Subjective?

i affirm the wesleyan quadrilateral. for those that dont know the wesleyan quadrilateral comes from john wesley, the founder of the methodist societies (later churches). the wesleyan quadrilateral was seen in how john came to theological conclusions, he used: scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. he believed scripture to be the sole source of truth and that reason, tradition, and experience possibly enhanced or helped us understand the truth of scripture.

this is my basic understanding of the wesleyan quadrilateral. i will be the first to admit that i am not wesleyan scholar and i still have a lot to learn on this subject. this is part of the reason i am posting, i am hoping that someone of more knowledge will be able to correct me or help me understand this theological scruture better.

on to my actual post:

from my perspective everyone has a perspective (i need to save that one!). it seems to me that everyone has a different lens or perspective they work from and it is this through this lens that they understand the world around them. the lens is made up of their biological make up, life experiences, social class, education, family life, etc etc. two people will be able to watch the same event in history and form two completely different opinions from that event, i believe that is because of their lens. these lens are neither wrong or right, they simply are.

i heard a good example the other day to illustrate this point. two people might be looking up at a tree. person number one might look up and say "look there is a bird in the tree". person number two, however, might not be able to see the bird because of a tree limb in the way and say "no you are wrong there is no bird". unless both people are able to realize that they are coming from different perspectives then the conversastion and observations will go no where.

so this is my question: how are we able to use scripture as the sole source of truth when how we read scripture is dependent upon our traditions, experiences, and reasons.

two people from different backgrounds will read the same scripture and find two completely truths. are we then to assume that both people are correct and that each one of their interpretations holds truth? or is only one person correct. and maybe there is a third option of both people are completely wrong. it seems that with the second option we then have to understand how the person came to their interpretations, going to their traditions, reasons, and experiences.

i am trying to understand how we can hold something that seems so subjective as the sole authority on truth. from the example i gave about with the tree, i dont want to go so far as to say there is no bird or that because the bird was not visible to the second man that he was actually correct. i do believe in absolute truths, i simply wonder how many of our truths are not so absolute.

just some thoughts that are going through my mind right now. maybe a few of you will be able to help me think through this topic.

emergents and evangelicals pt 2

the above picture was taken a few minutes ago (say 9:50am Tuesday). the picture is of sarah and dan's coffee mugs, can you guess which one is which? the black and white one (nightmare before christmas) is a new mug the wife and i picked up yesterday at the disney store (it was 33% off).

maybe i am beginning to stretch but the above picture seems to show how so many people view the emergent and evangelical labels. people say that the emergent movement focuses too much on love and that it, historically, is not deep enough. while some people may say that evangelical movement is deep it is not appealing to people in todays world. there are obviously exceptions. some people are able to look past the apparent "all about love" title that emergents are given and see that it can still hold a great cup of coffee (truth). also, other people are able to get past the first face of the evangelical movement because they understand the movie it is coming from (the past) and see that there is beauty there.

like i said, maybe i am beginning to stretch.

one thing i do have against the evangelicals is that too often they are so focused on winning the lost that they forget the fact that maybe people are not ready for the gospel message. paul had a great truth when he said that some plant the seed and others water. too often people believe that everyone is ready to be watered and forget that some people don't even have the seed planted yet. i just wish that more churches would do activities without the motive to get people into their church. maybe sometimes it is just as good to put the seed of Christ's love in someones life and allow another church to water it. sometimes loving someone is enough, loving without an agenda.

emergents and evangelicals

Blog songs (on shuffle)
-mama grace: seventeen
-the postal service: natural anthem
-cool hand luke: skydive
-bob dylan: knocking on heaven's door
- godspeed you! black emperor: mother=redeemer (part 1)
-

this weekend i have been by myself at home. sarah and the rest of the family went to "the farm" in PA for a reunion on the fordyce side. friday i came home and did what every single guy loves to do, eat and sleep. seriously all i did was come home sleep then wake up to eat, sleep, eat, and then go to bed. what an awesome use of my time. however, the weekend as a whole as been wonderful. i have been able to clean the house (both upstairs and down), i have been able to get some reading done, finally get some Bible time in, and keep up on the events at GA and about the CNs.

currently i am outside where it seems that the clouds would like to rain. honestly though it is beautiful out here, even with the clouds. birds are chirping (which i didnt notice until i said it was beautiful out here), some flowers are still alive, theres a nice breese going, and i have my coffee. mm the little things in life. also to give you a better feel for my current moment(s) as i write this blog i am going to share with you the songs i get to enjoy on shuffle.... i am REALLY hoping they will be good songs and i can get some indie cred points.

i was on the phone the other day... or week i guess now... and we were discussing the emergent/emerging church/movement/culture (god its confusing). and i made a distinction that i thought was decent and wanted to share.
evangelicals focus almost exclusively on the great commission
emergents focus almost exclusively on the great commandments
and then there is me trying to hold the two together, which in itself is funny because when i wrote my "philosophy of ministry" back in college these two scriptures were at the heart of it.

basically evangelicals say that bringing the lost to Christ is the most important thing in a christians life. that the purpose of the church is to be the medium between the sinner and the lover. emergents on the other hand believe that focusing on that leads to focusing on numbers and that is not what Christ was worried about. instead the worry about loving God and loving the world around them (the great commandments).

obviously if taken too far both can be bad. if you begin seeing everyone simply as a lost soul that needs to be harvested then you lose the ability to truly love them in community. if you go the other side then you can possibly be loving them without ever sharing what their spirit really needs, which is Christ. at least this is what the other camp would say about each other.

as i said a couple (i cant use "few" anymore, dang it!) years ago i wrote my philosophy of ministry in college. i tried to focus on loving God and loving others and then making disciples of all nations. i should probably revisit the project and see just how naive it was. but there is truth there, there is truth that if we go to one side and lose the other then we lose a lot. maybe i would lean a little heavier to loving others then i did before but there still needs to be a balance. we need to first love those around us without having a salvation plan already marked out for them. after building that relationship we need to make sure we are willing to bring up the topic of Christ and how salvation is through him. balance people, its about balance!

GA

if you are nazarene you may know what general assembly is. well it is happening this and next week. if you remember please keep the church of the nazarene in your prayers. there is a lot of change coming ahead and my prayer is that God will be leading that change.

war... what is it good for

one thing i have been thinking about recently is war. i am currently struggling to find a decent biblical or theological reason for war. it seems that getting around Christ saying "love your enemies" is going to be hard because his teachings seem so to the point.

i guess i am one of those crazy christians who think that everything before and everything after the gospels point to Christ. and because of that i view Christ's teachings and life as the perfect example for all christians. and because of that i find it hard to find where it says "love your enemies unless they are really really bad people and if they are then go and kill them all!".

going too far with children songs

so before i even begin i will admit maybe this is too much analysis. maybe there are some things you can just leave alone and say "it is good for what it does. it does not need to be perfect". with that being said i will still go too far and begin to breakdown the beliefs that some children songs are teaching our kids.

this all started when london randomly started singing a song. it was not one that sarah and i taught her and it was right after sunday school. more than likely the sunday school class was singing some very classic sunday school songs which is both great starting point of their faith and very cute when repeated by your two year old.

as i was singing with london i began to wonder if this is something i really want london taking hook, line, and sinker. a few examples of the songs and my concerns. please note i still love these songs for kids, i simply acknowledge that i will need to add onto them when my kids become older.

"The b-i-b-l-e, yes thats the book for me. i stand upon the word of God. the b-i-b-l-e. BIBLE!"

this may be stretch but i want to make sure that my kids are not simply standing with their faith. i want them to read the bible, to embrace their faith full heartily, and i want them to act out their faith. simply standing upon the word of God is not enough. we must act out with the word of God.

also we need to make sure that we are not allowing the bible to become something that we worship. from my stand point wesleyan tradition puts the bible in its correct place as 1 part of the belief system. it still holds reason, tradition, and experience along with the bible as important. too often people protect the bible with more force then they do the poor or the needy. funny how we can see more value in the words then in what the words tell us to do.

"Jesus loves me this i know, for the bible tells me so. little to ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong. yes Jesus loves me. yes Jesus loves me. yes Jesus loves me. the bible tells me so".

again, i realize that i might be taking this out of context but this type of thinking will not get you very far in a modern or postmodern world. "why do you believe in Jesus.... because he loves me... how do you know he loves you... because the bible tells me so... so why believe in the bible... well because the bible tells me so... um, okay." hopefully we will teach our children to be able to express and show their faith better then simply "the bible tells me so".

God, may i continue to stretch my beliefs and in doing so allow me to understand you better. not only understand you better but show you to the world in a more faithful and truthful way, starting with my family.

concerned for those that are concerned

while at work the other day i became curious how the nazarene church is handling the emergent movement, so i googling "emergent nazarenes". apparently there is a lot more interaction between these two groups than i would have thought. i was able to find, and now follow, this blog: emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com. i was also able to find this website: http://www.concernednazarenes.org/ (dont let the flash intro fool you, it sucks).

i have to say that after viewing this website i am concerned about these concerned nazarenes. it makes me sad that some people are still as closed minded and negative as i was afraid of. true we cannot be positive about things we feel are evil or something the church should have no interaction with. however some research and being willing to discuss your views is always a good idea before establishing that something is heretical.

however a positive that came out of the search was www.naznet.com and the blog i already shared. it REALLY encourages me that the nazarene church is engaging the emergent conversation finally and being willing to listen to what it has to say back. also one of the leaders in the emergent nazarene conversation gave a great new way of viewing the change that is happening: being a church to the emergent culture (instead of being an emergent church).

i have to say that the search and the subsequent websitse have brought back my hope for the nazarene church and my pride in it. i still consider myself a nazarene and i was reminded why.