Is the Emergent Church a threat to the Church of the Nazarene?

According to Dr. Nina Gunter, General Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene, the answer is "Yes." At the recent M7 Conference, Gunter suggested that the three more recent challenges to the Nazarene church are: Calvinism invading the minds of students, the emerging church, and Reformed theology invading Arminian theology. (Because sound bites can be dangerous when taken out of context, the entire content of Dr. Gunter's sermon may be viewed by going here.)

While I'm willing to concede the first and third points, I admit to being confused on the second. This seems somewhat puzzling, considering that the M7 Conference had several workshops specifically targeted to those interested in the Emergent church. And these workshops were often the best attended of all those offered. In addition, Dr. Gunter herself acknowledged that the church had to be willing to adapt, asserting that the denomination is a vigorous 100-year-old, who can still give birth. “We can embrace new methods, new structures, and new ways to connect, serve, and resource our church, all for the ultimate work God has called us to, the work of making Christlike disciples in the nations” (M7 Summary).

The Nazarene church has long struggled with understanding and critically engaging new ways of doing church because it does not have an adequate ecclesiology. Even the dean of Wesleyan theology in the denomination, Dr. William Greathouse, has acknowledged this lapse at the recent Revisioning Holiness conference. Because we don't have an adequate ecclesiology, our tendency is to assume that the old ways [read: the ways we grew up with] are the best, and we judge new forms of ministry that don't fit our expectations harshly.

Ray Anderson, senior professor of theology and ministry at Fuller Seminary, has talked about this type of issue in his book An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches. In it, he distinguishes between the Jerusalem church and the Antioch church. The Jerusalem church was more concerned with historical precedent, which forced them to seek to control new forms of ministry which differed from their own practice. Their existence was held in place by the long line of continuity with their ethnic and religious tradition. As a result, their message was tamed and contained by the dominant culture of their past.

This doesn't mean the Jerusalem church was wrong. Anderson writes that it "was the source of an incredible spiritual force that resisted attempts to suppress and even destroy it. When those who were dispersed, due to persecution, fled to other cities, including Antioch, they carried with them the gift and power of the Spirit along with the message of a crucified and risen Messiah" (p. 15). If not for the Jerusalem church, we would not have the message of Christ today.

The Antioch church was a new theological movement that was concerned primarily with advancing the kingdom--it was a missionary church through and through. It was committed not to historical precedent, but to a theology of revelation as elucidated by the apostle Paul. "The fruit of the Spirit's work, for Paul, was the evidence for the work of the Spirit. To the Christians at Thessalonica, Paul wrote, 'our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.' (1 Thessalonians 1:5)" (pp. 27-28).

Anderson makes the case that the modern church correlates with the Jerusalem church, and the emergent church correlates with the Antioch church. I would suggest that, for the Church of the Nazarene, the Jersualem church has been our identity since our inception. Those who are trying to create new forms of ministry and identity are reflective of the Antioch church (even to the point that many of them are fleeing Jerusalem because of persecution, only this time the persecution is coming from within).

There are a growing number of Nazarene pastors who understand and embrace many (though not all) of the principles of the Emerging church. The question is, will these pastors find a place where they can practice new ways of doing and being the church or will they be pushed to the margins because they don't fit the traditional models?

My hope is that Dr. Gunter's comments will be the start of constructive dialogue between she (and others in the denomination who see the Emergent church as a threat) and those in the denomination who find themselves in the Emergent camp. Only as we engage in conversation together, seeking to understand and to be understood, will the Nazarene church be able to fully embrace all that God is doing in its midst.