In my Pastoral Care and Counseling class we where discussing the topic of burial. The topic came up that Free-Mason's have certain rituals they perform in burial ceremonies that we cannot be apart of within the Church of the Nazarene because we do not support "oath bound societies" i.e secret societies that require oaths and certain rites of passage.
Next, the question was raised, "what is the difference between the Free-Mason's oath and the American who pledges an oath of allegiance to America?" Also, what is the difference between an oath that is taken to a secret society (Free-Mason's) and one that is publicly acknowledged (Patriotism/Nationalism)?
How should we understand Jesus' commands not to take oaths?
Mathew 5:33-37 (Sermon on the Mount)
"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Is there a significant difference between Public v.s. Private oaths?
Should Christians take an oath of Patriotism/Nationalism?
How do oaths on the Bible fit in the courts of Law?
How should we understand oaths to CIA, FBI, Police?
A covenant which is simular to an oath is different in that the covenant is a two sided agreement upon which both parties agree upon certain conditions which shape their relationship. i.e: marriage
A Creed is also somewhat simular to a oath but a Creed is a belief statement starting with "I Believe", where an oath is a pledge, swearing by or giving allegiance to something.
May the discussion begin.........
12 comments:
Well since I'm the person that brought up this whole mess in class, it seems fitting that I would be the first to respond. I, like anyone that has actually taken a minute to think about nazarendom, think we are entering a new understanding of what it means to be Nazarene. I dont want to call it emergent, because that has American concepts of post-modernism attached to it and fails to really understand what is going on in the global world of Nazarenes. What it should be called is irrelevant. What it is though is reinterpreting and rethinking that which makes us Nazarene. The oaths section of the Covenant of Christian Character part III is one of the many sections that just dont make any sense in our world anymore. Its not as if we arent trying to make sense of it, it's that meaning is literally not available to us in the same way it was in the 1950s. In a nazarene world that allows so many hypocritical things to slip through our manual, while still calling the manual the authority, were stuck clinging to other concepts and rules for moral meaning. Simply said: If manual is the rule, and we realize that its missing rules, how are we to make sense of its role in the nazarene church. Now any good christian will tell you that if you require a book to tell you what to do and what not to do, you probably arent understanding christianity in the first place. BUT nazarenes which set themselves apart from other denominations VIA the manual, are going to have a much more difficult time doing so, when immorality (such as demonic nationalism) are allowed into the church without a fight, let alone an argument. Does it bother anyone else that we don't allow moral ambiguity to exist when drinking alcohol as a beverage, but we will allow moral ambiguity when it comes to killing a person for one's country? Does it bother anybody that Donald Rumsfeld would be allowed to join the Nazarene church, but a European Nazarene pastor that has a beer a week cannot? This is the oaths debate! The "oaths" section in the manual is made ludicrous, irrelevant, or non-meaningful by the fact that we allow military members that make oaths of confidentiality into the church, but allow masons to do so. So if a girl scout makes an oath to not tell people how many calories are in her cookies, are we going to ban her from joining too? I think we should, but thats just because I heard the girl scouts are part of the Antichrist's troops that are preparing the way for Hilary Clinton to take office.
Andre,
I have often struggled with the same things. How much are we creating our own Levitical Law by having this huge manual? The Sermon I listened to on Sunday at Jacob's Well spoke to some of this topic. (You can find it at (http://jacobswellchurch.org/audio) The sermon was called "Living in the new covenant" Also Derek Webb has a great song called "New Law" where he talks about how we like to be told what to do. We like to have rules even if they are contrary to our beliefs because we know where our limits are.
I agree with you that it is somewhat ironic that we allow people to join the army and kill others and at the same time prophibit responsibly drinking alcohol. I think the overarching problem lies with our understanding of creation and love for neighbor. We have fallen into our modern societies dualisms of body/soul, private/public ect.. As a result we have neglected to create a holistic understanding of Christianity.
Why do we bathe nationalism and culture in Christianity and think it is sanctified? Its high time the church be the church and stand over and against the obvious things that any culture proclaims as truth, which is more often than not a nation trying to tell another metanarrative that is contrary to our Christian faith.
David,
This is Josh Kleinfeld, fellow Pastoral Care and Counseling classmate. Somehow I found your blog during class and figured since I'm in class with you and I found your blog...I might as well drop a note.
Some of the basic Weslyan distinctives we covered tonight in class would probably make a healthy contribution to this discussion.
The hard part about where we are as a Nazarene community is we have created a monster with the original hope of pursuing Christ as a community. I'm new to the whole seminary scene and haven't done a ton of reading of the manual, but I'd be interested to see how the growth of the manual relates to the years through which it came. What years added the most pages to the book? How do those years correlate to the growth of the religious right? How do those years correlate to the evangelical trend of isolation and insulation?
No matter what the answer to these questions, it is healthy to ask the what you're asking.
I'd be interested in hearing more about Andre saying, "I dont want to call it emergent, because that has American concepts of post-modernism attached to it and fails to really understand what is going on in the global world of Nazarenes."
it's a good blog you got here. i'll check back more often.
peace,
josh
Thanks Josh, good to see im not the only one dazzing off! Lol. I agree I was joking with Derek taylor about the fact that if we are truly "Wesleyan' whatever that means we probably could be denominational considering his view on the catholicity of the church and the "unity in essentials, diversity in the non-essentials". Of course the question is then who gets to choose what the essentials are? Maybe thats what we are trying to say in a sense. Maybe our manual has gone overboard in defining the essentials and has not left enough liberty for the non-essentials. I am not so sure that the word "Emergent" comes from an American view, much of what people defined as postmodern, then emergent and in some cases now missional also comes from places over seas like the UK and Australia. No matter what language we use it will be important to continue to clarigy along the way being that we all interprete those sort of words from different perspectives. By the way welcome to the "seminary scene". I work down in the bookstore, stop by any time. Thanks for checking the Blog!
Peace of Christ
David
Essentials and non-essentials. that is the question.
If we went with the essentials the manual would be a pocket book, akin to a moleskin.
i'm assuming your blog title is a reference to Rob Bell's sermon. have you seen the new www.marshill.org? it's pretty sweet.
Yeah I hear ya on that.
My Blog Title is actually the name of a worship song i wrote. Some else mentioned that same thing once. Where can i find that sermon at?
I think the significance of bring up the question of oaths lies with the deeper question of allegiance as it relates to secret societies and those secret keeping organizations. Under the broader heading of The Christian Life, the manual of the Church of the Nazarene states that these entertainments are to be avoided, i.e. “34.3, Membership in oath-bound secret orders or societies. The quasi-religious nature of such organizations dilutes the Christian’s commitment, and their secrecy contravenes the Christian’s open witness.”
My first question is why this falls under the heading of ENTERTAINMENTS to be avoided. But that’s for another time.
More importantly, the broad heading of The Christian Life governs the section and we must notice that it is explicitly Christological as it says that we are to put on the new self, to have the mind of Christ. We are always free as Nazarene’s to put what the Scripture says about oaths and secret societies before what the manual says. I don’t think anyone would deny this. I think the question then becomes ethical. What oaths of secrecy does one want to make? At this point the Church must discern whether such oath is permissible. How does secrecy lead to our good end in God through Christ? Or how does secrecy contribute to open witness. I think these become the significant questions to ask if we are Eucharistic folk living out our Baptisms, that is, if we are truly a people who “have all things in common” (Acts 2:44).
Thats funny, Entertainments to be avoided
"Hey Scott wanna go catch a movie and dinner friday night?"
"No thanks im gonna go hang out with my cult and dance"
Anyway,I think one of the crucial things here is the fact that we dont take oaths for the simple fact that we are truth tellers. Also, I think the idea of oaths subversivley proposes that there is some higher power besides God. If we are a people who has learned to proclaim "Jesus is Lord" we no longer have need for oaths because we have proclaimed the only one that has authority in our lives. Scott you bring up a great point about being a unified people under the Eucharist.
David I think you are missing the point. The message of the scripture is not oaths it is authenticity. The quote is telling us that if we are not truth speakers we are hypocrites. Christ spoke again and again about us being a people that trust and can be trusted. A Christian is confirmed by the match between his word and actions conformity to God's law.
Anonymous
I agree with you that the text is about truth telling and hypocracy. But i think that if we are to avoid being hypocrites we should not swear oaths or pledge alleginace to anything other than Christ our Lord.
I think that Christ would be outraged that we would swear an oath that we are uncapable of keeping in our own power. I prefer to think more of "a long obediance in a Godly direction" or "a continuous yes to Christ" versus an oath an oath to me is a public expression of our confidence versus a quiet humility from God's presence. Does Peters pledge of allegiance to Christ and His response in Gethsemane teach us anything? or at the last supper? Jesus' response was pretty much "you still don't get" so what was he wanted him to get? as all ways anonymously your Dad
Ok, I am confused now. So what you are saying is that you agree with me? You dont think that we should swear an oath? I think that Peter still didnt understand that Jesus had come to overcome the powers and authorities by dying on a cross. Peter was all charged up for a revolution, for a physical overthrow of the Roman empire by this Messiah the Christ. He still didnt get it. He didnt understand that the only way for Jesus to overcome the powers of domination and violence was to allow them to kill him and thus reveal them for what they were ie. not powerful enough to keep him in the grave. Jesus overcame the powers by showing them that even in death He was in control. So as followers of Christ i think our only oath can be "Jesus is Lord". In this we mean that we pledge allegiance to the Lord and God of all creation. We are called to suffer and take up our cross just as Christ did because in doing so we proclaim that Jesus is the Lord of creation and over death. So we should not take any other oaths because any other oath than "Jesus is Lord" is proclaiming a confidence in some other power. You might want to read it more in context but i think this scripture kind of speaks to what i am talking about.
1 Peter 14-18
14But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear[b]; do not be frightened."[c] 15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
Post a Comment