I previously began to articulate some cautions I would share with the denomination that I love. You can see the previous ones in the first part of this two-part series of articles.
6. Promoting unfruitful or unfaithful pastors.
An emphasis on fruitfulness has been criticized lately and described as a "church growth movement." We certainly do not need more methods that trivialize the Gospel and the call to holiness of heart and life. We do not need more crowds who disappear at the first sign of rocky waters or challenging messages. But fruitfulness is a byproduct of being connected to the True Vine.
We cannot continue to be content with no spiritual births year after year after year! We cannot accept the ongoing decline of attendance across the church in the USA-Canada region (and beyond). This is not okay. This can no longer be masked as "faithfulness in a changing world." It can no longer be dismissed with excuses of COVID, changing culture, legalism, uneducated laity, or anything else. There is still power in the blood of Jesus to radically transform the vilest offender and usher those who repent into the holy place of communion with Christ!
Some of the problems lie in the fact that there are some leaders who have been given positions of authority and leadership in the denomination who have not been fruitful or faithful. While someone's familial connections do not prohibit their promotion in the life of the denominational church, it should not be a driving force for the position given and certainly should not be a reason they get a pass for lack of fruitfulness in their ministry assignment. Even worse is when someone is ignored and given an exemption for their unfaithfulness to the church and its doctrines because of their familial ties to other leadership. If we continue to propagate unfruitful or unfaithful leadership in the life of the church, we will continue the pattern of decline in the USA/Canada Region.
7. Changing Theology.
Obviously the Church of the Nazarene Manual allows for changes. As of late, some have began to teach that this is due to the evolving nature of theology. They would argue that their ordination vows are irrelevant since they agreed to uphold a Manual that constantly changes. Of course many of the proponents of this do not believe God is perfect and therefore unchanging. They have adopted process theology which claims God is developing and growing as he "figures out" creation. They deny his perfect power and the biblical truth that "nothing is impossible for God." Others have become disconnected from a relationship with the Redeemer and therefore view theology as a philosophical wandering open to their ideological influences. Theology, for some, is not the study of God, as revealed in Scripture, but their own form of idolatry in which they create a god in their own image.
Changes, especially in our Article of Faith, were allowed with the recognition that language changes over time and there might be an occasion in which it is necessary to rearticulate our faith because of the evolution of language. It was never about God changing or our theology being rejected. Much like a new translation of biblical text, which does not change meaning, changes were allowed due to a common sense allowance in our Manual.
Many of the changes and pushes are by those who are seeking to promote universalism. Diminish the problem of sin so that it is non-existent. Reject any mention of God's wrath, justice, or holiness and choose only those characteristics of God to promote which can be culturally defined like "love." Indeed we need to talk about love in relation to God as He is love. But it is to reject the full Gospel when do not speak to all of the character of God.
However, it is no secret that there are some within the church who want to do away with certain components in our Articles of Faith (AoF) all together. There is a move by some to rid our AoF of any mention of a literal hell and some want to eliminate the concept, from our AoF on Atonement, that Jesus died to pay for our sin debt. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."
There is also a move to make "AoF X: Holiness" devoid of any crisis language or reference to the sinful nature.
8. The Experience of Entire Sanctification.
The distinctive doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene (and the broader holiness movement) is that of entire sanctification. Make no mistake, every church of Jesus Christ believes in holiness. After all, it is a clear call to be holy throughout Scripture. However, the holiness movement along with John Wesley and others throughout church history, have emphasized the reality that God, in a moment of time, can cleanse the heart of the sinful nature. You can in fact have a pure heart that has been filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit! Love of God can be made perfect in your heart!
Unfortunately, throughout our recent history, there have been debates about whether entire sanctification is instantaneous or simply a process. While there is much to be said about growing in grace, prevenient grace, and even maturing in our walk with Christ after we are entirely sanctified, it is essential that we do not abandon entire sanctification as a moment in time when a fully surrendered life comes to God in faith and is baptized in the Holy Spirit thus being made entirely holy; body, soul, & spirit.
The need addressed in the new birth is the guilt of sin (personal sin). The need addressed in our entire sanctification is the pollution of sin (sinful nature). Both the need and the solution must be clearly taught and preached in our churches! Vague semantics and the generic use of the word "holiness" does not make us a holiness church, it actually diminishes the message and aligns us more with generic evangelicalism than the holiness movement (Wesleyan or American holiness movements).
.png)
9. Lack of Evangelism.
This involves, but is not limited to, the diminishing influence of revivalism in the Church of the Nazarene. Camp Meetings, revival services, and even evangelists have come to be viewed as an increasingly archaic means of "doing church." Some even ridicule any form of evangelization that calls sinners to repentance and leads to conversion claiming that this is traumatizing or harmful to people.
With a shift in soteriology by some church leaders, there has been a marked de-emphasis of evangelism. Evangelism, sharing the Gospel with the aim that the listener will be born again, has been rejected by some in favor of cultural fads of social justice and political jargon. Talk of the marginalized, critical race theory, and injustice have replaced repentance, being born again, and faith in Christ. The eternal well-being of an individual is eclipsed by their physical needs. Salvific issues have moved from personal new birth to political revolution (most often as an emphasis toward atheistic Marxism). It is not individuals who are sinful but systems some would claim. In reality, systems are only sinful, because of the people that make them up.
Do not be confused about what I am communicating: good works and involvement in the social welfare of our culture are of utmost importance for a holiness people, but our primary calling and Commission from Jesus is that people become disciples of Christ. The church cannot allow itself to be diminished to a social services arm of society. The work of the church is primarily a response to Jesus' Great Commission. It is first and foremost the salvific work we are to commit ourselves to welcoming people into the family of God who were once enemies of Christ. Gospel proclamation has become sidelined in favor of institutional preservation and culturally palatable priorities in too many instances.
Is revivalism dead? Is evangelism outdated? There are some that would not only say yes, but actually argue that evangelism is a harmful thing. Others would simply opt for a brand of universalism that negates the significance of evangelism or spiritual awakening (after all, everyone goes to Heaven anyway). We need to be aware that the delegitimization of evangelism is brought about theologically before it is manifest practically. What I mean by that is we need to be careful what we do with articles of faith on sin, atonement, destiny, judgment, etc. There are some who would like for the denomination to become less and less evangelical in our approach.
10. Cultural Acceptance.
While the holiness movement has had a long history of being counter-cultural, we have recently become much more interested in the approval of those around us. The early holiness pioneers who formed the Church of the Nazarene were determined to live in a peculiarly different way from the culture and world around them. They were convinced that through the power of the Holy Spirit they could transform culture. There is the constant insistence that we must listen to the youth of our church for the direction of the church. If not, they warn us, these youth will leave the church.
But when has the church ever listened to the youth to plot the course into the future? Why did we give up on seeking God for direction, empowerment, and purity? When did chasing fads become more important than chasing Jesus? When did media outlets become more influential than scripture in the life of the church?
Alas, we now struggle to adequately articulate orthodox, biblical teachings on human sexuality. A vast number of false teachers are not promoting biblical theology, but a regurgitation of cultural morals with the label of theology. They have chosen culture over Christ in their theology. Neglecting the mind of Christ, many live almost exactly like the world around them. Marriage and the divorce rates, personal ethics, financial stewardship, personal appearance, ways of thinking about the world around us, and even ministry can so easily be influenced by these cultural voices in media, technology, news, etc.
Whatever happened to the biblical concept of worldliness?
"The danger is not that we may cease to exist as a corporate body but that we may permit some superficial and unworthy motive to assume the ascendancy in our thinking and loyalty rather than the great central issues of the gospel." (Rev Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. "Foundations of Wesleyan Arminian Theology" p. 12)
Related Articles:
Check out the following articles:
You say that the heart can be cleansed of the sinful nature in a moment of time. I find it ironic that you quote from a part of Scripture on your profile that argues against the possibility of getting rid of our sinful nature in this life (Galatians 5:16). The very next verse says: "For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want." The sinful nature can never be cleansed, nor eradicated. Of course, we are no longer a slave to sin. We are empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit to obey if we choose to do so. This is walking by the Spirit.
ReplyDeleteI can’t agree with with Anonymous especially at the last paragraph or two
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing that people like Anonymous obviously convicted by the article go to find some inconsequential note to argue with in the context of such a well put together treatise. What I would have hoped is that they would have factually picked apart the article and not try to nitpick a speck of dust to try and discredit such a gem.
ReplyDelete