure motives, but I think more good has come of her efforts than bad, much more.

I'm willing to accept that people have different understandings of words and terms - but there still needs to be some context or connection to history. We can't define terms solely based on our own experience - at least we can't settle for defining them that way.

My understanding of what it meant to be a christian at 14 was basically people who went to church on Sunday, hated Bill Clinton, picketed abortion clinics and stayed away from those evil catholics and presbyterians who didn't really love God.

If that's how I always defined "christian" (as many still do), I'd be wrong, plain and simple - whether I wanted to admit it or not. I think there is a lot of room in our understanding of what words mean - salvation, christian, truth, missional - but that doesn't mean any and all perspectives are equally valid. They just aren't.

We have to embody love; I believe that was the overall message of your dad's article above - that if people don't see Jesus in us and our actions, then our beliefs don't mean much. (Ironically, that's generally the same message most Emergenty authors and speakers have as well). I think part of that is generosity in our dealings with others. I try to take everyone who posts here at their word; I try to expect the best from them, I deny any possible ulterior motives - I assume those who claim Christ really and sincerely are searching for Truth. Do I screw up from time to time? Yes.

I just think the entrenched understanding of such words and terms and ideas as we've listed above, the idea that anyone who uses them is a heretic or a false prophet or out to lead good Christians astray is the least charitable, most un-Christlike thing we can do.

Even if you've been turned off by every person who's claimed to be emergent or used the word missional, the Christian attitude of grace the next time you hear it is to ask, "what exactly do you mean by that word?"

I think ultimately the divide comes down to deeper issues - our views on scripture and inspiration. Those are real divides that perhaps only the Holy Spirit can bridge - but we don't need to be setting up outposts of disagreement where they don't belong. We can still seek to understand the various ways we approach God, the world, and our understanding of humanity's place in it without assuming the worst of each other.

[Greg Farra]

Let us also remember that many in the CN crowd do not agree with the Manual (infant baptism, women as senior pastors, Article IV, etc) as well as the works of William Greathouse and H. Ray Dunning. Is it reasonable to conclude that many who proclaim themselves CN have problems with what Nazarenes believe and therefore should seriously ask themselves, "are we truly Nazarenes to begin with in our belief?" I know this is a difficult proposition and I wish to extend apologies for those who were mislead over the years on what Nazarenes really believe but where is the integrity of believers who remain as members when they cannot in any way agree with the ritual and vow of membership in the Church of The Nazarene.

I saw Manny Silva state on the 'Concerned Christians' Facebook page that a woman should not pastor a church or a female associate pastor should lead a Sunday school class where she has authority over a man. I would think that is in direct conflict with how we have believed as a denomination since the beginning. As far as infant baptism, the original manual has a ritual for baptism but not dedication. So to oppose those would be against our DNA.

[Dan Henderson]

Let us also remember that many in the CN crowd do not agree with the Manual (infant baptism, women as senior pastors, Article IV, etc) as well as the works of William Greathouse and H. Ray Dunning. Is it reasonable to conclude that many who proclaim themselves CN have problems with what Nazarenes believe and therefore should seriously ask themselves, "are we truly Nazarenes to begin with in our belief?" I know this is a difficult proposition and I wish to extend apologies for those who were mislead over the years on what Nazarenes really believe but where is the integrity of believers who remain as members when they cannot in any way agree with the ritual and vow of membership in the Church of The Nazarene.

I'll take you on point-for-point in a different thread, using your language, you misrepresent. However, not here. I am really trying to conform to what I think Roy wants out of this thread.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'll take you on point-for-point in a different thread, using your language, you misrepresent. However, not here. I am really trying to conform to what I think Roy wants out of this thread.

Feel free to start that thread.

[Steven Martinez]

I'll take you on point-for-point in a different thread, using your language, you misrepresent. However, not here. I am really trying to conform to what I think Roy wants out of this thread.

There really is no point. I did not write "all" CNs have trouble with these issues. I know where Manny and Tim stand on these issues for I have had many discussions with them on these topics. No misrepresentation here. I stand by my statement. No need to put words into my mouth.

[Dan Henderson]

There really is no point. I did not write "all" CNs have trouble with these issues. I know where Manny and Tim stand on these issues for I have had many discussions with them on these topics. No misrepresentation here. I stand by my statement. No need to put words into my mouth.

That is a true statement no debate is necessary. Besides, where on this board would that even be possible without you arbitrarily closing the thread or having to deal with Benji's vitrol? If you or Benji cared to you could write my position yourself on everything you listed, including my view of Dunning and Greathouse. That is, if you have ever bothered to read my posts with the intent to understand. I have revealed enough personal info in my posts that you could figure it out without a debate, including why I say you misrepresent. One of the answers is in my profile.

[Roy Richardson]

I'll take you on point-for-point in a different thread, using your language, you misrepresent. However, not here. I am really trying to conform to what I think Roy wants out of this thread.

Thanks for doing that Dan. I've pretty much learned what I can, and the thread seems to be making a turn on its own. I appreciate your consideration.

[Billy Cox]

(By the way - one simple fix to avoid the "e" word and mean the same thing, just say "up and coming" or "next generation," because that's all it means to most people who use it to describe themselves - especially when using a lower case e).

Yes, To say that one is opposed to the emerging church is kind of like saying that they are opposed to grandchildren.

[Benjamin Burch]

That is a true statement no debate is necessary. Besides, where on this board would that even be possible without you arbitrarily closing the thread or having to deal with Benji's vitrol? If you or Benji cared to you could write my position yourself on everything you listed, including my view of Dunning and Greathouse. That is, if you have ever bothered to read my posts with the intent to understand. I have revealed enough personal info in my posts that you could figure it out without a debate, including why I say you misrepresent. One of the answers is in my profile.

1) Please do not refer to me as Benji. I've never allowed anyone in my life to call me that.

2) There was no vitriol in my post. Simply an invitation to do exactly what you'd offered to do.

[Steven Martinez]

That is a true statement no debate is necessary. Besides, where on this board would that even be possible without you arbitrarily closing the thread or having to deal with Benji's vitrol? If you or Benji cared to you could write my position yourself on everything you listed, including my view of Dunning and Greathouse. That is, if you have ever bothered to read my posts with the intent to understand. I have revealed enough personal info in my posts that you could figure it out without a debate, including why I say you misrepresent. One of the answers is in my profile.

I am sorry Dan, when exactly did you become the leader of the CNs? When did I ever address your statements? I never mentioned you in my original post. Why do you feel compelled to respond to my post? Why do you assume that I do not listen or read what you have wrote? I have read every one of the post in this thread. I have read every post on the CN Facebook page. I have read every post on Manny and Tim's blogs. I know where your father disagrees with Greathouse and Dunning, I respect his opinion, though I disagree with it. However, the "leaders" have tossed the word heresy in regards to these men and therefore my opinion stands as an educated opinion. So unless you can speak for Manny, Tim, Liberty Bell, Dave, Lynne or Bev, than my statement that "many of the CN crowd..." is an accurate statement. So while you and your father might not be represented in my statement does not me that I intentionally went to misrepresent. If the people I mentioned above tell me that they agree with everything I stated than I will gladly take back my statement and apologize.

[Billy Cox]

I saw Manny Silva state on the 'Concerned Christians' Facebook page that a woman should not pastor a church or a female associate pastor should lead a Sunday school class where she has authority over a man. I would think that is in direct conflict with how we have believed as a denomination since the beginning. As far as infant baptism, the original manual has a ritual for baptism but not dedication. So to oppose those would be against our DNA.

What we have believed since the beginning is not as monolithic as this statement would indicate. It is more accurate to say that the CotN has not wanted to break fellowship over issues like infant baptism or ordination of women, and so we have allowed the less tolerant folks to practice their intolerance so long as they can couch it in conviction and religious language.

Belief and practice are closely intertwined, so our history and polity might say one thing, but what is practiced today is far more indicative of the people we are and who we are becoming.

[Mike Schutz]

Thanks for doing that Dan. I've pretty much learned what I can, and the thread seems to be making a turn on its own. I appreciate your consideration.

As Roy has stated that he has had his question answered, and since this thread sadly has gone "the way of all flesh," it is closed.