Digital Nazarene

A Nazarene Wrestling with Digitally Expressing the Great Commission

  • Word Problems

    During my schooling years (and my kids’), I had a distaste for word problems. Math problems written as a paragraph always hurt my brain. I just had a disconnect with them.

    Pride Month Wranglings

    This came to mind with some conversations I’ve had myself, plus what I’ve seen online regarding this year’s recognition/observation/celebration/condemnation of Pride Month. In the US, June is Pride Month.

    Prior to the second Trump Administration, many prominent businesses changed their logos, had celebratory posts on social media, did press releases, and so on. This year (2025, the first year of the second Trump Administration), the celebrations/recognitions are notably muted, though last year was muted, too, but few really caught that.

    For those companies that changed direction, was it about staying on the Administration’s good side, or was it about being free to be themselves, or was it all about the money.

    I’m cynical. I always thought it was about the money. Here I have to agree with the LGTBQ+ community, the real LGTBQ+ allies are likely the ones that haven’t changed, though that isn’t a sure thing, either.

    What’s Your Stance On…?

    I’m sure someone who is actually reading this, is now asking, “What’s your stance on LGTBQ+?” Which is the point of this post. The post is not about my stance, per se, but about the question itself.

    I’m part of a denomination that has a stance. I’m part of multiple non-profits that haven’t taken a stance on this particular (and also many other) issue.

    I’m part of an association of pastors and leaders that currently has the following “stance”:

    We are a gathering of various traditions, each rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ. We all agree that the Apostle’s Creed unites in belief and that for the purpose of PMA, we will view other matters as non-essential to our fellowship.

    What We Believe, Plateau Ministerial Association

    This wide open statement, oddly enough, divides the local ministers.

    Seeking Not To Divide…Divides

    There are local ministers who will not attend (and have completely withdrawn) because of one member’s stance on a non-salvation issue. The association doesn’t have a political stance, so people don’t attend. The association doesn’t have a stance on LGTBQ+, so people don’t attend.

    This is where the church—in the US, at least—has fully baked-in the wider culture’s orientation of animosity.

    In our association, we have LGTBQ+ affirming, we have Traditionalist (not seeking to be antagonistic), and anti-LGTBQ+. Some would seek to divide over this issue. While the tension is hard, I don’t want to divide over this, at least for this association.

    The Why of Stances

    Let’s be honest with ourselves. Stances exist to proclaim who is on the inside, and who is on the outside. That can be good.

    It can also be bad. It can be very bad.

    Where the nuance exists is that just because there is a stance doesn’t mean against.

    Just because someone is a part of a particular denominations, for example, than I am, doesn’t mean I’m against them. I differ from them.

    I’ve had former congregants leave because their beliefs did not align with the Church of the Nazarene. I’m okay with that. I didn’t think they were against me or the denomination.

    There is, granted, a tension with stance and against. No one wants the tension. I don’t want the tension, but it is reality.

    There is not one member of my family that I agree with 100%. Just start with food likes and dislikes.

    The culture, though, has escalated beyond the tension to aversion, aspersion, demagoguery, and enemy-making.

    If you are an organization that believes that one has to have a stand on a particular issue, remember that no matter how popular that stance might be, it still includes division. Make sure you know why you’re dividing, from whom you’re dividing, and how it impacts your mission.

  • Our Walls, God’s Movement

    Our Walls, God’s Movement

    Look and see what God is doing, and join him in His work. If Christians around the world were to suddenly renounce their personal agendas, their life goals and their aspirations, and begin responding in radical obedience to everything God showed them. The world would be turned upside down.

    Henry Blackaby

    I love this quote that I recently heard.

    There is, however, something very scary in it, and it is how it challenges all our traditions and interpretations.

    It isn’t just the “bricks and mortar” that is being challenged. Even digital is challenged by this.

    In digital, we are very aware of platforms. The platforms shape the means and method of the message. They do not change the message.

    Walls of Bits and Bytes

    We, self-included, cannot sit within our digital four walls. We must spread out from Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, X (f.k.a., Twitter), Twitch, and whatever other digital platforms we’re on.

    Even it digital, people have already formed walls. Yes, they are only made of bits and bytes, yet, they are becoming rigid, too.

    In some ways, walls are good. In the digital realm, it can be easy to bust through digital walls, but should we? What makes a platform valuable to you? What makes a platform valuable to the people you are trying to reach?

    Walls and Culture

    This is where the four walls mindset/framework actually breaks down. The four walls of a physical local church are symbolic of the culture of the church. The four walls can be porous, rather than solid. The four walls could be so solid that nothing new gets in and everything (and everyone) become petrified.

    Digital may well have the same issues. Digital, it seems, tends to be more porous, but the platforms themselves lead to a development of a culture that is often is impossible for the unenculturated to break into.

    Oddly, that seems to be almost celebrated in digital spheres. Granted, comparing the sheer numbers in digital spheres to the normal local physical church (even the mega ones), it can seem that the digital is more open culturally. Appearances can be deceiving.

    Digital Culture Warning

    We in the digital space often point to the physical realm as the epitome of locked culture, while not recognizing our own.

    I am guilty.

    Digital isn’t for everyone, nor does all digital meet everyone where they are at.

    Those advanced in their digital realms do recognize that. I just wonder, however, if we are looking far enough ahead to see a potential issue.

    TikTok Culture Goes Where

    If it remains banned/blocked in the US, what will happen to its people? There is a culture on TikTok (neither supporting nor opposing, just stating).

    The culture developed on TikTok. Much of the culture was shaped by the nature of the platform (short form video), the algorithm of the platform, and the social interaction. The TikTok culture is unique.

    Its US users, now de-homed, will go where, exactly? They might try Instagram or Facebook, but probably not. YouTube and its shorts? Maybe. Perhaps old Vines or other short form platforms will return. Perhaps someone will be successful in creating a Mastodon or BlueSky iteration/server that will be successful (this is my hope).

    De-Homed Culture

    I don’t know much, if anything, about how a refugee really adapts to a new culture. Yes, I’ve heard stories (including from refugees). Yet, there is always something much deeper in that.

    Like physical refugees, TikTok-ers didn’t want to move. TikTok-ers are looking for the next place to be.

    Many people are looking for the next place to be. It isn’t just TikTok-ers. It’s refugees from other nations. People who feel disconnected from a culture they perceive as not theirs.

    God’s moving there.

  • Going Where the People Are

    When the love of Jesus Christ gripped Wesley’s heart, he knew he couldn’t keep it to himself. There had to be some way to reach the vast masses of people who would never darken a church door. Initially, Wesley was convinced the gospel could only be preached in the stained-glass setting of a church building. But with so few people attending church services, he was forced to consider other options. Reluctantly, Wesley began preaching in the open air. He would find a high spot on the edge of a city and speak to whoever would listen. Crowds of three, five, even ten thousand people would gather. Many of them were touched by the spirit of God and awakened to their spiritual state. A revival in England was born largely because Wesley was willing to take the gospel where the people were.

    Roger Ross, 7 of John Wesley’s Practices Can Change Hearts Today

    The Church of the Nazarene affirms and proudly proclaims its heritage as a Wesleyan denomination. And, yet, are we ignoring the open air?

    Where Are The People?

    Hint: they’re not at church. This isn’t news—not by a long shot. Too many churches and denominations, however, are stuck in a framework that is limiting our creativity.

    To be clear, I love the “four walls” of my local church. I just watch them limit everyone’s understanding of and participating in church life.

    Digital and the Damaged

    Digital is no panacea. There are problems with it, as with any human expression of creativity, individuality, collectivism, and so on. I see it, though, as a bridge to a revitalized even (dare I say) resurrected faith.

    There are people who were offended, hurt, harmed by people of my local church. That happens. It’s not to excuse it, to be clear.

    Because I don’t have the history, I generally have no clue. Also, because it is church hurt, people are very reluctant to share it (and I have seen why as we watch social media).

    Digital can bridge that.

    Bridging Pain

    People watched us online since we (my wife and I) came. A lot of people have watched. Some of them decided we’re safe, and have re-joined the community.

    It took a lot of time, and that’s okay. Honestly, I expect a lot more time for others to recover, if they ever do.

    Digital is safe for them. Of course, we desire them to fully rejoin the community, and not just watch online. Yet, would I rather they hear a sermon within their community (for that is still how many view it) context, than be completely alone? Absolutely!

    Should it be more than a sermon? Yes! Should there be some sort of digital discipleship if not done in person? Yes!

    Blind to the New Square

    Wesley preached in open fields, open spaces, even cemeteries! Why are we so closed to the new open spaces?

    I cannot imagine preaching at a cemetery, at least other than at a funeral, yet Wesley did. If he preached at a cemetery, why can we not preach in the places people gather digitally?

  • New Nomads: Digital, Physical, and Both.

    New Nomads: Digital, Physical, and Both.

    It wasn’t that long ago that nomads were viewed as unstable and untrustworthy. Stability of address was part of an identity, and thus provided more assurance to ones worthiness and trustworthiness.

    However, recently that has somewhat changed. A person, for example, who remains at the same job/company for years is not the person many companies are looking for. The companies are looking for the hungry (and sometimes the desparate) to bolster the organization.

    The other reinforcement of the nomad is the freedom provided by digital. At 61, Nicky Maidment became a digital nomad. There is Katie Macleoud, who has “worked from home” in 78 countries as of 2022.

    Both Nicky and Katie are blessed with digital jobs that are easily convertible to the nomad lifestyle.

    I have an acquaintance that is travelling the world doing her job remotely. In the short time I’ve known her, she has already moved 3 times.

    Building Albatrosses1

    When we build churches and church communities, we generally build around physical locales. We don’t really trust the nomads.

    The gatherings should be, in many respects, a safe place for people, and strangers are disruptive.

    On the other hand, we are called to love the stranger. We are also called to love the nomad.

    I remember a conversation years ago in regard to college ministry. I was told we were wasting church resources on people who were just going to move away. This conversation (and the church) were in a college town.

    I wonder, how (not if) the church building, and our concept of church community, has become an albatross. Are we weighed down? Are we unable to move, adjust, go, because we are weighed down?

    Places is Good

    I don’t seek to diminish the local church. I’m a “local” church pastor. However, this seeming blindness to the world moving around us may not be good for the kingdom.

    I don’t argue (too much) that physical is better. In most cases, I do think it is ideal. I’m not, however, going to hold onto that too hard.

    Digital has places, too. Facebook, Twitter, X (the transition from Twitter to X is causing me to think of them differently, now), Mastodon, Bluesky, Instagram, YouTube are all different places. I’m not comfortable in all of them.

    Serving Nomads

    What is interesting, perhaps telling, is that my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, has a strong missional drive. It’s not that we don’t seek out nomads.

    One of my favorite stories is Church on Camelback. To reach nomads, the Church of the Nazarene put the “church on a camel.”

    Yet, we struggle with the digital nomads. In reality, as digital networks change, the people move. It used to be Facebook. Then it was Instagram. Currently, it’s TikTok. If things continue as expected, TikTok will be banned from the US, and the people will go…where?

    Church on Camelback showed that the church is capable and even willing to go to the people. It’s only, however, with a certain framework.

    Return to Office

    I have to admit that when the big companies began to insist that their employees come back to the office now that the COVID era is mostly over, I suspected that many in the church said, “yes!”

    Things need to go back. Except, that we have yet to see what happens when the workers do return to the office. Some will go back grudgingly. Some will go back mostly willingly. What will they do?

    Some believe that those big companies are doing this on purpose to get rid of their higher paid people to bring in foreign workers. Some believe that this will ultimately reduce overhead. I believe that they will lose a lot of their institutional knowledge, and hire people back as contractors (for more money).

    These contractors? They’ll be nomads.

    Nomadic Church

    The church can’t presume buildings. Maybe, someday, we can get back to them, but it might be a very long while.

    These nomads deserve spiritual homes in their travels. Are we bowing to their selfishness? No. We’re honoring their nature.

    There’s nothing wrong with that. So, why is digital so different?

    1If you are unfamiliar with the albatross concept, it comes from the poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. The general concept, in usage, symbolizes a psychological burden. Often it’s supposed to be a curse or guilt or shame.

  • Contending For The Truth In Love

    I was recently watching Gavin Ortland’s “Are Catholics Christians? Why Protestants Can Say Yes.” Setting aside the point of his video, and even (mostly) his ministry and conclusions, there was something he said that really resonated with me.

    …let’s conduct our disagreement going forward in a way that honors Christ where we contend for the truth, and we do so in love.

    Gavin Ortland

    Contend for the truth…in love. It seems so simple. Orland acknowledges that he falls short, as do we all.

    I’m part of a number of groups and people that stretch, shall we say, me. Okay, I flat out disagree with much of the content they share and propound. Yet, I have found it to be critical to my growth as a person, Christian, father, husband, and pastor.

    The language seen is “sinner”, “sin-lover”, “heretic”, “bigot”, “hater”, “hate-filled”, and most of this is from purported Christians to purported Christians. The presupposition of so many is that who ever the target of the person’s words are is coming from a morally or theologically wrong position. By wrong, I don’t mean in error or differing of opinion. By wrong, they put themselves in a place of condemnation and judgement of the other.

    The Hard Part

    By my words before, I could easily be accused of putting myself in the same place of condemning and judging others. I recognize that, but I’m also not sure what else I am supposed to do. Do I think any of these people will themselves be condemned to Hell (whatever iteration you presuppose)? Not because of their words, necessarily. It is still about their heart and their relationship with God.

    While I am glad, on one hand, that the church universal (dare I say, the church catholic) is publically discussion theology and ethics, I think we have neglected to contend for the truth in love.

    This is far more than LGBTQ+. There is MAGA and Trump, politics in general, Christians behaving badly (take that however you want).

    In my denomination, there has been public trials in regard to LGBTQ+ (granted, being publicized by the person on trial kind of minimized the publicization). There are ongoing issues with misuse of Pentecostalic gifts while condemning non-problematic ones (in other words, throwing the baby out with the bathwater). There are issues about how we view the Scriptures.

    My denomination long called itself a “big tent” denomination, but there are multiple camps trying to shrink the tent. My heart aches because too many are not contending for the truth in love, they condemn.

    I am currently in a space where I wonder if our denomination can get to a point of discussion without declaration. We are in danger of abandoning,

    Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wits of another.

    Proverbs 27:17 NRSVue

    Via Media

    My denomination draws heavily from John Wesley. One of Wesley’s phrases was via media. In other words, the middle way.

    Let’s set this in its proper context, and that is the Church of England. The Church of England had a philosophy of via media. It was walking the line between the Roman Catholic Church and many of the offshoots of Protestantism. As it became the official church of England, in many ways it ceased being the via media by the very nature of its societal and governmental (the CoE has ex officio seats in Parliament) position. It’s hard for many of my Church of the Nazarene friends to see that the Church of England used to be the via media. Granted, in many respects, the transformation of the Protestant Christian landscape, it seems kind of odd that the Church of the Nazarene is in any way a via media denomination.

    Yet, if we really want to hold onto via media as core to our identity as a denomination, then we need to relearn contending for the truth in love.

    Loving Contention

    How do we contend for the truth in love? First, remember Proverbs 27:17. That’s a good starting point. Some translations of this verse use friend as the sharpener. While that might not be accurate insofar as the Greek is concerned, perhaps that ought to be the place we begin our contention.

    The starting point of love, however, isn’t our fellow man, it’s God. Some argue, with good reason, that if we love our fellow man, we are loving God. When one holds onto an imago dei concept (that each person has the image of God in them), this makes good sense, except when it doesn’t.

    Except When it Doesn’t

    When doesn’t it make sense that loving a person is equal to loving God? When loving that person allows, permits, or (especially) endorses behavior that appears contrary to the Scriptures. Depending on who you are that reads that, you will come up with an issue that I must be implying. You’re probably right, as long as you recognize that whatever that one issue you inferred is one of many I implied. I won’t put any issues here, because there are far more than even the issues I’ve stated elsewhere.

    This continues to be the hard part for me, as it is for many pastors I know. We love our people. We see the many places their lives do not conform with the Scriptures. It’s not as if we are perfect, either. We, too, have aspects of our lives that need to be further conformed to Jesus, sometimes more desperately than our people.

    Just as we are to be held accountable, so too are all who are in the Body of Christ.

    Elevating Sin Over Love?

    There are plenty of issue where this happens. Perhaps elevating is overstating it. Perhaps. Yet, if we all “know” it’s wrong (whatever it may be), but nothing changes, and we continue to say nothing, then where does that leave us?

    We don’t want to talk about a person’s sin publicly (or at least not to identify a sin with a particular sin), which makes sense…except for public sin. We also don’t want to condemn. That’s above our pay grade (so to speak).

    Go and Sin No More

    Does this apply anymore? Do churches care about this? Do the people care about this? I want to say, “yes.”

    Where do toleration, acknowledgment, accepting, admonishing all start and end? Within those, where does love start and end?

    What if every Christian has to account for other people’s sins (in particular Christians) that they did not call out? This might seem extreme hyperbole, yet Ezekiel can be seen as the archetype of a Christian watchman (yes, I’ve seen that many places).

    We are to be a community, and a community holds its people to account.

  • Learning from Scientology

    Learning from Scientology

    My only real regret, is not having achieved what I said I wanted to—ending the abuses of Scientology.

    Mike Rinder (as quoted in One of Scientology’s Top Critics Dies at 69)

    I really know almost nothing about Mike Rinder. I know of his podcast and Emmy. I know of his partnership with Leah Remini and their quest about Scientology’s abuses.

    I say that because I haven’t listened to the podcasts, nor read his books. I skimmed through his blog. I had an inkling of something that seemed to be confirmed via Tony Ortega’s The Underground Bunker.

    …Rinder…as well as others who call …“independent Scientologists” still adhere to Hubbard’s ideas even as they reject Miscavige’s church.

    Mike Rinder on “The Hole” and How He Escaped Scientology, via The Underground Bunker

    From the first quote, I inferred that Rinder didn’t actually stop being a Scientologist. The Underground Bunker seems to confirm that. He was just trying to stop to abuses.

    A Familiar Refrain

    I have to admit, the first quote triggered the beginning of this post. I went looking for Rinder’s denial of Scientology, for that was implied by many of the articles about him, his podcast, and his Emmy.

    Yet, he wasn’t denying Scientology. He was, effectively, denying it’s domineering leader, David Miscavige. In particular, the strongarm controlling tactics that Miscavige, and that Rinder also drove at Miscavige’s behest.

    Those Blasted Deconstructionists

    Deconstructionists of the Christian faith, in particular the so-called Evangelical strain, seem kind of similar. To be clear, I read many of the deconstructionists. Some I agree with, some I don’t. Most of them are trying to faithfully live out a Christian faith, just without much of the non-biblical baggage (much of more cultural than biblical).

    While I do believe that Scientology is a false religion, having a detached view of the person in question (Rinder), helps me see the deconstruction happening in my own faith in a different way.

    Are the deconstructionists going to far? Maybe? Yet, far too many are—just like Rinder—deeply scarred by the emotional and spiritual abuse. It’s even worse that this happened in a faith that believes, “God is love.“

    Who Drives The Conversation

    Reading the media (again, scanning it), it seems a presumption that Rinder was anti-Scientology rather than anti-Miscavige. Scientology and the press both seem to be operated from that perspective. It’s the same with Christian Deconstructionists.

    There is this bizarre trend regarding those speaking of deconstructionists that they are anti-Jesus, anti-Bible, even anti-Church. Yet, most that I’ve read (grated, that could be filtered by algorithm), have not walked away from a (dare I say) saving faith in Jesus Christ.

    What they did walk away from was ongoing hurt.

    Walking Away Vs. Walking Away

    Walking away from a or the church is not the same as walking away from the faith. They can have the same appearance, because often a person’s church experience is singular. In other words, the only church they know (or the one that has been the biggest part of their life whether by time or event) is the one they had to walk away from.

    Even their wider circles (especially in social media) probably revolve around similar behaving churches. In other words, their history is absolutely affecting their perspective of the church! If my only church experience is a bad one (as a long-term person, not a visitor), and it is reinforced when I see the other churches that church is connecting to also have bad behavior, why would I go to church? My assumption (yes, much emotional, but there is logic, too) is that all churches are bad.

    Yes, We Know We Suck

    That’s probably a bit much for some. The reality is that we use phrases such as, “the church is a hospital, not a museum,” because we know we suck. We are all hurt. We all hurt others with our hurt.

    We exacerbate the hurt. We create the hurt. We know this!

    Yet, when it comes to deconstructionists, we seem to deny or minimize it. They walked away. Since they walked away, we can tend to say, they left the faith.

    We can say, and most of them do say, they left the church. There are a lot of people who left the church. The church, for whatever reason, is often brutal.

    Is it because there we have to confront not only our own issues, but have grace toward others and theirs? Yes, we are to be kind, but we don’t seem to like being challenged about being unkind.

    Fallen Is A Reason Not Excuse

    We’re to be better, growing deeper in our relationship with Jesus Christ and as a result becoming more like Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit.

    I don’t think there is a Christian (I hope) that does not affirm that sentence. Yet, we use our Fallen nature as an excuse for our bad behavior. It’s the reason, no question. It is not, however, an excuse.

  • No More Bringing People to Jesus

    In the evangelical Christian world, there is a common statement, “bringing people to Jesus.”

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

    Matthew 28:19-12 NIV

    Go (per Jesus, Matthew 28:19) and bring (evangelical statement) seem a bit different to me.

    That “bringing people to Jesus” usually comes from a missionary perspective, or from those speaking about missions, puzzles me further. The “going” is thus transformed into bringing.

    Bringing Jesus To People

    Why don’t we say, “bringing Jesus to people?” Truly, foreign missions have been doing exactly that for generations, yet we still say, “bringing people to Jesus.”

    Does it matter? I think it does.

    For those entrenched in the four walls of the Western traditional model (of whatever tradition/denomination, not just the evangelicals), bringing implies (or is inferred) to bring people into “the fold”. However, what we are seeing now in the culture is that bringing people in isn’t working so well.

    Instead, we are having to engage people where they’re at. This does include digital (hence Nazarene.Digital), but it also includes Fresh Expressions and a myriad of other initiatives that are seeking to bring people to Jesus.

    As much good as programs such as Upward (soccer, basketball, cheer) have done in much the same vein, there is still more work to be done. Many of the Upward programs are about bringing people into churches, not bringing Jesus to people. A number of Upward programs (granted, this is anecdotal) are successful programs, but are held by churches that are not experiencing growth (numbers and baptisms).

    I have not answers, just an issue with a long-held and long-used phrase that needs to be re-thought and perhaps tossed.

  • No Perfect Witnesses

    No Perfect Witnesses

    In my denomination, there has been a lot of conversation regarding the Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette 2024 Olympics Paris Opening Ceremonies. Perhaps conversation might be overstating it.

    There have been a lot of words, and I’ve shared the words of others.

    What is prompting this particular post is It’s Not What You Think It Is by Andy Lauer on the Holiness Partnership1 website.

    I have to admit that my first response was not overly positive. Lauer’s article kept circling in my brain, however, and I have come to the point of recognition that it is worth reading and pondering.

    Yes, it might be a tad over the top. On the other hand, I think that there was too quick of a response by those against the Opening Ceremonies, and by those (like myself) who felt the need to mitigate the expressed outrage.

    So, we are clear, I do think the Opening Ceremonies were kind of meh. I think it was an overreach that didn’t work out well. I also did find The Last Supper/The Feast of the Gods vignette tasteless, but its entire context within the fashion/catwalk larger vignette had already turned me off.

    Jan Hermansz van Bijlert’s Le Festin des Dieux (The Feast of the Gods ) does seem to be very much based on Leonard da Vinci’s The Last Supper. Van Bijlert is not unique in this as this seach page on Artsy shows. Thus, one of the claims many have made that the vignette wasn’t about The Last Supper might be correct on the surface, yet The Last Supper is very much a part of it.
    In his article, Controversy, Context, and Creativity in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony, John Squires preaches (he’s a pastor) about context, context, context. In response to much outrage, I shared his article with others, so that there was indeed some context.

    Squires is correct, context is key. The context is a broken and fallen world that does not have a functional relationship with God. Sadly, as much of the acrimony surrounding this vignette showed, it seems to apply to Christians, too.

    Many, such as myself, were responding to what was perceived has angry, hurtful, even hateful responses to the vignette. We saw this as damaging our ability to be effective witnesses for Jesus Christ. We understood that the world would first respond to Christian outrage with more outrage and shutting of doors to conversation.

    What we didn’t do, however, is ponder. Honestly, neither did a lot of the outrage against the vignette.

    We have been well trained to react, respond, react, respond. Maybe later we’ll think.

    We are not perfect witnesses. Those that tried to defuse the anger and those that were angry were actually not on opposing sides. That’s the part that really struck me with Lauer’s article.

    It’s not that we all don’t see a fallen world. It’s not that we all don’t see a world that is turned from God.

    Where people, such as myself, got a bit lost, perhaps, was that there is a distinct difference between trying to defuse, trying to understand, and trying to apologize. By apologize, I’m referring to the classic apologia, which seeds to defend or justify.

    It’s that last word, justify, where it seems that Lauer and others are rightly disturbed. Much of the defusing appeared (and may well have been) an attempt to justify the vignette.

    There are a number of conversations in the Christian world, including the Church of the Nazarene, where justification is equated to explaining, seeking to understand. This is vignette was one of them.

    Let’s be clear though. Squires, and many like him, used language that seemed more justifying than explaining.

    It’s not that I don’t understand that, but this impacts our witness.

    I get that there are many disagreements among and within the many Christian traditions (denominations and non-denominationals). I am becoming more convinced that it is not that we disagree, but how we disagree.

    Yes, there will be times where breaking of fellowship will occur, and I hope all parties involved are deeply grieved by that. I hope that the grief and sorrow is far outweighed by the sense of justification and righteousness.

    While I think this vignette is relatively minor, the hubbub that occurred around it is the point of greater reflection.

    We are imperfect witnesses for Christ. How we witness is very important. We may well have the right answers, but the right answers are only heard within relationships, and often not even then.

    As we come to the next outrage, let us think deeply if we are reacting and responding, or thinking, praying, and witnessing.

    1. The Holiness Partnership is a collective dominated by a group of Church of the Nazarene pastors who seem to be of a very traditionalist mindset. This can be good, as it ought to keep a balance to the progressive wing of the Church of the Nazarene. However, there is some concern, that the Holiness Partnership might have too much influence and control within the denomination, outsizing its numbers. ↩︎
  • Touchy VR

    Touchy VR

    I shared this article a number of years ago.

    Virtual reality objects you can FEEL just like on Star Trek’s holodeck move a step closer thanks to new ‘universal law of touch’

    I shared it to a Discord group I’m part of again today. I’ve searched for this article so many times on my own Facebook page, that I knew that it was time to put it here.

    Then there also This VR accessory is designed to make your mouth feel stuff, which uses a different methodology (I also shared it years ago).

    Both technologies have the potential to “dis-embody” us. They also have the potential to embody us in ways we cannot yet see.

    Will this lead us to being pod people of the Matrix? Maybe. Does that invalidate our experiences?

    This is a core question I am trying to resolve.

    As a person who treasures the Eucharist (i.e., Last Supper, Communion, The Lord’s Table), I see a huge win on one hand experiencing the Eucharist in VR (a VR Means of Grace). On the other hand, what does that do to our theology? How does transubstantiation (Roman Catholic view), consubstantiation (Lutheran view), spiritual (Methodist/Anglican), work in VR?

    I’m pretty sure I know where the Roman Catholic church will land (physical), but the rest of us, perhaps not. I have no answer, and I likely won’t until I experience it.

  • The DARVO Christian

    In my social media circles, there is enough commentary, revelation, condemnation, accusation, pain, abuse being revealed and reported, that I really didn’t want to add to it. That was until I saw Tony Ray write, “DARVO is the Christian way“.

    DARVO is the acronym for deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender.

    In what Scriptural universe does DARVO equal Christian?

    The answer should be none. However, as many ministries and ministers have been rightly excoriated as a part of the movement and also since the modern revelation of predatory priests it sadly does seem to be the way of far too many Christians.

    I would prefer that Tony Ray would have written, “DARVO is the way of many so-called Christians.” It is more accurate, and for any Christian (including Tony Ray) to say DARVO is the Christian way should be a gut punch.

    That is likely Tony Ray’s point.

    The truth is that we have been trying to protect the image of “the church” and the local (or international) organization. This has actually tarnished our image. It can be reasonably argued that part of Jesus’ ministry was radical candor.

    The Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes of Jesus’ time seemed to have some issues with that, according to the Gospel accounts. The church has much of the same problem.

    This really does seem to be regardless of tradition. Our Orthodox Ukrainian and Russian siblings argue over the war between Ukraine and Russia, including adding severely religious overtones. We watch the Roman Catholic Church dispute internally (yet, publically) around the words of Pope Francis and the various Cardinal groups. The Protestants with all their varieties argue over theology with some vitriol.

    The church, so to speak, is not perfect. It is the bride of Christ, but that still doesn’t make it perfect. Our veneer of perfection is all too often a lie we tell ourselves. We act as if we know we have the right answers, and then shut down others.

    The DARVO conversation has come up revolving around the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) and its ongoing issues with moral failures regarding leadership, sexual immorality, financial immorality, plus the reality that many of these failures are more than moral failures, they are criminal.

    I will not list all of the failures that we are seeing in churches, but the reality is that there have been far too many. That there has been so little criminal prosecution is, well, criminal in and of itself.

    The desire to protect the reputation of the church (from local, to regional, to global) is understandable. What we are seeing, however, is not the protection of the church’s reputation, but its destruction.

    From what I have seen, people are behaving as if they are in a cult, rather than the hospital that the church is supposed to be. They are protecting leaders (disguised as protecting the church), rather than the innocent or the victim.