Tag: Church of the Nazarene

Contending For The Truth In Love

I was recently watching Gavin Ortland’s “Are Catholics Christians? Why Protestants Can Say Yes.” Setting aside the point of his video, and even (mostly) his ministry and conclusions, there was something he said that really resonated with me.

…let’s conduct our disagreement going forward in a way that honors Christ where we contend for the truth, and we do so in love.
Gavin Ortland

Contend for the truth…in love. It seems so simple. Orland acknowledges that he falls short, as do we all.

I’m part of a number of groups and people that stretch, shall we say, me. Okay, I flat out disagree with much of the content they share and propound. Yet, I have found it to be critical to my growth as a person, Christian, father, husband, and pastor.

The language seen is “sinner”, “sin-lover”, “heretic”, “bigot”, “hater”, “hate-filled”, and most of this is from purported Christians to purported Christians. The presupposition of so many is that who ever the target of the person’s words are is coming from a morally or theologically wrong position. By wrong, I don’t mean in error or differing of opinion. By wrong, they put themselves in a place of condemnation and judgement of the other.

The Hard Part

By my words before, I could easily be accused of putting myself in the same place of condemning and judging others. I recognize that, but I’m also not sure what else I am supposed to do. Do I think any of these people will themselves be condemned to Hell (whatever iteration you presuppose)? Not because of their words, necessarily. It is still about their heart and their relationship with God.

While I am glad, on one hand, that the church universal (dare I say, the church catholic) is publically discussion theology and ethics, I think we have neglected to contend for the truth in love.

This is far more than LGBTQ+. There is MAGA and Trump, politics in general, Christians behaving badly (take that however you want).

In my denomination, there has been public trials in regard to LGBTQ+ (granted, being publicized by the person on trial kind of minimized the publicization). There are ongoing issues with misuse of Pentecostalic gifts while condemning non-problematic ones (in other words, throwing the baby out with the bathwater). There are issues about how we view the Scriptures.

My denomination long called itself a “big tent” denomination, but there are multiple camps trying to shrink the tent. My heart aches because too many are not contending for the truth in love, they condemn.

I am currently in a space where I wonder if our denomination can get to a point of discussion without declaration. We are in danger of abandoning,

Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wits of another.
Proverbs 27:17 NRSVue

Via Media

My denomination draws heavily from John Wesley. One of Wesley’s phrases was via media. In other words, the middle way.

Let’s set this in its proper context, and that is the Church of England. The Church of England had a philosophy of via media. It was walking the line between the Roman Catholic Church and many of the offshoots of Protestantism. As it became the official church of England, in many ways it ceased being the via media by the very nature of its societal and governmental (the CoE has ex officio seats in Parliament) position. It’s hard for many of my Church of the Nazarene friends to see that the Church of England used to be the via media. Granted, in many respects, the transformation of the Protestant Christian landscape, it seems kind of odd that the Church of the Nazarene is in any way a via media denomination.

Yet, if we really want to hold onto via media as core to our identity as a denomination, then we need to relearn contending for the truth in love.

Loving Contention

How do we contend for the truth in love? First, remember Proverbs 27:17. That’s a good starting point. Some translations of this verse use friend as the sharpener. While that might not be accurate insofar as the Greek is concerned, perhaps that ought to be the place we begin our contention.

The starting point of love, however, isn’t our fellow man, it’s God. Some argue, with good reason, that if we love our fellow man, we are loving God. When one holds onto an imago dei concept (that each person has the image of God in them), this makes good sense, except when it doesn’t.

Except When it Doesn’t

When doesn’t it make sense that loving a person is equal to loving God? When loving that person allows, permits, or (especially) endorses behavior that appears contrary to the Scriptures. Depending on who you are that reads that, you will come up with an issue that I must be implying. You’re probably right, as long as you recognize that whatever that one issue you inferred is one of many I implied. I won’t put any issues here, because there are far more than even the issues I’ve stated elsewhere.

This continues to be the hard part for me, as it is for many pastors I know. We love our people. We see the many places their lives do not conform with the Scriptures. It’s not as if we are perfect, either. We, too, have aspects of our lives that need to be further conformed to Jesus, sometimes more desperately than our people.

Just as we are to be held accountable, so too are all who are in the Body of Christ.

Elevating Sin Over Love?

There are plenty of issue where this happens. Perhaps elevating is overstating it. Perhaps. Yet, if we all “know” it’s wrong (whatever it may be), but nothing changes, and we continue to say nothing, then where does that leave us?

We don’t want to talk about a person’s sin publicly (or at least not to identify a sin with a particular sin), which makes sense…except for public sin. We also don’t want to condemn. That’s above our pay grade (so to speak).

Go and Sin No More

Does this apply anymore? Do churches care about this? Do the people care about this? I want to say, “yes.”

Where do toleration, acknowledgment, accepting, admonishing all start and end? Within those, where does love start and end?

What if every Christian has to account for other people’s sins (in particular Christians) that they did not call out? This might seem extreme hyperbole, yet Ezekiel can be seen as the archetype of a Christian watchman (yes, I’ve seen that many places).

We are to be a community, and a community holds its people to account.

January 10, 2025
No Perfect Witnesses
In my denomination, there has been a lot of conversation regarding the Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette 2024 Olympics Paris Opening Ceremonies. Perhaps conversation might be overstating it.

There have been a lot of words, and I’ve shared the words of others.

What is prompting this particular post is It’s Not What You Think It Is by Andy Lauer on the Holiness Partnership¹ website.

I have to admit that my first response was not overly positive. Lauer’s article kept circling in my brain, however, and I have come to the point of recognition that it is worth reading and pondering.

Yes, it might be a tad over the top. On the other hand, I think that there was too quick of a response by those against the Opening Ceremonies, and by those (like myself) who felt the need to mitigate the expressed outrage.

So, we are clear, I do think the Opening Ceremonies were kind of meh. I think it was an overreach that didn’t work out well. I also did find The Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette tasteless, but its entire context within the fashion/catwalk larger vignette had already turned me off.

Jan Hermansz van Bijlert’s Le Festin des Dieux (The Feast of the Gods ) does seem to be very much based on Leonard da Vinci’s The Last Supper. Van Bijlert is not unique in this as this seach page on Artsy shows. Thus, one of the claims many have made that the vignette wasn’t about The Last Supper might be correct on the surface, yet The Last Supper is very much a part of it.
In his article, Controversy, Context, and Creativity in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, John Squires preaches (he’s a pastor) about context, context, context. In response to much outrage, I shared his article with others, so that there was indeed some context.

Squires is correct, context is key. The context is a broken and fallen world that does not have a functional relationship with God. Sadly, as much of the acrimony surrounding this vignette showed, it seems to apply to Christians, too.

Many, such as myself, were responding to what was perceived has angry, hurtful, even hateful responses to the vignette. We saw this as damaging our ability to be effective witnesses for Jesus Christ. We understood that the world would first respond to Christian outrage with more outrage and shutting of doors to conversation.

What we didn’t do, however, is ponder. Honestly, neither did a lot of the outrage against the vignette.

We have been well trained to react, respond, react, respond. Maybe later we’ll think.

We are not perfect witnesses. Those that tried to defuse the anger and those that were angry were actually not on opposing sides. That’s the part that really struck me with Lauer’s article.

It’s not that we all don’t see a fallen world. It’s not that we all don’t see a world that is turned from God.

Where people, such as myself, got a bit lost, perhaps, was that there is a distinct difference between trying to defuse, trying to understand, and trying to apologize. By apologize, I’m referring to the classic apologia, which seeds to defend or justify.

It’s that last word, justify, where it seems that Lauer and others are rightly disturbed. Much of the defusing appeared (and may well have been) an attempt to justify the vignette.

There are a number of conversations in the Christian world, including the Church of the Nazarene, where justification is equated to explaining, seeking to understand. This is vignette was one of them.

Let’s be clear though. Squires, and many like him, used language that seemed more justifying than explaining.

It’s not that I don’t understand that, but this impacts our witness.

I get that there are many disagreements among and within the many Christian traditions (denominations and non-denominationals). I am becoming more convinced that it is not that we disagree, but how we disagree.

Yes, there will be times where breaking of fellowship will occur, and I hope all parties involved are deeply grieved by that. I hope that the grief and sorrow is far outweighed by the sense of justification and righteousness.

While I think this vignette is relatively minor, the hubbub that occurred around it is the point of greater reflection.

We are imperfect witnesses for Christ. How we witness is very important. We may well have the right answers, but the right answers are only heard within relationships, and often not even then.

As we come to the next outrage, let us think deeply if we are reacting and responding, or thinking, praying, and witnessing.
1. The Holiness Partnership is a collective dominated by a group of Church of the Nazarene pastors who seem to be of a very traditionalist mindset. This can be good, as it ought to keep a balance to the progressive wing of the Church of the Nazarene. However, there is some concern, that the Holiness Partnership might have too much influence and control within the denomination, outsizing its numbers. ↩︎
August 15, 2024
Counting Online Worshippers
In February 2019, the general SDMI (Sunday School and Discipleship Ministries International) board sent out a directive for counting online worshipers.
The criteria for online attendance should address these items: personal identification, minimum duration, opportunity for participation, follow-up from host congregation.
Churches may include in their regular worship attendance the number of confirmed devices or individuals who have:

remained connected during at least 50% or 30 minutes of the streamed gathering or recorded content

engaged the broadcasting church by:

Online registration or identification

Provided an opportunity for personal participation or communication (Chat rooms, submission of prayer requests, etc.)

received weekly personal contact/follow-up by a designated individual from the hosting congregation

Church should indicate on-campus and on-line attendance separately when reporting monthly worship attendance.

Churches should take care to actively engage online participants in the same manner they do those present at their physical gatherings. Intentional efforts should be made to enter them into discipleship processes and, where possible, move them from the digital gathering to the physical gathering of the local congregation.
Based on observed (and sometimes confessed) behavior, I wonder what would happen were we to apply the same requirements of those who visited physically.

Let’s take item 1 regarding remaining connected. How many people are really and truly connected at our physical services? I have spoken to many who are flat-out are disengaged during the singing of worship songs. I have known others who have calculated the average amount of singing and will show up at the service at that average time, trying to minimize (or eliminated) any presence during the singing. Yes, these can be exceptions, however, with what we know about attention spans, it really shouldn’t be that much of a surprise that people aren’t engaged for the full service when physically present at them.

Item 2 is actually quite interesting. In my short experience, by this measure, most people seem to be “engaged” (again, as defined by item 2). This item is different insofar as being an “opportunity” not necessarily an action. As for saying “I’m here”, that is one of the beauties of online, is that the church’s capability to “prove” attendance is actually part of many platforms. However, connection cards—whether digital or physical—are really only somewhat successful.

It is, though, really Item 3 that is the most significant. This item would fall under the area called life groups (or discipleship groups or small groups or…). Most churches, that I am aware of, know that this particular subsection of the church is vital to both the health of the larger congregation, the church as a whole, and the growth of individuals toward a fuller expression of Jesus Christ.

This is probably part of the Church of the Nazarene’s Wesleyan heritage that creates a focus on this. However, it’s this heritage that also, sadly, displays the shortcomings of the current Western church culture at large. The “official” metric for Sunday School (the Church of the Nazarene term for all things not Sunday service) would be quite interesting were we only able to include those that attended both a Sunday Service and a life group of some sort. Many church’s official attendance would be significantly reduced.

Now, to be honest, that may not be a bad thing. Imagine if the reported metric was attendance and it only counted for those who did both? How would the church (digital or physical) change its behavior? That is an interesting thought experiment itself.
February 18, 2020