Biblical Scholarship in the Pulpit

[Mike Schutz]

A possible hypothesis for what seems to be the disconnect between what the Church of the Nazarene has always presented in its official statements as to its understanding of biblical truth and how it should be understood, and what many in the CotN have understood to be our positions, is the difficulty in presenting deep, nuanced, biblical scholarship from the pulpit.

Even the simplest, most basic scholarship - that learned by undergraduates at any of our colleges and universities (for example, noncontroversial authorship issues - such as of the Penteteuch and Isaiah) are surprising to many of our people.

This is not meant to be a conversation to argue some scholarship issues, but to think and share about the most effective ways to communicate biblical scholarship from the pulpit. In asking to consider this, I am assuming:

1. That many of our preachers have learned some aspects of biblical scholarship - which of course can be debated considering the various levels of ministerial education,
2. That the pulpit is an important - and possibly the most important - means of communicating truth from the preacher to the people,
3. That the primary purpose of preaching is not simply to teach, but to preach, and therefore preachers are not using a lecturing teaching method when in the pulpit,
4. That some of the content of biblical scholarship is not only important for our people so that they can "read the Bible for all it's worth," but also to find common ground within the CotN and the broader Wesleyan family.

So, all that being said, what is the best way for a preacher to take important, nuanced, biblical scholarship and place it "on the bottom shelf," accessible to her/his people, as part of the preaching ministry?

[Craig Laughlin]

Without addressing some of the other issues, which are interesting but off point from your post...

1. The pastor must have one foot in the scholarly world. Frankly this his not happening. Way to many pastor's are scholastically under educated to begin with and then never pick up a serious book after they complete their required education. One can not make Biblical Scholarship important to one's people if it is not important (more than lip service) to the preacher.

2. How well this is received is more about relationship than academics. The pastor that has clearly communicated love to her/his congregation and is deeply loved in return is trusted to challenge old ways. The ability to get this in our people's world is more about loving trust than academic argument.

3. Where the people are academically matters. In my last parish I had many people who could not read. In this parish Bachelor degrees are extremely common as are master's degrees. I can move much faster and deeper now than then.

4. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. - Long term pastorates that slowly chip away create the most change. - I don't have to get it all done this Sunday. There is always next Sunday. I "win" by inches not miles. I have the ability to "push" on an issue for a very long time because I'm not going anywhere.

5. The preacher must establish her/him self as the Theologian in residence. In my first parish they just handed me that. In this one with more educated people and some closet Calvinists and fundamentalist criticizing me I had to earn it. In my case I became overtly scholarly. I started referring to original languages, demonstrated my knowledge of context and culture and how it impacted text, I even started talking about the importance of how one interprets text. I sliced open some of the poor theology that was floating around and then gently made fun of it. Before this folks used to question my authority to teach, not anymore. I clearly know more about interpreting the Bible than them and they both know and like that. They want me to be professional in that way. If a new person were to tell my folks I didn't know what I was talking about they would not even be considered.

6. We need to defend and speak positively about our scholarly theologians. They are not the enemy they are our teachers. I do this overtly and covertly. Sometimes I just mention how helpful they were, or some insight or how grateful I am for what they taught and are still teaching me.

7. I teach a class called "Foundations of Biblical Interpretation" that is pretty heavy but the graduates come out deeply appreciating, even loving Biblical scholarship. They are the biggest influences because they will "correct" people without me being involved. - By correct I mean in the process of the conversation they will say... You know, I took pastor's class and technically what your saying isn't right, we learned...

8. Good preaching helps. Many pastor's need to update their communication skills. The preachers capacity to be dull is boundless.

Great question Mike. This my two cents worth.

[Dave McClung]

A possible hypothesis for what seems to be the disconnect between what the Church of the Nazarene has always presented in its official statements as to its understanding of biblical truth and how it should be understood, and what many in the CotN have understood to be our positions, is the difficulty in presenting deep, nuanced, biblical scholarship from the pulpit.

Even the simplest, most basic scholarship - that learned by undergraduates at any of our colleges and universities (for example, noncontroversial authorship issues - such as of the Penteteuch and Isaiah) are surprising to many of our people.

This is not meant to be a conversation to argue some scholarship issues, but to think and share about the most effective ways to communicate biblical scholarship from the pulpit. In asking to consider this, I am assuming:

1. That many of our preachers have learned some aspects of biblical scholarship - which of course can be debated considering the various levels of ministerial education,
2. That the pulpit is an important - and possibly the most important - means of communicating truth from the preacher to the people,
3. That the primary purpose of preaching is not simply to teach, but to preach, and therefore preachers are not using a lecturing teaching method when in the pulpit,
4. That some of the content of biblical scholarship is not only important for our people so that they can "read the Bible for all it's worth," but also to find common ground within the CotN and the broader Wesleyan family.

So, all that being said, what is the best way for a preacher to take important, nuanced, biblical scholarship and place it "on the bottom shelf," accessible to her/his people, as part of the preaching ministry?

Mike, most Nazarenes have minimal knowledge of the Bible. I am currently teaching "The Narrative of the Bible" to a class of senior adults. All of them have been in the Church of the Nazarene for many years, but most don't even know the details of Bible Stories. I am using Egermier's as the text.

Before a preacher can teach biblical scholarship, he or she, needs to get people interested in reading the Bible.

[Shea Zellweger]

I agree with Dave M. If we have no interest in the Bible, then making sense of it isn't very interesting, and we're happy to stick with what we learned as kids (sometimes vehemently opposing anything else).

I'm also trying to figure out a way to say the other part of my thought... My senior pastor on the New England District was very up front about scholarship- when we started a series on 1 John, she introduced it as a book written by a group of Christians who were attempting to preserve and codify the teachings they attributed to John, and nobody in the church batted an eye. On the other hand, I made an observation in a Sunday School class in a different church about the Noah story which just skirted along the edge of the documentary hypothesis, and received some very vocal backlash. I didn't guage that audience correctly. My senior pastor had a good understanding of how her audience would respond. So I think there's a sense in which you need to know your audience, but I'm not sure how you go from knowing your audience, to leading your audience from anti-intellectualism to acceptance of scholarship.

[Gene Tatsch]

For me, Ray Vander Laan's scholarship & presentation style - interpreting Scripture in the light of the culture of the Jews, in the light of recent archeology finding, even current Jewish approaches to Scripture - is opening up new vistas that I suspected exist, but couldn't get.
(It's not about RVL,
it's about "there's LOTS more dimensions to this than I/you/we suspected" from the best scholarship of when we were growing up.)

[Doug Ward]

Without addressing some of the other issues, which are interesting but off point from your post...

1. The pastor must have one foot in the scholarly world. Frankly this his not happening. Way to many pastor's are scholastically under educated to begin with and then never pick up a serious book after they complete their required education. One can not make Biblical Scholarship important to one's people if it is not important (more than lip service) to the preacher.

2. How well this is received is more about relationship than academics. The pastor that has clearly communicated love to her/his congregation and is deeply loved in return is trusted to challenge old ways. The ability to get this in our people's world is more about loving trust than academic argument.

3. Where the people are academically matters. In my last parish I had many people who could not read. In this parish Bachelor degrees are extremely common as are master's degrees. I can move much faster and deeper now than then.

4. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. - Long term pastorates that slowly chip away create the most change. - I don't have to get it all done this Sunday. There is always next Sunday. I "win" by inches not miles. I have the ability to "push" on an issue for a very long time because I'm not going anywhere.

5. The preacher must establish her/him self as the Theologian in residence. In my first parish they just handed me that. In this one with more educated people and some closet Calvinists and fundamentalist criticizing me I had to earn it. In my case I became overtly scholarly. I started referring to original languages, demonstrated my knowledge of context and culture and how it impacted text, I even started talking about the importance of how one interprets text. I sliced open some of the poor theology that was floating around and then gently made fun of it. Before this folks used to question my authority to teach, not anymore. I clearly know more about interpreting the Bible than them and they both know and like that. They want me to be professional in that way. If a new person were to tell my folks I didn't know what I was talking about they would not even be considered.

6. We need to defend and speak positively about our scholarly theologians. They are not the enemy they are our teachers. I do this overtly and covertly. Sometimes I just mention how helpful they were, or some insight or how grateful I am for what they taught and are still teaching me.

7. I teach a class called "Foundations of Biblical Interpretation" that is pretty heavy but the graduates come out deeply appreciating, even loving Biblical scholarship. They are the biggest influences because they will "correct" people without me being involved. - By correct I mean in the process of the conversation they will say... You know, I took pastor's class and technically what your saying isn't right, we learned...

8. Good preaching helps. Many pastor's need to update their communication skills. The preachers capacity to be dull is boundless.

Great question Mike. This my two cents worth.

What Craig said.

[Craig Laughlin]

Mike, most Nazarenes have minimal knowledge of the Bible. I am currently teaching "The Narrative of the Bible" to a class of senior adults. All of them have been in the Church of the Nazarene for many years, but most don't even know the details of Bible Stories. I am using Egermier's as the text.

Before a preacher can teach biblical scholarship, he or she, needs to get people interested in reading the Bible.

This reminded me, every summer I do Old Testament Bible Stories. I sell it as "you heard it as a child in Sunday School but these were written for adults, come hear the adult meaning and application of your favorite stories." - People really like that and get into the stories. Dave is spot on, we need to get people interested in Biblical text again. I think the whole "Text as propositional truth" has people burned out. We need to get back to Narrative. Everybody loves a good story that draws them in.

[Billy Cox]

A possible hypothesis for what seems to be the disconnect between what the Church of the Nazarene has always presented in its official statements as to its understanding of biblical truth and how it should be understood, and what many in the CotN have understood to be our positions, is the difficulty in presenting deep, nuanced, biblical scholarship from the pulpit.

..

So, all that being said, what is the best way for a preacher to take important, nuanced, biblical scholarship and place it "on the bottom shelf," accessible to her/his people, as part of the preaching ministry?

In my opinion, people learn to value nuance in conversation, not in listening to a sermon.

Mention just enough nuance to pique the curiosity of those who are curious, and then make yourself available to 'continue the conversation' in a more interactive venue. I really wish I had known a pastor like that.

[Doug Ward]

2. How well this is received is more about relationship than academics. The pastor that has clearly communicated love to her/his congregation and is deeply loved in return is trusted to challenge old ways. The ability to get this in our people's world is more about loving trust than academic argument.

Let me add one other thing here. When there is a textual issue that might stretch some people, I do not avoid it. I address it plainly. However, as I do so, I do it with a deep sense of love for the current understanding and devotion of the people. I do not devalue or belittle a limited understanding, even if it does tend to get in the way. For people to follow your thinking, they must trust you, and a deep love for them, even in a limited understanding, engenders that trust.

Last year, I challenged the church to read through the NT in a year, many accepted that challenge. To help them, I wrote an Introduction to the NT for them. A general intro, and an intro to each book of the NT. I wrote it specifically with my people in mind. It simply and briefly introduced them to some larger issues, but with a respectful tone - at least I hope.

[Ryan Scott]

I've found, through experience, that most people won't know to be upset unless you tell them.

At first I tried to cushion blows when I gave some information about a text (whether interpretation or authorship) that went against a traditional understanding - that seemed to pique curiosity and led to trouble. However, when I simply mention it as part of the sermon without an indication that it might be confusing for people, they seem to have no problem.

I was amazed that when I mentioned that John likely didn't write the gospel, but some of his congregation recorded his teachings later on - and even likely added the last chapter even later - people didn't seem to bat an eye. Perhaps it made sense that people who preach don't necessarily write down what they say. I got a similarly calm reaction in speaking of the development of some OT texts - moving from oral to written to formal shape.

Just an observation.

[Billy Cox]

I've found, through experience, that most people won't know to be upset unless you tell them.

At first I tried to cushion blows when I gave some information about a text (whether interpretation or authorship) that went against a traditional understanding - that seemed to pique curiosity and led to trouble. However, when I simply mention it as part of the sermon without an indication that it might be confusing for people, they seem to have no problem.

I was amazed that when I mentioned that John likely didn't write the gospel, but some of his congregation recorded his teachings later on - and even likely added the last chapter even later - people didn't seem to bat an eye. Perhaps it made sense that people who preach don't necessarily write down what they say. I got a similarly calm reaction in speaking of the development of some OT texts - moving from oral to written to formal shape.

Just an observation.

So you're lucky enough to have a congregation whose minds haven't been inoculated against higher criticism by the likes of Josh McDowell or fundamentalist radio preachers? That's a mighty good thing.

[Larry Parsons]

Mike, most Nazarenes have minimal knowledge of the Bible. I am currently teaching "The Narrative of the Bible" to a class of senior adults. All of them have been in the Church of the Nazarene for many years, but most don't even know the details of Bible Stories. I am using Egermier's as the text.

Before a preacher can teach biblical scholarship, he or she, needs to get people interested in reading the Bible.

Dave do find women are more interested in the bible than men?
Thanks
Larry

[Steven Burton]

For me, Ray Vander Laan's scholarship & presentation style - interpreting Scripture in the light of the culture of the Jews, in the light of recent archeology finding, even current Jewish approaches to Scripture - is opening up new vistas that I suspected exist, but couldn't get.
(It's not about RVL,
it's about "there's LOTS more dimensions to this than I/you/we suspected" from the best scholarship of when we were growing up.)

Not to mention if you dig into current Jewish ideas you can get very different opinions much as in Christianity since they have seen splits in ideology at times as well. Think orthodox Jew and conservative Jew both have a difference in understanding of certain aspects and ideas.

[Ian Gentles]

We need more scholorship in the pulpit. Most christians are ignorant all but the basics of their faith. Some may say "preach it" I say "teach it".

[Billy Cox]

We need more scholorship in the pulpit. Most christians are ignorant all but the basics of their faith. Some may say "preach it" I say "teach it".

Is this ignorance due to a lack of scholarship in the pulpit, or is it due to those in the pulpit concluding that the audience doesn't give a rip about scholarship? I'm willing to believe that the audience really doesn't care about any theology that won't fit on a bumper sticker or protest placard.

So, does the clergy just give them what they want, or do they risk casting pearls before swine? I'm glad I don't have to answer that. I would probably go with the pearls and be trampled.

[Roy Richardson]

Is this ignorance due to a lack of scholarship in the pulpit, or is it due to those in the pulpit concluding that the audience doesn't give a rip about scholarship? I'm willing to believe that the audience really doesn't care about any theology that won't fit on a bumper sticker or protest placard.

So, does the clergy just give them what they want, or do they risk casting pearls before swine? I'm glad I don't have to answer that. I would probably go with the pearls and be trampled.

been there, still there, still thinking through it.

[Doug Ward]

Is this ignorance due to a lack of scholarship in the pulpit, or is it due to those in the pulpit concluding that the audience doesn't give a rip about scholarship? I'm willing to believe that the audience really doesn't care about any theology that won't fit on a bumper sticker or protest placard.

So, does the clergy just give them what they want, or do they risk casting pearls before swine? I'm glad I don't have to answer that. I would probably go with the pearls and be trampled.

The ignorance is primarily due to a lack of scholarship in the pulpit. This stems from a general anti-intellectualism that exists in the church, a general mistrust of that high-falutin academia, and the sloppy lack of emphasis the church gives throughout the ordination process. We want to get people through more than we want to impart our doctrine and heritage.

[Gene Tatsch]

The ignorance is primarily due to a lack of scholarship in the pulpit. This stems from a general anti-intellectualism that exists in the church, a general mistrust of that high-falutin academia, and the sloppy lack of emphasis the church gives throughout the ordination process. We want to get people through more than we want to impart our doctrine and heritage.

So is the purpose of the enterprise of which this is key simply to tickle the ears of the hearers so they will keep contributions flowing to the support of the staff & real estate?
(I hereby acknowledge my sarcasm here ;-))

[Dan Henderson]

The ignorance is primarily due to a lack of scholarship in the pulpit. This stems from a general anti-intellectualism that exists in the church, a general mistrust of that high-falutin academia, and the sloppy lack of emphasis the church gives throughout the ordination process. We want to get people through more than we want to impart our doctrine and heritage.

I think this is overstated, not wrong so-to-speak, just overstated. While there may be localized issues with this respect, I have observed that the pushback comes from not only people who are themselves academics, but primarily targeted at arrogant Academics (of which we have more than our share)

[Steven Burton]

I think this is overstated, not wrong so-to-speak, just overstated. While there may be localized issues with this respect, I have observed that the pushback comes from not only people who are themselves academics, but primarily targeted at arrogant Academics (of which we have more than our share)

I would like to say that what I have seen is people projecting there insecurities on others by saying they are arrogant or cocky. I have seen it over and over again.

[Susan Unger]

I would like to say that what I have seen is people projecting there insecurities on others by saying they are arrogant or cocky. I have seen it over and over again.

Me, too.

[Dan Henderson]

I would like to say that what I have seen is people projecting there insecurities on others by saying they are arrogant or cocky. I have seen it over and over again.

Let's just pretend that we've gone back and forth 20 or so posts and leave it at that ...

[Dan Henderson]

But not worth mentioning compared to laity.

My main community for my entire life has been the Church. I have hung around 6th grade graduates, doctor's, lawyers, high school dropouts, home schooled, District Course of studied edlers, MDiv, DMin Elders, Professors from all dscliplines. I have communed with all of these. On the whole, I have not observed any significant difference in the distribution of wisdom and idiocy from among the groups. I have always maintained that both and wise leaders and blooming idiots are equally distributed throughout degrees, ranks, and discliplines.

[Hans Deventer]

My main community for my entire life has been the Church. I have hung around 6th grade graduates, doctor's, lawyers, high school dropouts, home schooled, District Course of studied edlers, MDiv, DMin Elders, Professors from all dscliplines. I have communed with all of these. On the whole, I have not observed any significant difference in the distribution of wisdom and idiocy from among the groups. I have always maintained that both and wise leaders and blooming idiots are equally distributed throughout degrees, ranks, and discliplines.

Well, there you go. With there being a few academics and countless laity, where will you find the most arrogance in an absolute sense?

[Dan Henderson]

Well, there you go. With there being a few academics and countless laity, where will you find the most arrogance in an absolute sense?

See Post #22

[Hans Deventer]

See Post #22

Hey, we could do that with every discussion!!! Wouldn't that be great? Nobody is listening anyway, and we already know we completely disagree, so no new information is conveyed. We could just get a life instead of trying to convince the unconvinceable.

[Dan Henderson]

Hey, we could do that with every discussion!!! Wouldn't that be great? Nobody is listening anyway, and we already know we completely disagree, so no new information is conveyed. We could just get a life instead of trying to convince the unconvinceable.

I originally posted it as a response to a poorly veiled insult, or rather an attempt at an insult. I don't feel like playing Whose the best wise aker right now. Let's just call a spade a spade.

[Hans Deventer]

I originally posted it as a response to a poorly veiled insult.

Sure. I'm just seeking a broader application. Something happens and you wonder, hey, isn't there something going on that applies to a wider range of situations?

[Dan Henderson]

Sure. I'm just seeking a broader application. Something happens and you wonder, hey, isn't there something going on that applies to a wider range of situations?

In this case, no. Just another example of how much we disrespect each other. 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.

I don't know how many people post on Naznet, but I noticed that among the prolific posters, very few are friendly and everybody has an agenda. I even came here with an agenda. And again, those who need to hear this most will not see how this applies to them. We mistreat each other in the name of our faith and I think it is disgusting.

You are right Hans, we don't listen to each other. I don't want to play any more but these discussions are probably more habit forming than crack (and immensly more damaging). I intend to break myself of the habit of "needing" to respond, and with God's help, may it happen sooner rather than later.

[Hans Deventer]

In this case, no. Just another example of how much we disrespect each other. 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.

I don't know how many people post on Naznet, but I noticed that among the prolific posters, very few are friendly and everybody has an agenda. I even came here with an agenda. And again, those who need to hear this most will not see how this applies to them. We mistreat each other in the name of our faith and I think it is disgusting.

You are right Hans, we don't listen to each other. I don't want to play any more but these discussions are probably more habit forming than crack (and immensly more damaging). I intend to break myself of the habit of "needing" to respond, and with God's help, may it happen sooner rather than later.

I agree with what you are writing here. When I saw you rushing in as a CN, in my mind, I pretty much pictured the horns, pitchfork and tail. I see folks hell-bound on destroying ministries, congregations and the church and being answerable to none but God alone, which in practice means, nobody. Of course, in my saner moments, I realize that not all who carry the name fight under the same flag, seek the same goal and use the same tactics. But I have to be honest and say that it in fact is my initial reaction.

Of course I've been wondering why this is. And as far as I can see, from the very beginning the CotN has been a pretty mixed bag, only glued together by the experience of ES. For some reason, either that experience has diminished or suspicion has finally overcome it, but the fact seems undeniable that we lost whatever it was that bound us together and nowadays, we simply do not trust one another. It even plays out at the GA level. The decision of the 2009 GA to force every CotN to carry the name on a sign speaks volumes. Arguments that in their specific context it would work counter-productive were to no avail. In fact, renaming the Special Rules to Covenant displays the same attitude: a lack of trust. Small wonder this shows clearly on NazNet.

The analysis is the easy part, how to resolve the problem is something different altogether. I simply don't know. I had plans to visit Jim prior to GA in an attempt to talk things over, but the truth is we both lost the hope this will accomplish anything. Again, I simply don't know. How can trust be re-established?

[Doug Ward]

My main community for my entire life has been the Church. I have hung around 6th grade graduates, doctor's, lawyers, high school dropouts, home schooled, District Course of studied edlers, MDiv, DMin Elders, Professors from all dscliplines. I have communed with all of these. On the whole, I have not observed any significant difference in the distribution of wisdom and idiocy from among the groups. I have always maintained that both and wise leaders and blooming idiots are equally distributed throughout degrees, ranks, and discliplines.

Dan, I agree, and your recent post is a great example of profound lack of wisdom by someone that should know better. I am confident that cardiac surgeons do not possess a greater slice of wisdom than a third grade teacher, however I do not want a 3rd grade teacher to perform open heart surgery on me. When I listen to attempted exegesis on a Sunday morning, I am not awaiting general wisdom about investing, but I would like an expect some training and knowledge about the text.

[Benjamin Burch]

I originally posted it as a response to a poorly veiled insult, or rather an attempt at an insult. I don't feel like playing Whose the best wise aker right now. Let's just call a spade a spade.

Seemed more like an attempt at explaining the reality of the situation and like ones

[Billy Cox]

Of course I've been wondering why this is. And as far as I can see, from the very beginning the CotN has been a pretty mixed bag, only glued together by the experience of ES. For some reason, either that experience has diminished or suspicion has finally overcome it, but the fact seems undeniable that we lost whatever it was that bound us together and nowadays, we simply do not trust one another.

Hans, I question whether ES is, or was ever the glue, or at least I question whether it was the primary uniting factor. I also question just how 'united' we were from day one. I base that doubt on the fact that in 1908 and following, regional variances in doctrine could easily exist unchallenged, and except for the occasional cross-pollination many Nazarenes would be none the wiser.

I think it would be interesting to discuss whether advances in communication technology have frayed denominational unity, or whether it has simply laid bare the faultlines that we were able to downplay or ignore in the past.

As for the lack of trust, I think that is nothing new. Just ask the average pastor what he/she thinks about Nazarene evangelists. Ask the average evangelist what he/she thinks about NTS. Ask religion faculty of one school about the religion faculty of the other schools. Ask the average missionary what they think about the desk-jockeys in Lenexa. Point made?

[Billy Cox]

Dan, I agree, and your recent post is a great example of profound lack of wisdom by someone that should know better. I am confident that cardiac surgeons do not possess a greater slice of wisdom than a third grade teacher, however I do not want a 3rd grade teacher to perform open heart surgery on me. When I listen to attempted exegesis on a Sunday morning, I am not awaiting general wisdom about investing, but I would like an expect some training and knowledge about the text.

Some people equate likemindedness with wisdom.

[Steven Burton]

Me, too.

It gets interesting when people actually look for an underlining reasoning to these thoughts. I know I have projected these myself at times and when actually looking at them found them highly psychological in term of self perception and confidence levels.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I question whether ES is, or was ever the glue, or at least I question whether it was the primary uniting factor.

These are two different things. The uniting factor was the vision. We're talking about pre WW1 days, of course, before the sinking of the Titanic and the mass slaughter and the trenches radically changed the optimistic views of the Belle époque. There were some folks who really had a vision to "spread holiness across these lands".
Now what enabled them to unite the often quite different views on theology and ecclesiology and the deep suspicion towards superintendency in any shape or form, was indeed their shared experience of ES and their fixation on spreading its message. All the same, the early leaders had to move carefully and mainly gained respect through their person and character rather than their office.

I also question just how 'united' we were from day one. I base that doubt on the fact that in 1908 and following, regional variances in doctrine could easily exist unchallenged, and except for the occasional cross-pollination many Nazarenes would be none the wiser.

It is well known that in areas where no children were baptized, people waited for a GS to arrive at a District Assembly who was known to administer infant baptism. This indicates that opinions were strong on the issue, but also that differences were tolerated. Stan Ingersol has written about this in the Wesleyan Theological Journal.

Another example: At the 1911 or 1915 GA, Mary Lee Cagle argued for including a statement on the right for women to preach in the Manual. Bresee opposed it because he felt it wasn't an issue, all were clear on the matter. I don't think any general nowadays would follow Bresee on this. We are definitely NOT in agreement on the matter, and certainly not at the local level. No matter what the Manual nowadays actually does say.

I think it would be interesting to discuss whether advances in communication technology have frayed denominational unity, or whether it has simply laid bare the faultlines that we were able to downplay or ignore in the past.

It made it more obvious, created more awareness, that's for sure. I still maintain that the diminished ability to deal with them is the main problem though.

As for the lack of trust, I think that is nothing new. Just ask the average pastor what he/she thinks about Nazarene evangelists. Ask the average evangelist what he/she thinks about NTS. Ask religion faculty of one school about the religion faculty of the other schools. Ask the average missionary what they think about the desk-jockeys in Lenexa. Point made?

Not sure? Are you asking dead people? Otherwise, you're talking about current views, right? You'd have to ask them in the first or second decade of the previous century.

[Mike Schutz]

I have always been in awe of some of my scientist friends, who while respected in their areas of expertise, are also able to make complex concepts understandable to laypersons like myself. My colleagues when I was at ENC (folks like Lowell Hall, Karl Giberson and Dan Shea) were outstanding at this.

I have met fewer academic theologians and biblical scholars who took pride in their ability to make complex and nuanced concepts from their fields discernible to the laity. I am not saying they were not capable - just not as interested in demonstrating it. For me, Dr. Greathouse stands out as a wonderful example of how this can be done well.

Perhaps this is one of the issues: pastors have not seen the connection between the academy and the pulpit modeled.

[Susan Unger]

It gets interesting when people actually look for an underlining reasoning to these thoughts. I know I have projected these myself at times and when actually looking at them found them highly psychological in term of self perception and confidence levels.

Oh, absolutely. It took me the longest time to realize that when the people at my chiildhood church were projecting their unChristlike thoughts, it was done to really build themselves up. Unfortunately, when a whole church is like this it creates an unhealthy environment.

Another sad thing is that in that church environment the people had such low self-esteems that they saw themselves as incapable of comprehending anything too deep in a sermon.

[Ryan Scott]

Perhaps this is one of the issues: pastors have not seen the connection between the academy and the pulpit modeled.

It's one of the reasons I listen to Scott Daniels' sermons every week.

[Jonathan Hooker]

Can I just say, Dan Bohi (unofficial Nazarene evangelist) is my preaching hero. In my opinion, we have to start all our sermon preparation from our personal devotions/study of the Bible. In our studies of the Scriptures we do our deeper study of the supporting evidence then our sermons flow out of our studies. One of the biggest things Dan does to gain my respect is that he reads the Scripture through every 30 days. His sermons come straight out of his studies which really are what God is laying on his heart. Forget academic scholarship for a minute and tell me when the last time was that you spoke a message that started from such a deep devotion to Christ that you were exampling to your congregation in an open way how much the Bible was making a difference in your life? I admit, I ask that question of myself frequently...

BTW... Don't hear me say that academic scholarship is bad. Not at all. Rather, I sometimes wonder if we have lost our first love - that being the pursuit of becoming a true example of a person hungering after Christ - in order to look smart in front of our congregations.

Love you brothers and sisters! Have a wonderful Sabbath!