Nazarenes and Inerrancy (David Brush)

My friend David Brush was asked to reflect on the Church of the Nazarene's recent decision to maintain a middle-ground stance on Biblical inspiration as  a guest post on a big evangelical blog (Patheos, hosted by Scott McKnight).

Within the evangelical protestant movement there is a pull to increase the contrast within our articles of faith (statements of belief) so that there is little room left for nuance along the edges. In most protestant and evangelical denominations there is a clearly defined article regarding scripture, and specifically the inerrancy of scripture. The fervor over these kinds of clearly bounded definitions is continuing to rise as conservative and fundamentalist ideals react to the loss of influence in the western cultural arena. The struggle and contention within the protestant mind, and regarding the inerrancy of scripture specifically, is in how we qualify the word inerrant.

In 2009 a group put forward a resolution at the General Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene that would alter their article of faith by changing the statement on inerrancy from, “inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation,” to, “inerrant throughout, and the supreme authority on everything the Scriptures teach.” The assembly referred the motion for change to the scripture study committee in order to provide a response and recommendation at the 2013 assembly of the denomination. The committee released the report and recommendation ahead of the June 2013 assembly. In the report the committee recommended that the article of faith on Holy Scripture remain unchanged, and in it they also responded specifically to why it should remain so.

Continue reading at Patheos.  

Mere Churchianity - Review

Our small group read Mere Churchianity over the summer and early fall.  One of our members has been following the site www.interentmonk.com, started by Michael Spencer, for years.  Honestly, we collectively had mixed reviews of the book.
On the positive side:

• Spencer really understands the frustrations of many people with classic Fundamentalist Christianity.
• Spencer also does a great job explaining that fundamentalism is not the only way to be authentically Christian.
• Also, Spencer winsomely redirects the church and church dropouts to focus on Jesus instead of our defunct traditions.
• Spencer also hints at a few possible solutions for our massive dysfunctions.

On the negative side:

• Spencer frustratingly equates evangelicalism with fundamentalism.  As an evangelical who is not fundamentalist, this drove me crazy.
• Spencer paints with a broad brush, sweeping all churches and Christians into large stereotypes.  This was also very frustrating.  Our group found ourselves understanding with his frustrations but disagreeing with his stereotypes.
• While Spencer hints at solutions, he is noticeably short on answers.  To be fair though, part of his point is that the answers are not so easy and available as we've claimed.

Overall, I would say this is a good book for people who have been deeply hurt by the church.  This can give them hope that they can still be Christian despite their frustrations with the church.  I wish it was more balanced, but perhaps the imbalance is itself a gift to those who have had a negatively imbalanced experience of church (and to those of us who need to understand the natural feelings embedded in that type of experience).
The Josh rating: JJJ.