CCC alterations blog post

[Bob Hunter]

Bill, I agree with NazNet certainly not being a reflection of the CotN. If only because most posters seem to be more interested in theology than the average Nazarene. As to feeling comfortable, I haven't been around since the early days (only since 1998), but I do remember NazNet being a much friendlier place in general. While we sure had our differences of opinion and some pretty good and long discussions (thinking for instance about the foreknowledge of God), there was also much more light-hearted chatter.

My theory is that NazNet's succes has become its downfall: it has become so well known and popular that folks who consider themselves champions of some kind of (on NazNet) under-represented corner of the church, felt a need to enter the "arena" and fight against the perceived deviating views. Which means that each and every serious discussion ends in war, and those who don't like wars retract and become less and less vocal, no longer recognizing the place they once enjoyed.

In the end, it will simply kill NazNet, and I presume that's what they want: to silence views that deviate from anything they have been familiar with. My prediction is that they will succeed, people will abandon NazNet and discuss issues on Facebook among those they feel comfortable with.

Hans, I don't know as I agree. It sounds you are are predicting the downfall of NN. And the detractors will not succeed. NN may become unnecessary at some point as other online forums emerge, and that is fine. I do agree we have some real contentious battles around here, but I think that is true overall as forms of social media have developed in the last decade. People are increasingly proficient and bold when it comes to expressing themselves. So that is not going to change, hopefully, we can temper some of that boldness and proficiency with Christ-likeness.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I don't know as I agree. It sounds you are are predicting the downfall of NN. And the detractors will not succeed. NN may become unnecessary at some point as other online forums emerge, and that is fine. I do agree we have some real contentious battles around here, but I think that is true overall as forms of social media have developed in the last decade. People are increasingly proficient and bold when it comes to expressing themselves. So that is not going to change, hopefully, we can temper some of that boldness and proficiency with Christ-likeness.

Bob, I have quite a few opinions where I just love to be proven wrong. This is one. Please make me say I'm totally mistaken.

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

Bill, I agree with NazNet certainly not being a reflection of the CotN. If only because most posters seem to be more interested in theology than the average Nazarene. As to feeling comfortable, I haven't been around since the early days (only since 1998), but I do remember NazNet being a much friendlier place in general. While we sure had our differences of opinion and some pretty good and long discussions (thinking for instance about the foreknowledge of God), there was also much more light-hearted chatter.

My theory is that NazNet's success has become its downfall: it has become so well known and popular that folks who consider themselves champions of some kind of (on NazNet) under-represented corner of the church, felt a need to enter the "arena" and fight against the perceived deviating views. Which means that each and every serious discussion ends in war, and those who don't like wars retract and become less and less vocal, no longer recognizing the place they once enjoyed.

In the end, it will simply kill NazNet, and I presume that's what they want: to silence views that deviate from anything they have been familiar with. My prediction is that they will succeed, people will abandon NazNet and discuss issues on Facebook among those they feel comfortable with.

I agree that NazNet is less friendly and tolerant than when I first joined (2005?). I very rarely post anymore...just don't have the stomach for it. I mostly read some the forums and "thank" those braver than me for statements I agree with.

[Jon Bemis]

I said what I wanted to say on the topic a bit over six years ago, and mostly I still stand by what I said then (though I might word some differently - for instance I never use the term "emergent" anymore).

"Because of our tendency towards legalism, which has been so deeply encoded into our collective religious culture, many in our church have given up true holiness for the outward likeness of it. I'm sure for many this legalism was rarely intentional, they just got confused. You see, there's the character of a person, and then there is the fruit of their character and sometimes it is easy to confuse the two. The Covenant of Christian Conduct is detrimental precisely because it's leads to more legalism because it focuses on the fruit a person bears rather than the character that yields the fruit in the first place." - Kevin Rector

Well stated.

[David Graham]

"Because of our tendency towards legalism, which has been so deeply encoded into our collective religious culture, many in our church have given up true holiness for the outward likeness of it. I'm sure for many this legalism was rarely intentional, they just got confused. You see, there's the character of a person, and then there is the fruit of their character and sometimes it is easy to confuse the two. The Covenant of Christian Conduct is detrimental precisely because it's leads to more legalism because it focuses on the fruit a person bears rather than the character that yields the fruit in the first place." - Kevin Rector

Well stated.

Mere thanks is not enough...... thank you Jon and Kevin, I believe that you've nailed the problem with a "CCC" precisely!

[Gina Stevenson]

Seems, Hans, that the old NazNet of which you speak here is attempting a revival over on that never-ending thread on the fun forum. 'Twas a good thread that Mark started over there ... nearing 8000 posts now!

Bill, I agree with NazNet certainly not being a reflection of the CotN. If only because most posters seem to be more interested in theology than the average Nazarene. As to feeling comfortable, I haven't been around since the early days (only since 1998), but I do remember NazNet being a much friendlier place in general. While we sure had our differences of opinion and some pretty good and long discussions (thinking for instance about the foreknowledge of God), there was also much more light-hearted chatter.

My theory is that NazNet's succes has become its downfall: it has become so well known and popular that folks who consider themselves champions of some kind of (on NazNet) under-represented corner of the church, felt a need to enter the "arena" and fight against the perceived deviating views. Which means that each and every serious discussion ends in war, and those who don't like wars retract and become less and less vocal, no longer recognizing the place they once enjoyed.

In the end, it will simply kill NazNet, and I presume that's what they want: to silence views that deviate from anything they have been familiar with. My prediction is that they will succeed, people will abandon NazNet and discuss issues on Facebook among those they feel comfortable with.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree that NazNet is less friendly and tolerant than when I first joined (2005?). I very rarely post anymore...just don't have the stomach for it. I mostly read some the forums and "thank" those braver than me for statements I agree with.

Well Bill, Valisha definitely doesn't fall under the "average traditional conservative Nazarene" category who don't dare to post anymore. Her views are hardly traditional and definitely not conservative, unless you'd be talking about conserving our earth.

[Nate Pruitt]

I find this thread very interesting, because I haven't really been on NN since... the PREVIOUS CENTURY!!! (Dun dun dun!) At that time it was a very welcoming place for a high school kid who was just finding footing in the world of theology, was about to head to a Nazarene institution to study for ministry, and who was really looking for some sense of community that would include a group of individuals that I aspired to be a peer with one day in ministry. In those days I found individuals like Scott Cundiff, Hans Deventer, Dave McClung, and others to be very loving, welcoming, and patient with this "kid."

I had returned for a very brief period in 2002-2003 (?) mostly lurking, only for a few days, and felt as though I had walked into a digital post-apocalyptic distopia. While those who had always shown me kindness were still seeking to offer some sense of civility it seemed as though the tenor of the board had changed. I've been reading closely lately and actually feel (after some extensive reading in some theology discussions that, evidently, I am not privy to post in yet) that there is a tense, but better, level of discourse than during my previous return. I am particularly impressed because I think the past 4 years have been some of the most terse in inter-Nazarene relations we, as a young denomination, have ever faced. I'm still maintaining hope for this forum, and the larger denomination from whom we borrowed some of our namesake, and I am working on developing something I'll post as a new thread in the next few days that I hope will continue to inspire better forms of conversation.

Now I have noticed that Hans seems a little saltier than I recall from over a decade ago. I'm going to place some of that matter on our shared heartbreak over the Dutch display at Euro2012. I have long been a fan of the "Orange Crush" over the rest of the European teams and this last showing was quite disappointing. While the national team looks for better tactics, perhaps we can collectively do the same.

[Hans Deventer]

Now I have noticed that Hans seems a little saltier than I recall from over a decade ago.

Nate, you are right but it has nothing to do with Euro2012. Haven't seen a single game of that tournament. I've become sadder through all the discussions where nobody is listening. I may very well reach the point where I'm no longer able to bring a positive contribution to NazNet.

[Nate Pruitt]

I doubt you'll see a single game of the tournament at this point unless they replay.

I've been very aware of the seismic shifts from those "concerned" and those dubbed "emergent" (or as your more recent forum probably better dubbed "post-traditional") and have had to deal with them personally, and collectively, with many peers who were trying to swim such rough waters. Doing this individually with the group of young ministers who chose to have me weigh through personal conversations has been interesting. Who knew friends cared what I thought these days? (HA!) But it was a major reason why I held back from returning to NN sooner. I share your pain. I think many feel as Isaiah- called to speak to those who have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear. I wish this wasn't true of the many sides- I can't say "both" because neither group is homogeneous, but rather ring with many distinctly individual voices- of the arguments. What I have observed is typically a matter of pride over Spirit, but if you can't brag about your self-perceived sanctification then what is there upon which to stake a claim? (Wow, that is pretty biting, I'll try to do better.)

[Kevin Rector]

I may very well reach the point where I'm no longer able to bring a positive contribution to NazNet.

But every time that I see your smiling face on your avatar you have made a positive contribution to Naznet in my eyes!

[Hans Deventer]

But every time that I see your smiling face on your avatar you have made a positive contribution to Naznet in my eyes!

Kevin, you are too kind. But a mere picture is not enough. The words written have to be in line with that smiling face, and too often, they are not. Dan was spot on in his post here: "Though its only a small percentage of posters, I find myself drawn into the cesspool of arrogant interactions and find myself doing the very things I despise." It's Romans 7 all over. Which is quite shocking, really.

[Bob Hunter]

I doubt you'll see a single game of the tournament at this point unless they replay.

I've been very aware of the seismic shifts from those "concerned" and those dubbed "emergent" (or as your more recent forum probably better dubbed "post-traditional") and have had to deal with them personally, and collectively, with many peers who were trying to swim such rough waters. Doing this individually with the group of young ministers who chose to have me weigh through personal conversations has been interesting. Who knew friends cared what I thought these days? (HA!) But it was a major reason why I held back from returning to NN sooner. I share your pain. I think many feel as Isaiah- called to speak to those who have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear. I wish this wasn't true of the many sides- I can't say "both" because neither group is homogeneous, but rather ring with many distinctly individual voices- of the arguments. What I have observed is typically a matter of pride over Spirit, but if you can't brag about your self-perceived sanctification then what is there upon which to stake a claim? (Wow, that is pretty biting, I'll try to do better.)

Nate,

The tone of our conversations on NN reflects the troubled nature of the Church today. Really, today's Church is in crisis mode. I see various factions of people forming (Concerned, emerging, etc). The Church in North America is in decline. The future of our denomination is in the Southern Hemisphere where the population is growing and not declining. It remains to be seen if an established church of Holiness persuasion can redefine itself in the wake of the postmodern shift. The Brick n' mortar operation of the Church seems out of touch and lifeless to many. Christians speak a language that is foreign to the very people they are trying to reach. There are a lot of factors in play.

Phyliss Tickle calls today's upheaval the Great Emergence. She claims every 500 hundred years the Church has a huge rummage sale and we having one right now. It's worldwide and crosses all denominational lines because we are a global community brought closer together by the internet. Even the Chinese can't control the internet these days, at best they just try to contain it.

Len Sweet calls it the Church of the perfect storm. Call it what you wish, we're living in a time of great unrest. So, it does not surprise me we get at each others throat from time to time!

[Pete Vecchi]

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool...."

That quote from Isaiah came to mind as I was reading the most recent posts in this thread--especially the first 6 words (I realize that the context is such that the statement is between God and humans, but if God wants to reason with us, shouldn't we also reason with one another?).

The reality is that when people are dealing with spiritual matters that are close to their heart, people can get to be passionate about things. The difficulty is often that passion can lead to having a sense of righteousness, and that, in turn, can lead to judgmentalism against those who may not hold the same views. It can go like this:

"That person can't really be a Nazarene/Christian if he/she ___________________________." (fill in the blank).

I hope that I don't have that type of attitude. If I err, I hope I err on the side of grace.

[Dan Henderson]

“"That person can't really be a Nazarene/Christian if he/she ___________________________." (fill in the blank).

-doesn't eat the middle of an oreo cookie first.
-wears flip flops in public
(I have a very long legalistic list)

[Nate Pruitt]

"That person can't really be a Nazarene/Christian if he/she ___________________________." (fill in the blank).

doesn't take a nap on Sunday afternoon (a.k.a. a "Nazarene nap").

It's just so obvious. This is why my young children aren't yet members- they seem to refuse.

[John Kennedy]

I think Sunday afternoon naps are an ecumenical thing. Haven't been a Nazarene in years, but God, in mercy, allows this Congregationalist to nap for an hour or two on Sunday afternoon. Now if he would only see his way clear to allow said Congregationalist to sleep well Saturday night (when I kow I've gotta' rise and shine at 6:30 am Sunday) it would be real nice.

[Bob Hunter]

The Urban Dictionary comments on the epidemic of obesity in America. This is called Diabeting your kids:

When parents feed their young children, who do not know better or aren't given any healthy options, pure crap, resulting in juvenile onset diabetes. This should be considered child abuse.

Mom to already obese kid: Now what do you want for dinner? McDonald's, KFC, or Pizza Hut?

Obese Kid:We already had Pizza Hut for breakfast, and KFC for lunch, so let's go to McDonald's!

Mom to already obese kid: Ok, well get whatever you like sweetie!

Obese Kid: I want two double bacon cheese burgers, a large chocolate shake, and a large Coke.

Mom: Are you sure that's enough honey?

Obese Kid: Yeah....

Mom to Drive-Thru Attendant: He's going to need more than that, make that 4 double bacon cheeseburgers, and a large fry, large milkshake, and large Coke.

Drive-Thru Attendant: D___ lady! You should stop diabeating your kids!

[David Graham]

The Urban Dictionary comments on the epidemic of obesity in America. This is called Diabeting your kids:

When parents feed their young children, who do not know better or aren't given any healthy options, pure crap, resulting in juvenile onset diabetes. This should be considered child abuse.

Mom to already obese kid: Now what do you want for dinner? McDonald's, KFC, or Pizza Hut?

Obese Kid:We already had Pizza Hut for breakfast, and KFC for lunch, so let's go to McDonald's!

Mom to already obese kid: Ok, well get whatever you like sweetie!

Obese Kid: I want two double bacon cheese burgers, a large chocolate shake, and a large Coke.

Mom: Are you sure that's enough honey?

Obese Kid: Yeah....

Mom to Drive-Thru Attendant: He's going to need more than that, make that 4 double bacon cheeseburgers, and a large fry, large milkshake, and large Coke.

Drive-Thru Attendant: D___ lady! You should stop diabeating your kids!

So here's a thought: In the past we have developed evangelism and discipleship programmes and Leadership Training Programmes. So why don't we develop and produce wholesome alternative dietary programmes that the local churches can run that can enable our people to turn from the "darkness of McDonalds" to the light of "Subway"?!

In all seriousness though our respective denominations have the resources to do it..... we just need the will. At the same time it could be a great "outreach tool" to the community, for losing weight is not an easy process and people need help to do so. As to the legitimacy of such a programme, well I just see it as being part of the discipling process. It would certainly be more effective than just making more rules.

[Bob Hunter]

So here's a thought: In the past we have developed evangelism and discipleship programmes and Leadership Training Programmes. So why don't we develop and produce wholesome alternative dietary programmes that the local churches can run that can enable our people to turn from the "darkness of McDonalds" to the light of "Subway"?!

In all seriousness though our respective denominations have the resources to do it..... we just need the will. At the same time it could be a great "outreach tool" to the community, for losing weight is not an easy process and people need help to do so. As to the legitimacy of such a programme, well I just see it as being part of the discipling process. It would certainly be more effective than just making more rules.

But it is so much easier to just sit back and condemn people who drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes than focus on your own health.

[Valisha Trammell Hall]

Very interesting...

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a.../S26/91/22K07/

[Bob Hunter]

Very interesting...



http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a.../S26/91/22K07/

Thanks for this, this article is very much in line with my reading and the why some food producers are trying to eliminate it. Kudos to First Lady Mrs. Obama for speaking out against obesity and the consumption of high fructose corn syrup. Where is the Church on this issue?

[Dan Henderson]

Thanks for this, this article is very much in line with my reading and the why some food producers are trying to eliminate it. Kudos to First Lady Mrs. Obama for speaking out against obesity and the consumption of high fructose corn syrup. Where is the Church on this issue?

Bob, There are many, many good things that an organization such as ours could choose to do. Having said that, we don't spend enough time on the issues that we ought to spend on. I haven't kept track of who is for or against the CCC but it seems to me if we were going to take a stance on obesity that it would be in our CCC or in the back of the manual along with our other social stances. Do you want the manual to become a tome?

This type of issue might be one of local emphasis, service at the point of need. I do not think, however, that oour corporate leadership needs to make a statement on every issue you or I think is important. You have 7% body fat and that is wonderful. You can live by example and teach others to live healthy at their point of need. We don't need a corporate stance on it, however.

I think so far, the CoTN has done a good job so far of staying with the larger issues. Though this is a huge issue in America (pun intended), I do not believe it is a Nazarene Official Stance Issue. Now if you can convince your district that it is ...

[Rich Schmidt]

Bob, There are many, many good things that an organization such as ours could choose to do. Having said that, we don't spend enough time on the issues that we ought to spend on. I haven't kept track of who is for or against the CCC but it seems to me if we were going to take a stance on obesity that it would be in our CCC or in the back of the manual along with our other social stances. Do you want the manual to become a tome?

I think that's kind of his point (isn't it, Bob?). If we're going to have a CCC, and if it's going to be selective about which issues are addressed and which are ignored, what criteria are we using to make those selections? Why do we make a really big deal out of some things and neglect to address others... especially when those things not being addressed actually harm more people?

This type of issue might be one of local emphasis, service at the point of need. I do not think, however, that oour corporate leadership needs to make a statement on every issue you or I think is important. You have 7% body fat and that is wonderful. You can live by example and teach others to live healthy at their point of need. We don't need a corporate stance on it, however.

I personally would like to see us take an approach like that with alcohol.

[Nate Pruitt]

Maybe the whole discussion makes an interesting point about the nationalistic myopia that is present within the US Nazarene delegation (that's not a slam on you, Bob, your questions are well worth asking). It really is the United States that has the horrendous obesity issue. However, almost all of the CCC has been formed based on American hot-topic issues over the years. Our Church Manual is, in this regard, one of our least missions applicable documents. While I know all materials need cultural adaptability it has been my understanding that there is zero adaptability for the Manual. Hmm.

[Kyle Borger]

I think the point to this debate is that many do not see answers in rules or laws or requirements. Rules in answer to a commandment given by God or by Jesus are an attempt on our part to clarify something so that we know how to make sure we follow it.

The primary concern should not be if we follow a rule or not, but whether we have totally given control of our heart to Jesus. If we have made Jesus the master of our heart then we will love our neighbors and God and we will behave in a manner that reveals that love.

However, just having a rule often creates a situation where people will follow the rule under their own power and ability and then use that against those who fail. Where is the love?

My most important concern? What is in a person's heart that is causing that behavior? This we need to speak to as a church. This is Holiness.

Some may have freedom where others do not. Are you willing to restrict your freedoms in some situations to show love toward your brothers and sisters in Christ just as our church father's did?

Consider how you might restrict your freedoms for me. I am overweight. I have a problem saying no to food. I am working with Jesus to gain the ability to be healthy and eat what I need to be healthy rather than just eating what makes me happy for that moment. If I come to your house, how could you adjust to help me? Would you serve extra large portions? Would you serve high calorie and high carb deserts?

Just as we would consider our behavior around our brothers who struggle with alcohol, we should also consider our behavior around everyone who has a struggle with a temptation.

Let us as a church state that we stand ready to restrict our freedoms as necessary to assist our brothers and sisters in Christ as they seek healing from temptations.

[Bob Hunter]

Bob, There are many, many good things that an organization such as ours could choose to do. Having said that, we don't spend enough time on the issues that we ought to spend on. I haven't kept track of who is for or against the CCC but it seems to me if we were going to take a stance on obesity that it would be in our CCC or in the back of the manual along with our other social stances. Do you want the manual to become a tome?

This type of issue might be one of local emphasis, service at the point of need. I do not think, however, that oour corporate leadership needs to make a statement on every issue you or I think is important. You have 7% body fat and that is wonderful. You can live by example and teach others to live healthy at their point of need. We don't need a corporate stance on it, however.

I think so far, the CoTN has done a good job so far of staying with the larger issues. Though this is a huge issue in America (pun intended), I do not believe it is a Nazarene Official Stance Issue. Now if you can convince your district that it is ...

I think if you read my blog article, I suggest we pursue a more holistic life-outlook when it comes to taking care of the temples that God gave us. I don't know as we can spell out every risk to our health in the manual. But it doesn't make sense to hobby horse and soap box on certain issues when others are clearly a problem for Nazarenes (and just as deadly). The Church can reinforce and support better ways of taking care of our bodies and glorifying God. We can endorse and support the advice of medical professionals where we see it is consistent with our Christian beliefs. I'm 100% behind First Lady Obama's campaign. All three of my kids are involved in sports and it just sickens me to see kid after kid so slow, fat and out of shape that they can't even make it to other end of the ball field. Heck some of them quit the first week and go back to eating twinkies and playing video games.

BTW. I'm up to 8% body fat, my trainer wants me up to 10%. (I have some metabolism issues that make is so... I'm not bragging, just trying to do the best I can with this busted carcass of mine).

[Dan Henderson]

BTW. I'm up to 8% body fat, my trainer wants me up to 10%. (I have some metabolism issues that make is so... I'm not bragging, just trying to do the best I can with this busted carcass of mine).

I wasn't going to mention that. Some people do quite well with low body fat. Averages are just that and do not always apply to individuals.

With regard to addictions, there are habitual and chemical addictions. I like that the CCC has focused on the chemical addictions (which are actually both chemical and habitual). Poor eating habits are habitual, high fructose corn syrup does not create a chemical dependence. That is why I like our comments regarding drug usage to include alcohol but do not think we need an official stance regarding diet and exercise. I have no issues with the CCC as it now stands. I think we have addressed what we need to address.

[Bob Hunter]

I wasn't going to mention that. Some people do quite well with low body fat. Averages are just that and do not always apply to individuals.

With regard to addictions, there are habitual and chemical addictions. I like that the CCC has focused on the chemical addictions (which are actually both chemical and habitual). Poor eating habits are habitual, high fructose corn syrup does not create a chemical dependence. That is why I like our comments regarding drug usage to include alcohol but do not think we need an official stance regarding diet and exercise. I have no issues with the CCC as it now stands. I think we have addressed what we need to address.

Not sure I agree. HFCS is very addictive at least that is what I'm reading. Take soda pop away from DA's & GA's and you will hear an outcry like never before. (Hint...it's addictive). Here is a study that describes HFCS in a league cocaine. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0000698 How can this not be chemical? It alters our body chemistry and many studies are saying it causes some cancers!

If you think CCC is okay, then you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I respectfully disagree and I have not proposed eliminating the CCC (as some have). I believe it needs to be revised to reflect a more holistic life-outlook. It needs address some neglected issues. We need to bring it into the 21st Century. I would retain stiff warnings on alcohol consumption without disqualifying members who consume in moderation. But there is no way on earth Nazarenes will let it happen, so I recommend we don't touch that issue right now.

[Dan Henderson]

Bob, I did not say it doesn't cause chemical reactions, I stated that the addiction is not a chemical addiction. It could be psychological, habitual, or some other descriptor having to do with the brain, but the addiction is not chemically based.

Caffeine addiction is chemically based but it is a mild chemical reaction that can be broken by most people in three days. Endure a couple of rebound headaches and your done. Cocaine, not so much, one would need help to get down from the chemical portion of that addiction.

Yes, I've heard of sugar cravings, its not the same thing, not even close. In your defense, the nurse sitting next to me tells me that sugar addiction is individualized. So it can be physiological for some, and just as hard a habit to break as anything else. And in my defense, cocaine on the other hand is physiological for everyone, has immediate and universal negative effects, whereas sugar, is neither universal nor always has a negative outcome.

And though we might agree that a generalized statement on honoring God's temple (our bodies) might be good, we do seem to disagree that comments on things like illegal drugs need to be much more specific than comments about diet.

Additional note: Nurse says soda is the primary damaging element whether sugared or sugar free, there is no positive outcome for soda or pop for those of you who speak differently.

[Bob Hunter]

I did not say it doesn't cause chemical reactions, I stated that the addiction is not a chemical addiction. It could be psychological, habitual, or some other descriptor having to do with the brain, but the addiction is not chemically based.

My friend Tim is a software developer. Each afternoon he craves a pop and somehow he finds a way to obtain a soda. I think it goes beyond a psychological addiction. It's a sugar-caffeine high. If it causes chemical reactions and a person craves it, then it sounds to me like it meets the basic criteria of an addiction.

Caffeine addiction is chemically based but it is a mild chemical reaction that can be broken by most people in three days

. Absolutely 100% not true. It took me over three weeks to come off of caffeine. I literally craved the stimulation for a month it seemed. I had shakes, cravings and just couldn't cope without my daily dose of caffeine. I was not a pretty picture. But yes, caffeine is much easier to eliminate that a hard drug. And actually, caffeine has some beneficial elements. I just think we over consume. Today's coffee is much more potent than the Denny's coffee I grew up on. I may also mention, I had a pastoral ministry student that recently blacked out while driving. He couldn't figure out what might have caused this event. I asked him how much coffee he consumed that day and he claimed he drank a 12 cup pot. He simply got dehydrated and temporarily blacked out. Nazarenes love their caffeine and not all of it is bad for us. Medical opinion is not against caffeine consumption. It's over consumption that hurts. I would say the same is true of alcohol consumption. The Bible is not against alcohol consumption, it's over consumption leading to drunkeness--and we should strongly warn against it.

[Dan Henderson]

My friend Tim is a software developer. Each afternoon he craves a pop and somehow he finds a way to obtain a soda. I think it goes beyond a psychological addiction. It's a sugar-caffeine high. If it causes chemical reactions and a person craves it, that sounds like it meets the basic criteria for an addiction.

. Absolutely 100% not true. It took me over three weeks to come off of caffeine. I literally craved the stimulation for a month it seemed. I had shakes, cravings and just couldn't cope without my daily dose of caffeine. I was not a pretty picture. But yes, caffeine is much easier to eliminate that a hard drug. And actually, caffeine has some beneficial elements. I just think we over consume. Today's coffee is much more potent than the Denny's coffee I grew up on. I may also mention, that I had a pastoral ministry student that recently blacked out while driving. He couldn't figure out what might have caused this event. I asked him how much coffee he consumed that day and he claimed he drank a 12 cup pot. He simply got dehydrated and temporarily blacked out. Nazarenes love their caffeine and not all of it is bad for us. Medical opinion is not against caffeine consumption. It's over consumption that hurts.

Two different things here on your first part. The article you pointed to references the reward stimulus which is just one part of the addiction process. In both the first and second part of your post you referred to outlier responses. Cocaine does not have outlier responses, its always bad, regardless of your metabolism, sugar and caffeine do have outlier responses but is not always bad, even in excess.

I have an outlier response to caffeine that is exactly opposite of yours. It has absolutely no affect on me regardless of dose. I neither black out nor can be kept awake by caffeine. On the other hand, I am one of those people who cannot manage their migraines without the caffeine helper contained in such meds as Excedrine. The prescription migraine meds do not work. Well, one might have worked but it knocked me out for 12 hours, so that was a no-go. With excedrine off the market, I have had to resort to prescription medicines again, in this case, Fioricet which in addition to caffeine and acetomenophin, contains a mild barbituate. I don't like taking barbituates (makes me dizzy) but the side effect is better than the migraine.

I also prefer the non-prescrition solution because when I wake up, it has to be instant, and I need to know exactly where I am and what woke me up. I can't afford the time to fight off a drug to wake up.

Added: You mentioned excess, which I think is the main issue. When I was talking to one of the nurses about this thread, excess came up a lot and I think that is the key to healthy living, moderation. I remember buying coke in 6 oz bottles. My memory seems to think that it was refreshing at that dose. 20 oz of coke does not feel good to me when I consume that much at once.

My daily dose of coffee on work days is 20 oz (Newman's own, extra bold), my daily dose of coffee on non work days is Zero, hardly ever soda either. My total coffee intake for July 1-10 was one Starbucks coffee for the entire time. I'm an outlier too, just in the opposite direction from you.

[Nate Pruitt]

Since this thread is evidently about addiction now (?) it should be pointed out that the bifurcated notion that addiction can be psychological and not chemical (don't forget that there are chemicals in the human body) is a little misguided. Even addictions such a pornography begin to change the chemical make-up of the brain, which in fact creates a chemical dependency for the same stimuli. This means that it isn't a matter of just "walking away" because the body has a deep seated chemical desire for what the stimuli produces. Relevant Magazine and xxxchurch.com have both posted some incredibly worthwhile information about these matters.

Similarly, nicotine (which does create an even greater draw than caffeine, which is pretty harsh to come off of) in cigarettes can be more addictive in a chemical-psychological combination than breaking a cocaine addiction. I have been around numerous (and I mean dozens) of people that have been hooked on either cocaine, heroin, or some combination thereof which are having far worse struggles letting go of smoking. Smoking became what they did when they were nervous, mad, tired, sad, cold, hungry, stressed, or even just stepping outside because it was second nature. I know that plenty of documents are written up to act as though psychological and chemical addictions are not connected, but the field of addiction study is beginning to work past that as neurologists, psychologists and other experts are starting to work together. A lot of the old research was limited in addressing all aspects of addiction because it was done by those studying chemical effects and seeing the ramifications of addiction as strictly chemical or those studying the psychology of addiction and seeing it as a psychological phenomena.

Should we be willing to accept that many forms of addiction have an effect on the mind mentally and brain chemically then we're getting closer to grasping that what we need is a life of holistic cleanliness and grace. Perhaps the CCC should reflect something along those lines- that exposures and over-exposures are different, but that the latter rarely happens without being preceded by the former. Err, sorry, you guys were saying something about coffee? (Gross.)

[Dan Henderson]

Err, sorry, you guys were saying something about coffee? (Gross.)

Just go sip your organic papaya juice and leave my coffee alone ....

Props to what you said. Its never fully an either/or. Not what Dan was sayin', get those tissues out and keep workin' on that onion.

[Nate Pruitt]

Just go sip your organic papaya juice and leave my coffee alone ....

There's no other way to drink it. It costs too much to chug.

[Bob Hunter]

Added: You mentioned excess, which I think is the main issue. When I was talking to one of the nurses about this thread, excess came up a lot and I think that is the key to healthy living, moderation. I remember buying coke in 6 oz bottles. My memory seems to think that it was refreshing at that dose. 20 oz of coke does not feel good to me when I consume that much at once.

I think moderation is the idea. But I fail to see how this logic can apply to caffeine and other stimulants, but not to alcohol. Especially numerous studies reveal conclusive evidence that moderate amounts can be beneficial. ABC News just featured a story on alcohol consumption and bone health. But we've already been down that road, no need to rehash it. Nazarenes reserve the right to hobby horse, I suppose every denomination does. We all have soap box issues. This just so happens to be ours.

[Nate Pruitt]

As long as we don't pronounce a denomination wide boycott of Disney. I'm not saying there aren't reasons- I'm just saying I knew a lot of Nazarenes who went to movie theaters when that was unapproved. Sometimes people just don't get what the big deal is...

Out of curiosity, I know a few people who have had drinks while Nazarene members (facebook makes it easy enough to keep up, too) yet haven't met one person that I know to have their membership revoked. Has anyone seen this happen or needed to participate in the revocation as a minister or church leader?

[Bob Hunter]

As long as we don't pronounce a denomination wide boycott of Disney. I'm not saying there aren't reasons- I'm just saying I knew a lot of Nazarenes who went to movie theaters when that was unapproved. Sometimes people just don't get what the big deal is...

Out of curiosity, I know a few people who have had drinks while Nazarene members (facebook makes it easy enough to keep up, too) yet haven't met one person that I know to have their membership revoked. Has anyone seen this happen or needed to participate in the revocation as a minister or church leader?

Good Question! But I guess not many, I could see a licensed minister or an ordained elder losing credentials over a DUI or by virtue of some other display of alcohol consumption. I don't see this happening with members. The default standard of operation is: Don't ask, don't tell.

[Dan Henderson]

I think moderation is the idea. But I fail to see how this logic can apply to caffeine and other stimulants, but not to alcohol. Especially numerous studies reveal conclusive evidence that moderate amounts can be beneficial. ABC News just featured a story on alcohol consumption and bone health. But we've already been down that road, no need to rehash it. Nazarenes reserve the right to hobby horse, I suppose every denomination does. We all have soap box issues. This just so happens to be ours.

I think we are close Bob, too close to call this more than a discussion on a difference of opinion: Here are some of reasons I believe it is different.

1. Legal vs Illegal
2. Agreed to vs not agreed to.
3. Outcome as a result if behavior modification due to the influence of the stimulant.

1. Spice and bath salts might be legal in your local jurisdiction, for military, using either is a felony crime.
2. For Nazarenes, its our agreed position is abstinance with regards to alcohol. For the UMC the position is abstinance among clergy and encouraging abstinance among laypeople.
3. With regard to sugar and/or caffeine highs/lows and alcohol and/or other drugs (legal or illegal) how often do any of the following happen with regard to these stimulants:

-Eating someones face
-Rape
-Murder
-unplanned sexual encounters
- Fatalities when combining stimulants with
--driving
--swimming
--hiking
--"Hey! Watch this!"

I'm sure these things might happen and maybe have happened. What I'm saying is there are stimulants that create large amounts of adverse situations in addition to personal health issues. These are things that cause public danger. After all the redneck famous last words aren't "Here, hold my Soda!"

[Bob Hunter]

3. With regard to sugar and/or caffeine highs/lows and alcohol and/or other drugs (legal or illegal) how often do any of the following happen with regard to these stimulants:

-Eating someones face
-Rape
-Murder
-unplanned sexual encounters
- Fatalities when combining stimulants with
--driving
--swimming
--hiking
--"Hey! Watch this!"

No you just die a premature death and burden family members and society with ill health. Personal self-destruction Dan, how's that for Redneck logic?