Monday, August 16, 2010
Church of the Nazarene & Emergent
Tweet
The Board of General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene just released a statement regarding the "emergent church." It's not that long. You can read it here.
I have a personal interest in this because about one year ago, my teaching contract at a Nazarene Christian High School was not renewed, partially because of my involvement with the emergent church. (I want to stress partially. I recognize there were many factors involved, many of which were my own fault.)
There are several parts of the Nazarene statement on the emerging church that are interesting. First, it states:
"There are others within our denomination...who view the concept of an “emerging” church as a positive and hopeful expression of what it means to be the Church. They are seeking to genuinely come to terms with ministry in a complex and rapidly-changing culture. Their goal is to demonstrate the relevance of biblical truth through incarnational and transformational living.
[They are] deeply committed to the authority and infallibility of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives, communities, and nations. They are often engaged with the brokenness in society through active, compassionate ministries working diligently to bring renewal, conversion, and transformation."
To me, it sounds like this is a group of people who are doing the really difficult work in the denomination that many other people don't want to do. They are wrestling, searching, experimenting, all for the sake of real transformation in people's lives. These are the types of people we should be supporting, giving more room to speak, and listening to their success stories and learning from their mistakes.
However, the very next paragraph begins:
"The Board of General Superintendents neither endorses nor affirms “emergent churches” or leaders who are not orthodox in their theology." A reference is then made to the "We Believe" creeds and documents of the denomination.
I can't help but think that this is cowardly. Concerns about "orthodoxy," "rightness" and "beliefs" are superseding the work of real people in real communities who are trying to grapple with ministry in the postmodern world. It is exactly this type of emphasis on orthodoxy rather than an unconditional embrace of hurting people that keeps the churches "safe" and subsequently ineffective.
The Nazarene church missed an opportunity to say something meaningful and worthwhile about emerging churches. They are missing an opportunity to support people who are doing radical ministry in radical situations. Instead, they are choosing to hide behind decades of doctrine.
The Board of General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene just released a statement regarding the "emergent church." It's not that long. You can read it here.
I have a personal interest in this because about one year ago, my teaching contract at a Nazarene Christian High School was not renewed, partially because of my involvement with the emergent church. (I want to stress partially. I recognize there were many factors involved, many of which were my own fault.)
There are several parts of the Nazarene statement on the emerging church that are interesting. First, it states:
"There are others within our denomination...who view the concept of an “emerging” church as a positive and hopeful expression of what it means to be the Church. They are seeking to genuinely come to terms with ministry in a complex and rapidly-changing culture. Their goal is to demonstrate the relevance of biblical truth through incarnational and transformational living.
[They are] deeply committed to the authority and infallibility of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives, communities, and nations. They are often engaged with the brokenness in society through active, compassionate ministries working diligently to bring renewal, conversion, and transformation."
To me, it sounds like this is a group of people who are doing the really difficult work in the denomination that many other people don't want to do. They are wrestling, searching, experimenting, all for the sake of real transformation in people's lives. These are the types of people we should be supporting, giving more room to speak, and listening to their success stories and learning from their mistakes.
However, the very next paragraph begins:
"The Board of General Superintendents neither endorses nor affirms “emergent churches” or leaders who are not orthodox in their theology." A reference is then made to the "We Believe" creeds and documents of the denomination.
I can't help but think that this is cowardly. Concerns about "orthodoxy," "rightness" and "beliefs" are superseding the work of real people in real communities who are trying to grapple with ministry in the postmodern world. It is exactly this type of emphasis on orthodoxy rather than an unconditional embrace of hurting people that keeps the churches "safe" and subsequently ineffective.
The Nazarene church missed an opportunity to say something meaningful and worthwhile about emerging churches. They are missing an opportunity to support people who are doing radical ministry in radical situations. Instead, they are choosing to hide behind decades of doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
But Jesse...don't you know that you have to believe a specific way in order to get in to the Kingdom of God. ;-P
Exactly....
As one who has struggled a bit within the Nazarene context to find my place and "space" for like-minded Christ followers, I think that statement from the GS's was fairly bold and visionary. It risks reaction from grassroots, more conservative Nazarenes.In my mind, it helped validate some "space" in the tribe for those of us who would identify with emerging/missional expressions of church. But I definitely see your point and wish they didn't have to cover other bases in fear of a denominational split or something.
Blessings,
I wonder how many denominations have made official position statements regarding the emerging church? Some would certainly be harsher and more antagonistic than this Nazarene position.
I think Chris is right that the statement does create some space for exploration of emergent; it at least does not condemn all things emergent across the board.
But the statement does show the unfortunate standard of equating doctrinal orthodoxy with true discipleship. Right doctrine does not automatically lead to love and obedience. In fact, those who seek to defend orthodoxy above all else often seem to be lacking in love and compassion, at least toward anyone who threatens or questions their beliefs.
I don't think the general superintendents necessarily hold doctrinal purity as the hallmark of the Christian life, but they are operating in a system in which denominations and movements are defined by their doctrinal distinctives. They speak from within this system within challenging its correctness.
There is a history to this statement of which I am somewhat familiar but not fully aware of all the details. My take is that the position statement was made only because a vocal and persistent opposition to all things emergent demanded action. The statement is vague enough that both sides can claim a victory of sorts. No specific heresies are mentioned, so those operating in emergent circles can claim support as long as they can reasonably assure themselves and others that their explorations do not venture into heresy (whether this should be a major concern is another matter). Those opposing the emergent groups already consider them heretical and read the statement as a renunciation of any emergent practices or teaching.
Kyle, you said: "The statement is vague enough that both sides can claim a victory of sorts."
I think this is what frustrates me most - how vague, and really in my opinion, not useful it is. To me, the board and the denomination is playing it safe, trying not to loose anyone. Instead of either boldly moving forward with emergent, or standing for something definite and concrete. I read this as a sort of "wishy washy" "we-don't-really-know" kind of statement. I guess more than anything, that's what frustrated me.
However, I do agree with both you and Chris that this allows for both sides to stay in the conversation and the denomination, which in some ways is a good thing
Post a Comment