Digital Nazarene

A Nazarene Wrestling with Digitally Expressing the Great Commission

Tag: Christian

  • Therapeutic

    The church and therapy do not always go together. I am not one of those who believes that therapy and faith necessarily conflict, though they can because of harm and/or misunderstanding. Sometimes therapy is needed within the context of church, and vice-versa.

    This is not a knock against therapy. I’ve been in therapy. Probably could use it again. I believe that there is a need for therapy, inside and outside of the church.

    I do wonder, however, if the church is hiding something about therapy. There is no question that the church has been both the community for the non-normative and has not been the community for the non-normative.

    Therapy Defaults

    What I’ve been thinking about, though, is that too often in the church there are two default regarding therapy: “we have the Bible” and faith, so therapy is unneeded; or “we have the Bible” with all the answers, thus therapy is anti-Biblical or anti-God.

    While I understand why some Christians might feel that way, I’m wondering if we’ve created a nascent monster with this perspective.

    What if the default church perspective of therapy is bad, ends up producing a whole bunch of people who don’t see the problem, thus don’t want to deal with the fix?

    One of the biggest aspects of holiness and sanctification (across traditions) is change. In particular, being changed by God. What if it is not just “the sins” that we don’t want to address, but ourselves?

    What if those who don’t want to change through therapy are also those who don’t want to change through the power of the Holy Spirit? I do believe therapy and holiness/sanctification can happen in harmony, or affect different aspects of our lives.

    I wonder if we Protestants (in particular) become so obsessed with Original Sin, that we are unable to look at humanity and change without the lens. Actually, I don’t wonder.

    Paul’s Issue

    1For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want—instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.

    Romans 7:15–20 NET

    There is a needle that needs to be threaded. While Paul might have had a struggle with a particular sin, and identified such as a sin, that doesn’t mean that the presumed predilection toward sin is all that is involved.

    Anyone whose done any sort of therapy should be able to look at Paul’s words and see the similarity to issues or trains of thought that are often dealt with through therapy. This does not challenge the Bible, it’s authority, nor sin. That’s an oversimplification of sin and therapy.

    Desire

    There’s the old joke:
    How many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb?
    None! The lightbulb has to want to change itself.

    Yes, it’s a bad joke. However, as a pastor, a therapy client, and a person seeing therapy to help people, there is a lot of truth to this.

    Paul wants to change. His take is that God will use his (Paul’s) weakness for God’s glory. We actually don’t hear much more about it (yes, we do hear some more about it). However, too many Christians take Paul’s revealed message from God and turn it into doctrine on therapy…which it isn’t.

    Do people really think that if Paul had another tool to not suffer from his desire to sin that he wouldn’t do it? I would hope not. Paul didn’t, however, have that tool. We do.

    To change, however, takes more than a baptism. It takes a decision. It takes a willingness to utilize all the tools available. It takes a decision to face the pain and decisions that got one to that point, and to deal with it.

    Choosing Healing

    There is a theologian (who I won’t name because his name, understandably, riles up a bunch of people, who were they to read his name would through me under the bus) who makes an interesting argument that we have to agree from our brains to our cells (yes, I know brains are made of cells, but you know what I mean) to be healed.

    I think he makes a good point, and has some good thinking behind it. While I don’t agree with it completely, on the other hand, I’ve had too many conversations where, “I did it again. I’m trying to be better.”

    Then you unpack it, and it’s “trying” while using only one’s will power to course correct, which doesn’t work very well. In AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and CR (Celebrate Recovery), there is an understanding that we don’t do it well on our own. AA, CR and even secular programs all have a community, system, and overseer (higher power, Jesus Christ, science) that girds the programs.

    In other words, a lot of people who say they want change really mean they want the change without the pain, discipline, or realization required for the real change. Hey, New Year’s Resolutions are the perennial poster child of this.

    Consumerism = Therapy

    There is a strong belief that consumerism has battered at the church and its foundations of accountability and transformation. This is more particularly about congregants. This is not to blame congregants. The wider culture is consumeristic. What if, however, the true danger of consumerism isn’t buying unneeded cruft, but what consumerism has really become…a drug or a therapy.

    This is not about some stereotype of some rich white female talking about “shopping therapy.” This is about people being inundated with messaging about a problem (real or imagined) that can be fixed by a product. I’ll take an easy one.

    When HD TV first game out there were gushing reviews of being able to see things is such clarity. Now we have 4K (and soon 8K) televisions whose selling point will be, now you can see things in greater clarity! Why change the pitch when it works? And, it will work.

    When I was a child, I remember the great shows on animals, especially David Attenborough’s stuff. Would HD improved the images I saw? Yes, would it have fundamentally changed what I’d gained from watching those shows? No. Clarity was never the issue, but it became one.

    Christians Should Know the Plot

    For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires.

    Romans 7:7–8 NET

    Consumerism is, to a great extent, a continuation of this same thinking, but Christians have missed the plot, though they’ll often be glad to point this out when it comes to sin.

    I bring consumerism into this because I think this may be what kills off much of the church. People have been trained (even in the church) to expect quick fixes and the newest thing will fix what the older thing couldn’t. People church hop as part of this.

    I have started to wonder if people leave a church because they don’t really want to be seen or change. I know that that statement will cause some angst. It causes me some.

    True church community requires humility, vulnerability, genuineness, and love. I know people say that they want that, but do they? They get challenged on a particular issue or they’re asked uncomfortable questions and now the church they were at is no longer for them.

    I don’t know how to recover this because I’m not sure I’ve ever experienced the full expression of church community. It’s not very American, at least from what I can tell. I’m not sure we can get back to something most of us probably have fully experienced. And that’s sad.

  • Mystery Lost

    Mystery Lost

    We are not stewards of certainty. We are pilgrims of mystery.

    Preston Ulmer

    Being within the “evangelical” realm of Christianity, I have long been in a church culture that promulgates certainty. It would be nice if that certainty was just about Jesus.

    It also amazes me that much of “evangelical” culture rails against the Enlightenment, but uses Enlightenment practices and thought processes to prove itself and the faith.

    Over time (and not much of it, either), other things were introduced into the “evangelical pantheon”. Sex, evolution, science (in general), and politics. Certain practices within the wider tradition of Christianity were considered questionable, dangerous, or heretical. This despite many of the reformers who themselves had practices that now are under fire by those who claim to step in their chosen reformer’s footsteps..

    Certainty Kills

    I was reading Friendship Beyond Belief: How I Learned to Love and Listen to Doubters by Preston Ulmer in the January/February 2026 issue (it’s Loving and Listening to Doubters online), and he caught my attention with…

    …most of us have not been prepared to embrace a faith that stays committed in the face of uncertainty. Instead, we’ve been told that the stronger our certainty, the stronger our faith. Ironically, that kind of faith can become ossified and brittle and often looks to the rest of the world like close-mindedness or stubbornness.

    Preston Ulmer

    This put something I’ve been wrestling with as a pastor, particularly in my current calling. Certainty eliminates mystery. Certainty kills mystery. What’s wrong with a bit of mystery?

    Mysterious Call

    I have long had a sympathy for the mysterious aspect of Christianity. I find comfort in the truth that I do not know it all. I hold many things with firmly, and yet hold them flexibly.

    In the Church of the Nazarene, the Eucharist (e.g., Communion, Holy Supper, etc.) is only done once per month. Even as I say that, some churches do it more often, some hold to the Manual minimum of once a quarter.

    My early church experience was Anglican then Lutheran, and I still struggle with once per month, and I’ve been part of the Church of the Nazarene longer than either of the other two traditions (or both put together). John Wesley’s calling the Eucharist a “means of grace” struck me as affirming that the Eucharist is a mystery.

    Discussions within the denomination include too often weakens the power (and I think aligns with a memorialist perspective). Then there are those of us who are on the more spiritual (real) presence or further still to consubstantiation.

    It gets particularly interesting as the denomination, as a whole, is reaching back in to is Wesleyan identity. With the Wesleys (John and Charles) being Anglican (Church of England) clergy, the symbolic is losing sway, and the mystery is regaining ground.

    Mystery As Welcoming

    There are three strands of Christianity that are growing in the West: Assemblies of God (Charismatics), Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. All 3 have participative experience as part of their worship expressions. Yes, Charismatic is distinctly different from Roman Catholic and Easter Orthodox. And I am basing this on anecdotal evidence rather than statistics.

    All 3 also have a high mystery content. Yes, again, the charismatics are different than the other two.

    I think that the mystery is attractive to many younger people (not just me), because in the era of science and computers we seek something that transcends data points. Some people find that in nature (with or without God). Some people find that in music (again, with or without God).

    I am not certain of a lot of things. I don’t know if this makes me a bad pastor. I’m sure for some it does. I don’t know if this makes me an even worse Christian. I’m sure it does for some.

    I find the mysterious helpful. In a book from my childhood

    At last she stood up, gazing across the lake; she could not see its farther shore. “It is so large,” she said.
    Luthe rose to stand beside her. “No, not so large,” he said, “but it is a private sort of lake, and hard to see. Even for me.” He was quiet a moment, looking across the water. “I think perhaps the reason I stay in this particular uninhabited valley of all the uninhabited valleys in the Hills is that it comforts me by reminding me of things I cannot do. I cannot see the farther shore of the Lake of Dreams.”

    Robin McKinley, The Blue Sword

    I think I’d be okay, like Luthe, in a place like that. In some ways I am. Other areas, I grant, I’m no different than anyone else.

    Americans (the US ones) want their surety. And, yet, in their desire for surety, they still desire the unknowable.

    Perhaps…just perhaps…we might be willing to once again live in the mystery that is walking with God.

  • 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. ↩︎