Last week we were fairly well attacked here on our blog by some brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us. While we always take criticism to heart and continually seek God’s leading for our work here, it occurred to me that perhaps we ought to open up this blog to your comments on our work. We are actually always open and willing to hear feedback–as a matter of fact we seek it out. But I don’t think we’ve done so quite this intentionally.
So while we continue to be critical of ourselves, we’d love to hear your suggestions for our improvement in how we can better meet your needs. What is working or not working? Are there things we do that you want to make sure we keep doing? Do you wish we aimed our products in a different direction? Do you wish our blog were more interesting/funny/serious/specific? Do you wish we tweeted more/less?
How can we make The House Studio a place where you feel you are understood?
I hope this won't be taken as beating a dead horse, but the only thing that comes to mind at the moment is to stay in line with the Articles of Faith. I'm not talking about trying to keep things the way they were in the 1920s like some are trying to get you to do . . . but it seems unnecessarily controversial (to say the least) to use Nazarene owned and operated media as a platform to express/promote personal beliefs that conflict with the official theological commitments of the church. I understand you're not making Nazarene-specific materials, but they should all be Nazarene-consistent at least.
I'm not a Nazarene. So can't comment on that.
But I love the resources this ministry and others associated with it are putting out.
Probably the best resources I've seen on the market today. So I say keep doing what you are doing and do more of it!
Also, LOVE Monday morning is for the random.
That's all.
I find the use of the word "attacked" as dishonest and would replace it with "rebuked." Also, I question your earnest desire to be in "conversation." It seems that if a biblical rebuke is brought to this blog it is labeled as "mean spirited," "not in the love of Jesus," or "demeaning." It would be helpful for you to set the parameters of the conversation ahead of time so that all may be informed as to how much feedback you really want. I am extremely disheartened that honest, and even passionate, conversations can not happen on this forum. Is this truly a place for dialogue or is this a place where only your ideas or thoughts can be posted without challenge?
I used the word attacked because a number of people with the same opinion expressed by the author FELT attacked. I am sure none of us ever feels we are the ones attacking. You use the word "rebuked." Fine. I felt attacked.
Second, there was some good conversation in response to last week's blog. I especially appreciate the feedback of O.B. who took issue with the author, yet acted in a way that is becoming of a Christian. That is dialog that sounds reasonable and invites reflection.
Unfortunately I don't personally feel that most of the comments on last week's blog reflected anyone trying to create conversation. Most were simply people talking AT frequent readers of this blog, not TO them. A large portion of the comments on the blog didn't make me feel like any response I gave would be considered thoughtfully. I am willing to accept that those writers believe in the conviction of their words. But I'm not interested in trying to dialog with someone who doesn't reflect a listening heart.
I believe that most of the commenters to last week's blog have appropriated the political rhetoric we see in so many places in our culture. Villianize those you see as enemies, and use fear to manipulate people into agreeing with you. Unfortunately it's easy for someone to see themselves as your enemy when they seem to find their identity in who their enemies are. I know you'll take issue with this paragraph. It's not the language you would choose to use. But for many who read those comments, this is how they were perceived.
I am always open–in fact welcome–challenges and disagreements. But say what you want to say and move on. Trust God to move the spirits of those to whom you have spoken, and acknowledge that sometimes you are wrong, as we all are. It's not necessary to fill 3/4ths of a blog's comment space saying the same thing without reflecting that you have a heart for discussion instead of anger.
I would just note that the first comment last week suggested that EVERYONE at the House and Barefoot resign or be removed. I don't know how that could be viewed any other way but an attack.
Let me clarify, since I'm the one you mention. I suggested last week that everyone at The House SERIOUSLY CONSIDER resigning- not that they resign. There's a slight difference
Interesting that a suggestion to resign is considered an attack. Why is that?
There are a lot of comments here that applaud The House, and those are acceptable. Yet, criticism of the House does not seem to go over well here, even though the writer of the post welcomes it.
Is anything other than a compliment to be considered an attack? If someone has an opinion that this organization is not following biblical principles, is that an attack?
If someone suggests that the leadership of the House are lacking in strong biblical discernment, is that an attack?
Perhaps the word attack needs to be defined her as well.
I posted a real criticism and got a positive response from Bruce.
Now lets think together just a minute, if your REAL intent is the edify someone. To begin by suggesting they should consider resignation from their job, especially the job they have taken as a ministry calling, is not the way to go. Perhaps you were misunderstood. But I do not know anyone who is going to respond well to any kind of criticism constructive or not, following a suggestion like that. I think there was plenty of debate allowed for here. I don't think you want debate. You have determined that you are completely right. You don't claim to have a different perspective, you claim to have THE perspective that is "biblical." As if you somehow own the only true insight to scripture. I often partially agree with your perspective on some issues as I have a more conservative view point. But I can be ok with not having all the answers. I also realize that prior to the last 400 years or so, almost none of the theology we ascribe to today had be articulated. And anyone that would have articulated this kind of theology [Wesleyan, Arminian, Calvinist, Reformed, whatever] would have been hung, or burned at the stake as a heretic.
As a 4th generation Nazarene who spent 25 years of his adult life in active lay ministry and now pastoring in the greater NYC area, let me say this — the quality of discourse around the emerging church, the House Studio material, and now Rob Bell coming from the hyper-conservative right SHOULD be considered as an attack ("rebuke" in my opinion is just couching the attack in pharisaical/religious language)…the tone of the attacks against ANYONE who even explores topics and writers that don't line up with a very narrow reading of the Articles and Scripture has never been conciliatory (and often hidden behind "author names" that are random and unidentifiable)…the tone of the rebuttal has always been compassionate and open to conversation…so thank you guys (and gals) for your work, honesty, and willingness to engage the differing perspectives that make the Nazarene church who we are…
I applaud you for trying to do something new. When things have been done the same for a long time, change is difficult. Not change for the sake of change, but change for the purpose of looking at things in a way they have not been looked at before. You will have people who hate you for it, and you will have people who love you for it. Continue to seek the Lord's direction and His words, and leave it at that.
I am glad that you invite conversation, even if the conversation is at times difficult, and doesn't go the direction intended. Conversation needs to happen.
As a Nazarene pastor and frequent user of House products I just want to say you are appreciated and loved. The House Studio has been a blessing to our ministry and gives me hope for the direction of our denomination.
It is interesting to me that denominational Articles of Faith have, at some point, morphed into Articles of Certainty. It is just as healthy to ask questions about any denomination's Articles of Faith as it is to have them in the first place.
This is why I love what you guys are doing at The House Studio. Like it or not, the generation of people who are currently 40 and under are obsessed with asking questions. The Church can either engage them, or forsake them.
It seems to me that most people who seem very concerned in the comments section already know what The House Studio is about. If you don't want to encounter uncomfortable questions, or engage in polite discourse about controversial topics, then perhaps you should read or visit the thousands of other blogs that are out there?
You could start with http://shawnsmucker.com although I'd imagine you wouldn't be too happy with me either.
Dear Shawn,
I think you're great.
Sincerely,
Scott.
I have almost always at very least liked everything from the house. I will say that the one exception was a couple of the experiments from the Mosaic Experiment. Comparing to the KE they felt slightly off target and aimed at a "green" agenda rather than spiritual formation. I wasn't offended, I just didn't think they "fit." With that said, I am glad you publish books that challenge my notions of what "fits" as spiritual formation. I don't think I want materials that simply confirm my exact calculations of how it is to be a Christ follower.
Bummer. We talked about whether those passages might be perceived that way and discussed them with the authors. Guess we'll know better next time…
Thanks Matt. What's your twitter name? I looked for you in our followers but couldn't figure out which one was you. Do we follow you?
Ah yes, that name I remember!
I am quite new to the Nazarene church so I am still quite ignorant about the articles. I appreciate the types of material you are producing, and I appreciate that Rob Bell might have something to bring to my attention that I have not thought about before. I've not read the new book, but I am currently reading Velvet Elvis and finding some real nuggets of good stuff in there. I think we need to engage our brains, keep our Bibles nearby to check the use of scripture, and hear (or read) what others have to say. I also think that the word "heretic" is getting thrown around too loosely. (Not here, but elsewhere on the internet) It's a very serious accusation, I think we need to step back and really think before we hurl it at someone, even someone we disagree with.
Some of us are accused of "attacking", but interesting that no one shows that what we are doing is scripturally wrong or forbidden.
Some examples from the Bible:
1.But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.” Acts 13:8-11
Was this an attack? A rebuke? Both? Was Paul wrong to do this publicly?
2.Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Gal 2:10-14
Was this an attack? A rebuke? Both? Was Paul wrong to do this?
3. In Matthew 23, Jesus calls the Pharisees: fools and blind, blind guides”, “hypocrites”, serpents, broods of vipers, whitewashed tombs, full of extortion and self-indulgence, “blind guides straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”. You get the picture, this whole chapter is a stinging rebuke (attack?) on the Pharisees. Was Jesus unloving here?
My point: truth sometimes requires saying some harsh things.
So, just to be clear on what I'm reading:
1) you think you are Paul, and the House Studio writers are sorcerer's;
2) you think you are Peter, and the House Studio writers are liars;
3) you think you are Jesus, and the House Studio writers are pharisees.
Got it…thanks for making the point…
Manny, I happen to agree with you that the truth sometimes requires saying harsh things. People who condemn this across the board are required to condemn Jesus along with you, and they imply they are holier than Jesus, Paul, and others.
However, not EVERY time is the right time to say harsh things, and the truth is harsh enough on its own without your abrasive presentation of it. Jesus' harsh rebuke means a little more because we also see his gentle side. We know he's not mean-spirited. (Also, Jesus was 100% theologically correct, but that's a different topic altogether.) Based on your internet presence, we don't see your gentle side–ever. If you balanced the harsh truth with a gentle and tactful presentation of it, I think people will be more willing to listen. Like it or not, most people go into a defensive mode and are unable to receive your words because you give the impression that you're only here to kick butt and take names. If you'd like a physical object lesson to prove how this works, ask your wife to hit you with a hammer during the worship service this Sunday and afterword see how much you got out of the sermon.
Prov. 27:6 says that wounds from a friend can be trusted. You must first be perceived as a friend in order to be trusted when inflicting wounds becomes necessary. You must be able to communicate that you genuinely care about your "opponents" as people–even in the midst of your theological disagreement.
OB,
Thank you for your thoughts. I don’t know how involved you have been in this “conversation”, but I have been for almost three years now. What you need to understand, from what I and others have experienced, is that I have tried many times to debate in the more gentle ways that you have done here. I am still a member of NazNet, yet I gave up commenting there, because no matter how nice or gentle I was, the end result was the same: demonization, vilification, accusations of intolerance.
Anything but clear and substantive argument from a biblical perspective. Their authority is their intellect; my authority is the word of God. They will say, well, that is the "lens" you view from, but my "lens" is different. I say, nonsense. The Bible is pretty clear in practically all areas, and there are far fewer issues that are up for debate than many seem to think so- including the existence of hell where those who reject Christ will be eternally separated from God.
I see that you are trying to engage with folks here in disagreement on some things, but at some point, if you dare to cross a certain line, you also might end up being vilified and called intolerant. I’ve gone past the point of gentleness with those who are pushing the emergent agenda. With individuals that are not in such leadership positions, I do converse with them in a different way, because that is a different situation. There are those who have been deceived, and there are those who deceive purposefully and are bringing harm to the body of Christ.
Let me ask you something Manny. What if, in your rebuke, you are wrong? What if the people you rebuke are in fact in the center of the Spirit’s leading in ways far different from how he works with you? What if their sphere of influence is to different people using different techniques? What if God has blessed those you attack with ways of evangelism that are foreign to you? Can you see that your rebuke then would look a lot more like cannibalism? Can’t you see how your rebuke differs from that of O.B., a voice that welcomes us to pursue Christ with greater earnestness?
Let me tell you where you have blessed me. At various times you have warned that pursuing good deeds (social justice) is not enough in itself. Christ alone is the way to salvation. Because that truth is the core of who we are at The House, I agree with that statement; I have examined our approaches to missions and outreach, knowing that doing good is not a priority over spreading the good news of Christ. I would love to hear where you’ve actually heard something we’ve said and considered it as a blessing to yourself. If you say there is nowhere, then you clearly are not paying attention or exhibiting a willingness to listen. When we publish "Unnoticed Neighbors" this fall, do you believe I have any confidence that you would give us the benefit of the doubt that we are discussing issues of social justice with full knowledge that it’s not the whole story of salvation but is still an important part of the Gospel? Not a bit. But that book will help many young people find ways to put action to their faith.
I don’t believe we’re ever going to agree on a lot of stuff Manny. I believe I’ll see you in heaven one day and we won’t care about all of this. Until then we’ll work as God wills it within the sphere of those he brings into our influence, and trust that you are doing the same for those in your sphere.
You want to rebuke us, fine. We’re rebuked. Anything else? Both of us can be more effective for the kingdom reaching the lost than arguing with each other.
Could you guys buy the "call center" some pizza every once in a while or make a Sonic run for us? C'mon, where's the love?