Change...Do we need it?

[Ian Gentles]

In my life time, as a christian, seems all I hear and read is folks seeking change in evangelical christianity. New ideas, movements, keep comming along. Charismatic Movement, Open Theism, Emerging Church, etc etc etc.
Question I would ask is why sooo many are disatisfied with Evangelical Theology etc? Is it we are finding the simple message of the Bible dosent satisfy? Or are we really seeking for something that is missing in our christian experiance?
Today its the Emerging Church etc, tommorrow, who knows?
In the west there has been since mid last centuary a revival of Calvanism, as its doctrine seems logical to many. Here I dont mean Hiper-Calvanism.
Nazarenes seem unsure of their doctrine of Sanctification these days.
Evengelicals, we must admit, are having a hard time marketing themselfs.
Soo simply, do we need change? and why?
Or, is it a case of we need to rediscover our evengelical roots?

[Wes Smith]

In the early to mid-1980's conversation I had with Dr. Charles Strickland. Wish I had a recording of the conversation. The jist of it was, he said, "...being a GS has radically changed due to the fact that we do not have the authority of previous times and seasons. We can no longer enforce the organizational will upon pastors. They have developed minds of their own."

My take on your post, Ian, is that Dr. Strickland was prophetic. The Church of the Nazarene as it was hardly currently exists. Submission to a company line is, imho, rare.

The Manual is a good anchor that keeps us within some degree of cooperation, but based on Dr. Strickland's insight, we simply are not who we were.

And that is interesting. For those who were around in the 80's, the GS's then had indescribably more authority than the GS's do now.

My take on your question has come into focus in my year of retirement. Here is my simple statement, "To the degree a denominational organization does not have a clear destination to which they point people, conversions decrease or, even, cease." I am open to discussing this more, but one thing that is increasingly obvious to me is that both salvation and sanctification for Nazarenes has radically diminished in importance.

For the year prior to my retirement I met monthly with a group of Nazarene pastors. I felt strongly about encouraging them in placing a strong focus on the conversions of people to faith in Christ. There is no problem or challenge in our denomination that would not be pretty much solved, or, at least, diminished, by lost people coming to Christ.

For my last two years in ministry we made the discovery and implemented "Celebrate Recovery" and conversions to Christ sky-rocketed.

So, what I'm trying to say is that our GS's have the impossible task of trying to herd pastoral leaders in a common direction. And, we have the challenge of trying to re-ignite a sense of "conversion" among us. Both of these issues are less significant in developing world areas.

Messing with doctrine and methodology "can" become the core mission. Tweaking them in order to be more effective in reaching lost people is legitimate.

Friend,

Wes

[Greg Crofford]

I think Ian is addressing the issue of fads.

The other day I was cleaning out a closet in my office. I came across folders from past conferences, and thought of the many, many hours (lives, even) that had gone into compiling those resources. And more often than not, I suspect others are like me: We return from the conference, the three-ring binder goes on the shelf, and gathers dust. At the next conference, we get a shiny new binder, and talk about new things. What happened to all those things we talked about at the last conference? That's yesterday's news, I guess. Moving right along...

There's an old saying in theology: "Whatever is true is not new, and whatever is new, is not true."

It's a recognition that our faith is historic. Often doctrines that depart from the "old paths" are false doctrines.

Yet it seems like when it comes to church development, we have inserted the little word "not." So, deep down we seem to think:

"Whatever is not new is not true."

It seems that every four years at General Assembly, we have to re-name our organizations just to give them a sense of freshness. But why is that? In our North American culture, where change is good, and we always want "new and improved," have we stopped to think what this constant churning, this lusting after the "latest, greatest" says to those coming from world areas where tradition and sameness give stability and meaning? Where a photo snapped in an African village in 1912, showing workers in the fields, looks nearly identical to one snapped 100 years later, in 2012?

Dare I say it? Do we as North Americans genuflect in front of the god of change and "progress"? (And ironically, I say this as I type on a website that only exists because someone was willing to innovate...)

[Greg Crofford]

Hello Wes -

You've made some excellent observations. Politically speaking, the authority (power) of a GS is directly related to the strength of connexion. I think an argument can be made that in the CoTN in the U.S. particularly, connexion is at a low-ebb. Many districts have sold off campgrounds. District organizations like NMI are adjusting to new realities, of the difficulty (for example) of getting churches to take missionary speakers on a week night...never easy in the past, but now virtually impossible. I can't speak for NYI in general, but I see that Youth-in-Mission is sending out far fewer summer missionaries than ever before.

There's a move afoot toward greater congregationalism in our denomination. Is this because of a "Baptist leavening" among us, where many new Nazarenes coming from other faith traditions that don't have a strong sense of connexion just don't see the need for cooperating with other Nazarene congregations?

So many questions, so few answers...

[John Kennedy]

Finding balance is incredibly difficult, especially in churches. They're full of people who devoutly believe that they are following the Lord's leading. And being devoutly persuaded, they find it much easier to approach situations with a meat cleaver when a scalpel would be much more appropriate.

God is the author of both tradition and innovation and he will use both and/or either to bring glory to himself if we allow him to do so. I have often made this statement in regard to worship practices and customs. I think it applies equally well to the issues cited by Ian.

[Hans Deventer]

Ian, as to being dissatisfied with evangelical theology, I don't think evangelical theology is to blame. I see theology in general as being the expression of the message of the Bible in a specific time and context. So when context changes, we need different expressions of the same message.
Now I would say that our time and context is changing indeed. Concepts of what is true even shake in previously "solid" corners of science like physics, let alone in other areas. All of this challenges us to explain the gospel to our time. In this, we simply follow the Scriptures who themselves did not fall from the sky on golden plates, full with timeless and contextless truths. The Scriptures themselves were written by people living in specific circumstances and cultures, and they expressed their words within that context. Our Lord Himself spoke in images familiar to 1st century Jews.
So although we may and should not alter the content, we may and in fact should use new wineskins, so to speak.

[John Kennedy]

, we may and in fact should use new wineskins, so to speak.

Alcoholic or non-alcoholic?

[Hans Deventer]

Alcoholic or non-alcoholic?

You'll have to ask Jesus about that, John.

[Eric Frey]

Hello Wes -

You've made some excellent observations. Politically speaking, the authority (power) of a GS is directly related to the strength of connexion. I think an argument can be made that in the CoTN in the U.S. particularly, connexion is at a low-ebb. Many districts have sold off campgrounds. District organizations like NMI are adjusting to new realities, of the difficulty (for example) of getting churches to take missionary speakers on a week night...never easy in the past, but now virtually impossible. I can't speak for NYI in general, but I see that Youth-in-Mission is sending out far fewer summer missionaries than ever before.

There's a move afoot toward greater congregationalism in our denomination. Is this because of a "Baptist leavening" among us, where many new Nazarenes coming from other faith traditions that don't have a strong sense of connexion just don't see the need for cooperating with other Nazarene congregations?

So many questions, so few answers...

This is the logical outcome of trying to be a church (1) without an ecclesiology, and (2) that values experience over Tradition.

[Greg Crofford]

This is the logical outcome of trying to be a church (1) without an ecclesiology, and (2) that values experience over Tradition.

Thanks, Eric, for the comment. Tracy and Ingersol in What is a Nazarene? describe our denomination as "a believer's church in the Wesleyan tradition." Do you agree with their description?

[John Kennedy]

You'll have to ask Jesus about that, John.

I would, but some probably wouldn't like what he'd say.

[Billy Cox]

There's an old saying in theology: "Whatever is true is not new, and whatever is new, is not true."

It's a recognition that our faith is historic. Often doctrines that depart from the "old paths" are false doctrines.

Yet it seems like when it comes to church development, we have inserted the little word "not." So, deep down we seem to think:

"Whatever is not new is not true."

There was a time in which revivalism, altar theology and the holiness movement were new. Should those things be rejected, or are those things now part of the accepted old and we are talking about a newer new?

I have observed that theological reform is not about new theology but rediscovery of old but neglected theology. Martin Luther did not write the book of Romans after all, but found in it a repudiation of papal authority as the deciding factor in salvation, and by extension the Roman church as the last word on every question of belief and practice.

Luther's theology seemed new, but was arguably older than anything that the Roman Catholic Church had cooked up in 1,000+ years of tradition.

Dare I say it? Do we as North Americans genuflect in front of the god of change and "progress"? (And ironically, I say this as I type on a website that only exists because someone was willing to innovate...)

We may be enamored with change, but we have no idea how to bring it about and we tend to reject it out of hand when the opportunity arises. Hence we hope that the next conference/seminar/curriculum will be the one that succeeds where all others have failed.

[Eric Frey]

Thanks, Eric, for the comment. Tracy and Ingersol in What is a Nazarene? describe our denomination as "a believer's church in the Wesleyan tradition." Do you agree with their description?

I haven't read their book, but I have no idea what church would claim not to be a believers church. I'd love to find a website that proudly proclaims, "We are not a believer's church!" And the more I study Wesley, the less I am confident that we are very serious about being in the Wesleyan tradition. I can say more later, but time does not permit it right now.

[Benjamin Burch]

I haven't read their book, but I have no idea what church would claim not to be a believers church. I'd love to find a website that proudly proclaims, "We are not a believer's church!"

I think it is referring to non-sacramental and non-sacerdotal.

And the more I study Wesley, the less I am confident that we are very serious about being in the Wesleyan tradition. I can say more later, but time does not permit it right now.

Agreed.

[George Wallace]

As I remember the book, it is sort of an abridgment of one by the same authors, entitled something like "Here we Stand". If memory serves it does briefly describe what it is to be Nazarene but its bulk is spent describing other denoms and explaining why Nazarenes aren't like that (in a very irenic fashion). In the end it seemed to me more of an explanation of why "We" aren't them. At least I came away knowing more about other churches and denoms. It was kind of like by the end you may not know what a Nazarene is but you know why you are NOT Baptist, NOT Roman Catholic, NOT Orthodox.....

It was/is a good book, but I always wanted to read the full version, well, before I became a Reformed Presbyterian that is

[Gary Creely]

My current assignment is a church that had a very high median age, and had been declining for about a decade and a half. Despite an ideal location, and being in a community whose population tripled in that same time the church was in trouble and shrunk to the point where supporting a pastor and sustaining its self were in question.

So there is no doubt for this particular church needed to change some things. The challenge is figuring out what needs to change, versus what didn't? I am under the opinion that many pastors error on the side of changing too many things too quickly for the sake of reaching new people, but the end result is the folks you do have are alienated faster the the folks you had hoped would come came.

I know pastors who attend a conference and come back fired up and convinced that they need to implement much of what they just learned.

One thing that bothers me is Nazarene churches that look to run from the church of the nazarene moniker like it is a plague, and we wonder why we have an identity crisis.

The truth is not much has changed in the church really, we have alway been a moderate evangelical denomination with a strongly Wesleyan theological heritage.

As for all the latest church fads that come and go, they are fine, but they can also be at the heart of losing our theological identity in favor of a generic evangelicalism that seeks to imitate some mega church somewhere.

[Ian Gentles]

Is it a case, that in our western society evangelicalism has become old hat?, is nothing new? Billy Graham, when he came first to UK took the country by storm, campaigns his size were fairly new. Now those kind of crusades dont work here.

Theology seems to change a lot, todays in thing was not around when I was at college, or was just starting. As to doctrine of entire sanctification, is it old hat? or needs to be presented in a new way? This might be said for all doctrines?

Worship keeps changing, but almost feel there is a turning back to old forms of worship?

There will always be a problem with churches where old ideas reign and anything new is almost , heresy.

Like someone mentioned, I also having binders from old conferences that were meant to change everything, and didnt!

Spiritualy....Are we/folks, not finding what they seek in evengelicalism? Still something missing?
The revival of Calvanism I find interesting, but can be more a worship of a doctrime...applogies to reformed friends!

[Greg Crofford]

As I remember the book, it is sort of an abridgment of one by the same authors, entitled something like "Here we Stand". If memory serves it does briefly describe what it is to be Nazarene but its bulk is spent describing other denoms and explaining why Nazarenes aren't like that (in a very irenic fashion). In the end it seemed to me more of an explanation of why "We" aren't them. At least I came away knowing more about other churches and denoms. It was kind of like by the end you may not know what a Nazarene is but you know why you are NOT Baptist, NOT Roman Catholic, NOT Orthodox.....

It was/is a good book, but I always wanted to read the full version, well, before I became a Reformed Presbyterian that is

According to Amazon.com, What is a Nazarene? was published in 1998, whereas Here We Stand came out in 1999. Not knowing the editorial process, I suspect that Tracy/Ingersol probably submitted a long manuscript first, then NPH cut it down to size to produce What is a Nazarene?

The term "believers' church" is used in Here We Stand to refer broadly to those who do not baptize babies. So, this includes Anabaptists, Brethren, Quakers, and Baptists. But when applied to the CoTN, it's hard to see how "believers' church" fits us, since our Manual allows for both infant baptism and infant dedication. Perhaps Tracy/Ingersol were thinking more of a broader Pietism when they use the term for us? We certainly do not understand the new birth as happening at infant baptism, even when that is (on occasion) practiced in Nazarene congregations.

[Greg Crofford]

As I remember the book, it is sort of an abridgment of one by the same authors, entitled something like "Here we Stand". If memory serves it does briefly describe what it is to be Nazarene but its bulk is spent describing other denoms and explaining why Nazarenes aren't like that (in a very irenic fashion). In the end it seemed to me more of an explanation of why "We" aren't them. At least I came away knowing more about other churches and denoms. It was kind of like by the end you may not know what a Nazarene is but you know why you are NOT Baptist, NOT Roman Catholic, NOT Orthodox.....

It was/is a good book, but I always wanted to read the full version, well, before I became a Reformed Presbyterian that is

Bill Fischer had written an NPH book in 1959 (re-released later, I suspect) with the title: Why I Am a Nazarene and Not a Mormon, A Roman Catholic...etc. No doubt his intentions were good, but let's face it, that kind of a title just sounds plain old sectarian! Certainly What is a Nazarene? was a huge improvement in that sense.

[Greg Crofford]

There was a time in which revivalism, altar theology and the holiness movement were new. Should those things be rejected, or are those things now part of the accepted old and we are talking about a newer new?

I have observed that theological reform is not about new theology but rediscovery of old but neglected theology. Martin Luther did not write the book of Romans after all, but found in it a repudiation of papal authority as the deciding factor in salvation, and by extension the Roman church as the last word on every question of belief and practice.

Luther's theology seemed new, but was arguably older than anything that the Roman Catholic Church had cooked up in 1,000+ years of tradition.



We may be enamored with change, but we have no idea how to bring it about and we tend to reject it out of hand when the opportunity arises. Hence we hope that the next conference/seminar/curriculum will be the one that succeeds where all others have failed.

Revivalism, the altar, etc. were innovations. Arguably, we are already seeing them pass into history. What they stand for, however, will endure. We need times of refreshing from the LORD (revivalism). Also, we need places that are sanctified (like the altar) as reminders that God still meets us in special places. So, I suspect new methods will be developed, methods that come and go, but pointing beyond themselves to the God we are seeking in sundry and culturally resonant ways.

[John Kennedy]

Revivalism, the altar, etc. were innovations. Arguably, we are already seeing them pass into history. What they stand for, however, will endure. We need times of refreshing from the LORD (revivalism). Also, we need places that are sanctified (like the altar) as reminders that God still meets us in special places. So, I suspect new methods will be developed, methods that come and go, but pointing beyond themselves to the God we are seeking in sundry and culturally resonant ways.

The more successful the method at a particular point in time, the higher the likelihood that it will become so intertwined with the message than an attempt to change the method will be seen as an attack on the message itself.

[Benjamin Burch]

We certainly do not understand the new birth as happening at infant baptism, even when that is (on occasion) practiced in Nazarene congregations.

This was one of the biggest reasons I realized I'm not Nazarene.

[David Graham]

For me personally, I am loathe to disregard the ancient traditions of the church, and so I use the ancient creeds to guide me in understanding what is important to believe. i.e. What beliefs I am willing to live and die for!

I also use the ancient liturical formats with regard to the sacraments. Hence I inlcude the words of institution, the great prayer of thanksgiving, the words of invitation for Holy Communion and the liturgy for baptism including the word: "Ephphatha" to which I then add: "May the Lord open your ears to hear his word and your lips to speak his praise" ...... giving it a more "evangelical flavour"...... or if you like, this act of baptism is not the end in itself but the beginning of a process which will produce spiritual fruit in the person's life.

At the same time, God is sovereign, and God guides his church into new ways of ministry that enable people of different cultures and different ways of perceiving the world, to receive his grace. In my country, the Christian movement which is growing the fastest is the Hill Song movement. Now while I find its corporate business model as repugnant it nonetheless reaches many young people with its music and "concert style" services. Can I learn from them and adapt some of the things they do in our outreach activities to reach the youth of our area? Absolutely! And I do. Consequently the only two churches that have any sort of vibrant youth ministry in our area are ourselves and the local AOG which is almost exclusively youth focussed.

I think we need to hold on to what is good.... in doctrine and tradition but also sense the direction which the Holy Spirit is leading us in order to minister to people in specific cultural and generational contexts.

I suspect (from past experience) that the COTN would generally do that better than us.

[Billy Cox]

Revivalism, the altar, etc. were innovations. Arguably, we are already seeing them pass into history. What they stand for, however, will endure. We need times of refreshing from the LORD (revivalism). Also, we need places that are sanctified (like the altar) as reminders that God still meets us in special places. So, I suspect new methods will be developed, methods that come and go, but pointing beyond themselves to the God we are seeking in sundry and culturally resonant ways.

Historically, we seem to have difficulty distinguishing between theology and methodology. We tend to think too highly of our methods and systems, while perhaps thinking too lowly of the mission they are supposed to serve.

[Greg Crofford]

This was one of the biggest reasons I realized I'm not Nazarene.

As you know, Ben, there is a movement toward infant baptism in some circles of the COTN. In fact, I'm in favor of that, since (to me) if makes a lot of sense for those growing up in the church. Can I take it from your remark that you believe in baptismal regeneration?

[Benjamin Burch]

As you know, Ben, there is a movement toward infant baptism in some circles of the COTN. In fact, I'm in favor of that, since (to me) if makes a lot of sense for those growing up in the church. Can I take it from your remark that you believe in baptismal regeneration?

As this blog states...Yes, I do.

[Todd Erickson]

Evangelism as originally idealised in the 1800's is a pretty decent thing, but it's become co-opted quite heavily by the Princeton Movement and Evangelicalism. As a result, where Evangelicalism used to have a heavy praxis quotient, it now mostly centers around right belief, and as a result can have a very poor witness.

You can say "oh, no, MY Evangelicalism isn't like that" but you will sadly be in the minority, to whatever degree your perception of yourself is true.

One notes that one of the headlining Nazarenes that anybody's heard of is James Dobson, and his "Focus on the Family" group is soundly Calvinist in it's overall outlook, i.e., anti Sanctification, anti praxis, highly political in a non-Christlike reflection, etc.

What I also note is that for folks who are already in their 50's and 60's, the need of the next generation for change seems like a fad that they already had to deal with. But I know that for me personally, the church is a collection of rote practices that I participate in so as not to cause trouble, but is generally empty and joyless for me, and for the most part my encounters with God have absolutely nothing to do with the church, and I can sometimes get disaffected Christians to come to my church, but I have a lot of trouble witnessing to non or ex Christians, because all I have been trained to give them are facts that have no bearing on their lives, and that I cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way in my own life.

Something has to change. And I know that whatever that change is, I have to find it outside of the church, because the church is currently built around sustaining what it already is and already does, whether or not that is going to be effective going into the future.