My previous two blog posts articulated one potential way our global denomination might structure itself for future growth. We need a structure that highlights the two New Testament (especially Pauline) values of UNITY and DIVERSITY. Many seek uniformity (everyone must be the same) – which is counterfeit unity. Pushing uniformity means squashing diversity and the result is division. Uniformity and division are antithetical the community of Jesus Christ. Unity and diversity come through the Holy Spirit, though Paul also tells us that our effort matters.
The third way I suggested to our community with some initial thoughts is the creation of Nazarene Religous Orders. You can read my initial thoughts here: Nazarene Religious Orders – A Third Way and my follow up/clarification post here: Do We Really Need Religious Orders? (Spoiler: Probably Not). *NOTE: I prefer Christi Bennett’s suggestion that instead of “orders” we call them “societies” – which is a more Wesleyan name that is probably truer to my intent than full religious orders. Thanks, Christi!
All this in response to Josh Broward’s blog: Will the Church of the Nazarene Split? *NOTE: People seem to have missed entirely that Josh DID NOT call for a split. He doesn’t want a split. He’s asking a question and inviting dialogue.
Many recognized the call for diversity. However, we must understand that the foundation for diversity is unity in Christ. My friend and fellow co-minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Shawna Songer Gaines, wrote a beautiful blog reminding us of our need to look to Jesus. You can read it here: Witnessing to the Future. A Jesus-centered & Spirit-empowered Church is the foundation of our unity and our hope for the future.
We Nazarenes are a part of the Church Universal. Our particular story is one of many diverse groups coming together around an idea and mission: Scriptural Holiness. These groups had a lot of different ways to practice scriptural holiness but they bound themselves together through this one central idea and mission.
How do we 21st century Nazarenes live into our identity as the bride of Christ? How do we lay the foundation of UNITY in the midst of growing DIVERSITY? We return to Scriptural Holiness. I’d like to examine that idea/mission in two parts: (1) Scriptural and (2) Holiness.
We begin with Scripture. Hebrews 4.12 tells us: “Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Something happens when God’s people read God’s word. We see it time and again in the Bible and in church history – when God’s people read God’s word they experience renewal and reformation.
Nazarenes are a scriptural people. However, MOST (if not all) Christians today claim to be scriptural people. Nazarenes mean something very particular when they say we are a scriptural people. Here’s our Article of Faith:
IV. The Holy Scriptures
We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.
(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
A major source of division in the denomination is that many Nazarenes don’t understand our Article of Faith on Scripture. Essentially, it’s a centrist, Wesleyan approach that stands in contrast to the fringe “literalist/fundamentalist” approach to inerrancy as well as the modern “human authorship only” interpretations coming from perspectives such as Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
It seems at every General Assembly, some group tries to change our Article of Faith on scripture. Usually, these resolutions come from the “literalist/fundamentalist” side. However, some of the controversy facing the denomination come from the “human authorship only” view of scripture. These challenges are so prevalent that a Scripture Study Commission was established at the 27th General Assembly to address the issues. This commission reported their findings to the 28th General Assembly. The study committee’s report is lengthy but can be found here: Nazarene Scripture Study Commission Report. The commission’s report is AWESOME. Seriously, read it.
Consider what an outside the denomination theologian (yet evangelical Arminian) – Roger Olsen – says about the study: I applaud the study committee’s report; it is a beautiful example of sound biblical-theological thinking about Scripture, its authority and accuracy. It also reflects the historic Wesleyan position—the one held by stalwarts of the Nazarene tradition such as H. Orton Wiley, the “dean” of Nazarene theologians. Source: Kudos to the Church of the Nazarene
This centrist, Wesleyan approach to the Holy Scriptures HAS ALWAYS BEEN the Nazarene stance. There are some “concerned” folks who don’t want to recognize this. There are some “modernists” who’d like to remove divine inspiration from the equation. I understand why each extreme wants to make these changes. They’re both REACTING to cultural forces. But let’s be HONEST – making either of these changes is NOT NAZARENE (which is pretty much what the Scripture Study Commission says). I actually don’t blame these folks for being wrong, however. That many Nazarenes don’t know how to read or study Scripture and cannot understand our Article of Faith, is a FAILURE of DISCIPLESHIP.
A good amount of the problems & division we see in the Church of the Nazarene can be traced to this failure of discipleship – this lack of understanding of what we believe about the scriptures.
In order to celebrate DIVERSITY,we must return to the foundation of UNITY that birthed a denomination – scriptural holiness. Each member, lay-leader, pastor, DS, General Church leader should proudly champion (sanctified pride, that is) our scriptural stance as articulated in our 4th Article of Faith, working diligently to help people know how to study the scriptures. The results of engaging God’s word will be the renewal & reformation we desire for our beloved Church of the Nazarene.
Next blog: Holiness – A Key to Unity. Coming Soon.
As far as I am concerned, this is SPOT ON!
Thank you, Davide! I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. Iron sharpens iron. Be blessed!
Jason, I think you are absolutely right. The centrist, moderate Welseyan approach to Scripture that focus on the Bible’s role in the economy of salvation is the ONLY Nazarene position. I’m looking forward to the next post. I am a bit perplexed about your statements that the human authors only position has any traction in the denomination. The fundamentalist streak is well documented (including some districts proposing changes), but outside of some concrete examples you may be able to provide I remain skeptical that this is a “two-sides” argument.The way I see it, it seems to be the official Nazarene position pitted against the fundamentalist stream rather than a liberal and conservative tug of war with the article of faith in the middle.
Thanks, Ryan. I’d say that the “human authorship only” group reflects some exposure to very liberal (usually German) scholarship of the 19th & 20th century. Bultmann’s “de-mythologizing” of the Bible, so to speak. Scripture, for them, isn’t really authoritative in any functional way. We can learn from it, in their view, but it’s not divinely inspired – just a good, historical document. The Nazarene statement came at a time to reject “modernism” as well as the reaction to modernism (fundamentalism).
I’m well aware of the position, I’m just not sure anyone with any influence is espousing it within the COTN. I didn’t know if you had some specific examples of advocacy for it within the denomination, things that you can point to, like one can with the concerned position re: fundamentalist approach to Scripture.
Ryan, I can think of a few within academia. But there is no concerted effort by a group of “modernist Nazarenes” like there is from “concerned Nazarenes.” Extreme modernists exist, but they’re not trying to take over the denomination. Usually, these individuals just leave the denomination or church altogether. I include it as a category for the folks who say they see it happening. But, like you – I really mostly see fundamentalism and/or neo-Calvinism as the main problem.
Jason, I agree that the “battle” is very much around Art IV. Once we properly understand it, most “battles” disappear, like the topic of evolution. I believe it is the best Article of Faith we have.
My main concern is, how do we reach this change in thinking from either side? If it is merely a lack of understanding, education and information will do the trick. But if it is a wilful choice and point of view, we have a problem. In that case we need far more effort from our leaders to clarify that though some positions can be held within our church, they are NOT what the CotN is about. Especially from the fundamentalist side, it is usually a problem to offer room. But we do not have room for people who believe contrary to who we are AND reject the folks who DO believe according to who we are. So mixed with all this information, I think in some cases, more is needed.
Hans, I believe you hit the nail on the head. It is MORE than a lack of education/discipleship (though it IS that). It is a WILLFUL choice. As you said, there needs to be far more effort from leadership (pastors, DS, RD, GS) to clarify our centrist scripture stance. While we allow people to freedom to personally believe some “non-essentials” about the bible, we do not allow a stance on scripture that is fundamentalist or modernist.
As a Brit and within the Eurasian region (rediculously big by the way) I am still quite puzzled by this series of articles. I actually think we are quite divers within Europe. Each country within it expresses it’s Christianity in an increasingly contextual way. I think we are learning to live with and still able to question issues of identity (postmodernity encourages it) and I think the previous articles reflect a fear of the reality that the establishment (whatever it is) is open to question. I think there appears to be a lot of binary thinking on the US side of the pond, ‘either/or’ are not often the only choices. From a purely personal point of view, I hear the conservative discussions and attitudes but really push them to one side and put them down to Americanisms that don’t thankfully reflect what I see in Britain. I read and hear of a lot of fundamentalism within Nazarenedom Stateside. Maybe the desperation to grow and include creates the problem with an unwillingness to challenge those concerned…… diversity and unity can happen, and does happen, but we also have to accept a bit of weeding as long as we don’t make it a club.
I worry at times when I read ‘3rd or 4th generation Nazarenes’. I question what and who some are actually worship. I am a Christian first and foremost, one who just happens to be a Nazarene for reasons and preferances…… Maybe people need to look to Europe and see Christianity on the margins instead of how it used to be, paying homage to nominalism and control.
Hey Andrew! Thanks for the comment. I can understand how this is different from your context. In reality – this series of blog posts is because many of us stateside do deal with fundamentalism (and denominationalism). I think many of us crave the kind of unity and diversity that you have in Eurasia. In fact, most of my friends desire that the church of the Nazarene’s structure frees and empowers the world to be who they are, while also giving them true leadership at the table.
For this to work, structurally things need to change. My attempts to create a structure to do that really allows us to be Kingdom people, in the Church of the Nazarene, united by our mission to live & proclaim scriptural holiness, and then encouraging the multitude of ways that happens in the world.
I REALLY like your post. It is a good explanation of Scripture and the Nazarene AoF.
I wonder which way your next post might lean. I suspect right down the middle. But I ponder if rules is what true holiness is about. My question is, if we measure holiness by any standard other than how God is working in someone’s life, then are we missing the point of holiness?
In other words, do we need a list of rules to measure how God is working in one’s life? 1 Sam 16:13
My perspective is that any rational person can willing behave a list of rules. Therefore deleting the room for the Spirit to work in one’s life.
Thanks for the comment Butch. My next post – on Holiness – begins today. You’re correct – it will lean down the middle. I am Wesleyan “via media” to the core. However, I agree with your premise, as you shall see. The emphasis should be on the Holy Spirit, not rules.