Some Cautions for the Church of the Nazarene (Part I)

With all the turmoil taking place in the United Methodist Church (UMC), what warning does it give the Church of the Nazarene and other holiness denominations? Check out the article I wrote previously about the United Methodist Church's descent into disunity, turmoil, and schism. 

The Church of the Nazarene is my home. I love the Church of the Nazarene. We are a denomination formed out of the fires of a spiritual awakening that swept the United States and beyond in the mid to late 1800s. By 1908 a number of smaller groups of churches committed to Scriptural holiness came together to form the Church of the Nazarene. 

The Church of the Nazarene is a theological relative to the UMC; tracing our doctrinal roots back to include the founder of Methodism: Rev John Wesley. For that reason, we regard ourselves as Wesleyan-Arminian in our theology. However, the fledgling group originally called the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene, was not only Wesleyan-Arminian in their theology, but also distinctively focused upon scriptural holiness. The spirit of revival and awakening that gave birth to the Church of the Nazarene (and other holiness denominations/churches) was called the Holiness Movement. 

Though there are certainly some differences, it is undeniable that the Church of the Nazarene is on a similar trajectory of division and decline as the UMC. Indeed, every church and denomination will face some of these same issues eventually. 

In light of our upcoming General Assembly of the international Church of the Nazarene and current obstacles facing the church, I am writing a series of articles that are some cautions for my beloved denomination as we move into the future.

1. Human Sexuality. 

The foremost issue facing the unity of the church manifests itself as various opinions on whether one can be a Christian and simultaneously practice homosexuality. The intent of this article is not to debate that issue. Suffice it to say that both tradition and, more importantly, the biblical position are clear that marriage is between one man and one woman in covenant relationship. God's design for sexual intimacy is exclusively in that context. Homosexual practice, consensual or not, is outside of God's will and thus sin. Those who do theological gymnastics to justify this practice are false teachers who promote a culturally palatable agenda. (This video dives deeper into the biblical/theological truth.) 

The official statement of the Church of the Nazarene on human sexuality firmly supports the biblical view and can be found at this link. The problem arises when a loud, vocal minority of leadership within the denomination push their cultural morality untethered to biblical truth. This is a multi-faceted and sometimes a bit complicated problem. 

For example, there are some leaders who have been convinced by those advocating for the practice of homosexuality that regardless of whether you think it is right to participate in homosexual sex or not, you are well within Christian orthodoxy. In other words, this issue is not an essential issue in their eyes. One way this is seen is when they try to equate the debate surrounding this sexual practice with issues like going to the movies, attending a circus, or playing pool. For them the moral differentiation on the issue of sexual immorality is minimal; it can be accommodated within the larger "tent" of Christianity. 

Our Article of Faith on Scripture says that the Bible is inerrant in all things concerning salvation. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is clear that the practice of homosexual sex is not only detrimental to your salvation, but, by extension, will actually prevent you from experiencing eternal life with Christ. Our official stance is that these verses concerning salvation are not in error or tainted by culture or time; they represent an eternal truth. This is a Heaven or Hell issue. It is essential!

This is the main question that many in our denomination seem to be struggling with: can those who practice sexual immorality inherit the kingdom of God? (The answer is "no" to all sexual immorality, but the point of contention currently relates to primarily to homosexual sex.) One key problem with a denomination continuing to debate that issue lies in the fact that the answer has already been given to us. When it comes to the practice of homosexuality, the Bible (Old & New Testament) is resoundingly clear. There is simply no reference anywhere that views homosexual practice as morally neutral, let alone morally good. It is always highlighted as sinful with strong vocabulary. To come to any other conclusion about the practice of homosexuality requires one to either (1) outright reject biblical authority and historic Christianity or (2) ignore biblical exegesis in favor of culturally informed morality. Either is woefully short of true Christianity.

While the issue is settled in Scripture and has been settled for the entirety of church history, false teachers continue to contradict that truth. It's certainly reminiscent of Eve's encounter with the serpent in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say...?" But what seems to be the deeper issue than that of human sexuality is the authority of the Bible to speak to the beliefs and practices of the church and individual Christians.

**Some would argue that we need to allow those with academic degrees or individuals who are tempted toward such actions to continue to debate and review this "ancient puritanical moral code" as if it is borne of a cultural issue that can change over time. So, some academics, lay leaders, and even elders write petitions demanding a voice to speak and "have a conversation." Should we allow the serpent to continue to whisper his lies? Should we allow the serpent to have "a voice at the table?" Should we passively allow their voices to echo through churches or online mediums while they continue to tout their ordination and position within the Church of the Nazarene?

What if the issue were one different than human sexuality? Would we sit silently, or at least passively by, while a group of ordained ministers who identify as proponents of Neo-Nazism petitioned for change while remaining in positions of authority? What if people advocating for adultery continued to remain credentialed among our ranks? I would hope that we would not be open to them continuing to deceive by directly refuting truth and morality under the guise of "academic freedom" or "healthy conversations" or "love."

Note that there is also legislation being proposed at the 2023 General Assembly on Gender Identity. Will we adopt what is clearly spelled out in Scripture: "In the beginning God created them male and female" or continue to create loopholes for people to propagate cultural narratives about these issues?

2. Church Discipline. 

This one seems to be a difficult one for us to accomplish. Like the United Methodist Church, the Church of the Nazarene is now in a place where some leaders are unwilling to deal effectively with false teachers in the life of the church. The problem is not that there are false teachers. There will always be false teachers that seek to lead the faithful astray. The real problem is that the church seems unable or unwilling to deal adequately with false teachers. 

We should have high standards for clergy. I realize there is a desperate need for more pastors to fill our churches, but quickly pushing an individual into a position without time, discernment, and an awareness of their ethical lifestyle is damaging and harmful. To allow people to remain in positions of authority and leadership who are not living an evident life of holiness or are blatantly teaching against the clear teachings of Scripture is a problem that has seen the UMC devolve, divide, and diminish. 

We need someone in leadership to have hard conversations, implement church disciplines, and in some cases expel false teachers. 

3. Unity Apart from Jesus. 

The constant call for unity from some leadership is vague and unhelpful. It often manifests in a call for unity without regard to who or what we are unifying under. In fact, the insistence to continue to beat the drum of unity apart from Jesus is counter to scripture. What fellowship has light with darkness? We cannot be unified with those who promote evil or sin. For instance, holy people are not unified under the same banner as those who would diminish the value of a person based on their skin color or those who would advocate for the murder of a child in the womb. 

Our unity, in the church, comes from the fact that we have been redeemed from darkness and are now co-heirs with Jesus Christ! Our unity comes from the powerful reality that Christ is Lord of our lives individually so that when we come together corporately, He is the head of the church! Unity outside of Christ is not biblical unity, but a false dilution of our ecclesiology. 

Keeping the big tent of diverse theological persuasions at bay became a priority, but quickly became lopsided in its approach. Those working against biblical truth on the issue of human sexuality like to claim the big tent to make room for them, but all the while they exclude less essential issues. For instance, Reformed theology is not tolerated while various forms of universalism have become tolerated. Questioning our biblical stance on women in ministry is not tolerated while questioning our biblical stance on human sexuality has become tolerated. The professed "unity" from the leftists is only extended as far as their false teachings or agendas. 

A.W. Tozer said it this way, "If you have one hundred concert pianos, and you tune the second piano to the first, and the third piano to the second, and the fourth piano to the third, until you have tuned all one hundred pianos accordingly, you will still have discord and disharmony. But if you tuned each piano to the same tuning fork, you would have unity and harmony. So, too, in the body of Christ. When we each tune ourselves and our lives to Christ's, we will have unity." (from 'The Pursuit of God')

4. Leaning into the Episcopacy. 

The last several General Assemblies (GA) of the Church of the Nazarene have witnessed a number of resolutions passed that give more authority to the Board of General Superintendents. The BGS has more "power" today than they ever have in the short history of our denomination. Our polity has moved us farther away from the local church, not closer to it. District Assemblies, while technically still voting on a District Superintendent, typically have a ballot with one name. A local church has less voice than ever before. The average lay person and even pastor have very little voice as bureaucratic hurdles are placed in the way of congregations being able to participate in the processes of discernment denominationally. This is not an intentional act by most, but it is taking place.

The Superintendency is an important and necessary calling within the church. When Phineas Bresee and others organized the CotN they intentionally curbed the authority of the hierarchical power of the superintendency. Most of the earlier holiness preachers and leaders had suffered at the hands of those who abused the power within the Methodist Episcopal denomination. They did not want the new movement [denomination] they called the Church of the Nazarene to suffer the same fate. (Note: This reality continues with the current split of the UNC and the Global Methodist Church.) In succeeding generations, we have slowly, but consistently given power back to the superintendency. 

There has been a push the last several GA's to prolong the time between them 0from 4 years to 5 years or more. Thus far that has been rejected (though it has taken place this time due to the COVID19 pandemic). I'm not advocating for or against some of these measures, I'm simply pointing out that the longer the time between GA, the more authority we give to the denominational hierarchy.

The election of a District Superintendent (DS) by a district has subtly changed too. Often the General Superintendent (GS) along with the Regional Director, will meet with the District Advisory Board (DAB) or District Advisory Council (DAC) and determine one name to take to the district. The District Assembly votes 'yes' or 'no' on the one name. Much business at District and even General Assembly is simply perfunctory action for those who assemble as delegates.

5. Institutionalism. 

Much of organizational leadership becomes preservation of the denominational infrastructure. There is a tedious balance between the organic/spiritual dynamic of the church and the mechanical/administrative operation of the church. They are not mutually exclusive, and both are necessary. However, at some point any movement that ages can become more protective of the scaffolding of the movement to the detriment of the mission of the movement. It seems in too many ways that the denomination's preservation can become more important than the denomination's mission. 

Some passionate, anointed, zealous leaders have been cast aside because they are deemed too dangerous for the institution. Too much risk is involved for them to operate in controversial ways or, even worse, ways that would risk lawsuit in a litigation society consumed with outrage and offense. They are often black-listed and not directly addressed so they may not even be aware of their unofficial status. This is a common sociological reality among any group of people. However, it is problematic for a denomination because we have, in the words of the Apostle Paul, told the foot we do not need them. 

Some of our best and brightest leaders are pressured to not "rock the boat" and serve in ways that defend the perceived survival of the institution sometimes even to the implied neglect or detriment of truth and mission. "Keep the peace" is a cry of those who have circled the wagons in a desperate attempt to survive the decline of the institutional church.

Blind allegiance to any institution is tantamount to idolatry. Faithfulness to the scaffolding that should serve as a catalyst for the work of the Holy Spirit is only helpful or appropriate when it is faithfully discerned how well that structure/institution actually assists in the divine work. When it becomes a ladder for opportunists or a badge of accomplishment or a haven for hard soil; the tree will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

"I do not fear that the people called Methodists shall ever cease to exist in Europe or America, I only fear that they shall exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion, but not the power thereof.  And that undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast to the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out."

(Rev John Wesley. “The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M.”, p. 315, 1831)

Upcoming Articles:

Some Cautions for the Church of the Nazarene (Part II)

A Way Forward for the Church of the Nazarene (Part 1)

A Way Forward for the Church of the Nazarene (Part 2)

General Assembly Resolution Review 2023

Check out the following articles:

My Ordination Means Something

Women Preach!

Transformation is Available

How to Lead Your Church into Apostacy