Would the folks at Pilot Point Texas, be happy in the COTN of today?

[Ian Gentles]

I'm at present reading Mark R. Quansrom's "A Century of Holiness Theology."
In early Nazarene theology I do find things that are a bit, lets say "out".
Yet one has to admire the zeal and vision of those early Nazarenes. I suppose the Nazarene Church of my youth had its ere extremes.
What I raise for debate is, Would those folks at Pilot Point Texas recognise the Denomination of 2012? Would they want to be part of it? If not, why not? Has the evolution of our theology always been a good thing?
This is not an attempt to open a denominational can of worms, more a desire for reasoned debate.
I said the denomination of my youth had its extremes. Now I will add, yet it had power! Have we lost Holy Ghost power in our churches?

Over to you dear friends.

[John Reilly]

I believe that the "Spirit of Wisdom and Discernment" help all Christians to analyze the cultural context and apply practical theology. I think early Nazarenes would value the emphasis on Wesleyan Theology and work of folks like Mark Quanstrum. Further I believe in hind sight if early Nazarenes could see the detrimental effect of "special rules" on the membership of the church especially concerning the 20 and 30 something group, that they would advocate "Guidance" and not legislate mandates. (Especially considering that the only constitutional amendment to ever be over turned was for prohibition.) Phineas Bresee did not want special rules but in order to manage a merger he agreed. So in brief, I think early Nazarenes, with their spiritual gifts, spiritual maturity and spiritual wisdom, would be comfortable today with our denomination as we have worked to clarify the biblical basis for our distinctive doctrine of holiness.

[Ian Gentles]

I believe that the "Spirit of Wisdom and Discernment" help all Christians to analyze the cultural context and apply practical theology. I think early Nazarenes would value the emphasis on Wesleyan Theology and work of folks like Mark Quanstrum. Further I believe in hind sight if early Nazarenes could see the detrimental effect of "special rules" on the membership of the church especially concerning the 20 and 30 something group, that they would advocate "Guidance" and not legislate mandates. (Especially considering that the only constitutional amendment to ever be over turned was for prohibition.) Phineas Bresee did not want special rules but in order to manage a merger he agreed. So in brief, I think early Nazarenes, with their spiritual gifts, spiritual maturity and spiritual wisdom, would be comfortable today with our denomination as we have worked to clarify the biblical basis for our distinctive doctrine of holiness.

I remember those rules well, dont drink, smoke, dance, go to cinema etc etc. My grandmother thought I was on my way to hell because I went to cinama. In many ways in teens I totaly rebelled against the rules, more than against the church.

[Gary Creely]

I said the denomination of my youth had its extremes. Now I will add, yet it had power! Have we lost Holy Ghost power in our churches?

It seems like this is the vein folks like Dan Bohi are trying to tap into.

[Cam Pence]

It seems like this is the vein folks like Dan Bohi are trying to tap into.

I say yes but for many people "Holy Ghost power" looks different than others

[Jon Bemis]

It seems like this is the vein folks like Dan Bohi are trying to tap into.

Which vein? A denomination of extremes, or focus on power of the Spirit?

[James Diggs]

Some maybe, if they could exegete and interpret our times as well as well as they could the text they built our tradition on. Others, probably not.

I sometimes wonder the same and wonder if those who love voices in the church from days long ago would be happy with the church under those same people in the context of the lives and cultures they lived in.

I love reading Wesley, but I am not sure if I would have loved what the church was like in that time and place even with him as the minister. It would be absolute culture shock, and so would it be for me to go back just 100 years to the early days of our tradition. I think it would be too much culture shock in both direction for most people to evaluate the state of the church in a time and place that would seem so strange to them or us if we could some how go back to those times or bring them forward.

[Sarah Smith]

My grandpa would think all they did at Pilot Point has been lost.

[Benjamin Burch]

My grandpa would think all they did at Pilot Point has been lost.

Why is that?

[Steven Burton]

I say yes but for many people "Holy Ghost power" looks different than others

To me when I hear this term I can't think but emotional high and no real movement of the heart.

[Bill Morrison]

Some maybe, if they could exegete and interpret our times as well as well as they could the text they built our tradition on. Others, probably not.

I sometimes wonder the same and wonder if those who love voices in the church from days long ago would be happy with the church under those same people in the context of the lives and cultures they lived in.

I love reading Wesley, but I am not sure if I would have loved what the church was like in that time and place even with him as the minister. It would be absolute culture shock, and so would it be for me to go back just 100 years to the early days of our tradition. I think it would be too much culture shock in both direction for most people to evaluate the state of the church in a time and place that would seem so strange to them or us if we could some how go back to those times or bring them forward.

James has said something very important here. We are indeed people of our own time and a major challenge for Christians in any age/culture is to learn how God expects them to live and be His people in that age/culture. That is one reason we need strong Christian institutions of higher education to help prepare our young Christians for the world they will live in. I wish you could have all heard Dr. Dan Boone so effectively address and challenge our MNU students along these lines during our Spiritual Deepening services this week.
As an example, I imagine my Young Earth Creationist beliefs would find more favor with most Pilot Point people to a greater degree than they do with many modern day Nazarenes. I recognize however that even those beliefs are not the same as I would have had in 1908, in a day before the Chromosome Theory of Inheritance and the basic tenents of Population Genetics were known. Even my YEC is shaped by advances in evolutionary biology of the past 100 years, and my understanding of it that would have been foreign to Pilot Point folks. Likewise we Naznetters desire to live in the beauty of holiness as they did but we need to learn and work out what that means in a 2012 digital post-modern American society (sorry Hans, the Netherlands too!) , not the 1908 Pilot Point Texas culture they lived in.

BILL

[Bob Carabbio]

Interesting parallels. I've been a member in the Assemblies of God for almost half as long as the AoG has existed as a political entity. And the AoG that I'm a member of, and a Deacon in TODAY would be well-nigh unrecognizable to a member in 1963 (and I WAS there then). The AVERAGE AoG in the Dallas area could EASILY be mistaken for a Baptist Church that forgot to change the sign out front.

As I've mentioned before, our Plant Manager attends the "Oaks Fellowship", which is the largest Assembly of God church (6,000 or so) in our area, and after 8 months there, he DIDN'T KNOW:
1) That it was an Assembly of God church - since there' no visible sign of denominational affiliation inside OR Out.
2) That it was a Pentecostal church and franchised by the largest Pentecostal Denomination in the World.

The former General Superintendant of the AoG in Springfield (Thomas Trask) back in the late '90s made the statement that "If the present trend continues, in a decade, the Assemblies of God will be "Pentecostal in name only". It appears that he was correct.

I don't know that I'd want to go back to the "Old Legalistic Days" where "Clothesline Holiness" reigned. And in the early '60s folk were already wondering "Where the POWER had gone" - like it HAD BEEN in the '30s and '40s.

The AoG would be in MUCH WORSE Condition today if it weren't for the massive influx of "Charismatics" in the early '80s when the "Charismatic Outpouring" ended, and folks needed to find another way to worship - and since we "Spoke in tongues", and so did they for the most part - it was a relatively easy "fit" - except that the "Charismatics" weren't "Holiness" oriented at all - and now we're not either.

But even though much the old "Holiness" stuff was "Spurious" in the absolute - I think there was a SIGNIFICANCE to the simple fact the people would voluntarily "Tie themselves" to all the unnecessary legalistic "Holiness" practices - just because they Thought it pleased God. Most of us wouldn't be willing to live like that in 2012, I don't think, and it's the "Unwillingness" that would be the main problem in my opinion. These are different times.

In 1967, we threw a gal out of the Choir that I directed at Beloit WI AoG - for DARING to wearing pancake makeup on the platform to hide her facial blemishes. She remained a member of the church, and she didn't wear makeup to church any longer (which didn't help her appearance at all).

But She never sang again.

I'm STILL haunted by the memory of THAT particular "Holiness victory" - 45 years later.

[Ian Gentles]

I do feel todays culture wouldent fit in with the culture at time of Pilot Point. I mentioned earlier "Holy Ghost power" I do feel the COTN of my youth had more power of God evident in the changing of lives. The emotionalism of those days I can do without.

[Michael Flowers]

I do feel todays culture wouldent fit in with the culture at time of Pilot Point. I mentioned earlier "Holy Ghost power" I do feel the COTN of my youth had more power of God evident in the changing of lives. The emotionalism of those days I can do without.

I think that what makes this discussion difficult is that, at least for myself, I have a hard time telling if someone is truly being touched or if they have just gotten caught up in the emotion of the moment. I have no problem with becoming emotional in church and getting (seemingly) caught up in it, but at the same time we can't allow that to distract us from what God is trying to do. At M11 I grew incredibly uncomfortable at the end of Dan Bohi's sermon as I watched hundreds (perhaps a couple thousand) people go forward to be touched by him. I couldn't help but wonder whether the Spirit was moving of if it was just an emotional reaction. Perhaps the most disconcerting thing for me was the trouble that I felt. Now, I wish I could experience that service all over again so that I could try and process it differently (because after 20 months I still don't know why I felt troubled by all of it).

I do believe that we need a movement of the Holy Spirit in our churches. I think many of our churches, particularly the small ones that aren't seeing many (if any) new people come in have grown weary and given up hope of being relevant to their communities. If they were to once again experience the "Holy Ghost power", imagine what that would do for them.

[Ian Gentles]

I think that what makes this discussion difficult is that, at least for myself, I have a hard time telling if someone is truly being touched or if they have just gotten caught up in the emotion of the moment. I have no problem with becoming emotional in church and getting (seemingly) caught up in it, but at the same time we can't allow that to distract us from what God is trying to do. At M11 I grew incredibly uncomfortable at the end of Dan Bohi's sermon as I watched hundreds (perhaps a couple thousand) people go forward to be touched by him. I couldn't help but wonder whether the Spirit was moving of if it was just an emotional reaction. Perhaps the most disconcerting thing for me was the trouble that I felt. Now, I wish I could experience that service all over again so that I could try and process it differently (because after 20 months I still don't know why I felt troubled by all of it).

I do believe that we need a movement of the Holy Spirit in our churches. I think many of our churches, particularly the small ones that aren't seeing many (if any) new people come in have grown weary and given up hope of being relevant to their communities. If they were to once again experience the "Holy Ghost power", imagine what that would do for them.

Being a dour Scot emotionalism is not me. Its very very hard to see what is genuine and what is not? Emmotionalism kinda just turns me off, and that could be a hindrance for me. Could I be in a hallelujah march, oh noooooo.

[Michael Flowers]

Being a dour Scot emotionalism is not me. Its very very hard to see what is genuine and what is not? Emmotionalism kinda just turns me off, and that could be a hindrance for me. Could I be in a hallelujah march, oh noooooo.

Just to be clear (make sure I'm not misunderstood). I get sincere joy when I witness people who are experiencing the presence of God so much that it touches their emotions (or their heart, however you want to look at it). What I struggle with is when I see 50% of a group in that state and the other 50% trying to figure out what in the world going on. It just makes me stop and wonder whether we have gotten caught up in God or if we have gotten caught up in the emotion that we have generated ourselves as some sort of response. Because of what I have experienced I would probably be very reluctant to join in a "hallelujah march", I would probably sit/stand and stare if someone started marching around the sanctuary waving their handkerchief. This is just part of the skeptic in me, and the result of the lack of experiencing the visible moving of the Spirit in the church.

[Ian Gentles]

Just to be clear (make sure I'm not misunderstood). I get sincere joy when I witness people who are experiencing the presence of God so much that it touches their emotions (or their heart, however you want to look at it). What I struggle with is when I see 50% of a group in that state and the other 50% trying to figure out what in the world going on. It just makes me stop and wonder whether we have gotten caught up in God or if we have gotten caught up in the emotion that we have generated ourselves as some sort of response. Because of what I have experienced I would probably be very reluctant to join in a "hallelujah march", I would probably sit/stand and stare if someone started marching around the sanctuary waving their handkerchief. This is just part of the skeptic in me, and the result of the lack of experiencing the visible moving of the Spirit in the church.

Sadly I feel that in our modern day, in the west, we are seeing little of the Holy Spirits power. Yes I also have a problem seeing some in extacy while others in a congregation wonder what is going on.

[John Kennedy]

In an earlier thread about changes in the CotN, I commented that while I felt that the sweeping changes, especially in regard to behavioral standards, were probably long overdue and represented realistic adjustments to a rapidly changing culture, I was relieved that my parents (both long-time elders) weren't around to have to deal with the issue.

Some others, who knew my parents, said that maybe I wasn't giving them enough credit. I honestly don't know. I think, at least initially, the changes would've been profoundly unsettling. But I thnik that negative would've been significantly offset by their love for and loyalty to the church that had given them an opportunity to follow God's call to ministry.

They became part of the church from an area and in an era when legalism seemed to be at flood-tide. Some of their close friends had gone with the Bible Missionary Church in the mid-50's. They saw no reason to question the church's stand on many issues, even when others were beginning to basically ignore that stand.

As a person with an interest in history, I've always been intrigued with the way change takes place, especially in institutions. I'm partial to the theory that acknowledgement of change is one of the last steps in the process.

I can remember in the 50's the anti-TV people maintaining that if the Nazarenes allowed TV, they'd end up going to the movies. (This was what Nazarene evangelist Paul Martin menat when he quipped that God was sure good to the Nazarenes - he wouldn't let 'em to to movies so he gave 'em TV).

The pro-TV people stoutly denied the possibility of such an eventuality. The technology of the VCR and DVD put off the day of reckoning, but you get three guesses on who eventually won the bet on that one.

My parents never wore jewelry - my mother never wore a wedding ring. This was less a matter of conviction and more a reflection of the way they came into the church. My dad was like most Nazarene pastors of his era - the overwhelming number of marriages he performed involved a ring ceremony. At that time the Manual ritual didn't have one - does it now?

Those are just some of the ways in which things have evolved. I think they would have been uncomfortable with some of the changes, but that they would've recognized the inevitability of a lot of it.

[David Graham]

Judging from the broad range of opinions from the Nazarene members of Naznet, I would suggest that the seeds for what the CotN has become were sown right from those early days; therefore I suspect that many of those early folk wouldn't be too displeased.

Yet I suspect many would be concerned about the lack of evangelistic enthusiasm in the present church and the reduced fervor with regard to the experience of the baptism with the Holy Spirit (as has already been discussed). This, however, is more the result of the age of the movement and the natural result of what happens to most movements over time as they move from being sectarian to becoming mainstream. As one of my Bible College lecturers used to say: "The tendency of fire is to go out!"

As one who is now firmly in the Methodist camp and therefore in a more centrally placed mainline denomination, with all of our social responsibilities and moderated messages, and general inane stability; I can't help but hunger at times for what God did within our movement in the past. My prayer often is: "Lord, do it again! Unsettle us! Make us so hungry for the movement of your Spirit within us that we would rather die than remain as comfortable as we are. Revive us O Lord, and use us again to transform the nation for you!"

I suspect that many Nazarenes might be feeling the same way too.

And this sentiment would please very much all of our fervant Nazarene and Methodist forebears I think.

[Bob Carabbio]

I do feel todays culture wouldent fit in with the culture at time of Pilot Point. I mentioned earlier "Holy Ghost power" I do feel the COTN of my youth had more power of God evident in the changing of lives. The emotionalism of those days I can do without.

For what it's worth (statistics) according to Springfield, beginning in 1932 the AoG Membership doubled every 7 years, and still IS. But not in the U.S.

In the U.S. the membership and number of churches has been essentially FLAT for the last 20 years (at something like 2.7 Mil.). However, our OVERALL denominational growth is still brisk - mostly in third world areas in what were predominately Catholic areas, and the far East. OUTSIDE the U.S. there's something like 60 Million members at present. Since we've always been basically a "Missionary society", THAT part is still working nicely.

And, We don't "Run it" from Springfield (although we do FUND a lot of it from there). One problem is that the number of missionaries is increasing, BUT the number of churches/domestic members to support 'em isn't. Fortunately Off-Shore churches are increasingly indigenous, and the greater part of the missionary effort is in the construction, and operation of Educational facilities/Bible Schools.

AND - they're still a lot like what WE were in the '40s/'50s in the U.S. Emotional, Legalistic, and Clothesline Holiness.

There was an article published a couple of years ago noting that OUTSIDE the U.S. the churches tended NOT to concentrate on "Maintenance" or comfort of their congregations, and put their MAJOR emphasis on reaching folks for Christ, and bringing "New Blood" in. They ALSO place their emphasis on getting folks involved in their ministries, so that it's the Congregation that ministers to the community, and not the Leadership primarily.

[John Kennedy]

Years ago, a friend who was a Congregational minister (little did either of us think I would ultimately wind up there) talked to me about what he considered to be the difference betwen 'gathered' and 'traditional' churches. He was talking about the then-new merger between the Congregational and the Evangelical & Reformed churches.

He saw the Congregationalists as being 'gathered' whereas the E&R was a 'traditional' church. Gathered churches were made up of people who had come together with others of like mind - traditional churches were made up of people who were there because it was the 'family' church.
Many Congregational churches still retain that terminology - the church I serve has the inscription 'Gathered in 1884' on its sign/billboard.

Prior to my taking the music position where I am. I attended an independent Congregational church for about 14 years. It may well have considered itself to be 'gathered' but it was very traditional in the sense of the number of families represented by 3 or 4 generations.

The CotN of 1908 (and the bodies uniting to form it) were 'gathered' in every sense of the word. Many of them had come directly out of Methodism, others had gone through several denominational transitional organizations and some had no Methodist background, whatsoever. There was a 'first generation fervor' (that would've been the case with my parents who came in in the 30's).

That the 'first generation fervor' was augmented to the point of eventual replacement by a greater emphasis on nurture was less a sign of declining spirituality and more of a maturing recognition that they had a heritage (a TRADITION -God help us) they wanted to pass on the the next generation/s. And, by that very desire to insure the transmission of that heritage, what began as a 'gathered' church became a 'traditional' church.

The invisible body of Christ is not a social organization. The ones that allow people to belong, are. Churches, because of their insistence on allowing themselves to be populated by people, are social organizations and, to preserve and conserve whatever they consider to be of value will institutionalize themselves. I know this infuriates the anti-institutionalists on here, but the process is inexorable.

Whenever you are able to get people to forget about the future preservation of things they hold dear and refuse to organize and institutionalize, you can then begin to work on something simple like getting the Arabs to buy bonds for Israel or teaching water to flow uphill.

Enormous amounts of energy and resources are expended in attempting to convince aldherents to just about any belief system that they can recover the fervor and the flavor of the first/founding generation. The inability to do so is an incredibly ecumenical thing. It's a Nazarene thing, a Methodist thing, a Roman Catholic thing, a Jewish thing, an any-group-you-can-name thing. It's even a Muslim thing, as demonstrated by the exhuberance with which members of one sect are willing to kill members of another sect in the name of Allah.

I hope some of you will forgive me, a somwhat Wesleyan-inclined Congregationalist, for calling your attention to some words penned by John's brother, Charles, several hundred years ago. We used to sing "A charge to keep I have...." (it's undoubtedly too stodgy for contemporary tastes -never mind that it sets forth some ideas worth hearing). One of the stanzas has this to say :

"To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill;
Oh, may it all my pow'rs engage to do my Master's will."

"Would the folks at Pilot Point.....be happy in the CotN today?" I really don't know. That particular context was gone years ago. It won't be back. All you have to work with is what's here now. Maybe Charles' words have some application here. I wish you well.

[Bill Morrison]

to some words penned by John's brother, Charles, several hundred years ago. We used to sing "A charge to keep I have...." (it's undoubtedly too stodgy for contemporary tastes -never mind that it sets forth some ideas worth hearing). One of the stanzas has this to say :

"To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill;
Oh, may it all my pow'rs engage to do my Master's will."

"Would the folks at Pilot Point.....be happy in the CotN today?" I really don't know. That particular context was gone years ago. It won't be back. All you have to work with is what's here now. Maybe Charles' words have some application here. I wish you well.

Thank you! You (and Charles) have said so much better what I was trying to say in Post #11.

BILL

[James Diggs]

Just to be clear (make sure I'm not misunderstood). I get sincere joy when I witness people who are experiencing the presence of God so much that it touches their emotions (or their heart, however you want to look at it). What I struggle with is when I see 50% of a group in that state and the other 50% trying to figure out what in the world going on. It just makes me stop and wonder whether we have gotten caught up in God or if we have gotten caught up in the emotion that we have generated ourselves as some sort of response. Because of what I have experienced I would probably be very reluctant to join in a "hallelujah march", I would probably sit/stand and stare if someone started marching around the sanctuary waving their handkerchief. This is just part of the skeptic in me, and the result of the lack of experiencing the visible moving of the Spirit in the church.

I can be skeptical too, especially as people point to it as a sign of the movement of the Spirit. I don't deny the legitimate experience or that in it God can sincerely move people emotionally, but our scriptures tell us that fruit by which we will recognize the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Not only that, I believe if the Spirit has moved we will see it in action as we are sent out into the world. If it just remains as an emotional experience of a worship service I can't say it was the Spirit of God. Again, the real deal can be emotional, but a strong rush of emotion isn't the fruit of the Spirit.

[Bill Morrison]

If it just remains as an emotional experience of a worship service I can't say it was the Spirit of God. Again, the real deal can be emotional, but a strong rush of emotion isn't the fruit of the Spirit.

Especially, IMHO, when it involves barking like a dog and other assorted animal noises and behaviors e.g. the "Toronto Blessing".
(Maybe that is just the biologist in me speaking.)

BILL

[John Kennedy]

Especially, IMHO, when it involves barking like a dog and other assorted animal noises and behaviors e.g. the "Toronto Blessing".
(Maybe that is just the biologist in me speaking.)

BILL

I'll always remember the comment someone made about people who were highly demonstrative and emotional in their religious expression. There were people who would 'run the aisles' and jump. After seeing all this, someone once commented, "I don't care how high they jump - it's how straight they walk when they hit the ground."

[John Kennedy]

Especially, IMHO, when it involves barking like a dog and other assorted animal noises and behaviors e.g. the "Toronto Blessing".
(Maybe that is just the biologist in me speaking.)

BILL

Having a brain tends to give one a perspective on that, also.

[Peggy Gray]

Over the years, those times when I've felt the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in a sweet and special way, a true outpouring, I had no inclination to jump and run and holler. The emotion was surely there, but manifested as tears, awe, silence. Whispering, "thank you, Lord; I love you, Lord; praise you, Lord...." It took me a long time to get over wondering what I was doing wrong, why I wasn't experiencing what others were. I wasted a lot of time hungering for what I already had.

[Sarah Smith]

My forbears wouldn't give a flying fig about the cultural aspects--not the clothing rules, or the whooping and hollering, or whatever.

But they wouldn't stay where so many don't seem to believe anymore about a God who can move in and change hearts in an instant.

That means also not seeing the living out of what it means to have a cleansed heart.

So much of what we argue about would just go away if our hearts were cleansed.

You don't need rules, and you don't have anarchy either, when hearts are pure and Jesus is truly in control of a life.

[Cam Pence]

My forbears wouldn't give a flying fig about the cultural aspects--not the clothing rules, or the whooping and hollering, or whatever.

But they wouldn't stay where so many don't seem to believe anymore about a God who can move in and change hearts in an instant.

That means also not seeing the living out of what it means to have a cleansed heart.

So much of what we argue about would just go away if our hearts were cleansed.

You don't need rules, and you don't have anarchy either, when hearts are pure and Jesus is truly in control of a life.

So your main beef is that you don't think we believe in Artical X. I think I am inclined to disagree with you here.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I' Would those folks at Pilot Point Texas recognise the Denomination of 2012? Would they want to be part of it? If not, why not? Has the evolution of our theology always been a good thing?

Would they be happy? Most of them weren't characterized as happy back then: it's doubtful they would have sweetened in a hundred years.

I have been in the COTN for more than half her existence. I have very fond memories of aisle running and emotional demonstrations that seemed to be part of true movings of the Lord. I also can recall some antics that make the others look even better. Can we do better than we are right now? Absolutely, and most of us are committed to working to that end.

Probably it is more important that the Lord be happy. Then that people whose hearts the Lord has prepared to receive the Gospel can be happy. Next probably would be that current Nazarenes be happy. Then maybe that 1908 Nazarene crowd be at least less dissatisfied than they would be anywhere else.

But I get it. I'm just messin' with ya.

[John Reilly]

When Dennis says, "Would they be happy? Most of them weren't characterized as happy back then: it's doubtful they would have sweetened in a hundred years" I laugh! Because ALL the photos I see of old historical assemblies / meetings etc. NO ONE is SMILING. They look scary and very SERIOUS! I wonder what they were thinking!

[Benjamin Burch]

So your main beef is that you don't think we believe in Artical X. I think I am inclined to disagree with you here.

It seems to go farther than that, to me. Sarah seems to be suggesting that we no longer believe in an instantaneous understanding of Article X and -- since that is the only true ES there is -- we cannot experience ES, and are therefore no being E-Sed.

What bugs me about it is that I have never encountered anyone's telling of CotN history which suggested that once upon a time there were no rules and no fighting/arguing because of cleansed hearts.

I think it is wishful thinking towards an idyllic past that doesn't exist to validate our beliefs.

[David Pettigrew]

Haven't read any of the posts in this thread but this is a response to the title question. We recently had a couple start attending our church that moved here from the Pilot Point church, and they seem ok with us so far! True story.

[John Kennedy]

Would they be happy? Most of them weren't characterized as happy back then: it's doubtful they would have sweetened in a hundred years.

But I get it. I'm just messin' with ya.

Maybe we've discovered your spiritual gift?

[Dennis M. Scott]

What bugs me about it is that I have never encountered anyone's telling of CotN history which suggested that once upon a time there were no rules and no fighting/arguing because of cleansed hearts.

Sometimes their squabbles were at General Assembly, and when it concluded, they went back home for four more years. Now, we go back to our computer phones and keep debating. Debating and disagreeing have exceeded our learning curve on how to do so while maintaining relationships and grace. In the olden days, people essentially had four years to cool down, think about it and discover that what was so important in the heat of debate didn't always mean so much a few years down the line. Absence seems to have contributed to the heart being fonder - and maybe even living as though more sanctified. I suspect hearts are about as cleaned as they were then - always with room for growing grace.

[John Reilly]

Haven't read any of the posts in this thread but this is a response to the title question. We recently had a couple start attending our church that moved here from the Pilot Point church, and they seem ok with us so far! True story.

Are they direct descendents of the original Pilot point people?

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm not a dour Scot (Italian/Irish heritage), but I'm also NOT an emotionally demonstrative person. If you handed me $500,000 tax free, I'd probably smile and say "thanks". When my company gave me a $2500 Gibson Earl Scruggs Banjo as a "Bonus" about 20 years ago, they were concerned that I didn't like it because of my reaction. That's just the way I'm "Wired". When I feel the Spirit moving in a service (which I haven't felt for many months now at our place), I'll most likely just cry.

But I would like to be free to just play, and dance before my Savior like a happy child lost in His presence - maybe some day -

Being with other people who are "Moving and shaking" has never been a problem for me (and since our church is becoming more Black by the week, we'll likely see some SERIOUS Moving and shaking in the near future).

[Ian Gentles]

So your main beef is that you don't think we believe in Artical X. I think I am inclined to disagree with you here.

Do many in our churches actualy know about, and understand, article x?

[Hans Deventer]

Do many in our churches actualy know about, and understand, article x?

From a limited, Dutch perspective: I don't think so.

To explain a little: I do think people are still being taught about holiness, but far less about entire sanctification. Not because pastors don't believe in it, but because they see it so rarely, have trouble explaining it in concepts that make sense to people and feel somewhat emberassed by how it is stated in the Manual.

[Ian Gentles]

From a limited, Dutch perspective: I don't think so.

To explain a little: I do think people are still being taught about holiness, but far less about entire sanctification. Not because pastors don't believe in it, but because they see it so rarely, have trouble explaining it in concepts that make sense to people and feel somewhat emberassed by how it is stated in the Manual.

I think this also would be the case among most British Nazarenes. Only those of us theologicaly aware would understand it all.
My grandfather described his experiance in broad Scots, " Its better felt than telt" meaning the experiance was greater than words could describe. Recently someone mentioned my grandfather, who was converted at age 60. That a real change came in his life.
This I feel is maybe the problem with a theology of sanctification, there is an experiance that is hard to put into words?