Here's a very short attempt using the method of simple rewording. Frankly, I feel that this version is NOT ideal, since it uses language that can be confusing in the long run. But, at least it's short!
=====================================
Article X. Entire Sanctification
13. We believe that entire sanctification is the act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect.
It is brought about by faith in the Son of God and by the grace of God extended to consecrated believers.
Entire sanctification signifies or marks the moment of entire consecration to God and subsequent empowerment by God that enables the believer to be directed by the Holy Spirit in loving service to God and to others consistently.
The ultimate result of entire devotement is a life of that is set apart to God's purposes and empowered by God for Christlike service in the world, to the extent that the believer’s life is marked by growth in God’s grace and by consistently sharing the love of God with others.
=====================================================
Thoughts????
Charles
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I participated in something like this a couple of years ago. Tom Oord put together a listserv to tackle this project. It went next to no-where. Mainly because it is very difficult to hammer it out online.
I would be interested in hearing what came of the NNU conference. Can you give us details about what happened there? What was the character of the gathering? Was the whole of the church represented? Was a new draft statement made? Does your draft here materially represent the direction the conferees were leaning?
At the end of the day it is a dubious proposition that rearticulation can right our coarse. I hope this is not received as unfriendly. The future of the CON no longer hinges on the affirmation confessed in Article X, as much as some people wish that it would, rearticulated or not. The institutional concern for maintaining doctrinal distinction moves directly against the yearning of most in my generation. It no longer captures the imagination of the Nazarene body as a whole (at least in the USA/Canada). I need help understanding why it needs to capture the imagination of the next generation.
A new generation of Nazarenes are here to stay because to be part of this tradition is to be a tributary that is part of a great stream (the church). We’re more interested in how being Nazarene places us in closer proximity to our Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Reformed, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters rather then marking us apart. So any rearticulation would need to address this notion in order to capture our imagination.
Charles, I typically try not to be over-the-top with my online conversations so feel free to delete this and reply to me via e-mail. I appreciate your love for the church as well as your willingness to engage others in dialogue.
Peace,
Brian
Actually, Brian -
I think I would agree with much of what you've said here. I don't feel that the life or death of the CofN rests upon properly articulating a passage of the Manual. Heck, many of my oldtime Nazarenes probably couldn't reproduced much of the statement. I do think that discussing what we have made to be a "distinctive" can actually help us move toward being a better dialogue partner with the rest of the Church Catholic, and that is my ultimate goal. I'm probably near your age, and so the generation you speak for is partly mine.
I think that what I'm hearing from you and from others is a real desire to 1) be "real" about who we are, and 2) not be so caught up in who "we" are that we miss out on what God is doing through the whole Church.
Maybe by looking closer at Article X and what it means to be holy will help us see that we have not cornered the market on holiness, so to speak. And, that we must move into a time of broader dialogue beyond a particular section/movement in order to really encounter God and be holy.
That's my main goal, anyway, and it sounds like we're basically on the same page. The article discussion is more of a "means to an end" than "an end in itself," so to speak.
Either way, I've enjoyed our dialogues before, and I would love it if you and others would continue to take some time for dialogue when possible in the days ahead.
God bless, and Thanks,
Charles
I must first confess that I haven't read everything on the blog yet, including the re-wording of the article, so I won't comment on that.
But in relation to what re-wording could do...
Of course it won't drastically alter the course of the Church of the Nazarene. However, as an even younger guy who has in the past seriously considered his place in the denomination in which he's a fifth-generation minister, I'd love to see the article re-articulated. Perhaps the time I felt most disenfranchised was when I left a district license interview a few years ago disappointed because I was told that I don't have a grasp on sanctification (from a district leader who, in order to enlighten me, likened sanctification to the daily decisions of life such as choosing to stop at a stop sign because "we're supposed to for the betterment of society").
I've peers who've felt the same and gone a different way than I chose to go (CotN) - not out of anger, rebellion, or any other sophomoric reasoning, but just because the red tape isn't worth cutting through.
So, if I had a chance to re-word some of the articles (this one included) I wouldn't mind. Would the majority of members notice (let alone the greater evangelical world)? Of course not. But the leadership would, and it would help us in the integrity of what we say, and even more importantly, what we do.
I hope to read more of this later, but can't right now. Other places where I'd love to see change?
- I can't believe that Article I (on the nature of the Triune God) doesn't have the word "love" in it.
- Not an article, but in 33.1, "we hold that the basic Christian ethic is the Ten Commandments"...What? The root word of Christian is CHRIST and he seemed to live by and emphasize the ethic of the Great Commandment.
Anyway, thanks for the blog, I'll check in as I can.
Jeremy --
First of all, someone who loves both the Red Sox AND Bela Fleck can't be all bad! :-) Maybe the district council you spoke of should have just looked at that and known that you have a grasp on sanctification! :-)
Seriously, thanks for your input. Maybe this blog will open up discussion on other articles of faith that may need to be reworded, or "tweaked" a bit. As time goes by, all denominational groups have the opportunity to do this. It's a good thing.
Keep blogging!
Blessings,
Charles
FYI Urbanmonk, some of the conference information from NNU is avaiable at http://wesley.nnu.edu, including a great post from Thomas Jay Oord which could provide discussion points for this blog. It was titled "Revisioning Article X: Fifteen Changes in the Church of the Nazarene’s Article on Entire Sanctification."
I went to NNU and actually took theology courses under Tom Oord. His book on Holiness is AWESOME. Growing up a Nazarene, I was continually and throughly confused by our doctrinal definition of Entire Sanctification. I've always seen E.S. as being a process in which you go through. Older members often think of E.S. as being an instant state of perfection. I've heard way too many public testimonies that started out by saying "I'm proud to say that I'm saved, sanctified..." and I wanted to add Petrified. Because these "so-called" saints did NOTHING with their faith, let alone this so-called sanctification.
I personally believe it to be a process, so rather than call it Entire sanctification, I would rather call it "Progressive Sanctification". The actuall definition as the manual lists out, seems to be more of a definition that a priest or nun would include in their vows, rather than that of a "normal" everyday Christian in the world today.
I went to NNU and actually took theology courses under Tom Oord. His book on Holiness is AWESOME. Growing up a Nazarene, I was continually and throughly confused by our doctrinal definition of Entire Sanctification. I've always seen E.S. as being a process in which you go through. Older members often think of E.S. as being an instant state of perfection. I've heard way too many public testimonies that started out by saying "I'm proud to say that I'm saved, sanctified..." and I wanted to add Petrified. Because these "so-called" saints did NOTHING with their faith, let alone this so-called sanctification.
I personally believe it to be a process, so rather than call it Entire sanctification, I would rather call it "Progressive Sanctification". The actuall definition as the manual lists out, seems to be more of a definition that a priest or nun would include in their vows, rather than that of a "normal" everyday Christian in the world today.
Post a Comment