MISSIONAL: What’s in a Word? Ann and I laughed a bit…

Abraham's Footsteps	Journeying into God's future

About this Entry
Posted by: JamesPetticrew Original: 6/29/2009 3:11 PM Views: 99 Comments: 30 eProps: 2 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: Brad2Ford

Read or Post Comments

Monday, June 29, 2009

MISSIONAL: What’s in a Word?

Ann and I laughed a bit when we lived in the States at words which it seemed to us our American friends had made up, like “Winningest.” Now one of these recently created American words is making waves in the church in general and in my own denomination in particular and its no laughing matter. That word is “MISSIONAL.”

I do worry that the word Missional is being devalued into a sales a gimmick by the Christian publishing industry, every second book I see coming out at the moment seems to have it in its title. There is a whiff of bandwagon around the word with some organisations simply changing “evangelistic” for “missional” in their literature without fully understanding the nuanced differences. All the publicity surrounding “Missional” has brought the heresy hunters out of the cyber wood work. Numerous “discernment” ministry web sites are claiming that “Missional” is the key word for new agey, emergent Christians whom the Holy Spirit has revealed to them are actually pagans trying to help the Devil take over the Church. One of these groups in my own denomination, the Church of the Nazarene, says on its website that “Missional is a term of the Emerging Church, not of Biblical Christian churches.” Right now at our 4 year Nazarene international get together in the States this self styled “Concerned Nazarene” group (I am certainly concerned they are Nazarenes) are handing out thousands of DVDs to delegates which claim among other things that anyone using the term “missional” or is open to any teaching they say is characteristic of the “Emerging Church” is heretical and is trying to lead the denomination into an apostate future. The inference is that such people, and I would include myself in their number, should be shown the proverbial denominational door.

Normally I would ignore these people but I now feel I can’t and must be clear about where I stand on the issue. The “Concerned Nazarenes” are a strange group led by someone who proudly announces he was a former drummer in several rock bands (????) I am not quite sure what he thinks this information does for him. In fact this guy is relatively new to the Nazarene Church and I actually think he has fundamentally misunderstood our church. Our Church stands in the Wesleyan tradition and many of the issues he seems to have to me at least stem from our Wesleyan theology rather than the “emerging church” theology. His agenda seems to be to call us back to some American Baptist reformed fundamentalist past we never had! What worries is that some of these DVD’s might make their way back to the UK and take some people in with their talk about defending biblical Christianity.

That’s why I want to make clear why I am passionately committed not to the word MISSIONAL in itself but to the understanding of Christianity and the Church that it expresses. As my denomination has MISSIONAL as one of its core values I also want to take a stand against these people who are trying to suggest that it somehow endangers the church. In my view it is those of who passionately committed to the Church of the Nazarene being a Missional Church who are being true to our church’s values, heritage and theology. I take great comfort from the fact that despite the theological opinion of a former rock drummer most of our theologians take the same position.

So where did this word “Missional” come from? Well I would argue for reasons that should be come clear that the concept has always existed but it was first used in an American book called “Missional Church” published in 1998. This book reflecting on mission in America drew on the work of UK missionary leader Lesslie Newbiggin and other mission thinkers and theologians in the 20^th century who had been rediscovering the importance and relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity for amongst other things, mission.

Theologically speaking the concept of “missio” (ltn for sent) or mission was used first to describe the eternal sending which went on within our Trinitarian God, before it was used to describe the sending of the Church or missionaries. Within the Trinity the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally been reaching out and giving themselves to one another in love. The important point to grasp from this is that mission is rooted in the very nature of God, mission then overflows into the world. Anglican theologian Michael Moynagh expresses it like this, “God engaged in a missionary act when he created the universe. Creation was the outward movement of God. It was an overflowing of the Trinity’s life as something new was brought into existence. God continues in mission as he sustains the universe, a flow of non-stop love towards creation. God also engages in mission by redeeming the world. This redemption is made possible through the death and resurrection of Christ. It continues through Christ, in the Spirit. God’s purpose is to restore and perfect the whole of creation. Mission, therefore, is no add on for the church. The Church becomes like God when it engages in mission. It falls away from God when it neglects mission.”

The all important implication of this reflection of God’s missionary nature is that the essence of the Church is “missional” that is that the church exists for mission. As the Father, sent the Son and the Father and Son sent the Spirit on mission, our Trinitarian God now sends the Church to join Him in his mission, the continuing Missio Dei, the Mission of God. When we use the word Missional we are trying to capture this concept that mission is not just an activity of the church it is the very nature of the church. Or put another way, its not that the Church of God has a mission but that the Mission of God has a church.

Speaking personally for me to be “Missional” is to understand and live in the light of the fact that as a member of God’s people, individually and collectively, we exist to join God in his transforming mission to our world. This is explosive when it comes to our understanding of what Church is and what it means to be the Church. I grew up in the church and I grew up with the understanding church was a place where things happened. Going to church meant going to a worship service in a building. Moreover in general what happened during that service was designed to suit those who were already members. The word Missional has now inspired a paradigm shift in how I understand what it means to be the people of God. I now understand the church and my life as being Missional. Therefore Church doesn’t exist for my benefit and I don’t exist for my own selfish fulfillment. In famous words of Archbishop Temple, “The Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.” Church isn’t there to make me happy. Church exists for mission, it exists for God and those he is reaching out to in love. For me Church isn’t an institution I belong to but a revolution I am giving my life to. Reggie McNeal puts it like this “Our job is not to do “church” well but to be the people of God in an unmistakable way in the world. We are to be the aroma of Jesus in the cemetery of decaying flesh. We are to be different in the hope we offer, in the grace we exhibit, and in the obvious sacrifice of love we display in dealing with others.”

To be missional then is to root our understanding of, and living as, God’s people in the very nature of God Himself. It’s about creating a community of that embodies serves and extends the Kingdom of God in this world as Jesus did. That’s why I am passionate about the word Missional because I believe in what that word summaries; I aspire and am committed to giving my life to it. That’s why I won’t be told by the “concerned Nazarenes” I am New Age Emergent Church heretic seeking to lead my church into apostasy. As far as I can see “missional” sums up the Apostolic understanding of the Church, it describes Wesley’s practice of Church and Bresee’s reason for founding the Church of the Nazarene. Above all Missional for me means being obedient to Jesus’ words, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." ^{John 20:21} in the committed company of other Christ followers. Those who advocate the Church of Nazarene being a “missional church” are not leading the church away from God but seeking to reconnect the Church to the God who is and has ever been, missional.

Posted 6/29/2009 3:11 PM - 99 Views - 2 eProps - 30 comments

recommend
recs0
share
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

30 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »

Dr. Gilley from the CN DVD was making reference to the emerging church view of the word missional which doesn't coincide with the actual meaning of the word. It has become like the word gay which used to mean happy but now means homosexual.

The emerging church view of missional has the meaning of establishing the kingdom of God on earth. This sounds good on the surface, but as Dr. Gilley points out, this has more to do with the frame work of the traditional liberal social gospel approach than the traditional conservative view of winning souls to Jesus Christ. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly the emerging church movement incorporates mysticism into the mix. This is mystical aspect is actually at the core of what the Concerned Nazarenes are concerned about. If one takes an honest look at the CN DVD one has to make a decision; is interspirituality valid or invalid. That is the crux of this controversy. If interspiritality is the engine that drives the emerging church then it cannot be missional in the way that you understand the word (correctly), in fact is anti-missional. Mr. Wirth may be a drummer and bit intense, but he understands the ramifications of the emerging church movement. These anti CNer need to be specific in addressing the issues presented not in reacting out of emotion. One has to look at the actual issues before they condemn someone for being divisive, or they are not being intellectually honest.

Posted 6/29/2009 5:59 PM by Brad2Ford - reply

POINT 1: "Dr. Gilley from the CN DVD was making reference to the emerging church view of the word missional which doesn't coincide with the actual meaning of the word. It has become like the word gay which used to mean happy but now means homosexual." ... I am sorry but this is just plain wrong I am very familiar with the development and use of the word missional and theologically within missiology it refers to church being shaped and aligned to the nature of God. In the literature of the Missional Church movement this is way it is used if you are saying its being used differently I want to see attributed quotes from published works.

POINT 2: "the emerging church view of the word missional" Who has issued the EMERGING CHURCH view? ... One can no more say there is a settled emerging church view on any matter than one can say there is an evangelical view. There are evangelical Calvinists and evangelical Wesleyans who hold very different points of view on a whole range of matters. These "heresy" hunters talk about the Emerging Church like it is some institution with an agreed statement of faith and centrally led like the Roman Catholic view. Its not, in fact personally I don't like the title Emerging Church for two reasons. The group is so wide as to be meaningless people within the so called EC probably disagree with each other as much as people disagree with them. That's the problem with these people they say the EC says, selectively quote from people (often out of context) create a straw man to destroy and say this is what THE emerging church movement says. There is NO emerging church movement.
Secondly for me "Emerging" Church puts the emphasis on the wrong place in understanding the church, the emphasis in ecclesiology should be on God, He is to shape our understanding of what it means to be the church, so I prefer to be identified with the Missional Church movement. Missional as defined by the work of Lesslie Newbiggin and set forth in the book MISSIONAL CHURCH edited by Darrell Guder on behalf of the Gospel and Our Culture Network.

POINT 2: "the traditional conservative view of winning souls to Jesus Christ" ... This has certainly never been the traditional conservative view of mission in Wesleyanism and amongst the Church of the Nazarene, very clearly both Wesley and Bressee saw Mission as including both evangelism and social action. This again makes me think that many people involved in the CN group actually don't understand the Weselyan theology that underlies our church and many of their problems are with it rather than the Emerging Church.

Posted 6/29/2009 6:19 PM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

There are a number of writers and spokespersons that have defined the precepts of the emerging church in general. That's where we draw our conclusions from. It's those ideas that are at issue here. I am leaving on holiday for about a week or so and I will have the appropriate quotes from the appropriate sources when I return.

Posted 6/29/2009 7:34 PM by Brad2Ford - reply

"There are a number of writers and spokespersons that have defined the precepts of the emerging church in general." ... OK name them and give me the quote where they say they were speaking for anyone beyond themselves. Where are the statements of faith of the Emergent Church you believe is such a danger to my church?

In fact those who identify with EMERGENT VILLAGE website are very precise in not calling it a movement but instead prefer to call their loose association as a "conversation" This is precisely to make sure no one can accuse them of being an organisation with a unified voice. The Emerging Movement has no more a unified theology than the evangelical movement, in fact less so because at least in the UK the Evangelicals have an agreed statement of faith but I must admit as a Wesleyan even some of that strains my soteriology.

I don't know what I have to do to convince you that what is being attacked my the CN is a strawman of their own creation but it is intellectually dishonest to pretend to people that there is some sort unified emergent church movement with a clearly formulated and agreed position on the issues you are talking about. Its simply not like the PURPOSE DRIVEN CHURCH movement where there are clear leaders and spokespersons and a laid out basis of faith and methodology. Many people who I have heard quoted as "emergents" by some of the heresy hunter people have put it on record that they are not part of the emergent conversation. Even Dan Kimball who wrote EMERGING CHURCH is not part of the Emergent Conversation but part of a network called Origins which has as its basis of faith the Lausanne Covenant which just about every mainstream evangelical organisation could adhere to. Erwin McManus has been called an "emergent" but as a Southern Baptist pastor he holds to biblical inerrancy the very thing that some of the CNs are saying that the Emergent Church is undermining in the Church of the Nazarene!

So when it comes to ideas, you can take issue with what some individual writers may say but there is no unified and cohesive set of ideas that you can say is representative of THE "Emerging Church" Even academic studies that have been done come up with widely differing conclusions as to what characterises those churches and theologians which have been described as "emergent."

What I would like from you is a clear biblical justification for the statement on the concerned Nazarene site "“Missional is a term of the Emerging Church, not of Biblical Christian churches.” As this is a core value of my church I would like to know why those who claim to be concerned for that church reject it and what their grounds are for rejecting an ecclesiology rooted in and shaped by the Trinitarian nature of God? I would like to know if they reject a missional ecclesiology where do they do draw their ecclesiology from and what is the exegetical and theological grounds for that ecclesiology?

Posted 6/29/2009 8:45 PM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

There is no theology to the emerging church but there are practices that are advocated by those having the conversations, and they are those who would be creating theology having had agreement or at least no objections to their new theology. It is not dishonest to raise concerns about the things that matter most to followers of Jesus. I have never picked a fight to generate controversy.Prov 6:14 They are always thinking up something cruel and evil,and they stir up trouble.
But I have examined issues critically. 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. I'm confident there are issues that are of sufficient urgency to warrant critical examination and that is what I'm doing. You are waiting for me to provide evidence with quotes and sources which is what I will do as I said. I've been trying to just exactly that with the facebook group but the resistance to even presenting evidence has stifled discussing it. I've spent a lot time trying on it and now I am away with my wife so my time is more limited but I do have a computer as you can see. Maybe we can pray for each other until I come home and get back into it. That might be why the Lord has created this situation. Have you read the Bible today? I have been with friends and we have not yet, but we have prayed together today. My goal is to read the Bible and pray everyday. How about you?

Posted 6/30/2009 8:36 AM by Brad2Ford - reply

Brad, if that is your name. I am agnostic about the title "emerging" when it comes to ecclesiology because as I said it put the emphasis on the culture shaping ecclesiology when culture should only come to shape our practice of church when it has been rooted in theology, specifically the Trinity and the Incarnation. My problem with the concerned Nazarenes is that they spout things about what the Emerging Church does or doesn't believe and then try and use guilt by association to taint people in my church.

What has drawn me as an elder in the Church of the Nazarene, a church planter, mission consultant for another denomination and doctoral candidate into the debate about the Concerned Nazarenes is their assertion that "missional" is not a term used by Biblical Christians. I want to see their evidence for that assertion, I want to know what their ecclesiology is and how exgetically and theologically they have formulated it. I want to know why when Missional is a core value of the Church of the Nazarene they have taken that position. Why when it is an agreed value of the Church which I support they have the cheek to say that people like me are trying to change and subvert the church. I support and more importantly attempt to live the established values of my church it is they who are attempting to change them and they need to be honest about that.

Yes I do have regime of spiritual practices that include reading Scripture and praying though I do worry that from what I gather from the CN group their preoccupation is with the correctness of doctrine, I read the bible to know God and to be shaped by him. That's why I am part of a Wesleyan Holiness church because our church has always recognised that the goal of the Christian life is not to just to know about Christ but to become increasingly like Him. SO for me as a Wesleyan the Gospel is not simply to be believed but to be practised, its about faith working through love as Wesley described it. Its again on this living out the Gospel of love that makes me concerned about the concerned Nazarenes. They are so mean spirited calling fellow members of the Church of the Nazarene heretics and false teachers. Lets be clear a heretic is someone who denies the classic creeds of the Church. No one can be a member of our church who is not in agreement with those creeds through our statement of faith. You can say you differ or disagree with other believers but calling people who believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, Atonement and Resurrection heretics is not only theologically wrong it is just plain nasty and vindictive. I have now heard that they have hired non-believers to hand out their DVD's at GA. Can you imagine what impression of Christianity and the Church of the Nazarene that must have had on those unbelievers? And the CN people say they are concerned about the Gospel?
So I will pray for as I pray for all the CN people because that's what I think the Sermon on the Mount calls me to do.

Can I ask you some questions. How long have you been a member of the Church of the Nazarene? What theological training do you have? What are the books which you would say are representative of what you call the Emerging Church that you have read personally? What do you think about the CN people hiring non Christians to hand out their DVD's does that violate the principles that Paul outlines in 1 Cor 6? If so who is undermining Scripture?

Posted 6/30/2009 9:09 AM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

I guess you're not a "Concerned Nazarene", eh? Heh, heh... love you brother!

- Drew

Posted 7/1/2009 6:02 AM by ahage - reply

James, my real name is Brad. I don't call people heretics if they are misled by heretics. But, people are susceptible bad doctrine unless they study scriptures themselves, which is what we are all supposed to do. It's not an option. I'm not in the Nazarene church but I have close friends who are and I'm visiting some of them as I write this. I believe in the Lord Jesus as my personal savior and I have been saved for over 40 years. My education is primarily liberal arts from Corban College but as I've said, I study the Bible with and without teachers. I've read books on the emerging church, but the practices of the EC being promoted are what I am looking at. The new age is developing more rapidly now than ever before. The EC is the latest repackaged and renamed version of it. I would say "A Time of Departing" by Ray Yungen would be the most comprehensive and quickest work available to start with. You can get a copy from www.lighthousetrails.com. This publishing company has several authors devoted to new age aka mystical spirituality.

1 Corinthians 6:4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?

I don't see that hiring people to hand out material that is controversial here. It applies to legal matters, but the connection is being made that nonbelievers are becoming involved with controversy that belongs with the church and they might not see the love that should draw them to Jesus. I do see that, but I also see that the failure is to ignore the issue. That causes the ill will in the first place which is the more important concern because in order to show love there has to be love.

more later

Posted 7/1/2009 6:56 AM by Brad2Ford - reply

First of all Scripture is very clear as believers we are not to involve unbelievers in our disputes, Paul could not be clearer on this. So forgive me if I am sceptical about all this stuff from the CN Nazarene people about being concerned about "unbiblical" practices in the church. Here is an occasion when to further their own agenda they have deliberately gone ahead and disobeyed Scripture so to me they then lose any credibility in saying that other people in the church are practising things which in their opinion if not forbidden by Scripture undermines it.

To argue that the seriousness of what they are doing warrants this action is to use the ethical methodology of relativity when a greater good justifies a lesser evil. This is in the philosophical sense classic liberalism and seems a strange argument for people to use who say they are against liberalism and relativism in the church.

I am sorry to me the publishing house you are talking about an authors have no academic credibility they do not seriously engage with underlying theological principles or fairly assess other people's work they simply proof text and then sling mud. If you want a good example of the way a case should be argued look at http://ragingbhull.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/emerging-nazarenes-white-paper/ When the concerned Nazarenes start producing material with this kind of academic rigour and research I'll pay attention.

It does concern me that you are getting involved in an issue in my church. I would like to ask if you are Wesleyan? The Church of the Nazarene is a church with a Wesleyan heritage and theology and it worries me that many of the concerned Nazarenes just do not understand that heritage and want to take us back to some fundamentalist, baptist and reformed past that we never had.

Finally lets talk about heresy. Heresy means to deny the classic creeds of the church the fundamental truths of the Christian faith which unite all true believers, the Apostles creed, the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Creed. In these the doctrine of Incarnation, Resurrection, trinity etc are defined and the limits of orthodoxy are set. As groups like the JW#s can't affirm these creeds they are in the correct sense heretics. To call people in your own church who you differ on over matters like spiritual practices heretics is wrong theologically but even more so wrong in a Christian sense, it is nasty and vindictive.

I have been a Nazarene elder for over 16 years, held denominational leadership positions, help in the selection and training of our pastors. I have studied and have degrees from Wesleyan theologically institutions. I say that not to boast but because it embodies my credentials to be able to speak to what is and what is not orthodox in MY church. Never once in my training has my church questioned or had concerns about my theological orthodoxy either in my training, in preparation for ordination or in my preaching and teaching. So I therefore am less than open to people outside my church and people new to my denomination saying that because I committed to a missional ecclesiology (missional being an agreed core value of my church) that I am endangering the spiritual health of my church or am propagating heresy. So I am not ignoring the issue I am saying the people are wrong, I am saying the manner of what they are doing is wrong, I am saying they don't understand Wesleyan theology, I am saying the spirit in which they are doing things is wrong.

Posted 7/1/2009 8:16 AM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

As far as the 1 Corinthians 6 chapter. I would not focus so completely on that problem and take away from examining the other issues. I find two ways to deal with problems; 1. confront 2. choose another battle. The other battle addressed might the way to go since if it were resolved there would be a climate of love and reconciliation. But to confront without affirming the worth of the individual is not solving the individuals concern. I believe the Lord works in the whole body and no part can say they are more important than another. So, to make a sincere attempt to understand a person is loving and leads to worship of Jesus. I agree we should not use the unethical logic of relativism.

It is true that Ray Yungen lacks academic credentials but he has towering scholarship. Some Christians don’t want or need the blessing of a college and I have to respect that since I’ve read and understood them. Most of the apostles also had no academic standing including Peter who the said He would build his church on. I wouldn’t call it mud slinging to cite the beliefs or behavior of someone in order to alert the church to problems. Remember the 1 Corinthians 6 issue? I think it means we all have to be sincere with each other.

The EC issue is influencing all denominations of the true church. It is therefore not primarily a Wesleyan issue but a Christian one, which is why you may find other non Nazarenes discussing this beside me. I have no agenda to corrupt or pervert a denomination, rather to seek truth.

I am not calling people heretics who are mistaken or misled by wrong ideas and behaviors. I am alerting them to those things. But someone had to introduce those ideas which hurt the church and they have an agenda. Those people might appear as an angel of light, but are really heretical and desire to destroy the church. We can study to show ourselves approved workman who need not be ashamed.

The word missional is a word that to me means reaching others with the gospel of Jesus. We can both agree on that I believe. The way it is carried out is what you and I might talk about, but the word itself might be redefined by someone in the EC. I have noticed that in my church the new pastor is using that word a lot now and before it was not. We sent out missionaries and we reached our community for Jesus with programs that included giving them the gospel. But we never called it missional before.

Posted 7/1/2009 7:35 PM by Brad2Ford - reply

Brad you worry me

You want to make a big issue of things like how people pray etc but not a big issue out of a group which clearly and deliberately disobeys a contextually relevant command from God's Word .... Go hard on the grey areas but ignore the black and white, is that your position?

So you are not a Wesleyan? Well in all due respect keep your nose out of my church. Many of the issues that these people say that the "emerging" people are leading people away from such as inerrancy have NEVER been in our statement of faith. Wesleyan theology is a mile away from American fundamentalism and its issues, call the Southern Baptists to be true to issues like that, but that past has never been ours.

Ray Yungen lacks academic credentials but he has towering scholarship. ... That made me laugh, towering scholarship proves itself in how it deals critically with other people's work, the way it references sources and has a conceptual understanding of the theological issues. None of the rantings or writings from the CN suggest to me any real scholarship.

No the Apostle's weren't PHDs but they had been with Jesus for 3 years, are the CN Nazarene's claiming to be on an Apostolic level with the 12? If not if its all the same to you when it comes to Wesleyan theology for my Church I'll stick to those with the credentials and largely ignore those whose credentials consist of being in the church two years and being the former drummer in several rock bands. (but if I need advice on drum kits I'll be sure to listen to what he says)

I am afraid you have fundamentally misunderstood the point about what "missional" means and its implications for the church it is not simply a new name for doing evangelism, it is paradigm shift in our understanding of ecclesiology and missiology and their relationship. I suggest you get a copy of Darrell Guder's Missional Church book and read it then we discuss what missional means because that is where the term was first used and definitively defined. I simply don't see how you can accuse people of changing the meaning of "missional" when you clearly demonstrate an ignorance of the origins and meaning of the word yourself. In fact by using as you for just another way to describe proclamation evangelism it is in fact you who are changing the meaning of the word.

Posted 7/1/2009 8:14 PM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

You asked what my position was and I told you. I know you disagree with me because you are asking again. I know the others in the Nazarene FB forum say as you say but again, as much as it is an issue, it’s an issue that I would handle differently than you.

Just because I am not Wesleyan, doesn’t mean I deserve to be treated rudely. That is unkind. I don’t know what the committee decided on inerrancy at the GA. Although I am interested, I don’t know why, or how it became an issue at the GA. I believe the Bible is wholly the inspired word of God, and I have heard some Nazarenes say that if it became part of your denomination, some would leave. The EC covers more dangerous issues such as contemplative prayer also known as meditation. I know no discussion about that is possible because you disagree.

Why do you feel compelled to insult me when I cite a book you asked for? My considered opinion about Ray Yungen is that he has a great mind and cares deeply for Jesus. I don’t see denigration as appropriate or productive unless you want to push me away. If that were the case, why would you answer me? I have seen this same behavior in the other FB group. That is a shame.

The truth is the Holy Spirit’s work in the lives of believers and should be considered whether it comes from someone with a degree or not. Wesleyan theology may be as good as other theology but it’s not all there is.

I didn’t read the book that first described the word missional, so I am not accusing people in the EC of changing it, but I see them using it in a way that would be a misuse or more importantly, make it part of a nice sounding program that incorporates asian mysticism. I have had surprisingly little success even discussing this issue with your group. I hope you can address it with someone in your group that you trust. I’m sorry you don’t trust me. I didn’t think I was threatening but to be treated like this, really hurts because it means in your group, it’s acceptable.

Posted 7/2/2009 4:32 AM by Brad2Ford - reply

Brad I am confused. You say I have treated you rudely. Maybe its cultural but "Well in all due respect keep your nose out of my church." is not what we would call particularly insulting or rude. Especially when you seem to support a group of people who have banded about names like False Prophet and Heretic and I presume are responsible for anonymous hate messages to me.

Here is what I meant by that language in a way that I hope you will not find insulting but will understand. I would not get involved in debate by Southern Baptists about issues which involved calling them to vote at a denominational gathering for Wesleyan perspectives they have never subscribed to. Its not my place to get involved in that kind of debate. I wouldn't support any group called Concerned Southern Baptists even if I agreed with them 100%, its their church, their decision so I have no place in it. Yet you by your own statements are neither from a Wesleyan theological perspective nor a member of the Church of the Nazarene and so committed to that church and accountable to its local leadership. Yet you have involved yourself in supporting a group that is calling for fundamental changes in a church you don't belong to including changes to its statement of faith and removal of some its educational leaders. Its on that understanding I say with all due respect, and I do mean that, please don't take sides in an internal debate within my church.

Now if you think language like "keep your nose out" is hurtful and insulting in all humility and honesty I apologise for the wording if not the sentiment. However it does make me wonder why you are supportive of Tim and Manny and their group considering the language and accusations they seem to spray on everyone who they deem not to be in line with their view of fundamentalist orthodoxy.

You are absolutely right Wesleyan theology is not all there, I would not even argue its superior or inferior to any other system of theology. I respect Calvinism, neo-orthodoxy, dispensationalists for me Wesleyan theology is the best fit for me in terms doing justice to Scripture and Christian faith.The point I am making is not about the superiority of Wesleyanism but that the conversation you have involved yourself in is about the theology and direction of the Church of the Nazarene which is a church in the Wesleyan Holiness tradition so forgive me but Wesleyan theology is of vital importance here and I don't really see how anyone who is not aware of its distinctives can take part in a debate about it.

Posted 7/2/2009 6:38 PM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

I have seen both the CN and FB group make insults. That is not christian behavior. So, it's not an internal debate, it's a christian one. I support the love and adherence to the Bible so far as it is practiced in the Nazarene church, but I don't where it doesn't. That makes me a lover of Jesus not a follower of the local church (Nazarene). If I had invested my entire life in the church and attained a high level of leadership, I would still put it all in the garbage if I knew it meant denying my First Love.

The attitude by which one says something is the reason why one would feel a certain way. It's the thought that counts not the actual working out of it. Perfect working out is faster but imperfect working out will still prove the attitude more over time, referring to unloving comments. In frustration, one may be tempted to offend. I would argue there is more room still to lean on the Lord for patience and peace.

Posted 7/2/2009 7:41 PM by Brad2Ford - reply

Wesley's Notes on Philippians 3:8 Yea, I still account both all these and all things else to be mere loss, compared to the inward, experimental knowledge of Christ, as my Lord, as my prophet, priest, and king, as teaching me wisdom, atoning for my sins, and reigning in my heart. To refer this to justification only, is miserably to pervert the whole scope of the words. They manifestly relate to sanctification also; yea, to that chiefly. For whom I have actually suffered the loss of all things - Which the world loves, esteems, or admires; of which I am so far from repenting, that I still account them but dung - The discourse rises. Loss is sustained with patience, but dung is cast away with abhorrence. The Greek word signifies any, the vilest refuse of things, the dross of metals, the dregs of liquors, the excrements of animals, the most worthless scraps of meat, the basest offals, fit only for dogs. That I may gain Christ - He that loses all things, not excepting himself, gains Christ, and is gained by Christ. And still there is more; which even St. Paul speaks of his having not yet gained.

Posted 7/2/2009 7:43 PM by Brad2Ford - reply

So lets be clear were you offended by the statement? "Well in all due respect keep your nose out of my church." If you were, again I say I apologise for the wording but not the sentiment. I still hold that someone who is neither a Wesleyan or a Nazarene shouldn't be actively involved in a debate about the theology and practice of the church of the Nazarene and supporting a group that is trying to change the educational leadership of that church's institutions. In my view if you want to change a church you join it, serve it and then earn the right to take part in the debate within it.

If you were offended by phrase have you spoken to anyone in the Concerned Nazarene group about their use of the words "heretic" or "false teachers"?

Posted 7/2/2009 7:51 PM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

I love the Wesley quote not sure why you quote it, was it a rebuke or a demonstration you can find quotes from Wesley. By the way Wesley in it talks of an experimental knowledge of Jesus, I thought the concerned Nazarenes were sort of against that mystical personal kind of encounter with Jesus?

Posted 7/2/2009 7:54 PM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

Not a rebuke, a clarification that no amount of obedience to men will ever take the place of following Jesus. Wesley means experiential because experimental doesn't fit. Experiential means I experience the love of Jesus. Experimental would mean either 1) He experiments with us using His knowledge,or 2) We experiment with our knowledge of Him. In an experiment we try different things that we think may or may not be repeatable as in the scientific method. In love, He works. But don't tempt Him, you'll loose.

I was more concerned than offended, it's not important. I hope any work that I do is for His glory not mine.

Posted 7/2/2009 9:39 PM by Brad2Ford - reply

"Experiential means I experience the love of Jesus. Experimental would mean either 1) He experiments with us using His knowledge,or 2) We experiment with our knowledge of Him. In an experiment we try different things that we think may or may not be repeatable as in the scientific method. In love, He works. But don't tempt Him, you'll loose." ... short course on hermeneutics, words mean what authors use them to mean. In Wesley's day what he said meant to genuinely experience Jesus as opposed to just give intellectual detached assent to some belief. This is why people called him an enthusiast as an insult, he believed in experience, its part of the Wesleyan epistemological quadrilateral, Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Sadly all your talk about scientific methodology is irrelevant to what Wesley was saying.

Posted 7/2/2009 9:48 PM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

Do you intentionally talk down to me? Which is it, experiment or experience? True, scientific experimentation is not what Wesley was saying, and I said that. Are you bent on making me an enemy?

"In Wesley's day what he said meant to genuinely experience Jesus..."
James, not experiment.

Posted 7/3/2009 9:31 AM by Brad2Ford - reply

No Brad I don't but I must admit that I am suspicious of your agenda in my church. I worry about the motives of someone who wants to change the direction of a denomination they don't belong to and therefore have nothing invested in and are not accountable to.

Let me ask you a few very direct questions:

what local church do you belong to and what is the theological position of that church is it reformed, Wesleyan, dispensationalist?

why have you felt compelled to get involved in a debate about the future theology and direction of the Church of the Nazarene?

Do you endorse or approve of pastors and educational leaders in my church being called false teachers or heretics by the Concerned Nazarene group? If so can you show me in either the Nicene Creed or in the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene what the specific heresy or false teaching is they are guilty of? I mean of course not second hand evidence (some one told you someone said etc) but evidence from published sources

Posted 7/3/2009 10:49 AM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

I don't have any agenda other than to warn people about mantra meditation. It is dangerous and growing rapidly. Which means many people are influenced by familiar spirits. Over the years, it used to be in the corners of our society and only a few weird people did it. Less than maybe 50,000 in the mid to late 60's. Now it is mainstream with millions of people influenced. It's still growing and will continue to grow. But there will be God's people who will stand firm. I am part of the Holy Spirit's work to warn them.
I am explaining that it is not Christian meditation and they are two very different methods and goals although only one word. I would like to make that one point perfectly clear and raise awareness of all aspects of it since it is so unnoticed yet so damaging.

Posted 7/4/2009 6:17 AM by Brad2Ford - reply

Your local church?

Posted 7/4/2009 6:50 AM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

Do you endorse or approve of pastors and educational leaders in my church being called false teachers or heretics by the Concerned Nazarene group? If so can you show me in either the Nicene Creed or in the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene what the specific heresy or false teaching is they are guilty of? I mean of course not second hand evidence (some one told you someone said etc) but evidence from published sources

Posted 7/4/2009 6:56 AM by JamesPetticrew

- reply

Do you endorse or approve of pastors and educational leaders in my church being called false teachers or heretics by the Concerned Nazarene group?
I don't know who the CN are calling heretics. If you tell me, I will tell you if I agree. I am not so blind as to say there are no heretics in the world or that I know all of them. But I only have the I do have published resources on some heretics which I would provide if you tell me who you want to research.

1 Tim. 6: 3-5 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

Posted 7/4/2009 7:21 AM by Brad2Ford - reply

browse comments: next › | last »

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)