A Tale of Two Letters...
I'd like to take a moment to compare letters sent by two holiness denominations to their pastors/people concerning the upcoming election.
Here is the first. It was sent out in a denominational email to all pastors.
September 2, 2008
Dear Pastor:
Greetings in the name, grace, and power of our Lord Jesus Christ! Nazarenes living in the United States are experiencing unique opportunities in many places to be a voice for the proclamation of biblical values. Along with our sisters and brothers in other Christian churches, we view with grave alarm the steady erosion of what were once perceived to be the impenetrable foundations of marriage, family, and home as dominant social institutions in our national fabric. We believed them to be impenetrable because their value has been historically celebrated by this nation due to the affirmation of our forebears’ belief in the JudeoChristian bedrock of ideals on which the American experiment in democracy rests.
In recent years cultural abrasion has steadily diminished the stature, importance, and sanctity of both marriage and the conception of children, and now the very definitions of the matrimonial covenant are under attack. The onslaught of this well-orchestrated effort has found support in various constituencies throughout popular culture. This situation is extremely challenging for the church because our members and friends are continuously exposed to its messages through the various media outlets and venues and the ubiquitous world-wide web.
There is a vigorous and robust national debate that is engaging the issue of same-sex marriage, and political initiatives will appear on the fall election ballots of at least three states: Arizona, California, and Florida. We encourage all Nazarene clergy and pastors to reflect on the significance of these issues by engaging dialog, securing information, and prayerfully responding to the serious questions these initiatives raise. There are specific actions that you can take to ensure appropriate access to biblical truth for all of your congregation and community:
1. Use this opportunity to proclaim the biblical standards, definitions, and boundaries of holy matrimony as the union between one man and one woman.
2. Cooperate with other evangelical believers in your community in ways that challenge the subversive message by those who would ignore or even destroy the biblical model and standard regarding Christian marriage.
3. Fearlessly declare the biblical truth that the challenge set before the American people by the architects of proposals for legalizing same-sex marriages must be resisted.
4. Participate in local democracy by casting your vote and encouraging your congregation to join you in standing against any and every proposal that ignores, diminishes, or reverses the scriptural ideal of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Your colleagues on the Board of General Superintendents affirm your courageous voice and faithful witness as you lead your faith community in these challenging times. We join in solidarity with you, praying that God will find us faithful when the faith “once delivered to the saints” is sorely contested in the public and political arena of our nation.
In His Service,
J. K. Warrick,
Secretary Board of General Superintendents
Here is the other. It is from a sister holiness denomination (The Free Methodist Church) and can be viewed at their website: www.freemethodistchurc.org
Kingdom Perspective in an Electoral Season
Board of Bishops, Free Methodist Church
In the current political and social climate of the United States, we must appreciate the truly global church we have become as Free Methodists. This places a profound responsibility on those of us located in one of the wealthiest and most resourceful nations on earth. We recall that we are kingdom people, that God calls all people everywhere to be His. Our citizenship is in heaven first. In fact, we are bound to and have more in common with brothers and sisters in Christ around the world than even our fellow Americans who are unbelievers. We affirm that God does not need us or our nation to carry out His kingdom agenda. The gospel of the kingdom does not depend on current or anticipated political, social, cultural status quo.
The church’s mission to manifest kingdom reality, in cooperation with God’s Spirit, challenges every “this-worldly” platform and ideology. No party will champion the cause of the kingdom in its entirety. We acknowledge that Christians in the United States have often been seduced by reductionist views of the gospel and morality and have thus given uncritical allegiance to partisan agendas that fall short of the Christian hope.
Therefore, we urge our members and adherents to weigh carefully and pray fervently over candidates, ballot referenda and all political issues before us. Then seek to vote in ways that reflect Jesus Christ’s heart for the whole world. In so doing, we remind our people that the way of Jesus is the way of cross-bearing, of self-sacrificing love, of costly obedience and of giving all for the sake of others — especially for those on the margins. Indeed, this way of Jesus often directly counters the ideologies of this world.
Board of Bishops
Free Methodist Church
Matthew Thomas
David Roller
David Kendall
Please forgive the lengthy post, but I think it is worth noting the difference between how the two similar denominations are viewing the upcoming elections. I have several observations, but I'd like to hear yours first.
Here is the first. It was sent out in a denominational email to all pastors.
September 2, 2008
Dear Pastor:
Greetings in the name, grace, and power of our Lord Jesus Christ! Nazarenes living in the United States are experiencing unique opportunities in many places to be a voice for the proclamation of biblical values. Along with our sisters and brothers in other Christian churches, we view with grave alarm the steady erosion of what were once perceived to be the impenetrable foundations of marriage, family, and home as dominant social institutions in our national fabric. We believed them to be impenetrable because their value has been historically celebrated by this nation due to the affirmation of our forebears’ belief in the JudeoChristian bedrock of ideals on which the American experiment in democracy rests.
In recent years cultural abrasion has steadily diminished the stature, importance, and sanctity of both marriage and the conception of children, and now the very definitions of the matrimonial covenant are under attack. The onslaught of this well-orchestrated effort has found support in various constituencies throughout popular culture. This situation is extremely challenging for the church because our members and friends are continuously exposed to its messages through the various media outlets and venues and the ubiquitous world-wide web.
There is a vigorous and robust national debate that is engaging the issue of same-sex marriage, and political initiatives will appear on the fall election ballots of at least three states: Arizona, California, and Florida. We encourage all Nazarene clergy and pastors to reflect on the significance of these issues by engaging dialog, securing information, and prayerfully responding to the serious questions these initiatives raise. There are specific actions that you can take to ensure appropriate access to biblical truth for all of your congregation and community:
1. Use this opportunity to proclaim the biblical standards, definitions, and boundaries of holy matrimony as the union between one man and one woman.
2. Cooperate with other evangelical believers in your community in ways that challenge the subversive message by those who would ignore or even destroy the biblical model and standard regarding Christian marriage.
3. Fearlessly declare the biblical truth that the challenge set before the American people by the architects of proposals for legalizing same-sex marriages must be resisted.
4. Participate in local democracy by casting your vote and encouraging your congregation to join you in standing against any and every proposal that ignores, diminishes, or reverses the scriptural ideal of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Your colleagues on the Board of General Superintendents affirm your courageous voice and faithful witness as you lead your faith community in these challenging times. We join in solidarity with you, praying that God will find us faithful when the faith “once delivered to the saints” is sorely contested in the public and political arena of our nation.
In His Service,
J. K. Warrick,
Secretary Board of General Superintendents
Here is the other. It is from a sister holiness denomination (The Free Methodist Church) and can be viewed at their website: www.freemethodistchurc.org
Kingdom Perspective in an Electoral Season
Board of Bishops, Free Methodist Church
In the current political and social climate of the United States, we must appreciate the truly global church we have become as Free Methodists. This places a profound responsibility on those of us located in one of the wealthiest and most resourceful nations on earth. We recall that we are kingdom people, that God calls all people everywhere to be His. Our citizenship is in heaven first. In fact, we are bound to and have more in common with brothers and sisters in Christ around the world than even our fellow Americans who are unbelievers. We affirm that God does not need us or our nation to carry out His kingdom agenda. The gospel of the kingdom does not depend on current or anticipated political, social, cultural status quo.
The church’s mission to manifest kingdom reality, in cooperation with God’s Spirit, challenges every “this-worldly” platform and ideology. No party will champion the cause of the kingdom in its entirety. We acknowledge that Christians in the United States have often been seduced by reductionist views of the gospel and morality and have thus given uncritical allegiance to partisan agendas that fall short of the Christian hope.
Therefore, we urge our members and adherents to weigh carefully and pray fervently over candidates, ballot referenda and all political issues before us. Then seek to vote in ways that reflect Jesus Christ’s heart for the whole world. In so doing, we remind our people that the way of Jesus is the way of cross-bearing, of self-sacrificing love, of costly obedience and of giving all for the sake of others — especially for those on the margins. Indeed, this way of Jesus often directly counters the ideologies of this world.
Board of Bishops
Free Methodist Church
Matthew Thomas
David Roller
David Kendall
Please forgive the lengthy post, but I think it is worth noting the difference between how the two similar denominations are viewing the upcoming elections. I have several observations, but I'd like to hear yours first.
posted by EF + at 8:39 AM
11 Comments:
I have to admit I prefer the Free Methodist letter. I like the simplicity and the references to the 'kingdom living' and not 'worldly living'(though not explicitly per se). This election season is different, and I usually do not voice my opinions on political conversations. But for this, I believe the Nazarene letter (which I didn't get) was just too much.
Very interesting! - I have not yet received the letter you have posted, so I was really interested in reading it.
It seems the Nazarene GS's have focused, not so much on the election, as such, nor on the presidential election, as such, but rather upon a couple of (admittedly very) important issues; issues which the denomination has taken strong positions on in our Manual.
I do not disagree with our GS's making these points. It reminds me of the statement by a number of Roman Catholic bishops saying that morally one cannot vote for the economy over life (speaking, of course, about the abortion issue).
However, how refreshing to read the letter from the FM bishops . . . in a number of ways. 1.) The recognition of the Kingdom being more foundational than our US citizenship; 2.) Our closer ties to non-US Christians than to US non-Christians; 3.) The recognition that no party fulfills all Kingdom values (and the implication that both lean towards certain Kingdom values); and 4.) The call to serious reflection prior to voting.
The Nazarene letter, in as much as it goes beyond those states voting on marriage issues and votes cast on those specific issues; in as much as it goes to the actual presidential election, it seems that our GS's have assumed (without stating it) who Nazarenes should vote for. - The FM letter does not.
On the other hand, perhaps the Nazarene letter was really meant only to address votes concerning those specific issues, and not the presidential election, at all. -
It seems to me, though, that their letter would have been better (assuming it is meant to address the presidential election) if they had made a stronger statement, like the RC bishops. That is, if they had admitted a number of serious issues that Christians should be concerned with, but declaring that issues of life, this time around, trump all of the others.
One may disagree with such a statement, but it would admit the various issues and the fact that Christians may naturally support certain issues (something that, unlike the FM bishops, the Nazarenes do not seem to do), but such a statement would seek to guide the Church in prioritizing those issues.
Well, I don't know if I've been clear, but I'm sure I've written enough!
Peace,
Todd+
Why didn't I get that email? I'm trying not to be so negative right now so I won't say anything.
kp
Eric,
I just think you're a wuss. This is your blog -- tell us what you think!!!
OK, I'll tell you what I think. ;)
After the pastoral perspective letter issued by the GS board a few months ago, this was a real disappointment.
This is the most important thing our GS's can come up with to send out? This is what you lie in bed at night thinking about? Really? Ugh.
There is so much wrong on so many levels . . . that's what I think.
OK - sorry for the brief absence. Many of you have hit on my thoughts. I will point out three areas of comparison that stood out to me:
1) TONE: the letter from the GSs has a much more argumentative tone than that of the Bishops. The GSs almost seem as though they are blowing a battle cry and declaring war on anything or anyone who doesn't share their view (and to a large degree my view too) of the sacredness of marriage and the family. The Bishops present a much more gracious and compassionate tone in addressing the upcoming election, which ties directly to the next point which is...
2) PHILOSOPHY: the GS's seem to take a very reductionist approach to politics. This is the same issue that has plagued the "religious right" for some time. The issue has varied from time to time, but usually they present a litmus test for candidates that essentially endorses a particular candidate regardless of their opinions on other "less crucial" (whatever that means) issues. The Bishops seem to have a much better grasp on the complexities of the political landscape. They seems to understand that different people prioritize different issues and that Christianity (even Free Methodism) is by no means monolithic in their Christian values.
3) CATHOLICITY: This too is directly linked to the previous point. John Wesley's comment "if your heart is like my heart... then give me your hand" came to mind as I read the two letters. The Bishops seemed very comfortable with Wesley's catholicity and with the idea that people with different ideas can still have the same heart... ie a holy heart, the heart of God, etc. They seem to be unthreatened by the notion that some in their church may have different values than theirs. The GS's, however, seem very much to be building fences with complex political issues. They seem to be requiring more than a similar heart. They seem to be using politics to draw lines of exclusion if your priorities in an election are not identical to theirs.
All in all, I appreciate our GS's for their statements that are intended to guide us. If you have gotten to know me at all I think of theirs as an episcopal office. As such they have both authority and responsibility to help the church clarify its moral teaching. For their efforts at asserting themselves I applaud them. However, I think their is still a lot we can all learn if we have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Peace.
Eric,
I'll give you points 2 & 3. I have an issue with point #1. What is the problem with "blowing a battle cry and declaring war on..."
If you don't agree that there are points in time when we (the Church of Jesus Christ) need to declare war on issues (whether they be moral fabric issues, social justice, evironmental, economic, or whatever other issues are present...see your complexity issue here), isn't this a fence straddling position to be on? I, for one, am tired of fence straddlers ("luke-warm" Christians). I'm not preaching one particular issued here. What I am saying is that our "views" (priorities) are informed by our faith and that these serve the basis for making battle cries. One can argue these positions until the rapture (which will indeed be what takes place), but I see no problem with taking a firm stance on issues of importance.
I have no problem with taking a firm stance on any issue. You know me well enough to know that I have no hesitation in calling a spade a spade or drawing the line when I think it needs drawn. While I am just as dogmatic in my beliefs now as I ever was, I think the thing that has changed is the experience of learning that the way I present my conviction goes a long way.
One has to weigh the options. When one sounds a battle cry, not only does one rally the troops. One also insights the opposition. The question is, do the troops need rallied enough to warrant entrenching the opposition?
In this case I think not. I don't know any Nazarenes that support "Gay Marriage" or anything other than a "traditional definition of the family." So why further the gulf between us when we ought to be working at bridging the gap?
More later.
I thought the Free Methodists Bishops letter was more of what we need to hear today. That the kingdom of God is bigger then any one issue or party. Be it, I'm not in favor of same sex unions, but I think we often have tunnel vision when it comes to certain issues as evangelicals. By the way I have read this several places on the web, but never received it myself, maybe they do not have my email.
My google password won't work, I'll have to post my name.
Peace,
Steven
I am agreeing with almost everything you have said. Your last paragraph leaves me pondering, "why take an external stance on anything then?" Isn't every reaction/stance going to flame someone?
"I don't know any Nazarenes that support 'Gay Marriage' or anything other than a "traditional definition of the family." Do you think this statement will be true in 10-20 years? What impact does our stance now have on your answer?
You know that I am not a dweller on isolated issues and agree that the Kingdom of God has been trivialized. My points are ones that I have been considering as I contrast the candidates and our approach as the Church of Jesus Christ.
Eric,
Some clarification:
The more I looked at the GSs letter, the more I was convinced that it was not intended to address the general/Presidential election, as such. It seems to address only the issue of marriage, which will appear on the ballots of at least three states, and is being discussed throughout the country.
Therefore, I emailed the Board of GSs, and was informed that my surmise was correct. While the Board of GSs do urge everyone to pray and vote in this election, they have not issued any episcopal statements regarding the general/Presidential election. The Sept. 2 letter was not intended to be such a letter. It was intended only to address the issue of same sex marriage.
Therefore, it is not quite fair to compare the two letters, as such. Or at least, it ought to be understood that it is not an apples to apples comparison. - It might be fair to compare the fact that the FM Bishops actually issued a letter concerning the general/Presidential election and our GSs only issued the letter you printed.
Concerning those who did not receive the email: Contact the General Secretary's Office to make sure they have your correct email address.
Having said all of that, Eric, I am thankful to read that you think of the GSs as being an "episcopal" office (i.e., the office of "bishop!"). - I'm glad that you have come around to supporting my resolution about that!
Peace,
Todd+
I agree with it in so much as I believe the superintendency is an episcopal office. I don't distinguish between General and District. I look at GS's as "presiding bishops" The Presiding Bishop is still just a Bishop. It is not in her presiding that the episcopacy lies, but rather in her bishopric. SO, the GS is a bishop in my mind, but so is the DS. It is in the S that the episcopacy lies, not the D or the G. Hope that clarifies my understanding.
To completely tangent from this thread, taken to its logical extent, I think the GS is unnecessary as a separate position. I would be happy to have one DS elected from each world area to compose the BoGS and to "preside" over the world area, but not to abdicate responsibility for her district.
BTW I submitted most of your resolutions to our delegation and they are meeting the 11th of Nov to discuss them.
Post a Comment
<< Home