would it be okay if the American CotN died by 2050 due to doctrinal stances?

[Susan Unger]

...I grew more and more excited. If they could reach their world with the love of Jesus...we can reach ours.

Exactly. Whenever I hear someone tell me gloom and doom stories about Christianity, I always think similiar thoughts as you did here. They had it worse then and yet they profoundly reached their world. They didn't give up hope and neither should we.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't think any doctrinal stance will doom a faith community to death. Death comes when a faith community ceases to seek after Christ in their belief and practice.

I am bothered by people who dismiss alternative views out of hand and without discussion. That is bad form. If we can't talk to each other as sincere brothers and sisters, we're in trouble. I don't think we're there yet, not as a denomination. The General Assembly itself may not be the best or most well designed forum for those kinds of discussions, but we are still making space for them to happen.

[Larry Parsons]

While I agree with you in regards to our generation, I don't see it with our kids. I think it will be very rare for any of our kids to buy homosexuality as sinful.

It may did depend where your kids are living.
Thanks
LP

[Michael Flowers]

While I agree with you in regards to our generation, I don't see it with our kids. I think it will be very rare for any of our kids to buy homosexuality as sinful.

That depends on what we teach our children. If we teach our children the Scripture then they will. If we allow the world to influence them more than the Church and the Gospel then your assertion is probably correct.

[Steven Martinez]

Todd, my argument is that as long as we continue to serve those who are hurting. The world will see our love as our doctrine. If people reject our love then what can we do? I'm 32 and my son loves his job every other Monday handing out bead to those who are in need. He understand why we give out food and understands that he had the most important job because he is responsible to tell everyone ” God bless you!”
The point being that one of our main doctrines is prevenient grace. As long as God is still coming before w ever do, we will still exist if we are faithful to God in loving the poor. remember, my first post described my definition of poor.

[Jim Chabot]

That depends on what we teach our children. If we teach our children the Scripture then they will. If we allow the world to influence them more than the Church and the Gospel then your assertion is probably correct.

We go one step beyond in our household, we have taught our children to trust in the Scriptures, should the church agree then great. If not, then go with the Scriptures, the church hasn't always spoken for God, the Scriptures remain the only solid and immovable witness of God in this world. I think that Wesley acknowledges this as the quad tells us to look at tradition, and then to reason. We wouldn't need to appeal to reason excepting that tradition isn't always reasonable.

Phillis Tickle outlines how the institutional church has strayed time after time, in her book "The Great Emergence." Only to be righted through schism, split and reformation. She gets her history right, while here while her trajectory is skewed as she looks forward. Every time that the church has strayed and failed, it has produced a church that has drawn nearer to Scripture, never away. It will happen again and we will move closer once again, because the gates of hell will not prevail. Onward will march the church triumphant! The CoTN will surely last longer should we draw nearer to scripture and away from doubt and worry about being relevant in our culture.

One of our denominations finest theologians says it well:

This is one of my favorite readings!

God Has Always Had A People
Many a foolish conqueror made the mistake of thinking that because he had forced the Church of Jesus Christ out of sight, that he had stilled its voice and snuffed out its life. But God Has Always Had A People
The powerful current of a rushing river is not diminished because it is forced to flow underground. The purest water is the stream that bursts crystal clear into the sunlight after it has fought its way through solid rock.
There have been charlatans who like Simon the magician, sought to barter on the open market that power which cannot be bought or sold. But God Has Always Had A People Men who could not be bought and women who were beyond purchase.
Yes, God Has Always Had A People
There have been times of affluence and prosperity when the Church’s message was nearly diluted into oblivion by those who sought to make it socially attractive, neatly organized and financially profitable. It has been gold plated ,draped in purple and encrusted with jewels. It has been misrepresented, ridiculed, blotted and scorned.
These followers of Jesus Christ have been according to the whim of the times elevated as sacred leaders and martyred as heretics.
Yet through it all, there marches on that powerful army of the meek, God’s chosen people that can’t be bought, flattered, murdered or stilled.
On through the ages they march. The Church, God’s Church Triumphant, is Alive and Well!

Now listen child of God. It’s alive! Discouraged pastor it’s His Church and it’s alive!
Lonely Missionary sow your seeds with confidence! It’s alive my broken hearted friend!
Old saint you’re not alone and forgotten, the Church is alive!
Busy mother cast your cares on Jesus! It’s alive young student. You’re not alone in serving the Lord!
Faithful father there’s rest in the Lord! The Church is alive!

Cynical skeptic you haven’t killed God with your noisy unbelief. He’s Alive!
So family of God raise your hands and praise the Lord. For the Church, God’s Church Triumphant is Alive and Well!

[Benjamin Burch]

That depends on what we teach our children. If we teach our children the Scripture then they will. If we allow the world to influence them more than the Church and the Gospel then your assertion is probably correct.

I simply don't think the line between culture and Gospel is so clearly drawn. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. I could be wrong. A very large number of people our age disagree with their parents on this issue, and I expect the trend to continue with our kids.

It may take until our grandchildren for it to become "very rare" but believe me, it will happen, and none of our "teaching them" will matter.

[Nate Pruitt]

I simply don't think the line between culture and Gospel is so clearly drawn. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. I could be wrong. A very large number of people our age disagree with their parents on this issue, and I expect the trend to continue with our kids.

It may take until our grandchildren for it to become "very rare" but believe me, it will happen, and none of our "teaching them" will matter.

If this were true then it would have died out in a few generations of the early church, during a time when such acts (as Cynthia so wonderfully pointed out above) were cultural norm and vastly more common than today's active homosexual community.

[Benjamin Burch]

If this were true then it would have died out in a few generations of the early church, during a time when such acts (as Cynthia so wonderfully pointed out above) were cultural norm and vastly more common than today's active homosexual community.

The difference seems to be in the manner of homosexuality. While the concept of gay marriage wasn't non-existent, it was not something practiced or talked about (or advocated for).

It is far easier to convince that what Cynthia described is sin than the loving marriage of my gay neighbors who are better parents to their daughter than most in my church (hypothetical).

It is different and there is no way around that.

Lastly, Cynthia (rightly) describes a history where people were brought out of a culture. Maybe if that we're the case today, I would totally buy your comparison. But it isn't. Today, in America, Christianity is tied to and into the culture and kids aren't going to buy the "different than culture" idea on gay marriage from parents pounding the war drum in Iran's direction and claiming a Mormon is "one of us" because he shares the same social values.

As Jim gaffigan says, it is all McDonalds. Some of us pretend to be better than McDonalds while we binge drink on nights off or we actually care how Brad and Angelina's relationship is going. It is all McDonalds.

[Nate Pruitt]

The difference seems to be in the manner of homosexuality. While the concept of gay marriage wasn't non-existent, it was not something practiced or talked about (or advocated for).

It is far easier to convince that what Cynthia described is sin than the loving marriage of my gay neighbors who are better parents to their daughter than most in my church (hypothetical).

It is different and there is no way around that.

Lastly, Cynthia (rightly) describes a history where people were brought out of a culture. Maybe if that we're the case today, I would totally buy your comparison. But it isn't. Today, in America, Christianity is tied to and into the culture and kids aren't going to buy the "different than culture" idea on gay marriage from parents pounding the war drum in Iran's direction and claiming a Mormon is "one of us" because he shares the same social values.

As Jim gaffigan says, it is all McDonalds. Some of us pretend to be better than McDonalds while we binge drink on nights off or we actually care how Brad and Angelina's relationship is going. It is all McDonalds.

I find your notions that culture trumps the work of God through the Church to remain short-sighted. Sorry. Now history does show there is an ebb and flow of that which is and isn't more prevalent in cultures. Where the Church can act rightly as such there is generally a shifting of the culture as a whole over time. Now Todd tied this directly to the CotN. For a denomination that shrugs and goes, "meh" on so many issues taking any solid stance could probably be considered laughable. That may have helped usher you elsewhere as it isn't very appeasing. The fact that the church has stronger "doctrine" about alcohol and homosexuality than anything definite about how we view the concept of predestination sure isn't helping our cause. Theology overshadowed by national/cultural bias. Yuck. In this instance conservative cultural bias may change (not as rapidly as you think, though... remember how no one is racist anymore?) and the church will follow suit unless the international vote grows stronger, unified and oppositional to such change.

Too often what is argued is about how we just want to give all good things to all people. That is not the call of Christianity. It is not what is taught in the Bible. Not to mention it's not up to us at all. Being contra-biblical for the sake of cultural appeasement is only heresy. We don't get to condone sin. We just don't need to focus on hating it because that always leads to hating sinners, too, and for honest people an incredible amount of self-loathing.

[Eric Frey]

I noticed you live in AR. probably a place were folks think of themselves first as members of the COTN and second as members of a local church. Not like that out here.

Another ecclesiology question isn't it...

[Peggy Gray]

... the church has stronger "doctrine" about alcohol and homosexuality than anything definite about how we view the concept of predestination... Theology overshadowed by national/cultural bias. Yuck.

Yes.

I suspect that if the American CotN fades away by 2050 (or sooner), it will be because of this.

[David Pettigrew]

While I do believe Wesleyan holiness doctrine arose to answer questions that 21st century western culture is no longer asking, I also see the CotN exploding (in a good way) in the developing world where those questions are still very much alive and well. So, the CotN will survive and thrive as long as life is hard enough to make holiness standards just a different kind of hard and Heaven a desirable alternative to bread and circuses.

[Marsha Lynn]

Maybe a corollary to this question is: In 2050 will there be spiritual communities who invite people to a "sold-out" relationship with God that brings profound changes to who they are and how they relate to God and others? And where will those communities stand on the issues that are currently considered deal-breakers by many members of the Church of the Nazarene?

If what we now call "holiness" is still being embraced by believers in 2050, it sure would be nice for the Church of the Nazarene to be listed among the groups who focus on the message of holiness. It would be nice if we could figure out which of our "sacred cow" positions will not survive that long and simply drop them now in order to truly focus on what holiness is all about.

I do not personally deal with same-sex attraction. I'm tired of being involved with heterosexual people who are more worried about the actions of those who do than seeking heart holiness in their own lives. I would really like to see us move on and let those who deal with such issues hammer out among themselves with much prayer and supplication what it means to live a holy life while dealing with their sexuality.

"Act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). To me that says "Discipline your own life to the best that you know; extend mercy and grace toward those who are walking a different path than you are (which is everyone); realize that you are not God and have not been appointed as an amateur providence* in the lives of those around you." I hope we can carve out places in the denomination for those who are more concerned with being true disciples of Christ than fitting some prescribed "Christian" mold heavily influenced by fundamentalists.

The path to change for the Church of the Nazarene involves a majority of the delegates to the General Assembly being convinced that the Manual needs revision. It's a tough road, but it starts with changing attitudes in small pockets here and there -- sometimes in local churches, sometimes among the clergy, sometimes in our institutions of higher education. It's amazing that it ever happens, but history shows that it is indeed possible. In spite of everything, the Church of the Nazarene in 2012 is not your grandparents' church.

Marsha

*Oswald Chambers's terminology

[Billy Cox]

Yes.

I suspect that if the American CotN fades away by 2050 (or sooner), it will be because of this.

Denominations merge and/or splinter, but they don't die.

[Billy Cox]

The path to change for the Church of the Nazarene involves a majority of the delegates to the General Assembly being convinced that the Manual needs revision. It's a tough road, but it starts with changing attitudes in small pockets here and there -- sometimes in local churches, sometimes among the clergy, sometimes in our institutions of higher education. It's amazing that it ever happens, but history shows that it is indeed possible. In spite of everything, the Church of the Nazarene in 2012 is not your grandparents' church.

I agree Marsha, but surely you've been around the CotN long enough to have observed that by the time something substantive garners a majority of delegates at GA, it's either a moot point or a foregone conclusion; as in, local congregations have already gone forward while the appointed commissions and study groups discuss the issue for a few years in utmost secrecy.

It's a lot like the Jerusalem Council telling the Gentile Christians that they didn't need to be circumcised in order to follow Christ, after Paul and his entourage had long been preaching that very message and were not likely to recant.

I am also reminded of the scene from The Two Towers where the Ents debate for hours on whether to go to war against Saruman, and finally conclude that the Hobbits are not Orcs.

One problem with the method of change you describe... Grass roots leaders and reformers are typically polarizing figures - think Dan Bohi or Jon Middendorf. They have their fans and detractors, with few or no neutral parties.

[Jim Franklin]

You who question the ongoing future of the Church of the Nazarene need to go hear Dr. Dan Ketchum. I remember when there were less than 400,000 total members world wide and now there are more than 500,000 in Africa alone.

[Susan Unger]

You who question the ongoing future of the Church of the Nazarene need to go hear Dr. Dan Ketchum. I remember when there were less than 400,000 total members world wide and now there are more than 500,000 in Africa alone.

Jim, I am always inspired by reports from Nazarenes around the world as well as from Missionaries' reports. I remember hearing Dr. Ketchum many years ago and leaving feeling inspired.

[Michael Flowers]

You who question the ongoing future of the Church of the Nazarene need to go hear Dr. Dan Ketchum. I remember when there were less than 400,000 total members world wide and now there are more than 500,000 in Africa alone.

Yes, but the focus of this discussion centers around its continued existence in the US past 2050, not the world in general.

[Cam Pence]

I simply don't think the line between culture and Gospel is so clearly drawn. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. I could be wrong. A very large number of people our age disagree with their parents on this issue, and I expect the trend to continue with our kids.

It may take until our grandchildren for it to become "very rare" but believe me, it will happen, and none of our "teaching them" will matter.

You may very well be right, but I hope not.

[Pete Vecchi]

Maybe a corollary to this question is: In 2050 will there be spiritual communities who invite people to a "sold-out" relationship with God that brings profound changes to who they are and how they relate to God and others? And where will those communities stand on the issues that are currently considered deal-breakers by many members of the Church of the Nazarene?

If what we now call "holiness" is still being embraced by believers in 2050, it sure would be nice for the Church of the Nazarene to be listed among the groups who focus on the message of holiness. It would be nice if we could figure out which of our "sacred cow" positions will not survive that long and simply drop them now in order to truly focus on what holiness is all about.

I do not personally deal with same-sex attraction. I'm tired of being involved with heterosexual people who are more worried about the actions of those who do than seeking heart holiness in their own lives. I would really like to see us move on and let those who deal with such issues hammer out among themselves with much prayer and supplication what it means to live a holy life while dealing with their sexuality.

"Act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). To me that says "Discipline your own life to the best that you know; extend mercy and grace toward those who are walking a different path than you are (which is everyone); realize that you are not God and have not been appointed as an amateur providence* in the lives of those around you." I hope we can carve out places in the denomination for those who are more concerned with being true disciples of Christ than fitting some prescribed "Christian" mold heavily influenced by fundamentalists.

The path to change for the Church of the Nazarene involves a majority of the delegates to the General Assembly being convinced that the Manual needs revision. It's a tough road, but it starts with changing attitudes in small pockets here and there -- sometimes in local churches, sometimes among the clergy, sometimes in our institutions of higher education. It's amazing that it ever happens, but history shows that it is indeed possible. In spite of everything, the Church of the Nazarene in 2012 is not your grandparents' church.

Marsha

*Oswald Chambers's terminology

It's been difficult for me to find a place to jump into this conversation, but this post from Marsha may have given me the opportunity to express what I've been wanting to say: We need to have a proper understanding of holiness.

In years past, somehow our holiness message began to be equated with personal behaviors. When I was introduced to a "traditional" Church of the Nazarene congregation in the mid 1980's, entire sanctification was preached. But it was also widely misunderstood. The first time a Nazarene explained to me what was meant by "entire sanctification", I was told, "It's when you don't sin anymore." Entire sanctification and holiness were all too often equated with the idea, "I don't dance, drink, smoke, or chew, and I don't go with girls who do." The issues were 1950's-1980's cultural issues.

Fast forward nearly 30 years, and the culture has changed to being all about not smoking, and at the same time battling obesity--especially in childhood. Oh, and don't forget "Save the Planet" through recycling and green energy. And don't text while driving. And dealing with the questions about whether homosexuals be allowed to marry each other. That last one is the tipping point for many people.

But I say this is all clouding the main issue of understanding holiness properly. I don't know if I can say this firmly enough: Holy living is not about behaving certain ways and avoiding certain things; Holy living is about a heart transformed by God the Father through Jesus, who sends the Holy Spirit to dwell within His people.

Holiness is a derivative of a surrender to God. Holiness does not occur unless the Holy Spirit actually makes a change in a person. That's the difference in our message compared to the message of some other Christians who believe in imputed holiness. Imputed holiness says basically that God declares it, and therefore it is so. But we have traditionally believed in an imparted holiness--meaning that the Holy Spirit actually makes a change in the person's life. Unless we go back to that basic, then we lose the entire meaning of true holiness.

But then, we can't just "rest" in our holiness once the Holy Spirit makes the change in us; we need to continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. How do we do that? Not by following rules and regulations (or even Covenants of Christian Conduct), but by continuing to submit to Christ in our lives on a regular basis.

You see, it's not about our standing up to declare that certain behaviors are sinful. It's more about showing people that we live in a world that has been infected and affected by sin, within bodies that are infected and affected by sin, and born with natures that are primarily inclined to live for self instead of living for God. In order to best deal with this situation, a person must repent (change his/her mind and turn around from going his/her own way and instead follow the Way to the Father--Jesus) and live primarily for God instead of living primarily for self. But a person can't live for God on his/her own. It takes the work of the Holy Spirit to truly impart holiness to the person. Once that happens, a person's life will be changed. And as long as a person continues to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus, behaviors will be modified.

If we want the message of holiness to survive, we need to make sure to emphasize that it is primarily a work of God, not a work of behavioral changes made by human beings.

[Todd Erickson]

I would agree with you on the subject of Holiness, Peter, but the CotN has no built in practices that would actually instruct members of the CotN about how to pursue such an idea, and instead, partially due to how free form the church is (sort of an inverted Via Media) we instead circle our wagons around the code of conduct. Any group left to it's own devices will, it seems, eventually form a self editing version of legalism unless specific steps are taking to work against them, and we don't seem to have anything like that.

[Bob Hunter]

I would agree with you on the subject of Holiness, Peter, but the CotN has no built in practices that would actually instruct members of the CotN about how to pursue such an idea, and instead, partially due to how free form the church is (sort of an inverted Via Media) we instead circle our wagons around the code of conduct. Any group left to it's own devices will, it seems, eventually form a self editing version of legalism unless specific steps are taking to work against them, and we don't seem to have anything like that.

What is interesting is the demographic make-up of our Church. (Forgive me if this has already been mentioned). The epicenter of the Church in terms of political power, resources and organization is North America, but the future of the Church is in the Southern Hemisphere where some of the changes we want to see are simply not an issue. The Spiritual Landscape of North America is beginning to look like modern day Europe. Christians in South America are really not talking about homosexuality and acceptance of gays among the clergy; they are too busy planting Churches and saving souls. Christianity is finding its most ardent followers among the poor in places like Latin America, Asia and Africa. In the meantime, we sit around and debate somewhat trivial matters that are of no real consequence to the future of the Christian Church. The movement South all but guarantees that Christianity will remain stagnant in the wealthy North. The poor of the world will run with the message of Holiness and they won't balk at an emphasis on personal behaviors (we'll continue to gripe about it and probably have some real division over things like alcohol consumption and homosexuals). Theirs is a primitive kind of faith, very simple, and very Jesus focused. These issues are not up on the radar.

So, to answer your original question, I would simply point out that the future of the CotN in 2050 will be the Global South. Hopefully, we allow leadership from the Global South to take the reins. It would be a tragedy for us to demand control and act paternalistic toward the expansion of Christianity on other continents.

Here is an article in USA Today that signals a trend in North American Christianity: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...n-pew/1618445/

Also, I find Philip Jenkins book, Next Christendom a valuable resource on this subject. http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=zeeVzDmeZhEC

[Pete Vecchi]

I would agree with you on the subject of Holiness, Peter, but the CotN has no built in practices that would actually instruct members of the CotN about how to pursue such an idea, and instead, partially due to how free form the church is (sort of an inverted Via Media) we instead circle our wagons around the code of conduct. Any group left to it's own devices will, it seems, eventually form a self editing version of legalism unless specific steps are taking to work against them, and we don't seem to have anything like that.

So perhaps to answer your original question, no, it would not be OK for the American CotN to die by 2050 due to doctrinal stances--especially it focuses on the true meaning of holiness as the primary part of its doctrine.

[Todd Erickson]

What is interesting is the demographic make-up of our Church. (Forgive me if this has already been mentioned). The epicenter of the Church in terms of political power, resources and organization is North America, but the future of the Church is in the Southern Hemisphere where some of the changes we want to see are simply not an issue. The Spiritual Landscape of North America is beginning to look like modern day Europe. Christians in South America are really not talking about homosexuality and acceptance of gays among the clergy; they are too busy planting Churches and saving souls. Christianity is finding its most ardent followers among the poor in places like Latin America, Asia and Africa. In the meantime, we sit around and debate somewhat trivial matters that are of no real consequence to the future of the Christian Church. The movement South all but guarantees that Christianity will remain stagnant in the wealthy North. The poor of the world will run with the message of Holiness and they won't balk at an emphasis on personal behaviors (we'll continue to gripe about it and probably have some real division over things like alcohol consumption and homosexuals). Theirs is a primitive kind of faith, very simple, and very Jesus focused. These issues are not up on the radar.

So, to answer your original question, I would simply point out that the future of the CotN in 2050 will be the Global South. Hopefully, we allow leadership from the Global South to take the reins. It would be a tragedy for us to demand control and act paternalistic toward the expansion of Christianity on other continents.

Here is an article in USA Today that signals a trend in North American Christianity: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...n-pew/1618445/

Also, I find Philip Jenkins book, Next Christendom a valuable resource on this subject. http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=zeeVzDmeZhEC

Something interesting is that South america considers North America to be a mission field, and is planting churches here for that purpose.

I find the statement that the "primitive" Christianity practiced in South america is somehow more viable or real than what we have here. Should we all move to South america then?

I also note that many of the South American cultures actively ban homosexuals from government work, and participate in active persecution of them. Sure, they don't worry about things like we do, because they accept persecution or ostracism of them as normal, and likely see us as perverts. I'm not sure this is a great tradeoff.

[Michael Flowers]

Something interesting is that South america considers North America to be a mission field, and is planting churches here for that purpose.

I find the statement that the "primitive" Christianity practiced in South america is somehow more viable or real than what we have here. Should we all move to South america then?

I also note that many of the South American cultures actively ban homosexuals from government work, and participate in active persecution of them. Sure, they don't worry about things like we do, because they accept persecution or ostracism of them as normal, and likely see us as perverts. I'm not sure this is a great tradeoff.

You also have to remember that there is still a very strong Catholic influence in many of those countries. The Catholics don't mess around.

[Billy Cox]

You who question the ongoing future of the Church of the Nazarene need to go hear Dr. Dan Ketchum. I remember when there were less than 400,000 total members world wide and now there are more than 500,000 in Africa alone.

Todd's question is American-specific.

Africa is a place where used-up ideas/methods can be brand new again. The Jesus Film is a great example of a method that would appear ridiculous in the USA, but is quite the spectacle in undeveloped areas of the world. Likewise with revivalism.

[Benjamin Burch]

You also have to remember that there is still a very strong Catholic influence in many of those countries. The Catholics don't mess around.

Sadly Western Christianity as a whole just seems to do a really bad job of differentiating itself from the state and, eventually, acting just like the world in the process.

[Billy Cox]

So perhaps to answer your original question, no, it would not be OK for the American CotN to die by 2050 due to doctrinal stances--especially it focuses on the true meaning of holiness as the primary part of its doctrine.

Yeah, who's going to pay the denomination's bills if the rich American organization self-destructs over 'essential' issues like homosexuality?

[Bob Hunter]

Something interesting is that South america considers North America to be a mission field, and is planting churches here for that purpose.

I find the statement that the "primitive" Christianity practiced in South america is somehow more viable or real than what we have here. Should we all move to South america then?

I also note that many of the South American cultures actively ban homosexuals from government work, and participate in active persecution of them. Sure, they don't worry about things like we do, because they accept persecution or ostracism of them as normal, and likely see us as perverts. I'm not sure this is a great tradeoff.

Many Asian groups and especially Chinese Christians see us as a mission field. I agree. I'm not suggesting it is more viable. By primitive I mean that it is not highly intellectualized. Faith living is fairly straight forward. You serve God not the devil. Supernatural healings are sought. Creeds are of little concern. The Bible is the sole source of authority. Strict hierarchy is observed in the Church. I'm sure we could add more to the list...

But I don't think any of those things undermine the richness of taking the gospel to the poor.

[Billy Cox]

Many Asian groups and especially Chinese Christians see us as a mission field. I agree. I'm not suggesting it is more viable. By primitive I mean that it is not highly intellectualized. Faith living is fairly straight forward. You serve God not the devil. Supernatural healings are sought. Creeds are of little concern. The Bible is the sole source of authority. Strict hierarchy is observed in the Church. I'm sure we could add more to the list...

But I don't think any of those things undermine the richness of taking the gospel to the poor.

Maslow would have a field day with this stuff.

[Jim Chabot]

Something interesting is that South america considers North America to be a mission field, and is planting churches here for that purpose.

I find the statement that the "primitive" Christianity practiced in South america is somehow more viable or real than what we have here. Should we all move to South america then?

I also note that many of the South American cultures actively ban homosexuals from government work, and participate in active persecution of them. Sure, they don't worry about things like we do, because they accept persecution or ostracism of them as normal, and likely see us as perverts. I'm not sure this is a great tradeoff.

Africans hold similar opinions regarding the American church, they see it as apostate. I'm of the opinion that they are right, we have allowed our culture to change us rather than the other way around. The salt has lost it's savor and will be good for nothing should we not return to Scripture as our sole source for faith and living.

Which is why I could care less if we survive or not. Our survival is God's decision, it's in His hands.

[Jim Chabot]

Yeah, who's going to pay the denomination's bills if the rich American organization self-destructs over 'essential' issues like homosexuality?

"Essential?"

Hopefully we will either soon be bored with listening to this, or we will have been sufficiently annoyed by it to take decisive action.

[Nate Pruitt]

Many Asian groups and especially Chinese Christians see us as a mission field. I agree. I'm not suggesting it is more viable. By primitive I mean that it is not highly intellectualized. Faith living is fairly straight forward. You serve God not the devil. Supernatural healings are sought. Creeds are of little concern. The Bible is the sole source of authority. Strict hierarchy is observed in the Church. I'm sure we could add more to the list...

But I don't think any of those things undermine the richness of taking the gospel to the poor.

You've really struck on something here, Bob. An interesting thing has happened over the years, and we probably are participants in a form of Gnosticism in the USA (and Western Europe) in how the "faith" is "reasoned." Historically speaking intellect and faith don't have to be oppositional. Augustine was quite intelligent in his day and was baffled that anyone of less than supreme intelligence could even begin to grasp the amazing depth and fullness of the faith. There's really something in the need to love God with our whole mind, too. (This was Jesus' addendum for a Greek culture that wasn't included in Deuteronomy 6:5.) We would probably benefit from some of the Hebraic mindset of wholeness rather than our much more Greek notion of compartmentalized living. Being so compartmentalized we allow our reasoning to be separated from our living faith. In this regard I'm not sure that our academies are doing all they need to do, nor that they could in our culture.

A quick "case in point" to that last sentence. Recently in Papua New Guinea an assignment was for students to go out and plant churches. The class exceeded what the American professor felt was too lofty of a goal. Many miracles occurred. This wasn't just an exercise in their reasoning, it was an exercise in understanding and living out faith.

Earlier I had addressed the CotN dealing with homosexuality in the USA. I'm glad Marsha and Pete have said what they said, though, because I had hoped that holiness would become the central focus of this conversation. As we pursue holiness may we be bold in seeking the face of God, being freed in His glory of our fetters and chains. We need not a code that we perform yet struggle with mightily, drawing our eyes to the code as the totality as Christ has already once trumped the Law by being the fullness of the Law. I know I'm much better off avoiding alcohol, drugs, and more by focusing on God rather than consuming my mind with how I need to avoid such things. That's just not reasonable.

[Marsha Lynn]

Occasionally someone will ask, maybe most often on the CE forum, if NazNet discussions ever change anyone's mind. I don't know if this thread has changed my mind or simply sent me over the edge in the direction I was already going. Whatever the case, I am adopting a new position in my life concerning homosexuality as a result of this thread.

Is it a sin? I don't know. It's not my sin and I am in no position to decide on its sinfulness for others. I am no longer interested in discussing the matter with anyone who has no personal stake in the outcome of the discussion. I will leave it to those who deal with same-sex attraction to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Yes, I am a member of the Church of the Nazarene. No, I do not support the denomination's position on homosexuality. Since we have effectively closed our doors to people who deal with such issues on a personal level, we have no capacity for thoughtful internal discussion on the matter. Saying the Bible clearly declares it to be a sin is not helpful. The Bible never acknowledges the existence of same-sex attraction as a trial for those trying to seek God in their lives and gives no hint as to the correct way to handle such trials.

It's interesting that we have no Manual statement on masturbation, yet every unmarried person deals with the question of sexual release outside of the marital relationship. Why do we feel the need to legislate both for ourselves and our nation on matters of homosexuality but not on other matters of sexuality? I think the answer has much more to do with fear than with Bible scholarship. We fear that our own children and grandchildren will see the acceptance of homosexuality by our society and be influenced toward that sterile lifestyle so out-of-step with the joy we hope they will find in heterosexual marriage and the children born out of such a relationship. If, as John wrote, love casts out fear, then fear is evidence that we are lacking in love and need to deal with that issue in our own lives before taking on the problems of others.

I hope that the holiness church is still alive and well in 2050, if this earth continues that long. I think the only way that can happen is if we start exhibiting the love and grace we preach, particularly toward the outcasts of our society. What better example of outcasts do we have, particularly among the religious, than the LGBTQ community?

Marsha

[Paul DeBaufer]

Very good, Marsha. Thank you.

[Billy Cox]

Occasionally someone will ask, maybe most often on the CE forum, if NazNet discussions ever change anyone's mind. I don't know if this thread has changed my mind or simply sent me over the edge in the direction I was already going. Whatever the case, I am adopting a new position in my life concerning homosexuality as a result of this thread.

I can relate to this. When I have changed long-held positions, it is usually the result of new information/experience coming along and throwing that position into doubt. The two experiences that are key in my experience are 1) when an issue takes on a human face and it's totally unlike the caricatures I formerly accepted, and 2) when those on 'my' side of the issue are increasingly driven by forces that I perceive as irrational - especially fear.

Yes, I am a member of the Church of the Nazarene. No, I do not support the denomination's position on homosexuality. Since we have effectively closed our doors to people who deal with such issues on a personal level, we have no capacity for thoughtful internal discussion on the matter. Saying the Bible clearly declares it to be a sin is not helpful. The Bible never acknowledges the existence of same-sex attraction as a trial for those trying to seek God in their lives and gives no hint as to the correct way to handle such trials.

I won't be the only person somewhat surprised to hear you say this in such unambiguous terms. There are plenty of people on NazNet who cling to this notion that the CotN has a progressive stance on this issue; based entirely on a BGS letter that pre-dates half of the current board. So, you're not one of those given over to wishful thinking... Good.

I hope that the holiness church is still alive and well in 2050, if this earth continues that long. I think the only way that can happen is if we start exhibiting the love and grace we preach, particularly toward the outcasts of our society. What better example of outcasts do we have, particularly among the religious, than the LGBTQ community?

I used to think that the CotN's theological conservatism would spare it from the very divisive issue of homosexuality, but I have my doubts. Maybe a split is not on the horizon, but perhaps thousands of "little splits" as family units affected by this issue find they are no longer welcome among the Nazarenes.

[Nate Pruitt]

I won't be the only person somewhat surprised to hear you say this in such unambiguous terms. There are plenty of people on NazNet who cling to this notion that the CotN has a progressive stance on this issue; based entirely on a BGS letter that pre-dates half of the current board. So, you're not one of those given over to wishful thinking... Good.

We do prefer what that letter said, though, to the harsh nature of the Manual statement.

[Nate Pruitt]

It's interesting that we have no Manual statement on masturbation, yet every unmarried person deals with the question of sexual release outside of the marital relationship.

Dr. Henry Spaulding wrote a book about sexuality. An abbreviated version was available at the NPH table the last time they sent one to our district. He deals with the issue of masturbation in the book. I think that his conclusions were that it would be permissible for those who had some sort of disability or disorder keeping them from grasping the significance of the act outside of feeling good. If I recall he also felt it was permissible for any other person apart from lust, based on biblical influence.

Maybe our official stance to singles could be, "Good luck on keeping this a lust free experience." That should warm some hearts on our college campuses...

[Mike Schutz]

That depends on what we teach our children. If we teach our children the Scripture then they will. If we allow the world to influence them more than the Church and the Gospel then your assertion is probably correct.

Not always, Michael. Not always.

Our children have minds, and they have hearts. If they see that what they are taught in the church is not necessarily what Scripture says, or that the church has majored in minors, or the church has ignored some huge societal issues while sewing the scarlet letter on people whom they believe Christ would love, then all that they have been taught by the church will seem hypocrisy.