Emergent and the Church of the Nazarene
The emergent church movement has its fans and critics. My own denomination has been engaged in discussions about the helpfulness of ideas and theology with the “emergent” label. Recently, denominational leadership released a statement on their own views of the emergent church.
The statement is balanced. The key leaders in my denomination, the Church of the Nazarene, write that emergent church issues vary. Some emergent ideas are “helpful and positive.” Others are “problematic and deeply troubling.”
The statement rightly notes that diversity reigns in the emergent church movement. “Conversations range all over the map,” as the document puts it. In my opinion, both proponents and opponents of the emergent church should keep this truth in mind when using the “emergent” label.
Some self-identified emergent church leaders, say denominational leaders in this statement, “are orthodox in their theology and views of Scripture.” The statement also notes, however, that “others embrace positions which we would view as far away from what is orthodox and acceptable.”
The motives of emergent church leaders whose views may be considered unorthodox are not in question. “Even those authors and pastors who are not orthodox in their views of Scripture and its authority,” write denominational leaders, “have an awareness of the need to make the church more engaged in society so as to bring about a radical change and improvement.”
The Church of the Nazarene leadership does “not endorse those ’emergent churches’ or leaders who are not orthodox in their theology.” Presumably, what counts as orthodox would be measured by the denomination’s articles of faith, the classic creeds, John Wesley’s thought, and, above all, the Bible.
The statement on the emergent church ends with two claims that I find especially helpful. The first rightly identifies John Wesley as one whose theology and approach to ministry fits the “emergent” label. The statement reads…
“By most definitions of what is genuinely meant by “emergent,” John Wesley more than fits the description. He was radically engaged in the social needs around him while clearly calling men and women to a radical commitment to Christ and to the fullness of the Spirit in cleansing and heart purity. That is the objective toward which Nazarenes, engaged in the conversations regarding the emergent church, are committed. It is a vital conversation, but one that also carries with it the risk of being misunderstood or being classified with positions which are not healthy or appropriate.”
This parag
raph seems especially important for today’s Church of the Nazarene leaders and laity. Sometimes we forget that Wesley was a maverick with Bible in hand, a trained mind, and a heart of compassion for the least of these.
The second especially helpful claim comes in the last two paragraphs of the statement. The basic thrust is that we must continue to converse with those in the emergent Church dialogue. We must interact in good faith and love, with an eye toward Scripture and our theological heritage. The statement concludes in this way:
“We hope these thoughts are helpful to you. The issues are complex, and the rhetoric is sometimes shrill and angry. We are hopeful that we can be patient with what is a phase in a conversation that is already beginning to wind down in some areas even while it is just now being engaged in by others. Hopefully, we can move beyond the mischaracterizations and embrace what is legitimate while we readily and without hesitation reject the aberrations.”
“We pray for you as you work with your people through this issue. We are not at all embracing anything heretical, but we want to engage in conversations with our young Nazarenes who want a vibrant church that is committed to our theology and actively engaged in ministry to the lost and broken people around us.”
This recent statement was penned by Church of the Nazarene general superintendent Jesse C. Middendorf. It was circulated by general superintendent Jerry Porter with the consent of the other denominational superintendents.
I want to thank the Church of the Nazarene’s leadership for taking a wise and balanced approach to this sometimes contentious subject. Many of us have been the victims of unwarranted criticism, because we have engaged the ideas and leaders who adopt the “emergent” label. This document provides a tool to justify the ongoing work of giving an account of the hope that lays within us.
I pray that this document will provide avenues for discussion as we all attempt to live as members of God’s loving reign.
(For full text of emergent church statement, see Hans Deventer’s post on Naznet )
Newsletter
For a 200-page book of Thomas Jay Oord's best-selling writings and to receive his newsletter, add your email address...
Comments
Thank you Tom for passing this on and adding your intentional thoughts. I am excited about what I read, especially the statement supporting that the emergent church’s goals are not new, but presented in a contemporary context.
Dr. Oord: Is anyone ever going to define “emergent church” for some of us who are getting into the conversation a little later than others? I hear the term. Some sound an alarm while others seem to welcome it. Some, like myself, are in the dark, wondering what is the fuss?
Thank you,
Tom – thanks for sharing your thoughts! I appreciate you brother!
Balanced! My pastor can’t even get a reply from them on this! This is a wolf in sheeps clothing! How many people have to be forced to leave because they won’t go along with the program! You think any G.S. is not going to be P.C. when it comes to this. This sham has got to stop and stop now!
I was very pleased with Dr. Middendorf’s statement. I am glad that our leaders have a stated position on the conversation. the statement is correct, “Emergent” is a very broad label encompassing a wide array of ideas some of which cannot exist with the others. We do need to be careful with the emergent term, I do not think that it is the best term to use anymore as it is so diverse and has the propensity to polarize people by moving them into camps. While I find much of what is “emergent” orthodox and helpful these get lumped by some into the same category as those that are not orthodox or are unhelpful.
Thank you Tom, for your comments.
I love the word ‘conversation’ but I wonder where the church is headed when the conversation moves towards consensus. Should the conversation come to a close with those who are not so committed to Scriptural authority? And what of those who are not only heretical and quite adept at selling books and leading conferences while building their own kingdoms? What kind of conversation is valuable then? I thought the Nazarene statement is a best-case scenario, positive and optimistic one which will either win praise or criticism.
Thanks Tom for heads up on this one.
Thanks for your summary. I appreciate the parallel between John Wesley’s Theology and “Emergent” Theology. The core of Wesleyanism is both socially conscious and theologically moderate. Though, I dare say that some of Wesleyan Theology wouldn’t be considered “orthodox” in a strict sense; without apostolic authority, who gets to decide what is “orthodox”?
Tom… This is awesome. The balance is so important for us to embrace, rather than causing such division. I so appreciate the thought of Wesley being a “Maverick” of the faith, with a desire to rock our world with the Gospel of Christ.
Thanks Tom… and keep writing.
Blessings on you!
Todd Inman
Thanks for your insights on this important letter, Tom. I like the balance I see in the letter, as well. I trust that all the GS’s and those of us under their leadership will take this message seriously and move ahead together seeking God’s best for our future.
Thanks Tom. A nice breath of fresh air. Certainly the recent Nazarene GS statement is a much healthier approach than declaring the emergent church as our greatest threat.
I appreciate the willingness of the General Superintendents to at least allow the conversation to occur regarding emergent church leaders. At least the leadership is starting to hear the cry for reform and change.
However, the Supers say a lot of things that are not put into practice down here in the dirt where many emergent leaders live. I wonder if this will have an impact on inter-church relationships in smaller districts. I wonder if people will hear the inclusive side of the balance or if they will simply focus on the “heretics.” Heretics being, in some folks minds, those that disagree or do things differently.
I think we can only bring people back from weird and dangerous theologies when we allow for healthy, inclusive conversation. i really appreciate this statement by our generals and hope that the widespread population of the Nazarene church achieves this balance in practice as well as theory.
Good stuff, Dr. Oord. It seems to be the case that often the spiritually bored are criticized for needing to “reinvent the wheel” in regards to Church’s spiritual practices. And, sure, ultimately there isn’t anything profoundly new about the actual mechanics of an Emergent service (i.e. churches will always have some form of singing, praying, preaching and the Sacraments) but it seems so threatening and different to some.
So for me it’s less about “reinventing the wheel” and more about “rediscovering Fire.” It’s a lot like how Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” describes his journey to discover London and Orthodoxy but on a larger scale. Some day I’m sure that in time the Emergent Conversation will naturally move away from the socially progressive to become the cultural status quo which, of course, means that they will probably feel under attack by a new heretical batch of the spiritually bored who wants to make another radically different yet surprisingly similar Faith group to contrast their beliefs from their spiritual parents too. I’d like to think I’m a pretty progressive thinker but deep down inside I know I’m just a few decades away from being set in my ways. Blessings.
Tom,
Thanks again for presenting this material. Like Glen C. I would suggest that until someone nails down the theological premise of emergent church, that ‘truth’ continues to ‘emerge’ out of the cultural milieu in which we live, and that ‘truth’ will emerge in different ‘form’ than have been seen before, then it makes it difficult to affirm or not. The question seems to be is it ‘new truth’ that has emerged or the ‘old truth’ wearing a new skirt. Until we figure that out, seems we are playing with words… Like Glen, I would love to see someone nail that down…
Thanks…
Don
Tom, I am grateful for the BGS statement. I find it helpful in several ways. First, that the BGS would actually be willing to make such a statement is encouraging for those of us who consider ourselves emerging. In some small way, it gives official imprimatur to who we are and what we are doing. (That said, I’ll raise a question later in this response about that.)
Second, I think it demonstrates that the BGS aren’t, as one commentator above put, “going to be PC” on this issue. It is always easier to remain silent for fear of offending others. Fortunately, the BGS chose to stand tall and admit that there is a lot more to like about what emerging Nazarenes are doing (and to acknowledge that it is orthodox) than to dislike about it.
The statement is a properly nuanced and carefully written position. While it does, as I’ve mentioned, allow for the existence of emerging Nazarenes, it also seems to me that it holds close to the vest what is considered orthodox. Like you, I look to Scripture first and foremost, then our historic creeds, and then to our Articles of Faith. However, you of all people should know that one can hold differing views on the articles and still be Nazarene. So my question is, who is the final gatekeeper? Who determines whether the position I hold (which could easily pass the Scriptural and creedal test) is THE Nazarene position on a subject? This, it seems to me, is where many of our younger pastors are getting hung up at. As they appear before their district ministerial boards for licensure, it is often those local boards which take on the role of gatekeeper. And unfortunately, many of them err on the side of literal interpretation (or at best, one viewpoint, typically theirs) of the Articles rather than allowing for the often wide diversity of interpretation the Articles suggest. This then forces young pastors who may hold an alternative viewpoint to either conform to the board’s viewpoint (in effect, saying what they are expected to say) or to feel that they need to withdraw from the process because to do otherwise would be disingenuous.
I do find interesting one of your closing lines: “This document provides a tool to justify the ongoing work of giving an account of the hope that lays within us.” I wonder why we need the BGS to justify what God is doing through the numbers of emerging (and yes, I wish there were a different term due to its misuse and abuse) Nazarenes?
Again, I am incredibly grateful for this position statement and look forward to continued dialog with others about it.
I don’t know if it was you to whom I was speaking, but I think it was. For the longest time I have believed that Wesleyan theology was more emergent than we would believe (at least in my circles) and that the Church of the Nazarene is ahead of the curve on this emergent thing. To paraphrase a song title, “We were emergent before emergent was cool.”
Anyway, to my point. It is edifying that the letter acknowledged what I have believed for some time.
How fun is that?
I appreciate Dr. Middendorf’s statement yet it seems shrouded in ambiguity. I know that you, Tom, are inclined to things emergent but as we have talked there are limits to the left and to the right that you will not personally go. Where are those boundaries with the CotN? Are there no limits to doctrinal and practical inclusion? Earlier academic and church leaders were succinct in identifying the doctrinal views that are consistent with who/wat the people called Nazarene were in agreement. Middendorf alludes to views and voices yet names none for those who are not fully aware of the scope of the discussion. I am at a loss as to how this “statement” helps inform the leaders to a clarification that is helpful to the congregations who at time are more informed than their pastors. I would ask that particular guides be offered to assist the concerned minister to explore these helpful emergent while orthodox resources while explaining why fringe voices may not be as helpful. This should identify the liberal leaning voices as well as the more fundamentalist ones as well. I think that some to the left need not thoroughly dismiss the right anymore than the other way around.
Tom, thanks for being an initiator of Christ-centered relational conversation in the emergent dialogue. The heritage of balance we embrace in scripture, tradition, reason, and experience create quite a dynamic journey. Most the negative tension and criticism I notice seems to flow from a confusion of messgae and method.
If I may chime back in for a moment: Those who are expressing concerns about “defining” emergent are actually speaking to the best parts of the BGS letter. That is, they have been clear here that there is no “one” “emergent church” movement. That means that there are various characteristics that have “emerged” but there are a variety of doctrinal stances within these approaches. A greater emphasis upon Community, upon more ancient forms of worship, and upon the Sacraments define much of what is emerging. Also, a general rejection of the “seeker-sensitive” marketing model of ministry that has really come up short in producing mature disciples for the most part is part of this movement. There is plenty for Christians to be cautious about in any movement, including this one. And, there are leaders with whom I and other disagree. However, I applaud those who refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Thanks.
No commentary to share, but I too am grateful for this statement, and appreciate your post, Tom.
The people that the Nazarene church refers to as “lost and broken people around us” aren’t really as lost as a Nazarene might believe them to be. I don’t know specifically how the Nazarene church lends a hand out to those “lost” people, but I think it is impossible for any church to reach out to another group of people unless they two discourses meet in the middle. Nazarenes and even Christians in general tend to get into the mindset of getting people to convert, when in actuality, people out there just want to be met at a level of where they are at in a particular time in their life. This however requires Christians and Nazarenes to be able to compromise aspects of their history and discourse to allow an understanding to occur on both sides.
I appreciate the appeal to history when talking about “emergent” practices and theology. I think we could clear up a lot of miscommunication if we could know enough of our own Church history to be conversant about it. I sincerely hope that we can all be “full of grace and truth”, and express our opinions with a proper degree of humility.
I found this entry helpful and useful as both a member of the Nazarene Church and a member of the Christian faith. I feel that in today’s world terms are thrown about and some of those terms have a negative tone about them. By better understand the actual term and the way it is viewed by a denomination we are more able to see how this doctrine fits into our everyday lives.
I can appreciate the BGS attempt to be at a center point on this movement that is so diverse and that can further divide. I also suggest the BGS seek out those like yourself who can apply solid scholarship, orthodox theology, and sound journalism to continuously put forth a true and robust criticism of the work of the EC’s principles. We cannot simply paint the conflict as objectivism vs. relativism (recently heard from a pulpit as the “skinny on the subject”), when the issues are far more extensive and nuanced than such sound bites can suggest. A summary of the issues point-by-point is needed for pastor and laypersons. That would enable a recast for those just catching up with the movement or getting ‘caught’ into the movement to get helpful and informed information. I think most of us will agree a broad stroke criticism is insufficient to give good directions at the grassroots level. Thanks.
One of the fundamental characteristics of the emergent movement is arguably that is more of a “centered set” rather than a “boundary set” way of thinking.
I believe this could be very easily incorporated into the Nazarene ethos. It also may be a key way to think about things in order to know how to effectively communicate to younger and/or postmodern generations. Frankly, I think the emergent movement is MOSTLY about learning how to communicate and reach a culture that is not responding well to traditional communication methods.
This isn’t new. Per the familiar quote… “In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” The centered set way of thinking articulates this further, better in my opinion.
For those who are unfamiliar… most churches and denomination somehow define how someone knows if they are “in” (participants, members, leaders, etc.). Historically, this has been by defining a “boundary”. (e.g. articles of faith, standards of Christian living, etc.) If you read and agree to these things, profess this, then you are considered to be “in”. Obviously, this is rational, but there are problems. The most frequent criticism, is for that person who is not quite there, either has to remove himself from participation… or learn to say the right words, and be somewhat disingenuous about it. We also refuse people the right to honestly explore, and as a result, arguably, they never come to “own” the faith as fully as they would have if they had been given freedom to find an authentic path that allows us to internalize concepts. Of course, boundary set is also criticized for promoting legalistic and/or judgmental attitudes.
Center set describes a destination that we are all aiming toward. There is less concern about where someone is, as there is about where they are headed. Authenticity true seeking of God, and relationship (with God and others) are valued. You don’t have to jump any (man-made) hurdles to be accepted. Those who are far along in the journey can comfortably walk along side someone who is just starting to figure it out. The most commonly expressed destination I’ve heard is to follow Jesus (do what he did, what he commanded, etc.). If you make that your aim, presumably you will figure it out.
Someone with a centered set mentality doesn’t get as worked up about whether someone is a little off in their theology, if they are clearly “moving up and to the right.” In contrast, they may be very concerned about their mature “brother in Christ” who quit moving forward, and seems stagnant in their faith. It’s not that either one of these is ideal, but the question is one of momentum. A centered set mentality generally relies heavily on the work of the Holy Spirit to impact the life of anyone truly seeking God’s direction.
Practical example: a young adult couple recently deciding to “live together” (quite consistent with their belief system & worldview), become interested in God, so check out your local church. If jump right into changing their external behavior, we’ve probably just missed an opportunity. If we say, let’s read Matthew together, ask God to speak to us, and see how it applies to our lives, and they go for it… you will initiate an exciting journey.
Without trying to be too critical, the discussion above seems only to focus on the “emergent” church which seems to say, its all about us defining what the parameters are or should be NOW! Interesting to note that the emerging culture, sometimes referred to as the post-modern culture, has been rising to the forefront at a minimum of the last 13 years. And, it is not just a phenomenon in the U.S. mainstream but in Canada, Europe, Australis etc. as well.
The ripple affect of these emerging cultural changes has pushed over into Christendom in a variety of ways and streams of impacts. My question is, as a lay-person who believes it is critical that leadership have an awareness around occurring cultural changes whether church oriented or not, why have they waited this long and why have they not been leading the discussion (or conversation) before now?
It is not just the “younger or emerging” generation that is interested in the emergent scenarios relative to church life that are unfolding. I am in my 60’s and over the last 3+ years have been reading, studying, and sharing observations that seem critical to our times but have found it difficult to find leadership willing to have discussion or dialogue(conversation) around it because it has the potential to mean change. If anyone doesn’t think there have been drastic impacts in the church already, take a look at Barns’s research.
Timing is important in these unfolding events and I fear we are behind!
“This document provides a tool to justify the ongoing work of giving an account of the hope that lays within us.”
Thanks, Tom. That, precisely, is often the biggest challenge and source of discouragement for me. It can be difficult to find ways to follow after and relate to God as best as we know how while feeling at liberty to share that process within the church community, knowing that in the face of such openness many will be quick to whip out the ever-readied heretic crayon.
Tom a bit off the rails. Why don’t you shave your head and grow a goatee? Very cool and emergent in the best sense of the word. Not saying I have seen a vision though I am old. Guess with me it would be a dream ! Hey if you don’t like it you can wait a bit and be back as you were.
Knowing all six of the men well I doubt that all six signed off on this. I would like to see that issue addressed as to the compilation of all six for sure. Confusion is in many ways the mother’s milk of Emergent thought.
I appreciate the fact that the Church of the Nazarene recognized John Wesley’s role as an “emergent” theologian. The Nazarene affirmation of “tradition” from the Quadrilateral shows that we should be willing to genuinely interact with our ideological predecessors. While we should not accept on face value all of the emergent tradition (or all of Wesley’s teachings, even), we should critically examine the past and present in order to create a better future.
Chuck,
Your first comment doesn’t even make sense, given that Tom already sports a goatee, and it doesn’t seem helpful, nor related to anything in this post.
Your second comment seems even less helpful.
(1) Not all GS need to agree for it to be an official statement by the BoGS
(2) Confusion is not the “mother’s milk” of Emergent thought. Instead, it is rejection of the categories, ideas, and language used by modernists to speak about things. Thus, when modernists fail to understand it, they say that Emergent folk ar being “ambiguous,” “unclear,” or “confused.” This is simply not true. Modernists want to nail everything down to “A or B,” and “Yes or No.” All along, the Emergents and Postmodernists are saying “actually, A and B are both poor answers, why not C?” and “both of those answers are Bad, I cannot say “Yes,” but I can’t say “no” because I do in fact affirm some of those sentiments.”
It is only confusion to those who refuse to understand.
I was grateful for the use of the word “conversation” in the BGS’s statement. The desire to avoid conversation is a sympton of fear and insecurity—and characteristic of cults or fundamentalistic extremism.
The term “emergent” is so broad as to be nearly useless for any clear communication, but what would help are clear discussions of the actual ideas of some emergent writers.
Is there a clear denominational venue where specific emergent ideas are being discussed, tested against Scripture, and examined in light of Weslyean orthodoxy? If not, where should that be happening? It is here where real leadership by the GBS may be needed. They could suggest a process and set the table for the “conversation”. Anyone know if this is in the works?
Chuck,
Let me first say I think you owe Tom an apology, your comments are not becoming of a Nazarene minister. I hope you retract them as they condescending to another minister is not helpful.
Also, as one who identifies with many aspects of the emerging movement, I would offer the following. The Dogmatic, overly rational propositional theologies of modernism are out of touch with todays emerging generation of Christians. I think a lot of emerging types would just like to see more of an authentic Jesus movement invade our churches and less of the standoffish exclusivism that characterizes some. I had to spend some time outside of the Church of the Nazarene to better understand this. And I truly believe we cannot survive as a denomination until we enlarge the tent and move away from the selective categories that have historically defined us in some cases by default. Just my two cents worth.
I think that the word “emergant” is hard to understand and is somewhat vague. That being said I do appreciate this statement the denomination has made on the emerging church. They seem to be willing to be in an open discussion with some who think differently from them. I am glad for this, because it really bothers me when people are not even open to discussion. As Mark above states, “the desire to avoid conversation is a symptom of fear and insecurity”. This is very true, and I hope that our denomination continues to journey in love with those who are “emergant.”
Tom, I have a few questions about the emergent church. 1. Who defines the emergent church? Is it the founders of the movement, Brian Mclaren and Rick Warren? Is it the pastor who jumps on the name, but does his own thing unreeated to other churches in the movement? Is it the person who sees a bunch of emergent churches, figures out what they all have in common and then tells his friends what an emergent church is?
Who gets to decide if a church should take on the movement and its characteristics? Should the congregation vote on it or should the pastor coerce a church to go emergent? If the pastor coerces a congregation to go emergent against their will or sneaks up on them and accomplishes it without their consent can that possibly be of God given your statement that God is does not coerce?
Dr. Millhuff,
Your sarcastic and condescending post was far beneath a person of your stature. To stoop to such a level only emboldens those who already seem to feel empowered to dishonor and disrespect the clergy and those in leadership. I was surprised and disappointed that a person with as successful and public a career as yours would so callously engage in such behavior. You are an ordained elder please set a better example than this.
.
Rick Warren is emergent? That’s news to me, and him, I imagine. I don’t think there’s anything emerging about booking the Jonas Brothers for an Easter Sunday concert in order to get more butts in the seats and more souls in Heaven. That’s like the definition of anti-emergent.
Dan Ross, some of the earliest books written with the “emerging” label on them showed that it is, in part, a reaction AGAINST the seeker-sensitive movement associated with Rick Warren. Still, Rick was generous enough to endorse at least one of those books (Dan Kimball’s “The Emerging Church”), because he saw that these “emerging” folks were helping reach a new, postmodern generation with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Christianity Today has published some very helpful articles over the years about the broad range of churches and perspectives that get grouped under the “emerging” label. You can find them here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/special/emergent.html
Tom a brother that I do not know has taken umberage at my remarks about you shaving your head. He as well as others may not know that we are good friends with history and that of course I spoke in jest. For any who were offended I ask their forgivness. You know me well enough to know my intent. To keep the peace in grace is my goal ! I pray this satisfies the angst I have created. I am in reality a donkey tied to The Vine. (Gen 49:11) BlessIngs for you all is my prayer.
Chuck
Highschool
Where is TAHM in any of this. After all we Nazarenes grew out this movement. P Palmer had a bit to do with it all. Just a thought.
Chuck
Highschool
Now if only this will filter to the local churches on my district, where anti emergent sermons are common, and it is being preached by some as a salvation issue.
the true danger in our churches is the in pouring of fundamentalists and their agenda.
I have been searching and conversing on the subject for a while now… have read Rob Bell, have read Brian McLaren… still not convinced that they are being completely faithful to our Nazarene statements of Creed… sorry. Prime example, Rob Bell brings up the “what if” question in Velvet Elvis. Basically making the point that if the virgin birth of Christ was ever proved false… we would have lost nothing in our “brick wall” of faith, and that we can stand without that. With those “conversations” you cross out of Christianity and into generic faith in God, and in Jesus as a “righteous man”. ..
I am still keeping an open mind and will continue to process and pray… but I am increasingly concerned over the statement, “not all emergents are the same, some are more extreme than others.” I think this statement ignores the fact that they all endorse one another’s books and speak at one another’s conferences.
I also do not think that those who are defending the Nazarene doctrine of the trinity, salvation by faith, and the resurrection of Christ are “fundamentalists”, as one of your bloggers mentioned either… which is an attitude that I see repeated in many online Emergent discussions.
I’ve been doing some research not on this topic alone, but more along the lines of religious identity, and stumbled across an article on “Reforming Ecclesiology in Emerging Churches” and found it be interesting.
Some of what it states is how the “emergent” movement is a really trying to get back to the “roots”. Yet, I think what it is, is more of a reaction against the structure the Church has mostly become. The Church has become “professionalized and management-oriented”.
This is where I start to argue with myself, it would be great to get away from denominations and just have it where people work together. However, I feel that there is still too much good in denominations, I’m not ready to take the fight against structure. Yet, this quote makes sense, “In addition to taking good (the) good news to others, the church ought also to be open to learning something new and good from authentic encounters with difference.”
Gene Schandorff spoke about this in chapel once, the thought of us verses them. There is no us or them. Our goal as a church should not be to find people different than us, and mold them into people like us. I would dare to say it should be to find people not like Jesus (all of us), and work on becoming more like Him.
Those are just some quick thoughts from my basic knowledge. I already bought a few books off Amazon to catch up on the whole “emergent” thing, before I get left in the dust.
“We must interact in good faith and love”
Amen!
I’m often very appreciative of the Nazarene Denomination and it’s open and middle approach to controversial issues. The emergent church has caused a lot of people to jump on band wagons and a lot of anger. I admire wanting people to learn before they leap. Every movement has it’s nut jobs, but often there are at least some truths that can be gleaned from a movement. Thank you for attaching the link.
I think it’s important that we don’t get hung up with one extreme or another. After all who judges what is right and what is wrong, just like John Wesley wasn’t seen as having all the right answers, and the Nazarene church is denomination that split from another. I think we do need to work together and be aware of what we believe and then work together.
Tom, thanks for offering up a place, and your thoughts, to convene discussions such as this.
As I read through the comments, it seems that we are bit like the story of the blind men describing an elephant…depending on what part we touch (or touches us), we have a different sense of the whole.
Each of us experiences the ‘CotN’ differently, depending where we attend, who we dialogue with, and where we reach out…even where we live. So it is difficult to have a definitive view of what is, or what should be. We experience the denomination in diverse ways, as it is with our opinion or experience with the emergent church.
Thank you to all who have ‘weighed in’ here. The rich dialogue needs to continue with open minds and hearts, meaningful discussion, and expansive experiences, as we try and define the ‘elephant’ of change in the church. Change in the church will never stop, nor will the discussions end. What is new and disrutive today, may be tomorrow’s traditions. As others have eluded to, even Wesley may have been perceived as radical in his day, and yet he may be seen as our orthodoxy.
As Paul said to the Corinthians, ‘By all means save some…’
@Dan Ross
Those same protagonistic questions could be asked of movements like “the protestant church”, “the evangelical church”, or even “the bible believing church”.