Disqus - Latest Comments for James_Diggs

Re: Too Close for Comfort

James_Diggs — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:12:57 -0000

Thanks Josh :)

Re: The First Emergent Nazarene

James_Diggs — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:18:28 -0000

Mr Stan Bowers, I am not sure what part of "SKTanto's" comment you think was "trivial nonsense." He seemed to be pleading for unity in response to a small, but noisy (like a clanging cymbal) group who are being divisive.

Also, I find it odd that criticize "trivial nonsense" yet don't have enough grace to comment on anything of substance other than what you feel was a poor choice of words you consider a "curse word".If you have a specific disagreement about something we would love to hear it. I would rather discuss something of substance than the trivial too.

By the way our colleges don't produce "products", they provide people a good education and I think they are doing a good job.

Re: 24-7 Prayer

James_Diggs — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:58:42 -0000

Thank you ExNazarene for the contrasting view of the book. I do notice though that lighthouse trials does not provide space for the same as they do not allow comments. They have a reputation, as do you, for misrepresenting the positions of others and twisting the words of others, and they operate outside the realm of being accountable to anyone else for it.

I, personally have not read this book, but I am thankful for Josh's review of it and his testimony of how such a time of dedicated prayer has benefited his community as they drew closer to God because of it.

As a Pastor, and missionary, in the church of the Nazarene Josh does not separate himself from accountability from the body, nor do any of the contributors of this site. We are not like the so called "discernment ministries" that set themselves up outside the accountability structures and relationships of the body of Christ so that they can throw rocks at the church while claiming to somehow hold a monopoly on truth, demanding that everyone be accountable to them while they themselves are not accountable to anyone.

We are not ex-Nazarenes- we are Nazarenes and we embrace the accountability that comes with being part of the body of Christ and we submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Because of this, even though you have identified yourself as an "Ex-Nazarene", we have no problem allowing you to post your link even though we feel it lacks serious credibility as a resource.

We do not claim to have all the answers or to be right about everything, but we do believe that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life and is the only way to the Father. I am confident that Jesus is glorified in the community Josh leads as Jesus is put first over all.

Thank you again Josh for your review and your ministry and your faithfulness to Jesus Christ. We all need to take prayer more seriously and rely less on ourselves as we seek the face of God. One thing I do know, is that worrying about the right or wrong FORMULA for prayer is for the pagans because God is bigger than all of that.

Deuteronomy 4:29 But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Josh, it sounds to me like you have found this promise to be a trustworthy one for you and your community as you have seeked (and continue to seek) God in prayer together.

Thank you again Josh for sharing.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:50:01 -0000

Dan, you seem to assume that the emergent church conversation is about denying the deity of Christ or flirting with Gnosticism. This simply is not true. The "emergent church" is kind of a misnomer as it isn't a church but a conversation taking place within the church catholic among many from a verity of Christian traditions. We are simply engaging in that conversation from our Nazarene perspective.

I’ll reply to you by email so we can explore these things more and I will be happy to try and answer any questions you have the best I can.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:32:22 -0000

You're not wearing out your welcome. My only concern is that this discussion just isn't an academic exercise. There are real people involved in these conflicts and I am trying to be redemptive as I can in how I engage here.

I want to be careful as I clarify with you how I understand the conflict that I do so in a way the expresses my desire to move forward in love. I don't want to just rehash everything.

You are absolutely right when you say, "“Wesleyans are not fundamentalists” can be used to draw boundaries and be and divisive. I think the only clarification to this I could make (and I did not make the statement to begin with)is that Wesley was not a fundamentalist in the reformed sense.

With that said, I think the issue is not based in our roots of Wesley but rather in our roots as a holiness tradition from which there has always been at least two distinct groups- Wesleyan holiness folk and American holiness folk. Our American holiness influence has always been more "fundamentalist" leaning and most Nazarene fundamentalists are not Wesleyan holiness people but rather American holiness people.

Perhaps the divisiveness on our side is really claiming that we are as a whole a Wesley tradition. This isn't historically true and we have a long list of great American holiness people in our history that we exclude by making that statement.

With that said, I can be encouraged that we have existed for 100 years with this tension; a real tension that should not be dismissed away as anything less than a testimony of unity in a significant degree of diversity.

At the same time, I am discouraged as you seem to take the position that we can not have unity with 'concerned' Nazarenes because they believe we fall outside Nazarene orthodoxy (even though our orthodoxy is in reality more "generous" then they believe- as you mention in another comment).

As for the relevance of how we treat each other, first as brothers and sisters in Christ, and then how we are called to love everyone else - I suggest that whatever our theology is, it is pointless if we can not embody Christ in how we treat each other.

If the point is not to live into God's reconciling work through the power of God by faith, than I don't know what the point is. So, I will press on foolishly advocating for unity as I put my hope in Christ's work for us ALL on the cross.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:04:20 -0000

yes- that's right

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:03:48 -0000

yes they are advocating to change the boundaries, though they believe they are returning to original boundaries.

I think there is room for us all, though I know that people exist on both sides think there is not.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:58:57 -0000

I agree that the statement was likely written with a generous spirit leaving room for both interpretations. This in itself says a lot, and to advocate that we should pick just one is to advocate that those who would pick the other is not welcome.

The fact that it is "generous" speaks to the fact that we are a bigger tent then then some of our fundamentalist are comfortable with. I think that "generosity" is a big part of our tradition so that removing it is not a return back to our traditions- but a different direction.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:28:31 -0000

I agree that fundamentalist are welcome in the Church of the Nazarene- the question is though do the fundamentalist in our tradition welcome anyone else?

There isn't a logical connection between Tim's view of inerrancy and the link to Easter's pagan beginnings. Reyes pointed it out because the belief in inerrancy has been used by Tim and others to speak against things like prayer labyrinths. Such "logic" breaks down, I think that was Reyes point.

I addressed Article IV in another comment, and I don't think it is really that ambiguous.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:19:51 -0000

I certainly don't think that we can't have some disagreement over our articles of Faith, but I think our statement is one, that Concerned Nazarene can agree with even if they want it to say more.

Also, no one is advocating that only parts of scripture are inerrant based on topic.

I don't think we compartmentalize the Bible at all when we confess that ALL scripture is inspired by God and that it perfectly accomplishes what it is meant to do.

This is essentially what our statement on scripture says.

Again, I go into more of this HERE:
http://emergentnazarenes.bl...

If you want to go into more of particulars of this, I would prefer to it there.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:06:32 -0000

Asking if we can all find unity in our understanding of biblical orthodoxy as expressed in our Articles of Faith is not asking them "to forfeit their concerns".

The "individual members" commenting here and on their blogs are the founders of Concerned Nazarene websites. They hold the keys, and do whatever they can to control the conversation. Join the facebook group and question anything about what they do or think and you will be banned from the group.

This does not mean that their aren't many many Nazarenes who are concerned, but I believe their concerns are being more obfuscated by the divisive strategy of those who have named themselves the leaders of "Concerned Nazarenes" than anything else.

Calling countless Nazarene Pastors by name, who affirm our Articles of Faith, "heretics", "deceived", "false teachers", and "wolves in sheeps clothing" is not embracing them as "brothers in Christ".

Again, this is something I am hopeful can change with Tim's change of mind about my salvation.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:39:08 -0000

Caleb, I think we have dialogued before, and I am glad we can again.

I think if you watch their interaction here, on their blogs, and on their websites, they have been divisive in calling numerous Pastors, teachers, and leaders "false teachers" and "heretics." They have not accepted many of these Nazarene leaders as Christians because they believed we are "deceived" and "wolves in sheep's clothing". You can click the link to last years April fools post and read all the names of those Nazarenes that have attacked in this way- that's no joke and the post has links that go back to their original posts.

Tim has rejected me as Christian since 2006. It was just a few weeks ago, after I gave Tim my definition of the atonement that met his approval, that he finally said that I was a Christian "if" I really believed it. This is a small step, but I'll take it and try to build on it, if we can put the past behind us.

As far as what makes us "Nazarene" iI think you need to keep in mind that we are made up of a big tent of people with lots of different influences. The tension between American holiness people and Wesleyan holiness people has been with us through out our history. Despite the tension, we have always made room for each other.

No one is asking the concerned Nazarenes to go away, but their view of what it means to be "traditionally Nazarene" is far more exclusive than what it really is.

Finally, I don't think we should dismiss their concerns and I would welcome dialogue with them over it. This post is actually working to be able to do this. But they have yet not shown any interest to dialogue; instead they advocate against Nazarene leaders and demand that they are put out of the denomination . They also aren't interested in dialogue in the comments of their blogs an websites as they "moderate" out anything they disagree with.

Here is a post I wrote because my comment on one of their blogs was not approved (which happens on a regular basis to many of us). They are known for not approving comments they disagree with or that they can not come up with what they think is a good rebuttal.

http://emergentnazarenes.bl...

Also, Many of us are banned from their facebook group because they are not interested in dialogue. We have tried. But dialog has not been their objective.

Now, I don't want to bring up all the dirty laundry here and focus on the negative. I want to focus on what ever positive I can find. The recent change in Tim's stand that after 4 years I am finally considered a Christian is positive, I would just like to open things up, and open the dialog up now that I am considered a Christian brother. I am waiting to see if this will happen.

It is not the concerns they have that confuses the issue, it is their strategy, an adversarial strategy that defines things in terms of "us" verses "them". I think if we can talk about these things as an "us" we could get a lot further with all our concerns.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:06:28 -0000

Caleb, I believe what Reyes is referring too is the stance by the Concerned Nazarenes that Christians should have nothing to do with anything that once was associated with pagan practices. The are very concerned with many practices that have a Catholic connection, and reject things like Prayer stations and such.

As far as biblical inerrancy, our Article of Faith uses the term "inerrantly" in reference to what scripture does, not what it is. The statement affirms that all scripture is inspired by God and perfectly reveals God's will concerning everything necessary for Salvation.

I say more about this here:

http://emergentnazarenes.bl...

If you like to add to that discussion, I will be happy to join you there.

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:07:09 -0000

Thanks Caleb,

I am not sure that the Concerned Nazarenes ‘concerns’ have been “obfuscated and redirected into arguments concerned with epistemological litmus tests of who is and who is not a Christian”. I think they have been clearly about promoting epistemological litmus tests (mainly by the belief in the inerrancy of scripture) and they would likely disagree that “the Nazarene Church has never attempted to place official boundaries around this.”

Now this does not mean that there aren’t Nazarenes ‘concerned’ about the points you have brought up within the context you present. I think there are likely many, (you may find that I share some concerns too) but I think these concerns have been largely obfuscated and redirected by those few who have assumed it upon themselves to speak as ‘Concerned’ Nazarenes. So I agree that many real concerns have been lost in the confusion, but not for the reason you suggest.

So, I don’t know if it is fair to say that that these ‘concerns’ are being “obfuscated or completely dismissed altogether by the academic hierarchy of the Church of the Nazarene.” I think you’re right that these concerns are being obfuscated, but I think it coming not from academic hierarchy but rather from the most vocal of “Concerned” Nazarenes whom I believe have been highly counter productive in the divisive way they are expressing their concerns. I won’t say that academic hierarchy has no responsibility in this, but the context which stems from the goals and strategy of ‘Concerned’ Nazarenes’ puts them on the defensive which only serves to confuse the issues of any other genuine concerns Nazarenes may have.

I do have hope that this can change. I have been encouraged by Tim Wirth’s coming around to accept me (an "emergent" Nazarene) as a Christian; perhaps I finally passed one of his litmus test. I have been working to try and change the adversarial tone on both sides and I have invited Tim to help me do this. I am still waiting for him to explore these possibilities more with me. In addition to this, I hope new voices will also rise up for the ‘concerned’ in a way that can change the landscape of how such concerns are explored as they do so embracing grace, love and solidarity we share in the cross.

The purpose of this post was to encourage unity in the cross as we work through any concerns we might have together. The cross is the only place I know to start if we hope to have anything made new.

Peace

Re: April Fools and the Cross

James_Diggs — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:40:26 -0000

Thanks Tim, I am keeping it real. Yes, you replied back thanking me, and I replied to it asking how we can build on this "civil conversation". If you did not get my last email last week I can send it again.

Also, I replied to you in the last post here with suggestions of how we might work together to help change the adversarial tone of the conversation. I look forward to hearing from you there.

I will continue to preach "the true gospel of Jesus Christ His death,burial and resurrection" as I always have. Thank you for the encouragement.

As for the Cadbury egg, it is one of the few chocolate products I can eat for Easter with a clear conscience, as they are one of the very few chocolate companies that use fair trade practices. So I would like to encourage you to have one as well or any other fair trade chocolate product as a way we can love our global neighbors better.

Check your email and let me know if I need to re-send. Or just check the comments in the last post so we can keep on having a "civil conversation".

May you draw closer to Jesus today as you focus on the wondrous cross in anticipation of the resurrection.

peace,

James

Re: Finding Common Ground: A Sincere Thank You to Tim Wirth of Concerned Nazarenes

James_Diggs — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:01:24 -0000

Tim,

Thank you for your reply. You should know that scripture plays a prominent role in our community at the Corridor, and it always has. We don’t sit around and read McLaren or Bell or anything like that- we read the scripture out loud and I teach on it every Sunday and we discuss it together, and we apply it to our lives. We go through entire books of the bible together as a community, reading and studying it in context. I appreciate your encouragement to teach the scriptures- but you should know that if you ever assumed I didn’t that you were mistaken. Its ok, I understand that your view of me is primarily from the internet. This public forum is the most I have gotten to see you through as well, and I think you have mentioned before that there is so much more to you than what we can see online. The same is true of me, and so I think we both could do better in giving fellow Christians the benefit of the doubt.

Tim, this is what I want to work on together. As we stand as two people on different sides of a discussion, yet understanding that we actually agree about foundational things like Sin, Atonement, Repentance, and Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption through faith, we should be able to give each other the benefit of the doubt. This should not end with you and I but we should encourage it in others we know whether it is Manny Silvia or Jon Middendorf. I think we have all assumed too much about each other and I am wondering if you and I can work together to make a change.

Again Tim, I don’t want you to give up on sharing your concerns. You are seeing something in guys like McLaren and Bell that I am not, so I am trying to listen. I think that changing the tone of our interactions could help people hear you. It has helped me hear you. Neither of us need to preach to the choir or build competing constituencies to try and raise enough people to overthrow the position of the other; those are the kind of political games that belong to the world. I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to play any of this out like it is some sort of power play- I want to be true to the way of the cross as we don’t give up on each other as being part of the family of believers.

Let us as Paul encourages in Galatians 6, restore each other gently from our sins, and “carry each other's burdens”, and in this way we “will fulfill the law of Christ” as we continue to sow together to the Spirit. Paul continues, “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

I know one way you are working to do good is to warn us about where you see the teaching of various “emergent” speakers and authors may stray from the teaching of scripture. This is a good endeavor. Even though I have not yet seen many of the things you have seen in these teachings, I still think it is good for you to point them out.

I compared John MacArthur with McLaren and Bell only to say that I can disagree with someone on a serious and critical issue without condemning them of failing to be a Christian. Without getting into everything concerning Calvinism, I think that Calvinist teaching that Jesus did not die for everyone is a serious and unbiblical (at least it is through my Wesleyan lens) false teaching. And as a false teaching it does not just exists in a vacuum but effects ones views of things like atonement and justification. It would be easy to see how such a difference between these two teachings are really entirely two different paths. I could understand how people in each group could call the others heretics and question their salvation.- Except when I remember that our faith isn’t in our own understanding of how it works, but in Jesus himself ; that in his life and through his work (regardless of how we understand it) that culminated on the cross and the resurrection we are saved.

So our view of these two different theologies on whether they are far apart or close to each other depends on our perspective; are we saved primarily through Jesus or through our own understanding of theology? Does Calvinism or Wesleyanism save us? No. Of course, I am not saying theology and doctrine is unimportant. As the Church of the Nazarene we have drawn theological lines trying to protect what we believe is essential; as we can see in our Articles of Faith. At the same time we don’t view the particulars of our perspective on these doctrines to be something that that the Church universal must submit too. We believe that we have it right to the best of our understanding, but would not presume that our Baptist brethren (for instance) are somehow outside the circle of orthodoxy; or that they are even on the fringes of orthodoxy as if we could presume ourselves to be the most pure and at the center of Christian orthodoxy than everyone else.

Back to guys like McLaren and Bell I haven’t read anything yet from them that denied the divinity/humanity of Christ, the Trinity, or that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was raised from the dead. I actually don’t read a lot of McLaren, but I know from the little I have read that a major theme he seems to favor is about God’s Kingdom taking root in the world today. To me, this seem very compatible with our biblical Wesleyan view of holiness as the Body of Christ serve as ambassadors to the Kingdom, continuing the work of Christ and growing the Kingdom here on earth until Jesus comes again to complete the transformation. Jesus said “everything must change” in his call for us to repent long before Brian McLaren used this as a title to his book. Again- this is not a blanket endorsement of everything and anything McLaren says in that book or any other.

But even if you do see things that they say as being counter to scripture and biblical orthodoxy when I may not, I still wonder how far apart we really are? I am not wondering how far apart you may feel you are from guys like McLaren or Bell, but rather how far apart WE are from one another as Nazarenes- “emergent”, “concerned” or otherwise? Can we be generous enough, without sacrificing our shared convictions like those in our Articles of Faith, to see each other as being a “heirs breath” apart rather than opposing each other across an un-crossable gulf?

I understand that you are still very concerned about the influence of guys like McLaren and Bell, but, I don’t want to get into a debate here about these guys and derail us from building on what we have in common. I only bring up some of our different opinions about these authors to show that I understand that we may still have strong disagreement about many things. I just don’t think we should let our disagreement about these things divide us when it took the blood of Jesus to unite us.

And so being united in Christ, if you are seeing something in what McLaren or anyone else is saying that is counter to affirming the divinity/humanity of Christ, the Trinity, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was raised from the dead. If any one of these guys says that we don’t need Jesus to be saved and that we only need to do good works, or anything like that- I actually do want to hear it. (The things I mentioned are not meant to be a comprehensive list, your welcome to share about other ways they may be off track too.) Together we need to examine everything, test them as scripture tells us to see just how compatible these things are. This is why we need your perspective. I know there is not space here in the comment section for you to share all of this, but you have great space for these things on your network of blogs and facebook group you have both started and share with others. I am glad that you have created space for these things in these places, I just wonder how we might make them also reflect the kind of love and unity that can only be found in our shared fellowship with Jesus Christ even when we may have other serious concerns about serious issues we need to work through.

I want to propose that you and I allow God to breath some fresh air through us into these kinds of discussions. Let us work together to change the tone of the “arguments”, not in anyway compromising our convictions, but rather in a way that honors Christ and the work he has done in all of us who believe unto repentance.

Let us learn from the hundreds of years of tension that vacillated between having real discussions and calling others heretics surrounding the Calvin vs. Wesleyan/Armenian debates. We should aim to begin in a more generous place than they began in and took so long to arrive at.

Here are three things I think can make a big difference:

1. I think it would be wonderful if you could acknowledge all those in our denomination who have a confession of faith in Jesus Christ and truly embrace our shared standard of biblical orthodoxy as described in our Articles of Faith as your brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. You can of course, and I think you should being true to your convictions and sincere concern for all of us, still convey where you believe certain emergent/emerging teaching threaten to derail us. I am also not saying you can’t challenge decisions any of these leaders make, or the ones that I make. But I ask that you make a direct effort to challenge us as people who are a part of the family of God. I just think that a purposeful reframing of your attacks toward the teaching you are concerned about and away from Pastors, teachers, and leaders in our denomination who are your brothers and sisters in Jesus would be a good thing. Just post something prominent on your blogs and on your facebook group that encourage this as a framework for all discussion. I would love to see this the most.

2. Consider loosening up on the use of moderating blog comments and facebook activity by allowing fellow Christians and Nazarenes who may not agree with you to participate in some of the dialogue in these places. I think this is true especially in blog comments. There is really no reason to have to approve comments before they appear. On the rare case that someone is fowl and inappropriate, comments can be removed later, and because some people saw it people will know why it was removed without any suspicion of anything else going on. Fowl comments are the reflection of the one commenting, and I just think open comments set a better tone and are less adversarial. This can help us hear what you have to say and perhaps we need to hear you the most.

This does not mean that we who choose to participate should use our presence that you welcome as way to be adversarial against you. I can and will jump to your defense about this and work to encourage others to do the same in a shared effort to create a new tone. Yea, I can imagine it might get messy from time to time, but together we can fight for respectful dialogue.

3. Lets find unity in doing some good work together. Let’s mutually promote the things we all can be proud of as part of a shared tradition and denomination. In the wake of catastrophes like in Haiti I suggest a joint endorsement for support for Nazarene Compassionate Ministries.

Think about these things and pray about them, if you have any other ideas about how we can improve the tone of our disagreements so that they reflect the passionate and loving family we are in Christ even in the midst of great disagreement, I would love to hear them. What else can I do to help change the tone on my end?

Let’s work together Tim, even if we must still debate and disagree about some things along the way. Let’s live into the body of Christ together for our mutual edification, building each other up in Jesus. Let’s get others on board with us too.

Tim, none of this would be possible if you were not willing to receive me as a brother in Jesus despite our disagreements. You took the time to hear me, and I appreciate that. We need to take the time to hear one another. It takes work to create this kind of atmosphere, but it is worth it. Let’s build on what we have talked about, because brothers in Jesus should not be estranged.

Thank you,

Your brother in Christ,
James Diggs

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:36:10 -0000

Tim,
Thank you very much for both your honesty and for having enough humility to change your mind about us not being brothers in Christ. My confession and faith in Christ and what he did for us on the cross is sincere. I know that as Christ was not ashamed to call us brothers through the saving and sanctifying work on the cross, we (no matter what our differences) should not be ashamed either to embrace each other the same way. I know that our differences could make it easy for us to be estranged family members, but I think suffering through our differences with God’s help is part of what it means for us to daily pick up our cross and follow Jesus.

I do understand that you have not changed your mind about your concerns about false teaching and I in no way want to extinguish your passion for Jesus and the gospel. With that said, I feel that your stated commitment to try and “address the false teaching more than the false teachers” is a good one, but also very challenging for you. I believe that a less adversarial role with many in Nazarene leadership could help you find the balance you are looking for. I don’t know everyone that you have had issues with personally, but I know many and have good reason to believe that these men and women also affirm our Articles of Faith which embraces the biblical teaching of things like Sin, Atonement, Repentance, and Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption through faith. I want to encourage you to make peace with these leaders as you continue to be passionate about Jesus and seek to daily live in the reality of the gospel through faith.

I agree with you that “the gospel is still as powerful as it was from day one”. I even agree with you that “it doesn’t have to be changed to change post moderns.” I have never promoted changing the gospel. The gospel does not change, it changes us. I know there are all kinds “new kinds” thrown around in the conversation; frankly I think much of it is to sound provocative so to sell more books. I hate that. But the gospel has always been provocative on its own. In fact I think when people tinker with the gospel it is to try and make it less provocative. But preaching Christ crucified has always been a “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”. With all the many bogus claims of something “new” floating around by what some consider the emergent conversation, the only thing “new” going on in the emergent conversation which I affirm is that which the cross transforms in us as we stumble all over its foolishness. It isn’t the gospel that is changing it is us; as it always is in every generation from pre-modern, to modern, to post modern.

Let me also say that I do not “promote” Brian McLaren or Rob Bell or anyone else, any more than you might “promote” John Macarthur or John Piper. I promote the gospel and Jesus Christ. Yes I have read and passed along many things I felt were good and that which I believed affirmed biblical Christianity from some of these authors, but doing this is not a blanket endorsement of everything they have to say. The same would be true for Macarthur, and Piper. Recommending either Piper or Bell also does not mean that I think any possible disagreement we might have with them is necessarily small. I believe some tenants of Calvinism are just as unbiblical and as dangerous (if not more so- particularly the idea that Christ did not die for all) as promoting universalism where everyone is saved from hell without any need of repentance and transformation. This does not mean that I would not ever say a Christian shouldn’t read John Macarthur or John Piper or not welcome them in our church or universities. My recommendation might depend on how discerning the individual is I am recommending something to, or what educational benefit might be gained from hearing views that are not our own about even what some may consider vital things.

I appreciate it that you object to certain parts of Calvinism and that you believe that Jesus died for all men and women on the cross. This also affirms a Wesleyan/Arminian view of free will that I can also appreciate. However, the great Charles Spurgeon might have thought you were a heretic for that believing what you do as he thought it undermined preaching nothing but Christ crucified. Spurgeon once said, “And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”

For some their specific view of the cross, like Spurgeon’s in this case, is THE one and only view of the cross; though he did leave a tiny room for it to be his “own private opinion”. Nevertheless, Calvinists and Arminians have accused one another of “preaching the doctrine of demons” for centuries. This is another reason I appreciate our Wesleyan heritage: because when others considered Calvinist and Arminian views to have so little in common that they stood opposed each other on opposite sides an un-crossable golf, Wesley took the far more generous approach and considered these things to be no more than a “hair's breadth” apart. His relationship with the staunch Calvinist George Whitefield was a great example of how we can strongly disagree with one another about such seemingly large issues and still receive each one another as brothers in the Lord. Their ongoing dialogue should inspire us and encourage us.

The fact that you and I have had back and forth adversarial “conversations” for a few years now and yet only now find out that we can actually agree concerning the basics of the atonement is troublesome. We seem to be missing each other, perhaps neither of us are listening as well as we should. I just think that our Nazarene tradition offers such a solid biblical foundation that we should be able to always remember it as our context when working through whatever disagreements we might have. I don’t think you should abandon your concerns or stop passionately sharing them with us, but I would love to combine those real concerns with other real concerns that perhaps we are being divided unnecessarily when you consider our shared biblical foundation as expressed in our Articles of Faith.

My hope Tim is that we could find a new way to interact, one that welcomes strong disagreement if we have it, but remembers that in the larger context we have so much in common. I say “so much” because of the cross and the faith we share in Jesus Christ who saved us. Your receiving me as a brother is because of the reconciling work of the cross, and my prayer is that we might together live into that reconciling work even more so to the glory of God. What a great testimony that would be!!

Pray about this Tim, and let’s talk more.

Your brother in Christ,

James

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:13:22 -0000

Tim,

Thanks for the honest reply concerning the Articles. So number 4 is the only one you have trouble with. I can respect that. But you say “all in all" there is nothing in the article's of faith I would part fellowship over with a fellow Christian.”

I affirm these too, and so do many others you have called heretics and "not Christian" before. Would you receive us as fellow Christians now that you know that “all in all” there is nothing that we should be parted over as fellow Christians?

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:05:21 -0000

Oops, I was typing at the same time... disregard the question about Articles for now, and now I just wonder if you will receive me as a brother?

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:03:17 -0000

Does this now mean that you receive me as a brother in Christ? It would bring joy to my heart, and I believe God's as well, if you said yes.

But to clarify, you did not really answer my question when you said, "I would affirm anyone's statement of faith in any denomination as long as it agrees with scripture."

As long as we are being honest, I would just like some clarity about what you are saying. So so you believe the Nazarene Articles of Faith agrees with scripture?

Thank You Tim, I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:41:25 -0000

Tim, you are on a witch hunt. Besides I have asked you “right to your face” questions you refused to answer.

Do you affirm our Nazarene Articles of Faith as biblical?

As for what I believe about Atonement; I believe that Jesus Christ, by His sufferings, by the shedding of His own blood, and by His death on the Cross, made a full atonement for all human sin, and that this Atonement is the only ground of salvation, and that it is sufficient for every individual of Adam’s race. The Atonement is graciously efficacious for the salvation of those who reach the age of responsibility only when they repent and believe.

So again, do you affirm our Nazarene Articles of Faith as biblical? Yes or no?

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:25:57 -0000

Paul,

Unfortunately, this blog does not give us a good medium to dive into this topic a thoroughly as you would like and I would also enjoy here. A forum such as NazNet is much better at handling more in depth discussion. If you’re really interested in talking about this with me and other Nazarenes I would be happy to meet you there.

A few thoughts though: You wrote, “In McLaren's book, The Story We Find Ourselves In, a character makes this statement which is never refuted: "For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn't he just do it? How does punishing an innocent person make things better? That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?"

As you mentioned a character in a story said this, and the question was just left hanging. It is a good question. I would answer it this way. I think as a matter of forgiveness God can “just forgive us”, but forgiveness is not the only issue for a God that seeks reconciliation and a transformation in his creation that restores it to a place of oneness with him. God does not just want to forgive and have us go our separate merry ways. I’ll elaborate more but let’s look at what you said about Chalke’s statement:

“Chalke's problem seems to be the appeasement of God's wrath via the required blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ”

Yes, I agree I do think that is Chalke’s objection. But I don’t think that by this he is objecting to the fact that blood was required or that Jesus needed to die; his objection was to the reason of having to satisfy a literal payment in purely a judicial sense. This goes back to McLaren’s character’s question in terms of how does punishing an innocent person really make things better? This is where any reductionist view of atonement that latches on to only judicial language can get in trouble, as it fails to embrace any real and practical reconciling work of the cross beyond getting someone off the hook. Again, the point of the cross is not just so we can go free from the consequences of sin, but that we can have solidarity with God again as he first found solidarity with us.

Jesus needed to suffer and die because that is the reality that we live in that God met us is; understanding this can help us see the cross as an extension of the incarnation- God with us. God did not let sin, injustice, suffering and death keep us from him- he found solidarity with us anyway by embracing humanity though it meant he would have to share in the worst of humanity for it. Jesus needed to die, blood was required, because it is our reality and God did not shy away from embracing it so he could embrace us. The good news is, as God identified with us and our suffering, death and sin on the cross, we can now identify with him in his resurrection and by faith embrace the new life which he planted in humanity again as the “new Adam.”

Now we could go around about this more I am sure. We could dig into the symbolic language of OT sacrifice and how Christ fulfils this imagery as talked about in the book of Hebrews- its all beautiful stuff. But, I do fear that we are pushing this medium to its limits here. Again- meet me on NazNet where we can dig in more and others can join in too, or send me an email.

But I do want to get to my last question to which you answered, “And...the only ground that you and I have to share to be considered brothers is true faith in Jesus Christ.”

My faith is in Jesus Christ, he alone is my only hope as he is yours. I feel that this is more than enough to call you a brother. I mention this Paul because I don’t want to forget the context of this post, and the other two recent ones. The General Superintendents put out the statement they did because there are some very vocal individuals who are letting whatever “concern” they may have become a battle ground that aims to divide the church. They refuse to call countless Nazarenes their brothers and sister because for them our conversation we are having means we are not Christians.

I appreciate the conversation you have brought, I think we both have brought up good points about a controversial topic, but by no means did you ever accuse me of not being a Christian. This is the context of the BGS statement and I do not want our conversation to mislead anyone reading along to think that one can not have these kinds of disagreements within the Christian faith. I don’t sense that you are categorically disqualifying me as a Christian because I have engaged in the emergent conversation. Unfortunately this is what some are doing. So I would love it if we could conclude our conversation here by affirming our unity as brothers in Jesus. After that, if you want to explore the conversation more in another venue I would be happy to join you.

Peace,

James

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:40:45 -0000

getting too skinny to reply here. I will below.

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:48:45 -0000

Gary, I am all for unity. I am not sure what specifics you are asking for in regards to coming to Florida, but I am eager to "join efforts in reaching out to hurting people because that is what Jesus would do." And I do believe "we can do more for the kingdom's sake together than apart." That's what the body of Christ is all about.

Re: New Statement by Board of General Superintendents

James_Diggs — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:40:28 -0000

Interesting that you say “in part” offer a contradiction. It sounds like you are acknowledging the limitation judicial language has in describing the dynamic work of the atonement, but you are not willing to toss out all judicial imagery either because it is biblical; which is the same thing I said. I am sure we may not completely agree if we each had to measure to what degree judicial language is absolutely literal verse a literary device that describes what something absolutely real (the atonement) is like. By the way, I also appreciate the emphasis on the incarnation in Hebrews which speaks to God identifying with us in our humanity, choosing to be reconciled with us despite the reality it would mean of having to share in the underside of humanity which includes sin, injustice, suffering and death.

In the end the cross turns the idea of “God’s wrath against us” upside down, because of this I think McLaren’s and Chalk’s points (within context) have a place within the exploration of orthodox Christianity. Now we might disagree with how it was turned upside down; either by literally appeasing a blood thirsty God or by subverting the very idea of one with “God so loved the world that he sent is only son”. Despite the controversial nature of the quotes in question, and what our conclusions of them might be, we are again challenged with the message that the Apostle Paul preached- “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” Jews and Gentiles mean Jews and everyone else. Perhaps the cross is something we all must stumble over as God’s wisdom is found in what we might disregard as foolish. The message of the cross should rattle us and shake us up as we wrestle with it because God in the cross (2 Corinthians 5:19) means he is reconciling us to himself and working to transform us into his likeness.

Now Paul, the question I have that I think would benefit others who might be reading who may also disagree with me as strongly as you have, is that despite our disagreement do you believe we share enough common ground that you would consider me a brother in Jesus Christ?