Alterations to the Covenant of Christian Conduct

[Roy Richardson]

Ok the question of the poll is would your behaviour change if the CCC was altered. I answered no. I didn't drink, do illegal drugs, smoke, dance or gamble prior to joining the CotN and that hasn't changed since I left.

I am not trying to stir up trouble in a thread that has way spiraled beyond what I thought it would be. But would this meet the definition of unfermented wine suitable for communion?

http://www.arielvineyards.com/wines/merlot.html

[Benjamin Burch]

I am not trying to stir up trouble in a thread that has way spiraled beyond what I thought it would be. But would this meet the definition of unfermented wine suitable for communion?

http://www.arielvineyards.com/wines/merlot.html

I doubt it. Considering .5% is still not completely insignificant. That is, it is still enough alcohol that if a woman of about 100 lbs were to drink the whole bottle, it would be enough to make her slightly intoxicated.

I would think that teatotaling assumes 0.00% alcohol, not "less than .5%".

But this is just my opinion.

Edited To Add:

No, I can more confidently say I do not think it would qualify, due to the production notes.

ARIEL 2010 Merlot is a dealcoholized wine made in a sustainable winery in Paso Robles, California. The fruit was crushed, fermented and aged in stainless steel using traditional red wine methods, and after fermentation, the wine was separated from the skins and moved to small French Oak barrels for aging. Just prior to bottling, the alcohol is gently removed by cold filtration, leaving less than 0.5% alcohol by volume.

This would seem to be a clear violation of the requirement of "unfermented" grape juice/wine.

[Roy Richardson]

I doubt it. Considering .5% is still not completely insignificant. That is, it is still enough alcohol that if a woman of about 100 lbs were to drink the whole bottle, it would be enough to make her slightly intoxicated.

I would think that teatotaling assumes 0.00% alcohol, not "less than .5%".

But this is just my opinion.

That was my thought too. It's probably about the same as if you inadvertently swallowed your mouthwash, given the size of communion cups

[Benjamin Burch]

That was my thought too. It's probably about the same as if you inadvertently swallowed your mouthwash, given the size of communion cups

Agreed. Insignificant. However, my read the edited addition to my post. I think that makes it a little more clear.

[Roy Richardson]

I doubt it. Considering .5% is still not completely insignificant. That is, it is still enough alcohol that if a woman of about 100 lbs were to drink the whole bottle, it would be enough to make her slightly intoxicated.

I would think that teatotaling assumes 0.00% alcohol, not "less than .5%".

But this is just my opinion.

Edited To Add:

No, I can more confidently say I do not think it would qualify, due to the production notes.



This would seem to be a clear violation of the requirement of "unfermented" grape juice/wine.

So let it be written, so let it be scratched

[Jim Chabot]

So let it be written, so let it be scratched

[Hans Deventer]

The takeaway for me from this thread is that while we pay lip service to sanctification in the CotN, in truth, we do not expect growth, and so, to protect us from slippery slope situations (i.e., if you and your friends drink, you will be drunk sluts, and you've already condemned yourselves) we must have the CCC and hold to it.

We do not have faith in the power of God. We have fear in our lack of being a new creation, and our theology demands that we live as if we had no hope, except for after death.

If that's holiness, then Hitler was a Christ-analogue.

True. If we did believe in God´s sanctifying power, we could have guidelines to help people on their walk. But we don´t and hence, we want laws. That are such that Jesus Himself would not qualify to become a Nazarene.

[Jim Chabot]

The takeaway for me from this thread is that while we pay lip service to sanctification in the CotN, in truth, we do not expect growth, and so, to protect us from slippery slope situations (i.e., if you and your friends drink, you will be drunk sluts, and you've already condemned yourselves) we must have the CCC and hold to it.

We do not have faith in the power of God. We have fear in our lack of being a new creation, and our theology demands that we live as if we had no hope, except for after death.

If that's holiness, then Hitler was a Christ-analogue.

I'm sorry if that is what you take away from this. You couldn't be further from the truth, we pay far more than lip service to sanctification, we live it. We are a like minded people seeking to encourage one another in a deeper walk with our Lord, this is what makes us Nazarenes, nothing else is really essential. We unite under the banner of holiness, as we define it, we have as Steve Martinez has pointed out a call similar to that of a Nazarite, this is what brings us together.

We find fulfillment in living this way, and we seek to tell others, we feel that we have found a better way. We are happy and satisfied with the path the Lord has placed before us, why would we not wish for others to follow and find the same blessing. It's not about giving up things and it's not about rules, rather it's about drawing closer, we feel that one will find that drawing closer is easier when one is with a like minded group of people, this forms a conducive atmosphere. I know that it has worked for me, while I am eager to seek out the lost I'm not eager for the fellowship of worldly Christians, I'm not eager for the fellowship of those who would ask, "what else do I need to give up," rather I seek the company of those who would ask "how may I draw closer."

It's all good, if you see it the way we do. I'll admit that it isn't for everyone. Then again, there is no denomination or fellowship that can boast of universal appeal.

[Wes Smith]

Have been off NazNet for a day. Had to drive up to San Jose, Costa Rica, for a residency-related appointment at the US Embassy this morning. Had dinner at a fabulous steakhouse last evening. Had their sampler platter...sausage, chicken, pork, beef, pork ribs. Outstanding.

In retrospect I wish I had made my earlier post without the use of names. So, my apology to both Ben and Jim.

My thought was that we are friends more or less at each others' throats, enjoying the fray. Feel free to hit me with low blows. I'll do the same. Such conversations are a mere fraction of our friendship.

I'm seriously not offended that some think of me as neanderthal in my thoughts about alcohol usage. That's just part of the competition.

Feel free to believe that moderation will not result in all of the problems I mentioned above. I had no awareness that there was such a preponderance of post millenialism on NazNet. My disagreement not only has to do with what is going on in the Church of the Nazarene, it has to do with what is going on in the world. Lowering the "bar" is not serving us well either with our kids, or with a world that is leaning less and less in the direction of truth, justice and beauty!

It is interesting to me that, for many people, it works to culturalize Jesus regarding poverty and social justice issues, etc., but does not work to culturalize Jesus regarding alcohol usage. The fact that he moderately participated in a culture where alternatives simply did not exist must surely move laterally into a culture where alternatives to alcohol abound! Would, with all the related issues and alternatives, Jesus turn water into wine at a modern wedding. My conviction he would not and he would anticipate that we would be wise enough to make such salt/yeast/light insights and decisions in a different day and time.

I will drink you all under the table with my "purple smurple" and will not be deprived in any way. I will encourage young people to get hooked on any of the myriad of enjoyable drinks that will not promote lowered inhibitions or other craziness, including other addictions.

My "pulpit" is that Jesus came to bring life, abundant life, and nothing I can do or add beyond Him makes life better! Why in the world would I want to put a dent in His abundant life by adding any aberrent chemical to my body? Makes no sense.

Friend,

Wes

[Benjamin Burch]

Have been off NazNet for a day. Had to drive up to San Jose, Costa Rica, for a residency-related appointment at the US Embassy this morning. Had dinner at a fabulous steakhouse last evening. Had their sampler platter...sausage, chicken, pork, beef, pork ribs. Outstanding.

In retrospect I wish I had made my earlier post without the use of names. So, my apology to both Ben and Jim.

My thought was that we are friends more or less at each others' throats, enjoying the fray. Feel free to hit me with low blows. I'll do the same. Such conversations are a mere fraction of our friendship.

I completely disagree. Friendship assumes that the other is willing to know you well enough to make accurate statements about you, and not characterize you as a stereotype or a generality. To do the latter is the exact opposite of what someone who considers the other a "friend" would do.

I'm seriously not offended that some think of me as neanderthal in my thoughts about alcohol usage. That's just part of the competition.

Feel free to believe that moderation will not result in all of the problems I mentioned above. I had no awareness that there was such a prepoderance of post millenialism on NazNet. My disagreement not only has to do with what is going on in the Church of the Nazarene, it has to do with what is going on in the world. Lowering the "bar" is not serving us well either with our kids, or with a world that is leaning less and less in the direction of truth, justice and beauty!

It is interesting to me that, for many people, it works to culturalize Jesus regarding poverty and social justice issues, etc., but does not work to culturalize Jesus regarding alcohol usage. The fact that he moderately participated in a culture where alternatives simply did not exist must surely move laterally into a culture where alternatives to alcohol abound! Would, with all the related issues and alternatives, Jesus turn water into wine at a modern wedding. My conviction he would not and he would anticipate that we would be wise enough to make such salt/yeast/light insights and decisions in a different day and time.

Yet, there are not actually alternatives to Beer or Wine. Not from a culinary perspective, at least. Certainly dealcoholizing wine is an attempt, but I've not seen the culinary reviews match up. On the beer front, there is no serious attempt to make real beer without alcohol, as it just doesn't seem possible. The only thing being made at this point in time is Pilsner Lagers. That, quite simply, is barely beer.

Seriously, what would you consider these "alternatives"? If you took beer and wine out of my diet you'd leave me with water.

It isn't that I think you're a neanderthal, it is that you're entirely inaccurate and you have no real interest in discussing the reality of the Holy Spirit in our lives, which I find odd. For you, these problems come with alcohol, regardless. The Holy Spirit has no power over alcohol within your rhetoric. Excuse me for being a good holiness person here, but I completely reject that line of thought.

I will drink you all under the table with my "purple smurple" and will not be deprived in any way. I will encourage young people to get hooked on any of the myriad of enjoyable drinks that will not promote lowered inhibitions or other craziness, including other addictions.

So Type II Diabetes is okay? That is essentially what you're saying. Also, what of people who do not find these other drinks "enjoyable" at all? I haven't drank soda in about 10 years. It isn't even remotely enjoyable. It is way too sweet and the carbonation is harsh. Juices, likewise, are often too sweet, and simply not enjoyable in anything more than a few ounces at a time.

My "pulpit" is that Jesus came to bring life, abundant life, and nothing I can do or add beyond Him makes life better! Why in the world would I want to put a dent in His abundant life by adding any aberrent chemical to my body? Makes no sense.

You just completely contradicted yourself on the "culturalizing" aspect. You see, if it is about culturalization, fine. But that's now what you're saying. You're saying that alcohol would put a "dent" in our reception of Jesus' abundant life.... but it didn't seem to put a dent in Jesus' abundant life. So this makes absolutely no sense.

Again, it is one thing to be against alcohol use among Nazarenes for a variety of reasons, such as what Stew has said so far. Your position, on the other hand, is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and absurdity.

[Hans Deventer]

Why in the world would I want to put a dent in His abundant life by adding any aberrent chemical to my body? Makes no sense.

As pretty much any Dutch Nazarene thinks, the whole alcohol issue is an American obsession. So we read the Manual as such. It was logical when the Church was deeply involved in fighting the abuses, as Dennis Scott has often explained. Since it no longer does, the current rule makes no sense whatsoever. So all we maintain is that we don't use alcohol in church related activities. For all the rest, by definition the Scriptures go beyond the Manual and we "drink our wine with a joyful heart" (Ecc 9:7) and gladly await the "banquet of aged wine" that "Lord Almighty will prepare [...] for all peoples". (Isaiah 25)

[Pete Vecchi]

As pretty much any Dutch Nazarene thinks, the whole alcohol issue is an American obsession. So we read the Manual as such. It was logical when the Church was deeply involved in fighting the abuses, as Dennis Scott has often explained. Since it no longer does, the current rule makes no sense whatsoever. So all we maintain is that we don't use alcohol in church related activities. For all the rest, by definition the Scriptures go beyond the Manual and we "drink our wine with a joyful heart" (Ecc 9:7) and gladly await the "banquet of aged wine" that "Lord Almighty will prepare [...] for all peoples". (Isaiah 25)

Thanks for that non-U.S. perspective, Hans. I've come to realize over the past several years that many (if not most) of our understandings about various issues (not necessarily only alcohol, dancing, CCC, etc...) are formed based on the lens through which we as individuals have viewed and experienced life. I suspect that had many of us from the U.S. grown up in Europe, our views on many, many things would be different just because of our life experiences.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks for that non-U.S. perspective, Hans. I've come to realize over the past several years that many (if not most) of our understandings about various issues (not necessarily only alcohol, dancing, CCC, etc...) are formed based on the lens through which we as individuals have viewed and experienced life. I suspect that had many of us from the U.S. grown up in Europe, our views on many, many things would be different just because of our life experiences.

Pete, of course I've been generalizing. Also, there is a growing awareness here of alcohol abuse, especially among teens. Some purposely drink till the reach a coma, as crazy as it sounds. And it is also understood that alcohol is bad for teens anyway, since it negatively affects the development of the brain. I don't think any Dutch Nazarene would object to a rule based on these and similar facts. But it seems impossible to discuss the Manual article based on these facts and develop a more nuanced view. That is regrettable and hence, people seek their own way and tend to take the Manual less seriously, which is even more regrettable. We're in a situation right now where people say that if we ignore one point, why not ignore the rest as well? Since we don't agree with view on alcohol, why should we agree with the view on homosexuality? And that's a bad situation.

[Bob Hunter]

True. If we did believe in God´s sanctifying power, we could have guidelines to help people on their walk. But we don´t and hence, we want laws. That are such that Jesus Himself would not qualify to become a Nazarene.

This issue was raised earlier (when I thought this thread was winding down). And it seems to be resurfacing yet again. I see a common thread.

Post #389-Bob Hunter

"So in light of Wes & Todd's input, I am wonder the extent to which we believe in entire sanctification and whether or not we really trust the work of the Holy Spirit.

Could it be we have an unhealthy reliance on the CCC?
Is it overly focused on particular behaviors?
Does it attempt to offer a quick fix or a ready made solution so we can proudly report that "X" number of persons in our Church were sanctified?
Given our propensity toward "crisis" moments, does the CCC feed a "get results fast" attitude?
And finally, does it impact our Church behaviorally in such a way that cannot be sustained?

Any thoughts on these questions would be appreciated."

[Pete Vecchi]

Which is why I maintain that we should strive to have the CCC be consistent. I believe that one of the ways that should be considered is to simplify it down to an agreed general statement along the lines of, "We believe that Christians should live in such a way that their entire lives glorify God through Jesus Christ, as empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit who convicts, counsels, and guides believers into all truth."

Or something along those lines.

[Roy Richardson]

Which is why I maintain that we should strive to have the CCC be consistent. I believe that one of the ways that should be considered is to simplify it down to an agreed general statement along the lines of, "We believe that Christians should live in such a way that their entire lives glorify God through Jesus Christ, as empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit who convicts, counsels, and guides believers into all truth."

Or something along those lines.

I agree Pete, but the cynic in me realizes that given our human nature, we will still want to put rules in place where grace should rule. It may actually make this more divisive. I have no idea what the answer should be.

[David Parker]

So Type II Diabetes is okay?

This is important. Speaking of cultural changes and applying a code of conduct to current problems, the advent of high sugar drinks and juices as a staple of youth has created an epidemic of Type II Diabetes. It is every bit as debilitating to one's health as excessive alcohol.

Why not dictates against excessive sugar consumption too?

And then of course there is the favorite American vice of obesity. Certainly as damaging to one's health as excessive alcohol, perhaps more so.

[Jon Twitchell]

Here are my questions:

Do you know sanctified people who drink alcohol?
Do you know people who keep every jot & tittle of the CCConduct, but are not sanctified?

Please understand that I'm not advocating for alcohol... I don't drink, and don't imagine myself ever drinking.

My concern is that we've replaced the actual goal of holiness with a goal of keeping the "rules."

To answer the original question... I don't think my behavior would change if the CCConduct changed.

[Craig Laughlin]

This issue was raised earlier (when I thought this thread was winding down). And it seems to be resurfacing yet again. I see a common thread.

Post #389-Bob Hunter

"So in light of Wes & Todd's input, I am wonder the extent to which we believe in entire sanctification and whether or not we really trust the work of the Holy Spirit.

Could it be we have an unhealthy reliance on the CCC?
Is it overly focused on particular behaviors?
Does it attempt to offer a quick fix or a ready made solution so we can proudly report that "X" number of persons in our Church were sanctified?
Given our propensity toward "crisis" moments, does the CCC feed a "get results fast" attitude?
And finally, does it impact our Church behaviorally in such a way that cannot be sustained?

Any thoughts on these questions would be appreciated."

Yep, when it comes to alcohol we trust neither the Holy Spirit nor the revelation of Scripture. (Ironic that those who are so insistent on a particular way of interpreting scripture, accusing others of not taking it seriously completely abandon it on this point)

I think this comes down to a paternalistic view of the church. In fact several of illustrations that have been used rely on a parent child relationship for validity. I actually think there is some validity to that perspective but like a lot of things we Nazarenes have a tendency to take it to far. Rules are indeed good for children but to develop healthy adults one must move past rules and teach young people how to make decisions on their own. Then the hard part is trusting them to make those decisions. We seem unable to do that.

[Wes Smith]

This is important. Speaking of cultural changes and applying a code of conduct to current problems, the advent of high sugar drinks and juices as a staple of youth has created an epidemic of Type II Diabetes. It is every bit as debilitating to one's health as excessive alcohol.

Why not dictates against excessive sugar consumption too?

And then of course there is the favorite American vice of obesity. Certainly as damaging to one's health as excessive alcohol, perhaps more so.

My reference to "purple smurple" is as an alternative to alcohol. My point is that we do not need to consume recreational alcohol. There are MANY alternatives but of course not alcohol alternatives to alcohol! Duh.

My "purple smurple" is a sugarless drink from Walmart and Crystal Lite. I'm not the expert on type II diabetes, but I don't think this drink would have any impact on diabetics.

Friend,

Wes

[Dan Henderson]

This is a self sovereign debate...nothing more...the CCC is only objectionable because of carnal desires. One who would join an organization with the intent of ignoring rules the disagree with will no more be led by the Holy Spirit than the will human authority.

Yes, I went there ...

[Paul DeBaufer]

This is a self sovereign debate...nothing more...the CCC is only objectionable because of carnal desires. One who would join an organization with the intent of ignoring rules the disagree with will no more be led by the Holy Spirit than the will human authority.

Yes, I went there ...

I do not disagree with living out the CCC, I do (I joined the CotN even with everyone telling me that they were a bunch of legalists (a perception many in the Christian community still have) because I don't smoke, drink, or gamble). However, I disagree with fences that are unnecessary. As I have repeatedly said I like the idea of the CCC being guidelines, definitions, warnings-a descriptor of Holiness.

[Benjamin Burch]

This is a self sovereign debate...nothing more...the CCC is only objectionable because of carnal desires. One who would join an organization with the intent of ignoring rules the disagree with will no more be led by the Holy Spirit than the will human authority.

Yes, I went there ...

And yet I don't see anyone having this conversation, here. It might have been the conversation quite a few pages back when you were conversing with Bob, but I haven't seen anyone talk about joining and intending to break the rules in quite some time. The discussion seems very much more to be about whether the CCC is good, or whether it is problematic in its own right. That conversation has nothing to do with carnal desires. Nothing at all.

[Hans Deventer]

This is a self sovereign debate...nothing more...the CCC is only objectionable because of carnal desires. One who would join an organization with the intent of ignoring rules the disagree with will no more be led by the Holy Spirit than the will human authority..

The crucial error here of course is to equate the Manual with the leading of the Holy Spirit. After 4 General Assemblies, I neither believe that the voice of the GA necessarily equals the Holy Spirit, nor the opinion of any one individual. So parts of the CCC are objectionable for the simple reason that they should be from a Biblical point of view, for they reflect American culture more than anything else. A good, healthy non-American Nazarene should overlook the Americanisms and listen to the Holy Spirit instead.

[Benjamin Burch]

My reference to "purple smurple" is as an alternative to alcohol. My point is that we do not need to consume recreational alcohol.

What about alcohol for culinary purposes? That is, enjoying a glass with dinner? That's not recreational...

There are MANY alternatives but of course not alcohol alternatives to alcohol! Duh.

David didn't say he was looking for alcohol alternatives to alcohol. Instead, David and I both seem to be pointing - as I have many times in this conversation - to our concern with alcohol and our lack of concern with other damaging health issues --- most notably sugar, and the fact that it leads to obesity and Type II Diabetes.

And yet, I'll say again, that attempts by good Nazarenes to get such measures added to the CCC have been denied. So, the question becomes, what are we really concerned with? If it is the destructive possibilities of alcohol, then we should also have something to say about sugar and gluttony. If we don't want to because we don't want to add "rules", then maybe we should reconsider the one about alcohol. If we don't want to because we just like pointing our fingers at others and not ourselves (which is my guess), then there are bigger problems at hand than potential alcohol abuse.

My "purple smurple" is a sugarless drink from Walmart and Crystal Lite. I'm not the expert on type II diabetes, but I don't think this drink would have any impact on diabetics.

Although, again, as noted above, this isn't actually an alternative, as it doesn't provide anywhere near the same natural benefits, nor anywhere near the same flavor profile as wine. It might be an alternative beverage choice, but it is no more an alternative to wine than iced tea.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My reference to "purple smurple" is as an alternative to alcohol. My point is that we do not need to consume recreational alcohol. There are MANY alternatives but of course not alcohol alternatives to alcohol! Duh.

My "purple smurple" is a sugarless drink from Walmart and Crystal Lite. I'm not the expert on type II diabetes, but I don't think this drink would have any impact on diabetics.

Friend,

Wes

I am just wondering, because I do not like sugar free anything (except coffee and iced-tea), what is being used for sweeteners these days for sugar-free beverages? Aspartame has its own set of concerns, it is not safe for phenylketonuriacs or even those heterozygous for phenylketonuria.

[Wes Smith]

I completely disagree. Friendship assumes that the other is willing to know you well enough to make accurate statements about you, and not characterize you as a stereotype or a generality. To do the latter is the exact opposite of what someone who considers the other a "friend" would do.



Yet, there are not actually alternatives to Beer or Wine. Not from a culinary perspective, at least. Certainly dealcoholizing wine is an attempt, but I've not seen the culinary reviews match up. On the beer front, there is no serious attempt to make real beer without alcohol, as it just doesn't seem possible. The only thing being made at this point in time is Pilsner Lagers. That, quite simply, is barely beer.

Seriously, what would you consider these "alternatives"? If you took beer and wine out of my diet you'd leave me with water.

It isn't that I think you're a neanderthal, it is that you're entirely inaccurate and you have no real interest in discussing the reality of the Holy Spirit in our lives, which I find odd. For you, these problems come with alcohol, regardless. The Holy Spirit has no power over alcohol within your rhetoric. Excuse me for being a good holiness person here, but I completely reject that line of thought.



So Type II Diabetes is okay? That is essentially what you're saying. Also, what of people who do not find these other drinks "enjoyable" at all? I haven't drank soda in about 10 years. It isn't even remotely enjoyable. It is way too sweet and the carbonation is harsh. Juices, likewise, are often too sweet, and simply not enjoyable in anything more than a few ounces at a time.



You just completely contradicted yourself on the "culturalizing" aspect. You see, if it is about culturalization, fine. But that's now what you're saying. You're saying that alcohol would put a "dent" in our reception of Jesus' abundant life.... but it didn't seem to put a dent in Jesus' abundant life. So this makes absolutely no sense.

Again, it is one thing to be against alcohol use among Nazarenes for a variety of reasons, such as what Stew has said so far. Your position, on the other hand, is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and absurdity.

Again, sorry, Ben. I have friendships where direct charges are leveled followed by intensive discussion. I've been called a "communist" and "pervert" and "liberal" without the friendship being diminished in the least. For me, it is part of the fun of life.

I've been trying to say things that I've hoped would bring some balance to this conversation. Some people seem to be totally for alcohol consumption. Some people are totally opposed. I'm saying: oppose & allow. My insight is that this approach is rather unique. Beyond the simple "oppose & allow" mantra, I'm saying, let's have all kinds of dialoge about the subject.

Some of my very best friends in life are moderates with this subject. Some of my other best friends are abstainers with no wiggle room in their belief that all recreational alcohol should be off limits for Christians and Nazarenes (not that they aren't one and the same!).

So, I suppose that I must leave off my sarcasm and cynicism and so without nearly as much description as I would like to give...there ARE plenty of alternatives to recreational alcohol. I'm living proof of that. My favorites: Squirt, any kind of grape drinks, Ginger Ale, Root Beer, to name just a very few. You are right there are no alcohol alternatives, but plenty of non alcohol alternatives. Leaving you with water? Is it okay to say, "Well, cry me a river."? Many people in the world would be happy to have the $ many people spend on alcohol and would probably laugh up their sleaves about deprivation in this regard.

See my response to David re. my "purple smurple" comment.

My culturalization remark about the abundant life offer from Jesus makes perfect sense to me. No contradiction. His abundant life is not "salvation and booze." Come on. His abundant life is Him, Christ alone. If it is Jesus plus alcohol or anything, then we certainly need some more discussion about the sanctification issue that Bob and others have raised.

My position IS NOT based on inaccuracies, contradictions, and absurdity. And, I find it HIGHLY offensive that you would say such a thing. Just kidding. We are still in the minor leagues of offensiveness here. Ha! Actually, I think you will do better in this whole discussion when you begin to vet out the information raised by Hans re. alcohol abuse among the teen population in Denmark among other very serious issues. Seems that "follow me as I follow Christ" is often challenging and sacrificial.

There is much more to say. As a pastor and friend I've been in lots of intervention situations. SO much heartache. Jean Lazerus is in heaven now, but one Christmas I missed her at church and made a trip to her apartment that afternoon. Some dopey buddy answered the door. Jean had passed out from too much of this wondrous stuff. As a young pastor I scooped her up, put her in my car and checked her into a facility for drying out and rehab. Such a beautiful lady. Such a wasted life. And, my passion for this issue centers around such stories. Recreation? Devastation?

Friend,

Wes

[Hans Deventer]

Perhaps, as we seem to come to the umpteenth instalment of the discussion on alcohol, it would be proper to describe what I would like the statement to say. Understanding that in my view, it would be part of an article on food and health in general, stating that we should both avoid damaging food and use proper food and exercise to maintain in good shape the body God gave us. But specifically on alcohol, I would write something along the following lines:

Understanding that God gave us the fruit of the vine for our enjoyment, we also recognize that alcohol, like many things we eat and drink, can be abused and actually damage our body, our life and our relations. Hence here, as in all of our lives, we need to teach our children and in fact, all members of the CotN, proper discernment.
This is especially necessary considering the dangers alcohol abuse includes like brain damage for youth, addiction and all that comes with it like domestic violence, lowering the ability to drive etc.
We also recognize that in working with alcohol addicts or in similar situations, the Christian way is to abstain.
In general, Romans 14 is a very good guideline to practice and we strongly encourage our members to follow the Apostle's advice.

[Wes Smith]

I am just wondering, because I do not like sugar free anything (except coffee and iced-tea), what is being used for sweeteners these days for sugar-free beverages? Aspartame has its own set of concerns, it is not safe for phenylketonuriacs or even those heterozygous for phenylketonuria.

Paul,

Perhaps we can start another thread on this subject: Drink alternatives for those heterozygous for phenylketonuria! And, am thinking that we should have a piece of the CCC for this! Ha!

Friend,

Wes

[Pete Vecchi]

I agree Pete, but the cynic in me realizes that given our human nature, we will still want to put rules in place where grace should rule. It may actually make this more divisive. I have no idea what the answer should be.

So basically (if I am understanding the comment correctly, and if I'm not, I ask that you please correct my understanding), are we saying that even though grace should rule, because of our human natures (which, IMHO, include our desires to see that other people--especially professing Christians who are members of the Church of the Nazarene--act in ways with which we are comfortable), we feel better codifying the things we believe the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit are telling people than we do if we were to use sound Scriptural teachings from our pulpits and letting the Holy Spirit convict, counsel, and guide into all truth through those means?

[Bob Hunter]

This is a self sovereign debate...nothing more...the CCC is only objectionable because of carnal desires. One who would join an organization with the intent of ignoring rules the disagree with will no more be led by the Holy Spirit than the will human authority.

Yes, I went there ...

You went there, but I don't think you fully addressed the issue. We've already established that most people will not change their behavior with or without the CCC, so your point is? Moreover, I think a lot of people came into membership in the Church of the Nazarene where the CCC was not fully explained to them, they are ignorant of our position and for them it is a total non-issue anyway. I fully observed the CCC when serving as a pastor, but I did not make a big issue of it when taking in members (go ahead shame me). I couldn't because I had board members that consumed alcohol. It was going to create a nightmare of enforcement that I simply did not have the emotional energy to implement. I'm sure some will disagree with me, fine. I opted to trust the Holy Spirit. And everything worked out fine. Never had a problem. I had bigger issues, like making sure my teatotalling worship leader didn't sleep in the wrong bed (and he blew it).

I would also add that a lot of folks literally born into the Church of the Nazarene never even had a chance to question the CCC when they become members. So, disobeying the CCC never really crossed their mind until a later time in their spiritual development. My guess is that many who now ignore it eventually found it absurd, ridiculous and paternalistic. Instead of blowing it up and creating a big fuss, they just followed their conscience and quietly assumed a moderation position on alcohol consumption.

There is no way to know for sure, but I am not with you when you claim the moderation crowd was corrupt from the start.

[Benjamin Burch]

Again, sorry, Ben. I have friendships where direct charges are leveled followed by intensive discussion. I've been called a "communist" and "pervert" and "liberal" without the friendship being diminished in the least. For me, it is part of the fun of life.

These two are not equal. It is one thing to make a charge based upon information about that individual. It is a different thing to make charges which effectively remove the personhood of the individual and reduce them to a generality/stereotype.

That is, if you have conversations where you have positions which one feels are "liberal" or "communist" or "perverted", then it seems there is informoation about you to make that statement based upon (rightly or wrongly).

There is no information about me personally on which to base what you've stated. The only way to do so is to remove my individuality and reduce me to a statistic.... which is not friendship.

I've been trying to say things that I've hoped would bring some balance to this conversation. Some people seem to be totally for alcohol consumption. Some people are totally opposed. I'm saying: oppose & allow. My insight is that this approach is rather unique. Beyond the simple "oppose & allow" mantra, I'm saying, let's have all kinds of dialoge about the subject.

Yet, what you've communicated is that it is pretty unlikely to drink alcohol without becoming an alcoholic and having your life fall apart, ultimately needing rescue by the tea-totalers.

So, I suppose that I must leave off my sarcasm and cynicism and so without nearly as much description as I would like to give...there ARE plenty of alternatives to recreational alcohol. I'm living proof of that. My favorites: Squirt, any kind of grape drinks, Ginger Ale, Root Beer, to name just a very few.

Again... so Type II Diabetes is okay?

You are right there are no alcohol alternatives, but plenty of non alcohol alternatives. Leaving you with water? Is it okay to say, "Well, cry me a river."? Many people in the world would be happy to have the $ many people spend on alcohol and would probably laugh up their sleaves about deprivation in this regard.

You actually missed the point. The point is that you are drawing an arbitrary fence around alcohol, and saying that some "alternatives" are okay, regardless of their own destructive problems which often are far worse than alcohol... and yet, if you don't like those alternatives you're out of luck. Who cares that they're also destructive? They're good alternatives.... That is what your position says so far.

See my response to David re. my "purple smurple" comment.

And see my response to it.

My culturalization remark about the abundant life offer from Jesus makes perfect sense to me. No contradiction. His abundant life is not "salvation and booze." Come on. His abundant life is Him, Christ alone. If it is Jesus plus alcohol or anything, then we certainly need some more discussion about the sanctification issue that Bob and others have raised.

You're right! It is Jesus. Not Jesus + anything. And yet, Jesus had it while drinking alcohol. So did Peter. So did the 12. So did Thomas Aquinas. So did John Wesley. So did Irenaeus. So did Gregory of Nazianzus.

So, my point is that your statement that alcohol would put a dent in that abundant life is, in fact, untenable. It contradicts the evidence of many of the Church's most faithful saints.

My position IS NOT based on inaccuracies, contradictions, and absurdity. And, I find it HIGHLY offensive that you would say such a thing. Just kidding. We are still in the minor leagues of offensiveness here. Ha! Actually, I think you will do better in this whole discussion when you begin to vet out the information raised by Hans re. alcohol abuse among the teen population in Denmark among other very serious issues. Seems that "follow me as I follow Christ" is often challenging and sacrificial.

I have major problems with alcohol abuse among teens. I've commented on that a lot so far in this thread. I agree with you. That doesn't make your position any less absurd.

There is much more to say. As a pastor and friend I've been in lots of intervention situations. SO much heartache. Jean Lazerus is in heaven now, but one Christmas I missed her at church and made a trip to her apartment that afternoon. Some dopey buddy answered the door. Jean had passed out from too much of this wondrous stuff. As a young pastor I scooped her up, put her in my care and checked her into a facility for drying out and rehab. Such a beautiful lady. Such a wasted life. And, my passion for this issue centers around such stories. Recreation? Devastation?

And I have seen numerous lives cut short due to heart disease and diabetes, caused by your so-called "alternatives."

I'm sorry if I find your conviction less than convincing.

[Pete Vecchi]

Here are my questions:

Do you know sanctified people who drink alcohol?
Do you know people who keep every jot & tittle of the CCConduct, but are not sanctified?

Please understand that I'm not advocating for alcohol... I don't drink, and don't imagine myself ever drinking.

My concern is that we've replaced the actual goal of holiness with a goal of keeping the "rules."

To answer the original question... I don't think my behavior would change if the CCConduct changed.

To answer your questions:

1 -- Yes

2 -- I don't know any people who perfectly keep every jot and tittle of the CCC any more than I know any people who perfectly keep every jot and tittle of the Old Testament Law.

[Jim Chabot]

You went there, but I don't think you fully addressed the issue. We've already established that most people will not change their behavior with or without the CCC, so your point is? Moreover, I think a lot of people came into membership in the Church of the Nazarene where the CCC was not fully explained to them, they are ignorant of our position and for them it is a total non-issue anyway. I fully observed the CCC when serving as a pastor, but I did not make a big issue of it when taking in members (go ahead shame me). I couldn't because I had board members that consumed alcohol. It was going to create a nightmare of enforcement that I simply did not have the emotional energy to implement. I'm sure some will disagree with me, fine. I opted to trust the Holy Spirit. And everything worked out fine. Never had a problem. I had bigger issues, like making sure my teatotalling worship leader didn't sleep in the wrong bed (and he blew it).

I would also add that a lot of folks literally born into the Church of the Nazarene never even had a chance to question the CCC when they become members. So, disobeying the CCC never really crossed their mind until a later time in their spiritual development. My guess is that many who now ignore it eventually found it absurd, ridiculous and paternalistic. Instead of blowing it up and creating a big fuss, they just followed their conscience and quietly assumed a moderation position on alcohol consumption.

There is no way to know for sure, but I am not with you when you claim the moderation crowd was corrupt from the start.

Agreed, you have stated this pretty accurately I think. Although we are speculating, it's the best we can do.

I will say that those of the moderation crowd who have stayed on and are seeking changes are in the wrong here. There is no shame in leaving should one find themselves unable or unwilling to remain in covenant with us, there is likewise no honor in staying with the intent of changing us.

Dan's post did bring the CN's to mind. While I'm with you guys in the estimation that they have gone over the top at times in their criticism. This is an issue where their voice may never be heard as "over the top." because "we expect" and the "we" fully includes them. For those who lead us, should you fail to affirm our CCC and our core doctrines, and should a loudmouth CN call you out on it or write your DS or thier GS and complain. Please be reminded that "we expect." we are partly congregational in polity and on this issue the laity must lead.

Oh, and if by chance you or anyone is looking for a way of getting rid of those pesky concerned folks, get Nazarenes drinking and problem solved, they will be gone, gone, and gone. Not a doubt in my mind.

[John O Comstock]

Doesn't the word repent mean I don 't live the way I use to live. I live by a new standard. Paul Gal 5v19 declares those who "live this way". sounds like a leader who tells us how to live. The Nazarene code of conduct is very good to help us see a better way to live.

[Bob Hunter]

A
Oh, and if by chance you or anyone is looking for a way of getting rid of those pesky concerned folks, get Nazarenes drinking and problem solved, they will be gone, gone, and gone. Not a doubt in my mind.

That would be terribly sad and would damage our witness. A fractured church that divides over non-essential lifestyle issues is destined for a sectarian existence. I think division in the Church is a far worse crime than including a few moderation folk in our membership. Really not the way to go.

[Shea Zellweger]

I will say that those of the moderation crowd who have stayed on and are seeking changes are in the wrong here. There is no shame in leaving should one find themselves unable or unwilling to remain in covenant with us, there is likewise no honor in staying with the intent of changing us.

I've stayed out of most of this debate, but since this paragraph seems to hit at the heart of the original post, I thought I'd respond with my thoughts here.

There is, in our manual, a specific procedure for seeking changes to said manual. Because such a procedure exists, simply seeking changes is not wrong. Over the 104 year history of our church, we have concluded that certain things needed to be retracted, were certain others needed to be added. For instance, we rightly recognized that certain of our exclusions should be a matter of the heart (wedding rings, mixed bathing, dancing) and not hard line rules. At the same time, we've seen the culture change, new technologies develop, and felt the need to add or amend warnings accordingly (such as our warning about technology which would've made no sense in 1908). Whether it's changing the language about alcohol, adding a warning to reflect the obesity epidemic in the US, or any other matter of spiritual or physical health, there is nothing wrong with a member in good standing suggesting that an alteration should be made, and going through the process to see if the church at large is supportive of such a change. The individual is expected to live according to the current rule while seeking to change it, and live according to whatever the response of the general church is, but seeking that change is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

What is NOT acceptable is to join the church with the intent of changing it. What is also not acceptable is to live as though the rules don't exist, and to flaunt your doing so. To make a conscious decision to stand against the traditions of humans is one thing (and for those that insist we qualify as a truly Protestant church, it should be considered a time-honored tradition). To neglect, ignore, and belittle the teachings of a church you profess to love and support is another thing entirely.

[Pete Vecchi]

Doesn't the word repent mean I don 't live the way I use to live. I live by a new standard. Paul Gal 5v19 declares those who "live this way". sounds like a leader who tells us how to live. The Nazarene code of conduct is very good to help us see a better way to live.

Welcome to posting on NazNet, John! Just letting you know that you picked a thread with many strong and some seemingly emotionally-charged opinions and way more posts than threads usually get in which to share your first NazNet post.

I say this because I don't want you to feel discouraged if your participation in this particular post gets buried. Some of my posts on this thread have kind of gotten buried, but I've been on Naznet for so many years I've come to know that sometimes it just happens that way.

Again, welcome!

[Hans Deventer]

I will say that those of the moderation crowd who have stayed on and are seeking changes are in the wrong here. There is no shame in leaving should one find themselves unable or unwilling to remain in covenant with us, there is likewise no honor in staying with the intent of changing us.

I'm not intending to change you. I love the heart of what the CotN stands for, and accept its imperfections. Exactly like the one who started the CotN in the Netherlands, and who accepted me into membership, our first DS, the late Rev. Cor Holleman.

However, I will always fight the cultural imperialism that strives to force all Nazarenes into American cultural expressions of holiness. That, indeed, is a sin and there in no honour in that whatsoever.

[John O Comstock]

Interesting? For me the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit gave me a great awareness of what is truly evil and ungodly. It put me
in full agreement with the Nazarene code of Conduct in how it very acturately points out pitfalls and sins of our culture. I'm only more amazed at the wisdom of our founders in there teaching of Holiness. For me the code of conduct was only a problem when I still struggled with my carnality. The code of conduct is not a legal set of rules but a very clear road to a Godly life.