As the United Methodist Church considers schism and other structural solutions in order to draw a firm line between progressives and traditionalists, we can look to the Church of the Nazarene for an example of what happens when diversity of thought and action is crushed.
Below is a guest post from Ric Shewell, the pastor of St. Paul’s United Methodist Church in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ric left the Church of the Nazarene but has a heart for the people and writes well about how it felt to be essentially driven out from the denomination he loved. He’s also currently the go-to source for discussion over the dismissal of a tenured professor Dr. Thomas Oord, a progressive Nazarene voice. You can read his latest post here that outlines the most current information.
Ric ends this guest post with a word of caution for the United Methodist Church that is considering splitting into two bodies who may live out in the future what is happening now in the Nazarenes.
Take a read! [Light edits for readability]
===
Watching the Nazarenes Say Goodbye to Their Progressives
by Ric Shewell
One of the closest (conservative) cousins of the United Methodist Church is the Church of the Nazarene. Both churches look to Wesley for their theological heritage, emphasize a connectional structure, have founded several institutions of higher education, and are passionate about putting faith into action.
I like these churches. I love these churches. But the Church of the Nazarene has suffered quite about of controversy recently.
- In 2007, a biology professor was terminated for views on evolution.
- Last year, the leadership dismissed its publishing house president.
- Earlier this year, a college chaplain was demoted after a sermon suggesting the Sermon on the Mount should give us pause when discussing war.
- Currently, Northwest Nazarene University is in an upheaval after a sudden layoff of tenured theology professor, Tom Oord.
What is happening to our sisters and brothers in the Church of the Nazarene? One answer could never suffice, but let me point to something that I think is waning in the Church of the Nazarene: the value of diversity in thought and leadership. The UMC ought to take note of what is happening to our cousin.
I was born and raised in the Church of the Nazarene, but left while I was in seminary. You can read the details of that story here. Both churches are dear to me.
Early Days, the Coming Together of Four Groups
The Church of the Nazarene (established in 1908) joined four holiness groups together (allow for a little generalization). From the West came holiness people who emphasized urban social ministries. From the South came holiness people who emphasized lifestyle. From the North came holiness people influenced by campmeeting experiences. And from the Great Plains came holiness people influenced by the emerging fundamentalist movement. This diversity was valued, and compromises were made because unity was an expression of holiness.
Like the UMC, the Nazarenes come together ever quadrennium to work out and amend their denominational rule of life, the Manual. The compromises and diversity of thought can be seen in its pages from this denominations inception. For example, some pushed for “inerrancy” language in their statement on Scripture. Others refused. The compromise reads “inerrant in all things pertaining to faith and salvation.”
The Rise of American Evangelicalism and the Loss of Diversity
In my opinion, the influence of the Great Plains group (The Laymen’s Holiness Association) and the influence of generic American evangelicalism has overtaken the other diverse voices in the Church of the Nazarene. In the latter half of the 20th century, influenced by the Great Plains group and the emerging generic Christian marketplace (books, radio, music, art, etc), the Nazarenes began to lose some theological distinction and emphasis on urban ministry. Fundamentalism and Calvinist thought was streaming into its leadership. The value for diversity in thought began to slip away.
While the leadership and (I might say majority) of the laity are now influenced by this conservative pedigree, there are still many progressive Nazarenes. My friend, Ryan Scott, a Nazarene pastor, said this, “Ultimately, the divide tends to be one of education. Those with Nazarene university and seminary educations tends to be more progressive. Those with less or less rigorous or less Nazarene education tend to be more conservative.”
Since education at a Nazarene institution is not necessarily a requirement for ordination, most pastors (80%) do not have a seminary degree. I also assume the vast majority of laity have no Nazarene education. If Ryan is right, then the progressive voice in the Church of the Nazarene is now a tiny tiny minority.
And it’s being rooted out.
I guess we have to identify “progressive” here. I don’t really know what that might mean. I think Hacking Christianity has an idea about what a progressive UM is. I’m not sure what a progressive Nazarene is, but I know negative and punitive action is being taken against a biology professor for suggesting Christian faith and evolution are compatible, a chaplain suggesting the Sermon on the Mount forbids a thirst for war, and a professor suggesting God’s nature of love involuntarily limits God from coercion.
Those don’t seem like radically progressive ideas. But when the scales are so far out of balance, the circle of orthodoxy gets narrower and narrower.
An Example From Our Right
There have been suggestions from more conservative/traditional United Methodists to let the West go. Let the progressives go. These are suggestions to remove balance in thought and leadership. These are suggestions to forgo diversity for uniformity.
But uniformity does not create unity. Can we be diverse in thought and yet be united in Christ? Yes. I believe so. And I will always passionately defend, debate, and fight for ideas that I believe are worthy and true, but I will never tell a brother or sister who disagrees with me to “shut up,” or “go.” Stay. Speak. Break bread.
I believe we are seeing in the Nazarenes an example of a denomination telling its progressives to go–and it looks like chaos. It seems that the UMC’s fights get a little more media attention. Maybe the UMC has gained an unpopular reputation for the fights we’re in, but we stay together, loving and serving for something greater than our differences.
And to me, that looks like holiness.
===
Great words from Ric to help us look to our Wesleyan cousins for this truth: the dark side of uniformity is not a more focused mission but an empowered witchhunt.
If the United Methodist Church schisms or creates a new structure that lessens contact between progressives and traditionalists, then I think we would see the circles of acceptability become narrower in both camps. And, I’m afraid, it would look like the Nazarenes. When one “side” has a stranglehold on the entirety of a denomination, it’s easy to see the “other side” be choked out. It may already be happening in the UMC–but I believe there’s still time and the Spirit’s urging to find ways to live together before we smash all that is holy to us.
We are better together.
Thoughts?
Often, conservatives in the UMC ask progresses to leave and go elsewhere: Where? The UMC is the most progressive Wesleyan/Methodist denomination, all other options are to the right (like the Nazarenes), not the left.
Unity through diversity (even simply the nuancing of the anti-science, homophobic language in The Book of Discipline), for the conservative UMs I speak to, automatically means the progressives “win”. What can we do when compromise, nuance (like many of our social principles) and holy conferencing is seen as a progressive victory? When conservative UMs cannot see that The UMC’s Book of Discipline and governance is increasingly conservative, not progressive?
I don’t see a solution. Come Lord Jesus!
When issues of the Church are impacted by politics and matters of social justice, it is certainly time to re-examine what it means to be Christian. When I hear someone whining that they lost their tenure when my neighbors are struggling to put food on the table, and I’m wondering how I am going to live in my old age (Lord willing I will still be alive), I think how topsy-turvy this issue is. Having tenure is resting on laurels that no one deserves. Either everyone has tenure or no one does. How absurd to even have the arrogance to assume tenure is deserved. But more importantly, how absurd to think it even has ANY place in the Church.
Some people want us to be open-minded by listening fairly to what we hear and evaluating it based on its merits rather than on our prejudices. That’s a very good idea and makes us more knowledgeable.
Some people say they want us to be “open-minded,” or “progressive,” but really want us to believe what they say without thinking. That would be a very bad idea. The correct response to these people is “If you’re too open-minded your brain falls out,” meaning being open-minded the way you want would be a brainless thing to do.
Thinking about progressives vs traditionalists is not Christ-centered, but human-centered. Please re-center.
The search for common ground will not be found on the terms of questioning the intelligence of those you disagree with. Nor will it be found where the ideal of diversity is seen as having the pre-eminence over the search for truth.
there are two divergent worldviews are work here, the work that the UM and other denominations need to be about is understanding that difference and creating and building upon a common view.
There are multiple examples of the same narrow mindedness on the part of progressives as you use to speak against “traditionalists”. I still remember the day when believing in the Holy Spirit would keep you from being able to be a missionary for the UM church.
So lets stop with the blaming one side or another and seek rather to understand one another and find that worldview and that the common theological basis that will enable us to work together.
Unity is not the solution.
I have been a member of three denominations in my life, the United Church of Christ (UCC), United Methodist Church (UMC), and Church of the Nazarene. The UCC embraced progressive ideas faster than either of the other churches. They are now closing their churches faster than the other denominations. I am convinced that the “unity” with the progressives has caused the UCC to become like the church at Laodicea (Rev 3:16) neither hot nor cold, fit only to be spit out.
We, as God’s creation, have a built-in need for spiritual meaning. Progressive ideas (moral relativism, me-first, majority rules, “unity”) tend to elbow out foundational Christian concepts (faith, sin, redemption, disciplined life). I believe that when established churches allow the “unity” argument and accommodate progressive ideas, those churches stand for nothing and are destined for extinction.
There is hope!
Philip William Otterbein was a minister of the German Reformed Church (precursor of the UCC). His inability to reach the hearts of his own congregations caused a personal crisis in faith, which led to the creation of the United Brethren in Christ (the “United” in the UMC). Likewise, John Wesley, whose theology is associated with the UMC and Church of the Nazarene, left his Anglican church roots and became an open-air preacher after a mission trip and conversion experience with the Moravian church.
Both of these churches were radical threats to existing denominations, but they both grew into very large organizations. Christian denominations need to hold fast their radical roots or they will lose souls to more radical faith organizations. Personally, I think it’s too late for most of the larger churches to survive. That may or may not be a bad thing. Those churches will be replaced by a new breed of radical spiritual organizations. This is why Islamic and New Age churches are growing as Christian churches decline. Unless we Christians find our radical roots or become a new church, we will watch the President’s prophecy come true as we cease to be a Christian nation.
John, I don’t think there even is a search for truth among conservatives. The very idea means you want to conserve what you already have – in case of a religion, that’s the truth of that religion. If there would be a search for truth, there would be a way to do it together. The problem is, there isn’t. So what exactly should we learn to understand? How can you build a common view?
I’m not familiar with the UMC, I’m a Nazarene. But it seems to me we have similar problems and all I see is that the folks who are actually searching for truth are being kicked out.
I am a life long Nazarene and I find your thoughts condescending at best. So are you to say that I am not a truth seeker because I disagree with your progressive agenda. It sounds to me add though you are entertaining the same behavior that you are finding fault with.
Saying that people have an “agenda” is a great way to pick a fight as it is a not-so-subtle attack on their motives.
The Church of the Nazarene is over 100 years old………..it formulated what it believed to be truth in it’s beginning…………..truth does not change or evolve over time….or through higher education…..truth is constant. What progressives are pushing is changing what the church holds as truth…….and that will never happen as it shouldn’t. So called progressives need to exit stage left and find so called unity else where…….this would include clergy….college professors….seminary professors…..anyone who just can’t stand not being a thorn in the side of the church….just my opinion, but if these progressive minds would spend more time and concern about winning lost soul to the Lord, they wouldn’t have time for their trouble making
A lot of general statements are being made in this article and these comments for why selective people are no longer attending the Nazarene church. What Mr. Burt said that; “truth does not change” is correct! Truth, the Bible, God, and His word “is constant”, consistent, and has not changed!
He also pointed out that the Nazarene Church is over “100 years old” with some great pioneers, miracles, blessings, a great heritage! The problem is never “the truth” which is present in every situation, it is His creation struggling in their own carnality….or simply to best understand, serve, teach, and make disciples as we are commanded within the expanded various cultures ON EVERY CONTENINENT, and in society and with technology that no longer lives in 1908 (when the church was founded). Those people, churches who serves/teaches/preaches/and loves like Jesus, selflessly with Him as “Head” of their ekklesia will not have lose members or have those problems. He must become greater and we must become less!
THANK YOU for your comment(s)!! I agree with you 100% here in the year 2021!
I’m watching my Nazarene denomination struggle and fall apart as the ‘progressives’ infiltrate our universities and churches. Will no one stand for Godly principles anymore?
The word of God never changes…we don’t ‘tweet it’ to fit or cater to societies whims…
I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene, went to college at Northwest Nazarene University, and graduated with a Master’s Degree in theology from Nazarene Theological Seminary. I find there is a lot of truth in the characterization of the Church of the Nazarene presented here. After Seminary I worked for Cokesbury (the retail division of the United Methodist Publishing House), eventually becoming the manager of the Seattle Store. Cokesbury was a ministry I felt called to, not just a job.
For a Nazarene, I was at the very far end of what most people would think of as the progressive wing of that denomination. It was traumatic, but I eventually left the Church of the Nazarene for the United Methodist Church. I didn’t feel comfortable with the direction of the denomination. As mentioned above, the generic Christian marketplace has had a defining influence on much of the Church of the Nazarene. One major difference between the Church of the Nazarene and the United Methodist Church is in how pastors come to serve local churches. For Nazarenes, the church board hires and fires pastors. In consequence, you don’t get many prophetic Nazarene voices. I discovered this firsthand when teaching adult Sunday school. I was basically dismissed because I didn’t teach what the adults wanted to hear. What they expected was what they read from works published by more conservative Christian publishing houses–The “generic Christian marketplace.” In this environment many Nazarene pastors don’t even bother proclaiming Wesleyan theology from the pulpit anymore. I didn’t really know who John Wesley was until I went to College (if you had asked me when I was in high school I’d probably have guessed that he wrote some of the hymns we sang).
I do have concerns about the future of the United Methodist Church, but there is still an openness to diversity of opinion that I didn’t find in the Church of the Nazarene (except, of course in Nazarene schools where I was taught how to think for myself). I am currently teaching adult Sunday School at the United Methodist Church I am a member of (in the Pacific Northwest), and not everyone in my class agrees with everything I say. There is room for different views.
I got a fantastic education in Nazarene schools from people like Michael Lodahl, so the news that Oord was dismissed has been unsettling to me. Even during the time I attended Northwest Nazarene University (the early 90s), Dr. Lodahl was embroiled in a theological controversy that threatened his position. Thankfully that was resolved in his favor (as it should have been).
I am not sure how well the two denominations (the Church of the Nazarene and the United Methodist Church) can be fairly compared regarding issues of theological diversity, but it does give one pause to consider.
WAY off topic, but just wanted to say “Hey!” to Lee. I remember your mother starting to come to church in Bellevue and you as a little boy! Good, helpful comments. Thank you! (Would love to hear on update on your family. I’m on fb…Wes Smith.
Why is assumed that thinking for yourself makes you a liberal?
I should add that in my time working for Cokesbury and getting to know clergy from around the Pacific Northwest I have met traditionalists and progressives who were very intolerant of diversity of opinion. BUT I have also met a lot of traditionalists and progressives who were very tolerant of theological differences. It seems to me that often both sides come to the conversation expecting a fight, but if they came with a bit more humility they would find there were a lot more things that can be agreed upon than each side would expect. In a place like the Pacific Northwest, being a traditionalist in the United Methodist Church does not necessarily mean being some type of fundamentalist, just as being a progressive doesn’t necessarily mean being some type of universalist.
My daddy always told me a road has two ditches and it really won’t matter which one you fall into… I’ve long defined evangelicals as the road between the progressives and the fundamentalists.
John Wesley wrote a sermon entitled “The Catholic Spirit”. We may not all agree on forms of worship, the end times, whether to be progressive or conservative, etc. but we need to walk together if we are in agreement on the essential teachings that we need a Saviour who died for us and we need to go out and preach the gospel and disciple them as they become believers. We spend so much energy in theological arguments and man made legalistic rules that we miss the commission of Jesus Christ where He tells us to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
How can others be drawn to Christ if we “brothers and sisters” cannot get along. We are no different than the world without Christ. Just some food for thought.
Very well said.
I am persuing training to become a conflict transformation specialist in the UMC. My reason is similar to your thoughts: how can we agree on our mission if we can’t even agree on carpet? (thinking back to a hotly debated carpet color controversy in a congregation I know). If we can’t get along on little things, how can we get along in the big things? And what is really behind the infighting?
Your writing has some valid points with insights to ponder. However, you lost me when you stated, “Those with Nazarene university and seminary educations tends to be more progressive. Those with less or less rigorous or less Nazarene education tend to be more conservative.” So in essence you are saying if you stand with me on this issue then you went to well-rounded and very rigorous school. If you disagree with the stance you went to a less rigorous institution and therefore, your logic is suspect and not worthy because you are a conservative. Whatever happened to caring for people and loving them for who they are and not besmirching them for not thinking like we do. The beauty of life is engaging each other, exploring in thought, and most importantly extending grace.
May we all step back and engage the situations we are so worked up about, explore what has truly happened and why the situation is happening, and extending grace to all involved.
I think he meant to say that those who have been better educated in what it means to be Nazarene tend to be more liberal. The point is not that liberals are smarter, it is that the Wesleyan tradition is more liberal than its membership right now because that membership doesn’t really know the tradition.
“Those with Nazarene university and seminary educations tends to be more progressive. Those with less or less rigorous or less Nazarene education tend to be more conservative.” …in my experience as a graduate of Nazarene Theological Seminary, that rings true. It is what I have observed in local Nazarene churches as well. I also agree with John Crofford’s reply.
As an Elder in the CotN I can says that, few of the conservatives have M.Divs or Ph.Ds. One of the dynamics at play in my denomination is that we have a habit of ordaining “secon career” folks. They typically get online degrees which don’t offer the communal formation that a seminary or traditional undergrad degrees offer. This leads to poorer theological training.
I have had to explain the word “Christology” to ordained elders. It is pretty sad at times. However, I have hope. The CotN is experiencing some change as the boomers are aging out. Unfortunately we have few Gen-Xers, but my district has more and more millennials. We all tend to have more rigorous degrees, more people with M. Divs, and tend to be more liberal. I wish that so many of our progressives didn’t leave us. We would be a different denomination if the UMC weren’t poaching so many of our best.
“As an Elder in the CotN I can says that, few of the conservatives have M.Divs or Ph.Ds. ”
Except that you are not defining conservative. It is difficult to interact intellectually when what we are talking about is undefined. By conservative Do you mean people that believe in divine healing? Do you mean people who believe God in Christ rose from the dead in a physical body and that those who have faith in Him will also raise in a physical body like His physical body? Do you mean people who have confidence that the stories in scripture reflect an accurate view of history, especially those of Luke?
Thomas Oord was let go because his classes were not drawing students. Several of the remaining professors have views similar to his.
I love clear discussion but this feels much more like tribalism on the left. “I am a progressive and feel like Progressives are being kicked out.” That is tribalism not a discussion on the merits of any particular position.
I was a professor at NNU when Oord was let go. Dr Oord was not asked to leave only because his classes were not drawing students. His classes were not drawing students because of a reappropriation of marketing funds. Until that year, The religion department did their own marketing, and enrollment was strong in Oord’s classes. The enrollment issue was a way to ignore the fact that Oord was tenured. The real reason he was dismissed was that wealthy constituents told NNU administrators that the donations of these constituents was based on Oord’s dismissal. In other words, “Get Oord out or our donationation to NNU will dry up.” Yes, the reason that you stated was the official reason given, but it was not all there was to it.
Answer: Heck no. There’s too many of us and we’re growing in number daily. We’re part of the leadership at all levels. Another UM local congregation comes out as being a Reconciling ministry nearly every week. Progress or perish.
While I am sympathetic to the progressive end of the United Methodist Church, what purpose does a comment like that have? To antagonize traditionalists? I’d rather draw them near through dialogue than push them away and make them mad with comments like “progress or perish.”
The UMC would have split ages ago over LGBT issues except for one thing… the Bishops want a paycheck. The real money in the denomination is in the conservative churches. Tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
I’ve been reading the article and comments on this page and have concluded that if I wasn’t a Christian I would never want to become one. I remember who Christ hung out with, not leaders in the synagogue (they only were there to find fault), but he hung out with the poor, the sick, the prostitute, the homosexual and he preached love and acceptance. Diversity, inclusion are very liberal compared to the idealogy of your churches but necessary if you want the world to know about the love of Christ/God for His children.
Just a rant from a Christian who loves God and loves humanity. Presently an adherent of the United Church of Canada.
In the early 90s, I was a teacher at SNU. I got the bright idea of forming a peace group at the college. I lost my job due to this. I now teach at an urban school in OKC.
Ric, I enjoyed your article. I am reminded that at that first general assembly, there was a group that was different. Dr. Breese spoke up and basically said, tho they be different, we need them. We need professors like Tom Oord and Chaplains like Randy Beckum who challenge our thinking and thus help us solidify our faith.
I responded to the article at the link below:
https://chairistotle.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/deconstructing-1-article-on-the-nazarene-church-unity/
Evaluating this post as if it were a critical philosophical treatise as well as not having familiarity with the two denominations in this post make “Cairistotle’s” critique appear misguided at best. While I see evidence of a basic knowledge of logic in “Cairistotle’s” critique, I don’t see wisdom in how logic ought to be applied. Is diversity of thought a good thing? In many contexts it is. Ought a writer always be required to note that there are exceptions to that? No. That would be unreasonable. In order to defend one’s ideas from all potential criticisms it would require a length that would make the legalese in software licenses rather tame by comparison. The diversity of thought within United Methodism and the Church of the Nazarene are what is in the background of this post. It would be wise to gain some understanding of those situations before criticizing this blog.
One theological point I would bring up is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, unless you are claiming to be God. John Calvin and many other theologians have noted that God accommodated truth to our finite human capacity. That means the truth we have is watered down from the truth as God understands it. Thus there is room aplenty for interpretation.
I am a product of Nazarene higher education, including its seminary.
I was raised in the COTN, and understand its doctrinal distinctions. However, I didn’t learn any of those distinctions in a Nazarene school. I learned them from listening to and studying holiness preachers across the years in the Church of the Nazarene, but mostly after I was out of school, when I could appreciate what I was learning (and apply it). I realize I’m unique in that way.
That all said, I was exposed to some really left-wing, mind-splitting, liberal theological questioning in college. For example, I was challenged to reconsider whether it was necessary that Jesus’ birth was of a virgin. Or whether the Dead Sea actually parted, or whether Jesus simply walked across an unknown sandbar before Peter insisted he wanted to walk on the water with Jesus. Or whether theo-evolution is more true than simplistic 6-day creation narrative.
The last question tears at both sides of the cloth in the church. To scholars, these are banal questions. However, each challenges ones faith in the power, truth, and divinity of Christ, if not His word.
Frankly, few Nazarenes can distinguish between Wesley and Calvin, much less Arminius anyway.
What the author never mentioned was the diluting of the doctrine (abandonment) of “entire sanctification.”
Neither the average United Methodist, nor Nazarene, even vaguely understands, much less accepts, or practices this fundamental and foundation doctrine. They’ll never hear a message on entire sanctification outside a revival service, and that’s become rarer of late, and perhaps nonexistent in a United Methodist church.
Since the foundational, and unique emphasis of ‘entire sanctification’ is fairly considered quaint if not outlived it’s purpose, in the Nazarene denomination, as expressed in it’s schools and seminary, it’s a fluke that a professor would be fired for questioning creation. I mean you can question the basic doctrines of holiness in a Nazarene school and nothing happens. So, why is evolution the third rail of political electrocution in the schools?
If the laity is pushing it’s schools back into Biblically based teaching, which means throwing the baby out with the progressive bathwater, then I’m all for it. It’s just the cost of keeping the curriculum Bible-based. Of course, our salvation is not based on who’s right about evolution, or even that Jesus birth was of a virgin. It’s about whether we confess that Jesus is our Lord, or not. However, for me, it’s about taking that second step that Paul talked about when he asked, “Have you received the spirit since you believed.”
For many, they’ve been going about that salvation without any spiritual help whatsoever, and their lives spark on the sidewalk of life, because they don’t know any better.
I also attended a Nazarene university and Nazarene Theological Seminary. I suggest that we dispense with the notion that a graduate is a ‘product’, as if an institution of higher learning is a factory churning out widgets of consistent quality and conviction. Mr. Palmquist’s post is evidence that one need not agree with Bible-doubting professors in order to get passing grades at a Nazarene institution.
The Nazarenes have collectively decided that ‘via media’ means ‘both and’. On pesky non-essentials like infant baptism vs. infant dedication, it’s reasonable to let both factions claim victory on issues that don’t carry eternal weight. The problem is that the Nazarenes used this conflict avoidance technique too broadly; tolerating and even ordaining those who equate plenary inspiration with active rejection of higher criticism, also known as fundamentalism. All this to maintain a facade of unity.
It represents an utter collapse of religious discourse, exchanging unity for uniformity. It’s sad to behold, but ultimately, our God is bigger than the Church of the Nazarene.
The irony of this whole discussion is that by in large it is those who are labeled “progressives” that are really the traditionalists at least in the Church of the Nazarene because they are trying (at least most of those with whom I have conversed) to hold true to what Wesley actually taught and what we actually practiced (at least in the Western wing of the Church of the Nazarene) in the founding days of the denomination. It is those who are normally referred to as “conservatives or traditionalists” that are in fact introducing new streams of thought into the Church of the Nazarene. The fundamentalism and generic evangelicalism was never an essential part of who we were as a denomination. The fact that those who are trying to introduce these new streams of thought into the denomination are considered the conservatives show how successful they have become in taking over the denomination. It is actually quite a sad state of affairs, and it has cost the Church of the Nazarene many younger leaders, including myself.
Wait, the Bible based is not progressive? So turn the other cheek is not progressive? Love your enemies is not progressive? Sell your possessions and give to the poor is not progressive? Do we dare shut down our reason and intellect and call it reading the Bible? The Bible calls all of our intellect into action. The Bible should challenge our thinking, even cause us to question. When we read the Bible the way it was meant to be heard and not from our Western and American mindset, the Bible is more progressive than we can handle. But when we water it down and make it a science book or a history book or a rule book for anything, then we are not listening to the Bible as it was meant to be read to us. Then we are making the Bible listen to us and progress stops. As followers of Jesus and not any denomination designed around a system of theology to help people systematize God, we should read the Bible and question. That is what is was inspired for. Am I following Jesus or the great whore of our generation? Am I siding with the Pharisees of our generation so I feel good about my possession oriented, ok with violence, and ok with prejudice religion or Am I following Jesus? The Bible is more progressive than we can handle most of the time when we study what it really meant and still means. I hope our schools keep making us question because the Hell that most of my people live in makes me and them question. I am incredibly grateful I was pushed to the edge in college. Better there than at the foot of a hospital bed when I dedicate a dying 1.5lb baby.
This idea that progressives are being kicked out by conservatives in the Church of the Nazarene is, with all due respect, nonsense! It is the other way around- and can be demonstrated by the many biblical Nazarenes who have been forced to leave a denomination that is becoming more and more apostate as time goes by. It will soon be even more “progressive”, and eventually will embrace “homosexual Christians” as being compatible with Christian living.
The rejection of the divinely inspired word of God as actually being God’s word in full, is evidence also.
The denial of ordination of a pastor in New England because he testified to his belief in the inerrancy of scripture is evidence.
The throwing out of a pastor for preaching against the evils of the emergent church movement is evidence.
The embrace of Roman Catholics as “brothers and sisters” in Christ, notwithstanding the RCC’s heretical teachings, is evidence.
The welcoming of contemplative mysticism into the church is evidence of its new progressivism.
The shunning of traditional Nazarenes in their churches if they do not accept these new progressive ideas is evidence.
The rejection of biblical inerrancy as written in Holiness Today is evidence.
The absolute silence by the General Superintendents as all this nonsense is occurring is evidence.
There is much, much more evidence, and you can read it on my blog if you wish.
This is no longer the denomination of my father, who was a true holiness preacher/pastor and would have had his heart broken if he had known of what is going on now. My late father-in-law also was a Nazarene holiness preacher and pastor, and he testified to me of all these bizarre, unholy practices that the Nazarenes are bringing in with a total lack of discernment amongst district leaders and pastors.
These folks, like Tom Oord, are outlyers in this story. Apparently even he and a few others were just too much for those leaders who are normally very compromising in allowing just about any heretical practice in the church. Why? Who knows? Perhaps they went to such an extreme that even Nazarenes who don’t like to “rock the boat” were getting upset about these heretical views.
Maybe its just to get as many people into the “tent” as possible. That is what they say, isn’t it? We have a big tent, they say. But heaven forbid if you believe in the literal Genesis account of creation, or if you believe in the inerrancy of scripture, or if you believe in evangelizing Catholics instead of pandering to them. Heaven forbid if you believe that it is wrong to pander to the LGBT crowd and their progressive agenda of full acceptance in the church. No, in that case, you are forced out, or told to get with the program and shut up.
So this is all nonsense. The Church of the Nazarene, of which I am still somehow a member for now, has gone from holiness to heresy. And the progressives have led the way and still do. That is what is going on, although the deniers will continue to deny it, and will soon condemn people like me for speaking the truth.
I was raised in the Nazarene church. Not long ago this church closed it’s doors and was sold to be turned into a residence. I find this not suprising because even as a twelve-year-old kid I recognized that the the church was full of uneducated poverty stricken folks who were enjoying the “holier-than-thou” position that the church gave them. As an adult I was happy to leave this group of hypocrites.