Nazarene Catechism, Part 2

This will be Part the Second of three outlining my response to the Nazarene catechism document that's been floating around the last week or so. Part 1 can be viewed here. In that post, I talked about how the format itself and much of the perspective of the writing were really not appropriate for theology in present and future days. While I applaud the effort, the result seems a bit short-sighted and short-lived.

This post is more a reflection on the influence of what seems to be a concerted effort from our Board of General Superintendents to push 'unity' throughout the denomination. Not that I believe unity is bad - quite the contrary - it's just that this push for unity seems more an effort to silence discussion on things in which people are very much in disagreement about. Rather than stress those things which arise from and promote actual unity, we tend to provide a party line and then act as if everyone is on board. That's troubling, if not unexpected.

The catechism document, "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" has this notion infused throughout. One of the most innocuous examples is the continued references to "unfermented grape juice" when discussing communion. I know 99% of Nazarene congregations use unfermented grape juice, but the Manual says "unfermented wine," which is actually different. They've basically just interpreted the Manual to say what they think it means - not a problem on the grape juice front, but more troublesome when issues are of greater import.

The best example of this is the answer to Question 123, dealing with our core theological distinctive: sanctification or holiness. The answer here is simple and defensible, but it seems to work against the traditional Nazarene position that something happens in sanctification that is different from salvation. This answer talks about a journey that starts on the cross and culminates at the resurrection, which doesn't sound much different from those other non-holiness explanations of sanctification.

I think this presentation is better than what we've done before, which leads to a sort of nebulous sinlessness, no matter how much we renounce the word. At the same time, I wouldn't want to stop wrestling with the difficulty of communicating a second work of grace, which is a real danger in this presentation. I appreciate that this answer provides cover for the proposed Article X changes at the upcoming General Assembly (although I wish we could avoid wording that basically marginalizes crisis entirely), having this answer in this place feels like putting the cart before the horse. Just because this answer maybe seems more appropriate and responsible than what we've said in the past, doesn't mean it isn't glossing over real differences among our membership - about our most central theological doctrine!

I'll include a few more examples of these at the end of this post, but the unity problems in this catechism run a bit deeper than just internal disagreements about interpretation or practice. There's a stronger undercurrent of forced unity and overgeneralization that's real problematic for scriptural and theological discussion.

Page 15 of the document gives an almost full page quote from one of the answers on scripture: "The Holy Scripture offers us a unified understanding of God's self-revelation to humanity." I guess I get what that is supposed to mean, but, in reality, the lack of unity is one of the important hallmarks of scripture. Our tradition has given us diverging voices specifically so that we remain in dialogue with each other, build a relational theology and don't get too comfortable (or propositional) and assume we've mastered Truth.

The very fact that different denominations exist is pretty strong evidence scripture isn't "unified" in its understanding. Even at its very basic levels, there's going to be disagreements on interpretations and, more importantly, implications for life. This statement, and its prominence, is just not a great start.

Continuing, I don't know how many theologians would agree with the answer to Question 25 that "'I believe in God' is the source of all other truth about humankind and the world." I'm almost positive Truth has to begin with Jesus - and probably more about his life and example than his identity. Again, Christian faith is a lived faith, not a propositional one. It's only from God's self-revelation and interaction with humanity that we could understand anything about God.

However, it also feels like theological overreach dressed up in grandiosity to make such a statement. I'd be down with saying that any truth people discover about humankind or the world is because of God - but that doesn't require belief. God's existence is often one of the last things people are willing to accept on a journey to faith. This answer is very confusing; It's almost as if the true complexity of reality leads us to put on a show - Wizard of Oz style. "Big words and firm declarations! - pay no attention to the complexity behind the curtain."

I think the answer to Question 26 is great, but it doesn't really make sense in the context of this piece. We're using God's own words to define God, which is a logical fallacy. Plus, while I love, will defend, and joyfully affirm Tertullian's statement that "If God is not One, He [sic] is not God," that statement itself is based on the assumption that unity is a universal good, which is not an opinion all people share and really an opinion one can only come to through experience.

Maybe what bothers me is that this answer treats Christianity as a particular truth, rather than a universal one. True Christianity explains a reality above, outside, and beyond itself, inviting all people to rid themselves of religion and embrace the Kingdom of God. Institutional Christianity tries to create a specific, self-sustaining reality and invite the whole world into it. Stealing from Bonhoeffer's idea of religionless Christianity, I'd argue that just as the Council of Jerusalem held that you don't have to be Jewish to be Christian, the message of the gospel for today's world is similarly that you don't have to be Christian to be Christian - there's a divinely revealed universal truth beneath the dogma that doesn't invalidate the dogma, but should call us to hold it in a specific way that invites both unity and diversity. This answer is good, but it's closed off, rather than open and inviting.

It's as if the creators of this catechism were looking to reign in discussion, setting artificial (but comfortable) boundaries around which we can talk. It feels like a fear reaction that unnecessarily chokes off real discussion and doesn't trust the Holy Spirit to guide our conversations. I'd like to see us welcome perspectives even far outside our comfort zone, but we don't seem to be able to abide even differences that have long been part of who we are as the Church of the Nazarene.

Baptism is a great example. The catechism refers to both infant and "believer's" baptism. The name of the piece itself includes the words "One baptism," yet we maintain this long-held dichotomy that contributes greatly to our inability to articulate a real, consistent, scriptural theology of baptism. On top of this, there's a strong statement, in this catechism, that people should not (and theologically cannot) be re-baptized.

I believe baptism is a symbol of God's saving grace - it applies to all and is NOT contingent upon our acceptance; we should celebrate our acts of commitment to God, but baptism is not the way to do that. But this is far from a universal perspective within the denomination and the discussion can't simply be glossed over because the powers that be finally found it appropriate to agree with me.

In reality, if we're supposed to be learning about the basics and essentially of Nazarene theology here, there are just way too many questions. Or at least way too many answers. We could simply say "The Church of the Nazarene includes members who believe a variety of things on this issue, here are some of the ways our people answer this." I know it might get repetitive, but I think this comfort with diversity would really help our unity.

Here are a few head-scratching examples:

The answer to Question 97 unnecessarily provides day-of-the-week details on the Last Supper and crucifixion even though the historicity of those details don't matter theologically and the gospels don't even all agree. It seems like a strange choice to be included and completely unnecessary.

In answer to Question 79 on who has authority to forgive sins, there is no mention of John 20, where Jesus gives such authority to the disciples. This is a difficult passage to understand or explain in light of traditional protestant theology - probably a reason to address it, not ignore it.

The answer to Question 125 references the rich young ruler, but conveniently neglects Christ's command to sell all his possessions. It's very disingenuous to use this reference without including all of it. Maybe there is a better way to answer this question? It seems "What must we do to gain eternal life?" is a pretty important question to answer thoroughly and well.

I know I'm getting real nitpick-y here, but there's a couple pet peeves that just seem unnecessary for a document meant to teach:

Different sects hold different divisions of commandments in the Decalogue (I did a lot of research on this when writing a book about it) - why would we bother choosing one definition over another, AND, if we do choose, why not provide rationale for the choice?

Sunday is not the Sabbath; Jesus didn't change the Sabbath day. We traditionally gather for corporate worship on Sunday to remember the resurrection of Christ; it has nothing to do with "keeping the sabbath" as much as we like to appropriate it that way.

What all of this says to me, beyond just the desire for people to be unified when they're not, is that this whole catechism was put together more because someone felt like it should be done than because there was a real desire to provide guidance in growth. It just doesn't seem super helpful and perhaps its more likely to work against its stated purpose than for it, because it embraces an artificial unity.

Whoa-man!

I've been trying to process this whole Augusta National admitting women thing today.

For those not in the know, Augusta National is likely the richest, most exclusive golf club in the world. They sponsor the Masters, definitely the most exclusive tournament in the world. You have to be super rich and at the pinnacle of your profession to be admitted.

A few years back there was some hubbub about their men-only policy and people were lobbying sponsors to pull out of the TV broadcast for The Masters. Augusta National just decided to air their tournament without commercials and paid CBS whatever they were planning to make from ads. They did this for three years!

These old dudes do not like to be told what to do.

I'm all for the membership deciding what to do with their own club - and the two women they let in are exactly the kind of people who become members, well, except for their gender.

I sure hope the members of Augusta National didn't cave to public pressure.

Deep down it seems alright that there are exclusive clubs based on gender. I had a whole post written earlier today defending the idea. Why shouldn't men and women be able to get away from each other with people they enjoy hanging out with?

Then I thought, should there be white only golf clubs? There certainly were for a while. That ended not because of legal pressure - private clubs can still discriminate all they want - but because people stopped wanting to be a part of a club that excluded a large segment of the population out of hand.

Perhaps that was the thought process of Augusta National. Maybe those rich old dudes got together and said, "why are we keeping women out," and the answer was likely a lot of generalizations about women being weepy or complaining about the cigar smoke or wanting to decorate the dining room in pink paisley. In the end they admitted two women who don't fit any of those descriptions.

Condolezza Rice once said she'd resign as Secretary of State if they asked her to be commissioner of the NFL.

In the end I don't know how to feel. I don't think a club should be pressured to diversify its membership, but at the same time I recognize the real, formational value of diversity. I can see the appeal of a place where you can feel at home with everyone, but I also recognize that any sizable group of people, no matter how exclusive, can't provide that luxury.

Perhaps this is just another example of reaching for something that doesn't exist. These old, rich men have succeeded at everything they've ever tried. When it came to building a club full of people they genuinely liked and could stand to be around, it was just a bridge too far.

I give them credit for figuring that out, even if it took 80 years. Maybe there is a little bit of wisdom that comes from age and success.

It Ain't A Race

I'll apologize in advance for the punny title, but I liked the double meaning so it survived my internal edit.

It's been humbling to have the conversations I've had in the past few days since the last post on race. A lot of people I respect quite a bit have made great comments and queries and helped me continue to process everything that's been going through my head recently.

Since I haven't been inspired to change topics just yet, you'll get some more reflections that have come from those conversations:

First, is to stress the importance of living and relating across economic and racial boundaries. I am forever indebted to the positive challenge that is constantly on the lips of Ron Benefiel (a friend and former President of NTS) - Does it look like the kingdom? The implication being that the coming together of all races and peoples is a major eschatelogical signpost - and if we are really living in the world that is becoming, we have to take seriously the need for unity.

There is something here much beyond the type of individualism I focused on in the previous post. It's more than just treating each person as a person, it's taking into account the broad histories and wide gulfs between people groups that have been separated by trivial differences since, well, certainly as long as anyone can remember. I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking out experiences and relationships because they are different from your perspective - economically, religiously, racially, nationally, etc.

One of the struggles for me, however, is a futile search for completeness when it comes to such radical integrative relationship. Somehow, subconsciously, I have this idea that there's a mathematical formula for understanding another culture - that I can spend X number of hours with one group and that will be enough to "get" them - and I can move on.

It really does, at times, seem like a race race.

Perhaps what I didn't do a good job of communicating in the previous post is that, for me, the charge must be to slow down and be present in the moment. I don't expect everyone will encounter the same problems and roadblocks in their struggle - but there will be challenges to address and overcome.

Neither do I want people to think I've given up on immersing myself in different cultures. Especially with a daughter coming along very soon, I want to make sure we're engaged with many different people in many different ways. The important thing is to constantly be challenging yourself to more and deeper exploration.

I regard as one of the formative experiments of my life the embrace of one question - "What if different doesn't mean worse." The jump from cultural superiority to self-reflective evaluation is one we don't speak about, let along engage in, nearly enough. The practical difference in moving from "their culture is good for them, but I just wish they could see it from my perspective" to really examining your own culture through someone else's eyes, is unimaginable.

It took a mental exercise to make the leap. I didn't really believe that another culture could really be on par with mine; I was buried in ethnocentrism. I made the intellectual assumption, a "what if," what if this culture was just as valid as mine How would I explain that value to someone else? It was in that exercise that I began, almost immediately to see value where none had existed before and to see shortcomings in my own culture that were previously invisible.

I think what I was realizing in the previous post was that this applies to individuals as well as groups. It's a tool to be applied in all relationships and its an ever evolving challenge. It's not a race to be won, not a task to be completed... just steps on a journey.

I've rambled enough for one post, let alone two. I just want to close with heartfelt thanks to those patient souls who have and continue to walk with me through life's journey. My incipient arrogance and stubborn naivete must be grating at times, but you have persevered and I am grateful.

Peace.