As a Nazarene pastor and someone who has participated for the better part of the last ten years in the emerging church conversation, I was really please yesterday to read the first official statement from the Board of General Superintendents (essentially our Bishops in the Nazarene World) regarding the emerging church. This statement was put out, without a doubt, because of some who claim to be part of the Nazarene church and have been very vocal and frankly quite caustic over the idea of Nazarenes engaging in this conversation. Here is the statement that was released. As always, I would love your thoughts.
The BGS, through Naznet, has posted a new statement that may well be of interest. Here is the text:
The emergent church – From the General Superintendents
We appreciate your concerns regarding the conversations surrounding “the emergent church.” The issues related to this topic are many. Some are helpful and positive; others are problematic and deeply troubling.
“The emergent church” is really somewhat of a misnomer. While there are many attributions which imply that there is a single focus or movement called “the emergent church,” in reality, the conversations range all over the map. Some people believe that there is a monolithic kind of conspiratorial entity that is seeking to undermine the church with heresy and immoral license.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are people who view the whole concept of an emerging church as a positive and hopeful expression of the church seeking to genuinely come to terms with ministry in a complex and rapidly-changing culture, while seeking to make Biblical truth relevant. These people depend heavily on the authority of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to radically change lives, communities, and nations. They are often radically engaged with the brokenness in society through active, compassionate ministries that work hard to bring renewal and conversion.
Nazarene Theological Seminary (NTS) and some of our universities are engaged in the conversation in order to help correct some of the aberrations that are associated with some of the “emergent” churches.
There are widely-read authors who readily identify themselves as “emergent church leaders.” While some of them are orthodox in their theology and views of Scripture, others embrace positions which we would view as far away from what is orthodox and acceptable. Yet even those authors and pastors who are not orthodox in their views of Scripture and its authority have an awareness of the need to make the church more engaged in society so as to bring about a radical change and improvement.
We do not endorse those “emergent churches” or leaders who are not orthodox in their theology. The involvement of many of our young pastors and students in the conversation is an attempt to embrace the positive dimensions while clearly articulating an orthodox interpretation of Scripture and theology.
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.
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.
Jesse C. Middendorf
General Superintendent
Church of the Nazarene————————————
Received this from the GMC by request of Dr. Porter with the explicit statement: “Feel free to circulate these documents.” I presume this was written in reply to questions and concerns around this topic.
In a later email he wrote: “the BGS endorsed it as a good point of reference regarding this conversation”.
March 10, 2010 at 3:16 pm
We do not endorse those “emergent churches” or leaders who are not orthodox in their theology.
Nope, absolutely no endorsing whatsoever…We, um, just encourage the reading of their books, listen to them at our retreats, meetings and conventions and implement some of their ideas. No endorsing, though. (Robert Gibbs…is that you?)
And, I wonder…
Who are these emergent leaders that the General Superintendents refer to as “not orthodox in their theology“?
“By most definitions of what is genuinely meant by “emergent,” John Wesley more than fits the description.”
Ha, ha, ha, ha…very funny – can’t stop laughing! Wait a minute, on second thought…this is so ridiculous it is not even funny.
I would love to listen to an encounter between Wesley and an emergent who sympathizes with, and glorifies, universalism, or maybe overhear Wesley’s response to an emergent’s heretical nonsense about varying theories of atonement and how the cross is false advertising for God…that ought to be a treat.
Or…sit the Wesleys in the Black Box bar during a curse-filled sermon, by Peter Rollins, that calls Judas one of the most faithful men in history and see if you can pry Susannah Wesley’s tin ear death grip from Rollins’ head before John has quoted the book of Isaiah, and a good portion of the New Testament, and before Charles finishes Blow Ye the Trumpet, Blow and Lamb for Sinners Slain.
Or…put the Wesleys in a Nazarene plant emergent community gathering (a.k.a. Sunday service) where the “facilitator for the day” leads a discussion on American Indian culture. I will guarantee you that John Wesley, once called a Bible Moth, which many emergents would label idolatry of the Bible, would not be approving, appreciative, nor amused.
For that matter, bring John Wesley to a bar and see how he interacts with the “broken” around him. I dare say that it would not be supported by the likes of Bell, Paggitt, McLaren, Jones, Rollins, etc.
Helpful, G.S. Middendorf? Uh…no.
March 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Paul,
The whole point of the statement was a differentiation between those in the Nazarene church who are trying to engage with culture and these conversations and certain famous emergents whose views do cross over some questionable lines of orthodoxy.
You have brought up Peter Rollins a couple of times but do you know anything about him or his writings? Your caricature of him makes you sound uninformed at least. I am not defending him, nor do I need to, but I have read him pretty extensively and he is ridiculously brilliant. He is Irish, so yes he does have a potty mouth
, but he really worth reading. His book, The Fidelity of Betrayal (which you are some what commenting on with the Judas thing) is fascinating and Biblically sound.
I loved the statement, and I think J-W would too!
March 12, 2010 at 9:35 am
Greg,
The whole point of the statement was a differentiation between those in the Nazarene church who are trying to engage with culture and these conversations and certain famous emergents whose views do cross over some questionable lines of orthodoxy.
Really? Then, why didn’t they differentiate by naming names? Without letting folks now who the heretics are, there is no real and substantive differentiation (but only the appearance that there may be). The statement, as a differentiation, is gutless.
And…I love how emergents throw out the phrase “engage with culture” as if they have invented something new. I have witnessed Bell and Pagitt “engaging the culture” at the Seeds of Compassion event and it had absolutely nothing to do with the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and/or making disciples. Bishop Desmond Tutu, or the Dalai Lama, or the attending Muslim cleric could have responded in the same manner.
The emergents, historically, have accepted as legitimate, immersed themselves, and communicated from the position of a postmodern mind instead of using the absolute truth of the Scripture to refute the ambiguties of postmodern thought (as the Apostle Paul did so well in Athens – Acts 17). It is one thing to recognize what the predominant accepted philosophy of the culture is, but it is quite another to accept that philosophy wholly. (That is not engaging the culture…that is being absorbed by the culture.)
John Wesley’s sermons would have cut through the current postmodern culture’s philosophy like a hot knife through butter and there would have been no questioning, along the way, of what the Gospel and biblical truth is.
What do you think? If Wesley had been the pastor of a Nazarene church plant, would he waste worship time by discussing American Indian culture, or would he have exposited from Scripture?
How about John Wesley on homosexuality?
As for Peter Rollins, the philosopher, I have read some and have listened to his Easter “sermon” on Judas, the Son of Perdition, being more faithful to God than Abraham or Moses (which was not biblical).
Given Rollins’ upcoming Insurrection events:
Through a provocative cocktail of incendiary theology, haunting soundscapes and musical lament Peter Rollins and friends will offer an invitation to set forth on this perilous return. A return that will strip everything from us, incinerate everything we hold dear and inaugurate a new year zero.
Warning… this tour involves the use of strong language and ideas that may be unsuitable for those easily offended.
I think that Wesley would be concerned that God was offended.
And…If one thinks that the Wesley v. Whitefield debate was hotly contested, imagine Wesley v. McLaren.
March 12, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Are we really at the point where we need to carry around a list of approved theologians and heretics? Should we have some book burnings too?
I guess I just believe in the power of the Holy Spirit enough to believe that we can intelligently dialog with those on many ends of the spectrum and be blessed by the experience.
I will say, however, that 10 years into the conversation I find myself finding far different answers than the individuals causing all the issues to the questions that ec began asking and that drew me in.
I find more value in my actual leadership of the church from Missional Church conversations than most stuff being done in emerging church circles right now.
I just don’t think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
March 15, 2010 at 10:52 am
Are we really at the point where we need to carry around a list of approved theologians and heretics? Should we have some book burnings too?
Book burnings? I enjoy the hyperbole, but are you going to be called out to recant? And…you can burn all the McLaren books you want. It won’t hurt my feelings any.
Are we really at that point? As ridiculous as you think it is, the only reason for the point that we are at is the Church leadership’s failure to comply with the direction given in Scripture.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17, KJV)
The Church leadership seems to do just the opposite and invites those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to biblical doctrine.
McLaren, in his own book, recounted that he answered, “I don’t know” when a parishoner asked him why Jesus had to die. How can a alleged Christian pastor respond that way? These aren’t people that we need to have a “conversation” with.
9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:9-11)
The EC have been allowed by Church leadership to introduce all kinds of foolish controversies and questions, which has led to strife and division.
If biblical unity, in the Body, is really desired, then comply with the biblical direction to avoid the “unorthodox” folks that create the division and don’t have “conversations” with them.
March 10, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Paul,
There was just as much heresy in the Wesleys’ day as there is in ours, but you seem to portray them as the sort of people who would resort to violence against those they disagrees with. You seem to be upset that the superintendents mischaracterized the Wesleys and yet you have actually turned them into violent toddlers who can’t be civil in the presence of those they disagree with. It seems you have cast the Wesleys in your own image.
Please stop defaming the Wesleys. They were much more mature than you suggest.
March 12, 2010 at 10:10 am
Hey Dave,
Let me lovingly suggest, “Give me a break”.
No offense is to be taken when the unorthodox (unorthodox as labeled by Middendorf and Porter) emergent leaders seriously defame Christ’s work on the cross by calling the “cross false advertising for God” and an act of “cosmic child abuse”, but when I comically suggest that Susannah Wesley would put a tin-ear on a certain curse-filled emergent philosopher, while Charles Wesley sang atonement hymns and John Wesley responded with Scripture…
…then, there is offense and defamation?
I don’t think so.
When emergent leaders start preaching like this:
3. And we are all helpless, both with regard to the power and to the guilt of sin. “For who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” None less than the Almighty. Who can raise those that are dead, spiritually dead in sin? None but He who raised us from the dust of the earth. But on what consideration will He do this? “Not for works of righteousness that we have done.” “The dead cannot praise Thee, O Lord;” nor do anything for the sake of which they should be raised to life. Whatever, therefore, God does, He does it merely for the sake of His well-beloved Son: “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities.” He Himself “bore” all “our sins in His own body upon the tree.” He “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” Here then is the sole meritorious cause of every blessing we do or can enjoy; in particular of our pardon and acceptance with God, of our full and free justification. But by what means do we become interested in what Christ has done and suffered? “Not by works, lest any man should boast;” but by faith alone. “We conclude,” says the Apostle, “that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law.” And “to as many as” thus “receive Him, giveth He power to become the sons of God, even to those that believe in His name; who are born, not of the will of man, but of God.”
4. And “except a man be” thus “born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” But all who are thus “born of the Spirit” have “the kingdom of God within them.” Christ sets up His kingdom in their hearts; “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” That “mind is in them, which was in Christ Jesus,” enabling them to “walk as Christ also walked.” His indwelling Spirit makes them both holy in heart, and “holy in all manner of conversation.” But still, seeing all this is a free gift, through the righteousness and blood of Christ, there is eternally the same reason to remember, “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
5. You are not ignorant that these are the fundamental doctrines which he everywhere insisted on. And may they not be summed up, as it were, in two words, — the new birth, and justification by faith? These let us insist upon with all boldness, at all times, and in all places; — in public (those of us who are called thereto), and at all opportunities in private. Keep close to these good, old, unfashionable doctrines, how many soever contradict and blaspheme. Go on, my brethren, in the “name of the Lord, and in the power of His might.” With all care and diligence, “keep that safe which is committed to your trust;” knowing that “heaven and earth shall pass away, but this truth shall not pass away.” – John Wesley, Nov. 18, 1770
Then, I will see a glimpse of commonality between Wesley and the emergent church (but I won’t hold my breath).
March 12, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Paul,
Since you call out others on the words they use in public, you need to be held to account for your words on this blog. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
You asked me lovingly to “give you a break.” No. You will be held to account for your words the way you hold others to account for theirs.
You ask me to take offense at heresy but not at defamation of character. Is that justification in your mind? Comparing your words to the words of heretics should make me somehow care less about your malicious sarcasm! You tried to explain away your slanderous remarks about Suzanna Wesley as “comical”. I’m sure she would appreciate that. Repent! You portrayed the Wesley brothers as those who would stand by singing and reciting Scripture while someone was physically accosted. Recant!
If you are calling on the Emergents of the world to repent of their words (as many of them should), you should be able to do the same. You carelessly slandered the character of the Welseys and then asked us to pay more attention to Emergents and look the other way at your libel. I suggest you don’t try the “I’m not as bad as those guys” argument on Judgment Day, but perhaps you, like many Emergents, believe in a God who just wants to “give me a break.”
March 12, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Susannah, I am sorry for saying that you might put a tin-ear on that curse-spewing emergent philosopher who promoted the Son of Perdition, who was doomed for destruction, above the faithfulness of Abraham and Moses. I won’t do it again.
John and Charles, I am sorry for saying that your mom could hold said emergent philosopher in a tin-ear until you guys finished a couple of hymns and some quotations of Scripture. I won’t do it again.
March 10, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Wesley emergent, eh? Hmm…
I’d like to hear Rev. Arthur’s take on the movement.
Perhaps I could be directed to a blog post of that sort?
March 11, 2010 at 9:50 am
I have lots of blog posts about it, but I am currently working my way through book called Postmodern and Wesleyan that hits the nail on the head. When I am done I will offer some specific connectional thoughts between emerging church conversations and Wesleyans. There is a strong tie in between the two. You find a lot of Wesleyans having Emerging Church and even more so Missional Church conversations.
April 13, 2010 at 7:54 am
I’ve been interested in the link between Wesley and the Emerging Church for a while. You might find the linked article helpful, originally published in the Asbury Journal and recently revised and posted online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27016716/John-Wesley-in-Conversation-with-the-Emerging-Church
March 12, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Greg,
Middendorf wonderfully summarized my most central critique of the emerging church when he said:
“While there are many attributions which imply that there is a single focus or movement called ‘the emergent church,’ in reality, the conversations range all over the map.”
That allows the superintendents to basically say: there is some stuff we like and other stuff we don’t (but we can’t tell you which). There are some who are heretics, others who are orthodox, and still others we aren’t sure about (but we can’t tell you who).
In total, the “emerging church movement” has had enough time to emerge. It is time to state exactly what it is or what it stands for, or move on to clearer conversations (which seems to be the direction most are heading, e.g. Origins, Missional, etc.)
I appreciate my friends who started the Origins Project. I think they have avoided some of the mistakes of Emergent, while accomplishing many of the same conversational goals. As Emergent is on life support, I’m curious where the best conversations are headed next.
March 12, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Dave,
I am with you that the 3-5 individuals that are most commonly identified with the emerging church have ended in a place that doesn’t help me very much. The value of ec has been in the churches and pastors that have taken a hard look in the mirror and emerged from the process more faithful.
That is certainly the case in my life. I have to give the ec a lot of credit for pushing my limited view of the gospel, worship, and preaching. But like I said earlier, I find that I have emerged to more of a focus on the conversations around Missional Church right now than with the emerging stuff.
I think that is what the GS’ of the COTN were trying to acknowledge with the statement. There is so much good taking place at a grass roots level because of the ec that frankly has almost nothing to do with the big names out there. It just wasn’t a statement about McLaren’s atonement theories, Tony Jone’s views on homosexuality or the provocative theology of Peter Rollins. Such a statement is frankly unnecessary.
March 12, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I thought the statement by the GSs was helpful to give a nod to reality. They aren’t ignoring the emerging church movement. Professors at colleges and seminaries will continue to engage it theologically. But it is up to pastors and other church members to use wisdom and Spirit-enabled discernment when engaging “emergent church leaders” in print. They didn’t throw out everyone who has been labeled with that name, but instructed the church to use caution. It was well put.
What I find more promising on this whole issue is leaders like yourself who came out of the EC movement better than how you went in. Not everyone who flirted with the EC came out unscathed or even orthodox for that matter. But I am excited to see the higher levels of clarity being provided by Missional Church writers and thinkers. I think you guys are onto something and have taken a younger generation where the original EC guys had hoped the church might go.
March 12, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I would say that the majority of those who “emerge” in an unorthodox way either entered that way to the conversation or were going that way anyways. Isn’t that the point? A solid foundation, the work of the Spirit and good community around us is far more formative than obscure atonement theories aren’t they?
March 12, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Generally yes. Most EC folk who ended up in an unorthodox position were on a trajectory there to begin with, but the real key is found in what you aptly called a “good community.”
I have witnessed a pastor playing with aberrant theology in the pulpit. Soon after he was asked to defend why he was “playing” with the theology in the pulpit. His defense turned into belief, and voila, he is now unorthodox.
I’m not sure I can say he started on that trajectory. He was just wondering aloud. But a lack of initial clarity, coupled with a lack of his willingness to listen to the “good community” around him who gave him chance after chance to change led to his downfall.
God grant us all the grace of peers to kick our butts when we wander too far.
March 12, 2010 at 5:45 pm
At least they are addressing the situation instead of ignoring it. In my area emergents are preached against as thought they were part of a cult.
October 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm
In the above article, The Nazarenes and the Emerging Church, you interchange “emerging” and “emergent”. My understanding is that they are completely different animals. Emerging churches are those who believe in solid Christian theology and doctrines but are thinking of ways to break the barrier and reach the culture, while “emergent” churches are those who are not just reaching the culture but are questioning the doctrines of Scripture.
October 5, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Evalynn,
Welcome to the blog. I do use the terms interchangeably because effectively that is what they have become. When you hear about differences between the two you will hear differences between the emerging church (larger movement) and Emergent or the Emergent Village (smaller segment) which is a specific organization whose leaders and events were an integral part in the beginning of the emerging church conversation.
That being said, if you are trying to fit people into categories of those who are solid Christians and those you can think of as unOrthodox or heretical, you are going to have a difficult time.
The difficulty with many of these conversations is that frankly you can’t just label people with an emergent or emerging church title and then know what they believe.
That is why the statement from the BOGS was so important. Many have been so fearful and angry about the emerging church and those who are part of it because of the statements and views of a few, not the work of the many. I would be happy to recommend resources to help you better understand the landscape and these theological issues if you are interested.
Thanks for stopping by.
October 6, 2010 at 6:55 am
The word “Orthodox” is derived from two Greek words, “orthos”, meaning correct, and “doxa”, meaning belief. The word church means “to call out”.. Truth is progressive and I have personally witnessed those who are called out of the called out. Gods mysteries are certainly unsearchable! Its the spirit that guides us into all truth. Not traditions, creeds or forgotten concepts. That’s what makes life a true adventure!
October 29, 2010 at 11:43 am
I find Middendorfs response puny and causative of puking. I find the Nazarene Church after twenty five years of pastoring to be delusional and reason for leaving.
November 1, 2010 at 10:22 am
Pastor Steve,
Thanks for stopping by, I wish you had something more positive to contribute. If you can’t handle where the Church of the Nazarene is moving, then by all means find a place you are more comfortable. We are moving forward in a beautiful way and I hope that in the next ten-twenty years you will be able to look at what has happened in the COTN and to rejoice.
Blessings-
Greg