Skip navigation

Category Archives: society

Is There a Future for the Church of the Nazarene?

Let’s get the easy/hard stuff out of  the way. I LOVE my denomination. Okay, I love a lot of denominations, but I love mine. I do not love it over the Church, but that’s a discussion for another day.
Back on the 19th of September, I quoted Ed Stetzer (on Google+ & Facebook) regarding his views on the house church and mega-church models.

…I think that the megachurch is a growing trend and the house church is also a growing trend– at the same time. For what it is worth, I am excited about both. God has used the megachurch to reach Korea and the house church to reach China. Let’s hold our models loosely and our Jesus firmly.

Ed Stetzer

It was with great sadness that I read about Shaun King’s resignation from the Atlanta-based Courageous Church. It was an even heavier heart that I read his wife’s emotional response to the turmoil. I don’t know either Shaun or Rai King, but I can “hear” the breaking of their hearts. I also cannot help but feel that there was a tad bit of gloating over at Stories From the Revolutions: The Journal of the LK10 Community, but that really is an aside rather than the point. If Ed Stetzer is correct (and demographically, he probably is), what does that mean for a denomination like the Church of the Nazarene?

The Church of the Nazarene is a collection (in the United States, at least) of many churches, of many sizes. Most are not house churches (though, there are more every year, but still, not the fastest growing segment), nor are most mega-churches (though, we have a few of those, too). The Church of the Nazarene is primarily made up of churches with a population of 50 to 150. This range doesn’t fit into either “model”. As the demographics of the church head toward the “well-curve” of the house/mega-church extremes, where does a denomination that is more of a bell-curve fit?

It doesn’t. Ooops. I said it. We, the Church of the Nazarene, don’t fit.

I think I’m okay with that. No. I don’t think I’m okay with that, I am okay with that.

I don’t think the extreme of house/mega-church will last long, it really can’t. Neither one really fits American tendencies particularly well. They seem to, on the surface, but they have no particular balance. I could be wrong, but I do think the face of the American church will change…for the better. Mega-churches will have their mega-star pastors who hold their churches together by force of will or by almost in-human organizational skills (this, by the way, is a stereotype, and does not apply to all). House churches will rise and fall almost as much as breathing, especially as many (as shown far too often by history) will start to split/form based upon personalities and minor (and not-so minor) theological differences. Both seem (again, a stereotype) to be non-denominational either by intent or by nature, so there will often not be a larger body that can provide the balance that often seems to be needed to the local body.

For whatever reason, the Church of the Nazarene seems to live/survive/thrive between the extremes of house/mega-church. I strongly suspect that much of that is based upon our Holiness heritage. Much of what the mega-church seeks is a body driven to serve Christ in a huge way (at least in their words and mission statements). The Holy Spirit is the best driver of that, rather than human will and desire. The house church seeks/demands discipleship (rightfully so) of the body, but often seems to leave that to individual desire (not always bad), with little balance or boundaries (can lead to very bad things). The Holy Spirit brings those with open hearts to Christ to do His work in the world, shaping them more and more to be like Him. That is Holiness.

Once the dust settles, which it will, from the church-size wars, the Church of the Nazarene will still be here, preaching Holiness to His people who have been called and have answered, and preaching it to those called, but have yet to answer.

 

The Pursuit of Happiness

I’ve been annoyed lately (not always a good thing before writing a post). Probably centered around the Fourth of July (the formal U.S.A. Independence Day), there is always a spate of articles about the U.S.A. being founded on Christian principles, which is somewhat true. Then there is the argument over whether Thomas Jefferson was a Christian or Deist, and the new one was John Adams. Since John Adams berated his son John Quincy Adams for being a devout Christian (perhaps it’s an Adams thing, especially when one reads the letters between John and Abigail Adams), one could question how much Christianity was in John Adams’ faith.

The issue that has brought this to the forefront for me is homosexual marriage. Nope this is not a post on homosexual marriage itself, but the conservative/traditional/orthodox (and add fanatical/hateful/hurtful to many of those who have responded) response. Oddly, for me, this is not a theological post. The question that is asked by many, what right of happiness is there? Now, this question can be applied to homosexual marriage, polygamy, marijuana, and so on equally. Including (drumroll, please) religion.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, 4 July 1776

Note the “pursuit of happiness”. Wikipedia notes that some call this the best known English language sentence in the world. The school systems, secular institutions, and faith institutions have trumpeted this sentence for years. Thus we have declared that happiness is the most important thing/pursuit. Of course, Americans will pursue that which they think will make them happy. Currently, certain groups believe that having the right to “marriage” will make them happy. In truth, it might make certain things easier to obtain (like health care), but that won’t necessarily make any of them happier. Then there are those that believe that it is their obligation to support those who are pursuing happiness, which, in many ways, should be celebrated as concern for their fellow citizen.

Again, please don’t take any of this post as support for homosexual marriage, or even opposition to it. That is not the point of this post.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fruit of the harvest. The seeds that have been sown for generations is the “right” to “the pursuit of happiness”. Why is everyone so surprised at the result?

The Key is the Response to Community, part 2

(Please read part 1 first)
So, what light can this shine on our lives? Many things bind us together, some are voluntary, some are not. In the case of religion (or faith if the word “religion” bothers you), we do things together to (re)affirm our community. Circumcision was the earliest (and physically experienced) Jewish rite that affirmed community. However, things that seem similar to a certain rite (female circumcision, in this case) can actually have detrimental effects upon the community.
As Christians, we affirm our community through common worship, communion, and baptism. Baptism and communion are the primary “physical” modes to experience our communion with each other, but worship is a vital component as well. By experiencing the same things together, we forge a common identity, a voluntary community. Just as they could not be neglected in Old Testament times (for by doing so, one’s place within the community was threatened), they should not be neglected today.
This is not an old style versus contemporary versus whatever worship war that we’re talking about, but a communal and meaningful call to understand why we are together. However, the signs of communal worship (as defined by Jesus and the Apostles) are communion (with or without a common meal), baptism, and God’s Word (not, by the way, necessarily in that order).
We cannot be the church without understanding why we are the church, and what acts define the church.

Did You Know (Version 4.0)

This was released in Fall 2009, and if feels out of date already! Since I posted Version 3.0 in December 2008, I figured that getting this out there wouldn’t be a bad idea.

The Key is the Response to Community

Leviticus 12 (ESV) seems to paint a pretty gender-biased view from our overly sensitive gender aware lives. In fact, it seems pretty anti-female. However, even the ESV Study Bible doesn’t say this, but actually aserts that since the text does not mention why, that it is too much inference. So, where does that leave us?

The mother is unclean (stated specifically) because of the blood that was a result of the birth. It is the sex of the baby that is crucial. Back a few generations, God commanded that a male baby be circumcised. That circumcision was to happen on the eighth day. For the sake of the continued adherence to the commandment of circumcision, the mother is not as unclean on the eighth day.

God did not command that girls be circumcised (a horrible and unjustifiable, in my Western opinion, mutilation of young girls that occurs today), but that boys must be. Therefore, it is my thought that the entire difference of the uncleanness of the mother due to gender is based not on gender per se, but on circumcision.

Circumcision was an outward sign of one’s membership in the nation set apart by God. Circumcision was a physical representation of one’s place in community. Circumcision was a testimony by the parents, family, and larger community, that the child was part of the family and their declaration that they were still followers of God.

It is the larger picture of community, and the vital role that circumcision played in it, that changes the unclean durations based upon the gender of the child. Community was survival, and still is today.

Breaching Faith With God, By Breaching Faith With Others

In Leviticus 5:17-19 (ESV) & Leviticus 6:2 (ESV), we see that God is ever present (i.e., omnipresent) in our lives. This includes, according to these two passages, when one fails to fulfill one’s obligations to others. This includes when one “finds” things that were “lost”.

When one’s obligations to others are not fulfilled, according to these two passages, one’s obligations (or relationship) to God is also unfulfilled. I’ve heard people say that as long as they keep their promises to God (really easy if none are made), everyone else does not matter. These two passages from Leviticus make the point that everyone else does matter. It is not just a one way relationship between the individual and God, but between the individual and other individuals. Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:30 & Luke 10:27, emphasize this in another way.

Just as God is present when the obligations between individuals are broken, God is present when love is spread between individuals:

35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Matthew 25:35-40 (ESV)

While love is displayed here in a certain way (and, I believe, taken out of the context of scripture by too many advocates of social justice), and doesn’t cover the entire scope of the “social contract” (including discipline), it shows that God is present between the interaction of all of His people. Thad does not mean that all are saved, or that all are doing the will of God, but that God is present no matter what.

What Do You See When You Look At…

With the celebration of the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr,  we see where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is used to bolster movements and causes that he did not specifically speak on. For example, in Raleigh-Durham, NC, a gay rights activist is torqued that a pastor who preaches a historical understanding of the bible’s view on homosexuality will be speaking at a tribute to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (see the article in question here).

Regardless of what either person in question believes is right or wrong, both are imposing their beliefs onto Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for very different reasons. Honestly, with what we have been told (the King family is very careful with their messaging in this regards), both views could be considered as being compatible with what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed (again, as far as we, or at least I, know).

I see this argument every year, and while I do suspect that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would not view gay rights as compatible with scripture, that really isn’t the issue at hand. Let’s go back in time to 2008.

Sen. Barack Obama was the Democrat Party’s nominee for President of the United States. While I freely admit that I was, and am still, not a fan of his, his passion and charisma were undeniable. His speeches were also quite good. However, what was amazing (in that he did it as well as he did, but not that he did it, as all politicians do) was  how two different political views saw a completely different person. What was even more amazing, was how supporters viewed him differently. While he was pushing for health care reform of some sort, I heard different supporters come away with different meanings of his statements and words. In other words, they put on him what they wanted to see.

It is the same, but more so, with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Or, should I say Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Both Rev. and Dr. are correct, but for each person who reads this, Rev. and Dr. will probably provide different starting points, and it doesn’t matter that his doctorate was theological.

Famous people, especially dead ones, are easy to put one’s own beliefs onto. We will often look at them, and interpret everything they did or said through the lenses of our beliefs. Christians (not all, but far too many) have done the same thing. We take our beliefs (communism, capitalism, race, nationality, culture) and shape Jesus. However, if we read the scriptures and the views of other Christian people (especially from other cultures or theologies), it has a tendency to shake our lenses a bit. Sometimes more than we like.

We like our Jesus just like we like our politicians and celebrities: safe for us, but not for them. Sometimes I’ve been guilty of that, too. However, with Jesus, at least, if is safe for everyone, then we can be sure that that’s a false view of Him.

4 Feb 2010: This was cross-posted to Wrecked.org, a Christian blog. I am honored. I have been blessed and challenged by the posters and commenters that I have experienced there. You can see it here, and see the challenging posts that others have written.

Natural Disasters and Hell

No, I’m not talking about Pat Robertson’s latest “wisdom”.

What I am talking about is human nature. Specifically, I am talking about the all too human nature of Christians, especially “Western” “Civilization” Christians. I do not decry anyone that seeks to give to help that nation. We did. In fact, I believe it is part of the imago dei to want—and maybe even need—to help people. Often times, however, we are very selfish in that regard. We don’t want to help people if it is inconvenient, or if it might cost us something. That would be the Fall.

The Fall and imago dei are not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about me, and maybe you. Do you have friends that don’t know Jesus Christ as their savior? Why are we tweeting and blogging and what have you about Haiti, but not about the peril of the souls of our friends and/or family?

It’s easy to say and perform acts of Christian love when helping others like those in Haiti, or those who suffer such natural disasters. It’s a lot harder to talk about our friends and family going to Hell. It’s a lot harder to live an everyday Christian life, and have it be a testimony to our faith in Him.

I know that I, at least, suffer with the fact that I am not a very good person. I am certainly not the kind of person that exemplifies the stereotyped “goody two-shoes” Christian. I’ve got issues. I get mad. I say stupid and hurtful things. I make mistakes.

Just like everyone else, I know I am not the best testimony for Jesus Christ, because I am a fallen person. Yet through the continuing and constant working of Jesus Christ (through the person of the Holy Spirit) in me, I am slowly being changed (sometimes the old and new self are in an all out war) to be more like Him.

Yet, the church has propagated the impossible view of the Christian, and even aided and abetted the media in that (in other words, it’s not just the media’s fault). Now before we can even talk about Heaven or Hell, we have to teach theology, because so few (including Christians) really understand. We are stumbling and falling, trying the bear the  weight of “Cultural Christian” and “lazy” Christian baggage.

My own denomination (Church of the Nazarene) has contributed to the confusion with Entire Sanctification, which was partially built upon John Wesley’s Christian Perfection. We don’t even use words such as propitiation, expiation or justification any more, or at least we don’t use them in a way even “church” people understand. Thus these vital concepts are not part of their lives, and cannot be part of our testimonies.

The church itself has weakened the will of its people to share  Jesus. It is not, and never will be, just about the crisis of the day. It is, and always will be, about the crisis of eternity.

Even Religious People Have Different Views?

Shocking! (sarcasm)

Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation1. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?

1We 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. (see Article IV in our Manual)

Do Christians Believe in Redemption (i.e., a new creation) or Not?

I saw this headline, Ky. Church Ordains Registered Sex Offender, a few days ago, and was finally able to read it. And, I finally decided to actually post something on my blog, rather than twitter.

I have to say this brief article causes me no small amount of anguish. I cannot imagine what both the man in question, the ordaining officiant, the congregation, the denomination (if any), and the surrounding community are feeling. Yes, the article provides some quips, but depth is required with such a report, not quips.

First and foremost, do all the “Christians” affiliated with the situation (including the surrounding community) truly believe:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV)

I am not saying this to be snarky. I have to admit, I say I believe it, and I experienced it. However, when it comes to my children, will I need something more? What would ever satisfy most parents that their child is safe? How does a church prevent a minister from being with children? It can’t, I think, and expect to be effective.

How does the church be redemptive in such a situation? Is it a no-win situation? Who will gamble their children?

I cannot question the guy and his faith. I can certainly question the wisdom of the elders of the church, the denomination, and the ordaining officiant. Were they oblivious?