Jump to content

Talk:Church of the Nazarene/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Good but too much

Seglea, I think your addition about the origin of the name Nazarene is a good idea for this Church of the Nazarene article. But I am also of the opinion that the amount of detail you give about the sect is too much, some of which is irrelevant to the piece. Just my thoughts; I don't plan to change it. Rlvaughn 01:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

General: I cleaned up the article using mostly information from the Church's website; the original article felt very fractured, had sections that were written in an unencyclopaedic style, and wasn't consistently wikified. If I've eliminated anything important feel free to put it back, but as someone who is not involved with the church at all, I tried to clear up some of the confusion I found trying to read the history, especially. Cobaltnine 16:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed but no action yet

RIvaughan: On the whole I agree with you - I shifted this stuff over from Methodism, where it was hopelessly over-detailed and out of place, but it still seems over the top even here, where it connects more sensibly. Also I had to make it longer to get rid of a NPOV approach that whoever put in originally had taken. It seems to me what we really need is an article on the original Nazarenes, which all this could go in, and then just a reference to it from the Church of the Nazarene. But I don't know enough about them to write that - do you?

I've been admiring your work on all the subdivisions of the Baptists, by the way - are you going to do the same for the Methodists? I would do the bits of UK Methodism, but I am away from my usual base and don't have the reference books to hand.

seglea 06:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think you're right about needing an article on the original "Nazarenes". Those comments in more detail would be relevant there, and a short reference to the reason for the name of the "Church of the Nazarene" could be made here (and link to the "Nazarene" article). I don't know enough about them to undertake an article without restudying. Maybe at some later point I would have time. Thanks for the compliment on the Baptist subdivisions. I am a Baptist, and the sub-groups of the Baptists in the US is my area of interest. After finishing them, I branched out into some related groups - Brethren, Amish, & Church of God. Several pentecostal holiness bodies are "Baptist descendants". Many people may not realize that some of the "holiness" traits were common among the Separate Baptists (informal unprepared worship, shouting, testifying, impromptu sermons, etc.). It was teachings like entire sanctification, speaking in tongues, apostasy, etc. that caused the division. I've written one article on the Methodists (the Fundamental Methodist Conference) because my grandmother was born in that area and I actually have some relatives that are members. Beyond that, I don't have a lot of expertise on the Methodists, but I'll try and pitch in when I can. - Rlvaughn 22:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Church of the Nazarene is not derived from the original Nazarene sect from judaism, but rather is a reference to Matthew 2:23. "The Nazarene" is Jesus. Shedinator (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that should read "a POV approach" in my comment above (of course)!
I'll try and get together a stub on the original Nazarenes if I can find any well-referenced material on the web.
seglea 22:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ah well, I find we already had an entry on Nazarene. It was a tad POV, and sparse, but I have tidied things up somewhat, put in a link, and reduced the discussion of the name in the present article. seglea 00:21, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Good rewrite and improvement to the 'Church of the Nazarene' article. Rlvaughn 01:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Messianic Jews

The article currently says that there are groups of Messianic Jews within the Church of the Nazarene. Is this really true? Sounds implausible to me, and it could easily be an error. Can anyone confirm, and preferably document? seglea 06:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Chuch of the Nazarene has Beth Simchat Hamashiach as one of the Church's multicultural ministries: http://www.multiculturalministries.org/scmessianic.html

I've met Messianic Jews in the Church of the Nazarene in Maine. That's just anecdotal, but there it is. dchasteen 08:50, 21 Sep 2006 (EST)

"holiness people"

Does "holiness people" = "Christian believers"? --Menchi 16:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) There unfortunately is a "Messianic Jewish" congregation from the Church of the Nazarene in Arizona called Beth Simcha Hamashiach. The "Messianic Jewish" movement is merely an attempt by Christians (started by the Anglicans and the Presbyterians) in the 1800's to convert the Jews, and is dishonest in its treatment of the Jewish people.

Holiness people refers to an emphasis on Entire Sanctification (holiness)- article X of the CotN Articles of Faith. CotN core values are stated as "We are a... Christian people; holiness people; missional people (www.nazarenecorevalues.org) Shedinator (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Colleges and Universities

Several external links to Nazarene universities have been added. Personally, I think this is unnecessary as long as we still have the internal link to the category for universities and colleges affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene (it seems like we're duplicating the link unnecessarily). I'm going to take them out as long as there aren't any objections. If anyone else wants to add links to these universities, I would encourage you to check the specific articles for them and put the links there. Cswrye 03:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Education

In the 'Activities' section, I replaced the text 'Education (Childcare, Primary, Secondary, Higher Education)' with the original 'higher education'. The Church of the Nazarene does not run primary or secondary schools in the United States; those primary schools outside of the United States do not have websites to link to. The education section of their website has more info at [1]. Since this is a revert to an earlier phrasing, I thought I'd include an explanation here so nothing's misconstrued. biriwilg 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Ministerial positions and worship style

If there are any disagreements with my additions, feel free to make neutral changes, but leave me a note on this discussion page or My Talk Page --Mphamilton 06:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If running the aisles is what it sounds like, take it out of quotes, or otherwise define it for people unfamiliar, because it's kind of sticking out (this is such a little detail).

I did some more cleanup from an external POV using official websites and statements as a guide. Some of you who are Nazarenes who are editing this keep slipping into the first person, which should be avoided. In one example, there was no need to bold 'homosexuality' and 'sin' in the sentence from the Board, as it was not done that way on the Board's website; there are also a few 'we' statements that float in.

Someone who knows about the structure of the church's organization should lay it out - the page for the United Methodist Church is the one I was sort-of following. By this I mean 'the head church is Here, this is the structure of reporting upwards, who directs who,' etc. Cobaltnine 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I used quotations for running the aisles because that is the terminology used by Nazarenes. People actually run up and down the aisles of the church. It is not a common occurence anymore.--Mphamilton 08:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I was raised Pentecostal but my family's roots go back to the Nazarene Church. My mom told me that in the old days it was common for Nazarene Churches to shout and run the aisles. I suppose as things calmed down at the Nazarene Church we switched to Pentecostalism! Ltwin (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for clarifying. Cobaltnine 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that although the article says there are more Nazarenes outside the United States than in it, the Worship style section describes a very stereotypical American, middle-aged, middle-class, (white), sub-urban worship style. Is this mandated, or is it just U.S.-centric writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.93.106 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it can be explained by the fact the U.S. membership is the largest from a single nation and the Americans probably still exert the most influence on the denomination as a whole. However, it wouldn't surprise me if foreign services were more extroverted then what is commonly found in Nazarene churches today, but that's just a guess. It would be nice to have a less U.S. centric take on this in the article. Ltwin (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the description of a "typical worship service" is definitely US-centric and not reflective of the vast array of worship styles within the denomination both within the USA and especially in non-USA nations. There are Nazarene churches that are traditional Nazarene, contemporary, blended, and even liturgical. It would be good to find an article that describes the heterogeneity of worship styles in the denomination.smjwalsh (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that one person has added his or her local links in a "local" section at the bottom. While something like that could make a viable separate page if enough such links arose, it seems out of place on the overall CotN page, especially with only those three links. I will probably remove those links and the heading at some point if I don't hear a better idea from someone.--Grinik 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone create a map of the disrict boundaries and regions and such? Moonraker0022 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These already exist, as of 2005, in PDF format. I've been adding them as references in COTN and Naz college articles. Aepoutre 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved "Articles of Faith"

I moved the "Articles of Faith" to its own separate article. It was too large to be included in this general topic, summary article on the Church of the Nazarene. It is now placed at Church of the Nazarene-Articles of Faith. Mphamilton 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use the discussion page!

Mr. (or Mrs.) "71.79.37.118," I have yet to notice "vandalism." In any case, though, such supposedly major questions of content should be discussed here, not fought over with edits. I am certainly not a long-time Wiki contributor, but I have been able to look around on discussion pages and see how good articles come about. Please help the community by working with an attitude of cooperation.--Grinik 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong recommendation on local church websites

I strongly suggest that all links to local church websites and district websites be moved onto a separate page. My reasoning is that everyone will start adding their own local church's website one-by-one until the list reaches into the hundreds. Moving the links now would forego this possibility. Mphamilton 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my comment above, I pretty much agree with you, although it's more just because the local information doesn't seem to fit on this page. No one commented on what I said above, and a few new links have been added, so I hadn't yet done anything about it. I say go for it now, though.--Grinik 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will again reiterate my feeling that local church websites should be separately assigned to a list or some other page. They are not appropriate for the encyclopedic entry. An additional option would be to place a link to the <a href="http://www.nazarene.org/" Church of the Nazarene</a> mainpage where local church websites are organized by state, district, and name. Mphamilton 04:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a separate wiki article. Just like lists of Naz schools, or alumni from any university (unless someone suddenly decides to delete ALL of these lists based on the unencyclopedia argument), there could be lists of local churches. I've added lists of districts per reach region on college sites, since that's the biggest component to the existence of a region. If we had district articles then we might make wikilinks in the college pages and list random local churches in those district articles. As for the COTN webpage, it doesn't exactly have a link for regions and districts on the homepage, so I'd just stick with wikipedia articles. I can start those district articles when I have the time unless you'd rather do it yourself. Aepoutre 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"151 areas of the world"---what???

The article claims that Nazarenes are in "151 areas of the world"--just what does that mean? What is an "area"? and why should I be impressed??? 65.6.47.228 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They have divided the world into mission areas, and are in 151 of them. Frjohnwhiteford 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It is odd to reference "151 areas" in an encyclopedia without any further explanation of what they are. I could declare that there are 1000 "areas of the world" and that I serve 999 of them if I define my city as 999 separate entities and the rest of the world all lumped together. -Jcbarr 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first writer. To the average wikipedia reader unacqaunted with Nazarene missions phrases, this makes no sense. As it doesn't seem like this page has been active in a couple of months, I will take the liberty to change the phrase to something like "around the world".Ltwin (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The 156 "world areas" are mostly divided by country lines, but some of them are not for political/legal reasons. Adding up the number of countries represented in each region from http://www.nazareneglobalmission.org/regions.aspx gives a total of 141 countries. Using "world areas" also references the countries that the Church of the Nazarene does not officially claim to be in. 174.126.108.251 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would love to have all of these external links available, but many of them can be reached through other links, and not all is encyclopedic or relevant to this article. Even things like Barefoot Ministries seem more as if they're placed there "just because" or even, heaven forbid, for advertising purposes. If Barefoot is significant enough, it should have an article. Same thing for Nazarene Districts. As for local churches, you can run a search on the Nazarene website, and none is really notable enough to have a huge list of links to them on this site. It's becoming exactly what Wikipedia is not: a long list and respository for all information available. Please help me cull this list. Things to definitely keep: the Nazarene website and the Nazarene manual. Anything else? Aepoutre 19:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Human sexuality re-add

The following hidden text, added by Special:Contributions/204.126.2.5, was removed from the Church of the Nazarene article: "One current and moral issue should not be singled out under the section of beliefs. If one wanted a section on 'Human Sexuality and the Church of the Nazarene' a new article page would be grand." Special:Contributions/204.126.2.5, please note that "human sexuality" is not a current issue, so much as an issue that has existed throughout the history of human sexuality. Furthermore, it is addressed, as referenced, on the Nazarene website as well as in the manual, and the statement in this article is not lacking a citation. A new article page would hardly be notable enough to justify, but this view on human sexuality within the Church of the Nazarene is part of a values and beliefs system. As for your view on what Doctrine and beliefs "should be," you will need some evidenciary material to support this. Thank you for your contributions. I also recommend that you register as a user, so that other editors can respond on your talk page, rather than that of an IP address belonging to Southern Nazarene University. Take care! Aepoutre (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Manual, Human Sexuality falls under the chapters "current and moral issues". The 16 Articles of Faith, and the Current and Moral/Social Issues as based upon the manual is my basis for what the Doctrines and Beliefs are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.2.5 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If we follow that logic why isn't Clergy Sexual Abuse and Disater Relief up there? People can look up the actual stance on the webpage and in the online manual. Both links are provided. We don't need to go into detail on each belief since a reference and external link are given for each one. Just like each local Church and District shouldn't have there link on this page, nor should we expand in depth on Human Sexuality... Holiness and Entire Sanctifation yes, Human Sexuality, no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.2.5 (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered user, you have a point, but there is no reason not to include views on sexual abuse and disaster relief. And you're right, the manual should be a basis for Doctrines and Belief. If you prefer to cite the manual on the topic of interest, please do so rather than remove well-sourced information now available. Think of it this way: if you remove relevant and historical/current information, you are not improving Wikipedia as a source. There is no reason to remove information supported by the Doctrine and Beliefs of the Church of the Nazarene just because you don't deem it relevant enough. Thank you for using the talk page. I enjoy discussing this further and seeing others weigh-in. Aepoutre (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My two cents- I understand that the whole Human sexuality section is accurate, however I do feel it might portray an innacurate level or importance when it is the only "featured" portion of the official statements by the church. Do you all think it would be wise to add the other info from the official statements page of the nazarene website? Or does anyone have other suggestions? --Nwdguy (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think adding more information would be excellent. After all, it helps Wikipedia, and this article, to add relevant information :) Aepoutre (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why only human sexuality is pointed out. I don't feel a direct quote from the website is sucient. And why not quote the MANUAL over a website, even if it is ours. Putting a block quote on Human Sexuality in DOCTRINES and BELIEFS gives our moral stance on H.S. the same weight as our belief on Entire Sanctication. We did not come to Pilot Point to join together becuase we were all resisting homosexuals, it was because we wanted to be holy. We Nazarenes have offical opinions on each of the current and moral issues found in the manual. This section of wikipedia should be limited to expanding on the 16 articles of Faith. There is a link to the Manual, and that quote from the website. That should enough for anyone wanting to search deeper for our offical quote on the issue. I do not want Doctrines and Beliefs to include expanded sections/quotes for the current and moarl issues either. A link provided for each of those, will be enough. (I agree with the above clergy sexual abuse and disater relief are listed on that site and yet are not on the page.) Whether the stance is relevant or not does not give it rights to be in block quotes in the section. It is listed with the rest of the issues and links are provided. Wikipedia shouldn't just be a re-quote of websites. I vote for the removal of the block quote on the issue of Human Sexuality immediately, on gorund s that the its listing and two links (to the MANUAL, and Nazarene.org) are enough for further study. I vote that no current and moral be in block quotes in Doctrine and Beliefs. I vote we limit expansion of issues beyond the 16 Articles of Faith, meaning, we only expand on the 16 Articles of Faith, and give block quotes to the 16 Articles of Faith. Thank you Godbless, good night and good luck. yours, Moonraker0022 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Moonraker0022, I am not sure why you are fighting so hard against having the Nazarene Church's view on Human Sexuality posted under Doctrines and Beliefs. This is a very important stance that the Church of the Nazarene has taken in this day and age. If we use your logic about what information should or should not be included, then there is a lot of information that we can start deleting, but I don't believe this is the answer. Wikipedia is designed to let individual users post information that they believe is important to the topic and other users are not to delete the information unless inaccurate information is posted. So please stop vandalizing the Church of the Nazarene Article.

While it is a pressing current concern for the C(with a BIG C)hurch, as well as the Church of the Nazarene. I re-affirm my view that sections should be focused on what makes us uniquely Nazarene. Which is our call for heart purification, aka Entire Sanctification, aka the 2nd work of grace aka holiness. As well as our outreach to the poor and marginalized in our society, and that should be the lion's share of the section. We have statements, and links provided for our Manual and website that expand on each statement. And again the emphasis is placed that no one "current and moral" issue be highlighted over another, without them all, and in turn certainly not over the big 16. I'm am no vandal. It is clear by my wikirecord that my edits of grammar and phrasing are only to improve the Church of the Nazarene page. Good night, and Good LuckMoonraker0022 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll contribute to the discussion here now, as well, because of the content dispute that Moonraker0022 and I currently have re: this recent removal of cited information. The edit summary for its recent removal made little grammatical sense, so I might need to hear a better explanation here, and I'd like for the issue of one thing being "singled out" to be clarified, as well. Unless there is a specific reason based on Wikipedia guidelines as to why this information should not be included then I see no reason to exclude it! If the argument really is that it's somehow unfair to leave this bit of information without adding others, than the editors who feel it's been given undue weight should likely focus on expanding the article, not deleting verifiable information that comes from the highest office in the Church of the Nazarene. I'd also like to point out that the edit summary for the edit in question referred to establishing a "brief summary statement" in place of the information but did not leave a summary statement. (That is to say, the sentence "The Church of the Nazarene further reemphasizes the call to Nazarenes around the globe to recommit themselves to a life of holiness, characterized by holy love and expressed through a consistent lifestyle." says nothing about sexuality and cannot possibly be a summary about the church's views on sexuality.) If editors think this information, which is notable and meets WP:V is given undue weight, then the burden is upon those editors to give it due weight, not delete information. --King of the Arverni (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're missing point. It doesn't matter if it is V or has a RS or comes from a GS. The section shouldn't single out any single stance. But if you really want that stance in it should have ALL of them. Why is homosexuality singled out and quoted more than our stance on drinking, dancing, gambling or entire sanctification, again, it should focus on the things that make Nazarenes, well Nazarenes. Again one issue, no matter what it is, should not dominate the section. Saying that the Church has a stance on Human Sexuality, and Marriage is enough for the section. I do not want to have another edit war on this, so Mr. King, please wait and get a third opinion before you re edit that agian. Moonraker0022 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Again, you're missing the point?" First, what is this "again" stuff, and second, isn't "you're missing the point" a bit rude? If you don't want to edit war then don't edit war -- just explain your position here and trust that other well-intentioned editors will understand, if your argument is sound. That's what we're doing here, I hope, so don't worry about edit wars unless you have a reason to worry about edit wars.
Anyway, it does matter if it's NPOV, isn't OR, and meets V, because those are Wikipedia's core content policies! And while I can't access http://www.nazarene.org to find more "statements" right now, I've since noticed that the human sexuality issue isn't singled out -- there's a paragraph on substance abuse and a paragraph on HIV/AIDS, making the "singled out" argument rather baseless. Removing the information did not produce anything mentioning human sexuality or marriage as far as I could tell, and even if it did then the suggested "summary" would be useless information (how would the UNI community react if an editor changed university articles from "Southern Nazarene has an NAIA Division-I basketball program[2]" to "Southern Nazarene has a sports program", from "Olivet Nazarene accepted just over 70% of its applicants in 2007[3]" to "Olivet Nazarene has admissions policies", and from "75% of all degrees awarded by Mount Vernon Nazarene are bachelor's degrees[4]" to "Mount Vernon Nazarene awards baccalaureate degrees"? Those changes aren't helpful and wouldn't fly at all!).
To recap, my argument is that 1) the information violates no Wikipedia guidelines, 2) it actually meets several of them, 3) Moonraker, you were removing cited information and the reference accompanying it, 4) it's not undue weight or "singled out" in any way because there are two other "Historical and contemporary issues" addressed there, and 5) the proposed-but-as-yet-unused "summary" isn't adequately informative for an encyclopedia. Now, if someone can find a real reason for why the information in question shouldn't be included then we can have a good old-fashioned discussion about it, but so far the argument for deleting it just doesn't hold beyond one individual's POV. --King of the Arverni (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not the place for extended paragraphs on each issue

The historical and contemporary issues section is not the place for an elaborate paragraphs on each issue (which were sourced by an outdated version of the Manual anyway). On what grounds do these two (2) issues become more important that all the others, and are singled out and highlighted above all the other issues facing the Church? Why are these two (2) more important that abuse of the unempowered, women in ministry, discrimination, or Creation-Care (the Nazarene way of being Green?). It is so subjective, and not encyclopedic at all to single out (now 2) issues, when merely listing them off and providing a link to which readers have full access to, to read the primary document themselves, and draw their own conclusions. No matter how many sources you throw at it, it is still a personal subjective bias as to why they are included. We are supposed to be taking out subjectivity and bias in our articles. It was removed the first time after the back in 2008, so why is this being hashed out again? And these issues are in the very back of the Manual and have less importance than loving your neighbor, finding community, who we believe God is, and the 16 big ones which start our Manual off...(Articles of Faith). Also, human sexuality is not a Current and Moral Social Issue in the manual anyway... so it was removed on that 2nd grounds Manual p 367 pt 903 Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link -- good call that HS (which I would normally take to mean high school, haha) isn't under "current issues" so my bad on the specifics of that one -- but in the general sense it might be considered a current moral and social issue. As you suggest, there should probably be other issues mentioned but the two that have been listed constitute some of the more notable and unique (is organ donation really worth mentioning?) -- and the AOF should be ported to WikiSource -- but if I frame it more in questions of "what makes the article better" like I know you want to, I really think it's worth noting that the Nazarenes have a wide range of stances on current issues -- don't you? I also think it's more biased to censor issues and remove them from articles because you haven't been willing to give them due weight, than it's biased to argue for the inclusion of more information on notable topics. The issue of censorship seems to loom even larger in light of the fact that you didn't just remove the one disputed paragraph but both (in spite of supporting arguments referring to talk and to sources, and language that would've supported one if not the other), and kept a third with which you've historically had no beef. The article could certainly be expanded, and I think those issues would be of interest to readers. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
And what's this reference to "outdated"? You haven't provided a link to anything more recent, so how do you support that assertion? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Without getting into the relative merits of the alternative positions being propounded here, I believe there is some validity in highlighting some issues rather than do an expository comment on each of them. Within Christian circles there are certain "hot" topics. These change from time to time, so it would be IMHO appropriate to differentiate the Nazarene position on these topics. In other words, what makes this denomination different. At the most recent General Assembly in early July 2009 there was quite a discussion on the Creation issue. The Sexuality issue has been little discussed within COTN in recent years. Further, while the Articles of Faith, and the Covenants of Christian Character and Christian Conduct are primary, the material in the Appendix represent a "collective Christian consensus" for Nazarenes as determined by delegates at the General Assembly. It seems to me that a separate article could be created on the Ethical position of the Church of the Nazarene which would allow an extended description, however some description in the main COTN article would also be helpful for those wanting an overview. Links to the Primary sources (current Manual) or statements from authorised persons (eg Board of General Superintendents) are minimum starting points, but mere linking may be insufficient. It bothers me to see deletion of large amounts of material that has been in the article long time by one editor, as this usually evidences vandalism. I know this has been a contentious issue for sometime, but surely there must be a better alternative than the delete/revert cycle?(smjwalsh (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)).
It is fairly standard practice to have an article on the Belief and practices of the Church of the Nazarene, Church of the Nazarene theology, or some similar title, and I don't know that I see one for this church yet. Such material would be a good fit for an article of that type, or maybe something titled something like Criticism of the Church of the Nazarene, which is another fairly standard type of article for most churches. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
John, there is a Doctrine and beliefs section. [5](smjwalsh (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
SMJ, John was referring to an article, not a section. I'm sure that's why he redlinked articles in his comment. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That is what he meant, in fact. Separate articles can go into much more detail than the main article, although they generally are linked to from the main article. When there is substantial content regarding one subject which doesn't fit into the main article due to WP:UNDUE concerns, it's generally best to split it off into a separate article, like is generally done with most religious groups which have substantial material about them. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. I think in light of current discussion, as I suggested earlier, there is definitely a need for a separate article on the Ethical position of the Church of the Nazzarene. A Beliefs article would be good but not as essential, as current summary and links to the Holiness Movement and Wesley essentially cover the salient features. Further, regarding selectivity of issues elaborated upon. An article on the LDS Church would, I expect, discuss its unique teachings and practices eg baptism for the dead, and polygamy (if even to correct misconceptions). To focus on some and essentially ignore the other less controversial or those beliefs that are shared with other groups might be mentioned but not focused upon. Consequently, for the COTN, contemporary internal issues eg Creation and view of the Bible are especially relevant, whereas some discussion of HUman Sexuality as a surprising contrast to other evangelical groups might be helpful. While COTN is evangelical, there are importantt differences in theology and ethics than predominant evangelical mainstream.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Influential persons

I suppose I need to explain my revisions.
1. Founders & architects would be those who those who established the denomination or one of its primary antecedents in the first generation. From the western branch, that would be Bresee and Widney. If Ruth is to be included, then he would be from the western branch, even though his origin and ministry was in the mid-west. From the eastern branch, this would be Reynolds and Hillery, although one could add others eg Short, Brown. Angell is not one of the founders. For the southern branch, that would be Cagle & Chapman, although one could add McClurkan, Ellyson, and others. The arrangement was not arbitrary, I grouped them geographically.
2. I don't see Wiley or Wynkoop as either founders or architects. They are theologians. Wiley being pre-eminent. No other theologian had the same effect within the denomination. His Christian Theology was the only acknowledged denominational standard. The other significant theologians are certainly Grider & Dunning as regards the doctrine of holiness. An argument could be made for Richard S Taylor and Rob Staples. Of course, these are systematic theologians. One might include biblical theologians.
3. Church historians would definitely include Smith. Stan Ingersol is certainly notable enough, but no more so than Cunningham (who is the primary authior of the Centennial history, and a significant book on Nazarene Mission History in Asia). Raser is included due to his contributions to the Centennial history. I suppose Paul Bassett ought to be included, and Purkiser could be included for his Called Unto Holiness Vol. 2.
4. The academics included are not nearly as well-known even within Nazarene circles. Yerxa and Giberson are more notable than the others. Those included are certainly less notable than the historians I indicate.
5. As for Biblical scholars, Grider is a theologian not a biblical studies person. Winchester is pre-eminent in the formative years, and Erle, and Greathouse in the post WW2 generation. Contemporary ought to include Alex Deasley, George Lyons, Kent Brower, Dean Flemming, who have published significant books or aryicles.
6. I agree with including Lodahl and Oord, but they have yet to produce a body of work comparable to Grider, Dunning, Wynkoop. They represent the relational end of the spectrum, but there may need to be others.[1] 7. Lillenas is especially prominent outside Nazarene circles.[2] I see no merit in removing red linked individuals per se. When I see a red linked person, it often prompts me to create an article.
I suppose the bigger question is "Is influential the same as notable?" Could a person be influential in the Church of the Nazarene and yet not be notable according to WP? For example, the primary architects of internationalisation would be Reynolds initially, but Franklin Cook and Jerald Johnson from the late 1960s onwards. I see RT Williams as influential eg creation of the General Board in 1923.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

User:Inquietudeofcharacter, I noticed that you have now three times removed Dobson from this article. On 28 July you indicated he was noninfluential notable. Today you indicated: uncited, list, single entry, no obvious relevance and also rm w/nonRS. I confess I don't understand that. Personally, I'm not a fan of Dobson, however there is little doubt that he is notable (as you concede on 28 July) but surely he is also influential, not only within the COTN but in broader evangelical world. I tried to begin a section of famous/notable Nazarenes (with citing 2 time around), but was (IMHO) prematurely deleted. In an encyclopaedic article, surely listing notable Nazarenes would be helpful.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
Sorry, I didn't see that earlier comment, SMJ. I'd love to chat about some of this, since little, if any of this is cited per WP:V and it's very hard to tell who is and isn't notable/influential without that NPOV-standard. As for redlinks, yes you can create an article when you see a redlink, but the burden rests on the adding editor to establish a reason for the inclusion of information (using sources, per policy) -- and it's generally understood that notability hasn't been established yet for redlinked articles. As for Dobson, if you want to say that he's influential you'll also need to establish that. I don't consider him to have been influential for the Nazarenes at all -- that's my POV, which disagrees with our POV, so to make it NPOV then you'd need a source per V. I disagree that a random list of notable Nazarenes is necessary, but could be informational if it's properly written and sourced. I apologise for a confusing edit summary earlier; I meant to say that there shouldn't be such a list in the article, especially a list of one, and the relevance was an issue with the as-yet-unestablished question of influence etc. The RS issue stems from the fact that the source provided is not a reliable source. Let me know if you need more explanation for me, as I'm writing this in a rush and realise that I still may not be clear. Talk to you soon! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can determine this whole section of influential persons has been in the article for some time, and quite referenceless. My only edits were to add some I believed more influential. I'm quite willing to establish notability for some. Other inclusions seem to reflect the opinion of the earlier editors. I've been writing articles on WP for almost 3 years, and (if anything) overdo references, research, and further reading sections. There are a few weak referenceless sections in the article that need to be improved, and other sections I have helped improve previously. In my journeying thru WP I see many redlinks, especially in lists. To me they are indicators of future research. I am of the opinion, that there ought to be a section of key Nazarenes - ones that are leading representatives, and perhaps another of notable Nazarenes that would be more recognisable outside of the denomination. Anyway, I appreciate your comments. If we can avoid creating an elimination/reversion cycle, I would appreciate that. Some of the changes will require time. Steve (smjwalsh (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)).
Yes, we clearly differ most on the inclusionist/exclusionist issues when it comes to redlinks, but now that it's come up I'm loathe to have a section on notables without any sources. Do you have any prepared? If not, perhaps the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene, with its collection of holiness literature, would prove useful if we look at authors (since the works themselves will often pay homage to one while omitting others because of a clear POV and lack of RS). That wouldn't help much in the way of academics, I suppose, but it would help with historians and theologians, wouldn't it? I've been trying to be more pointed about any deletions I've made, so I hope I hope this doesn't seem as though it's just about reverting edits out of spite or something! I'd welcome any sources you may have already -- in fact, it might be nice to utilize some of those "further reading" texts you've so graciously added as citations for content instead of a lengthy list of books at the end of the article. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The section as included is labelled "Influential" not Notable, so assumption that redlinks are not notable is moot. Therefore, the bigger challenge would be to establish that a person is influential within the denomination. I can think of some sources in denominational histories that indicate certain ones listed are influential in some way or another. My personal position would be that there probably needs to be a separate History of the Church of the Nazarene article that identifies turning points and those responsible for them, and that rather a list of "influential Persons" that their influence is demonstrated in the context of the narrative. Additionally, this section is probably mis-located in the History section. Probably it should be near the end of the article. (smjwalsh (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
Wesley Center is a good suggestion, but dated because of copyright considerations. Frequency of publications by author would not necessarily establish one's influential-ness. One could write 500 WP articles and be neither influential nor notable.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
A comment about my methods. I see all WP articles as works in progress. Eg the Further reading in my methodology tends to be preparatory to using those works as sources of references. Until the inline references are created, these are parked here. Also, in other articles I usually end up creating rather large articles and then mercilessly edit at the end (or someone else usually prunes for me). (smjwalsh (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
Regarding Dobson: perhaps he could be included in the lede section. eg Notable/Famous Nazarenes include...

Further, Time Magazine (7 February 2005, http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/7.html) includes Dobson on their list of 25 Most Influential Evangelicals. As Dobson is a Nazarene, that would make him not only notable but influential (at least according to Time).(smjwalsh (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Re: Wesley Centre, I wasn't referring to frequency but to the fact that the influence of some individuals might be implied by their having works included in that collection. No need to comment on your methods; that's fine we just differ in our approach -- the only thing that I'll always be a stickler about (and you seem to agree) is WP:V because it's a core content guideline and essential to establish WP:NPOV. Re: Dobson, I should clarify that I'm not concerned about notability but about influence and verifiability -- first, I'm not sure if he needs to be in the Church article unless he's actually meaningful to the denomination other than being independently notable, and second, there are no sources in Wikipedia to verify that Dobson even is a Nazarene -- only that he went to Pasadena and had Nazarene parents. Regardless, the lead is definitely not the place for it, since that puts Dobson in an inappropriate place of prominence and makes the lead less of a summary than a place to deposit unique content. I'll take him out of the lead, and you're welcome to start a notable persons section if you can find other notables and you can find a source that says he's Nazarene, not that he attended a Nazarene school or had Nazarene parents. TTYL. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

James Dobson

According to both Time (7 February 2005) (see above) who ranks him in the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals, and The New York Times, who calls Dobson "the nation's most influential evangelical leader", see Ted Olsen, "Who's Driving This Thing? Everyone is asking who leads the evangelical movement", Christianity Today 49 (February (Web-only) 2005), http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/februaryweb-only/12.0c.html, Dobson is influential. His influence is not just on US politics, but on many evangelical Christians, including Nazarenes, who vote over 90% Republican. US Nazarene clergy are 87% Republican, see Linda Beail and Greg Crow,

"Wesleyan or Fundamentalist? Political and Theological Stances of Nazarene Pastors". Paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Association of Nazarene Sociologists and Researchers, Kansas City, MO, March 12, 2004, http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/beail_crow_041.pdf Further, "The extreme popularity of Focus on the Family can perhaps be partly explained by its leadership. Dr. James Dobson, its head, grew up in the Nazarene church, graduated from a Nazarene College, and maintains close ties to the denomination. He is obviously a trusted and admired “favorite son,” and the issues this group champions are the ones that, as we saw in Table 5, resonate strongly with these ministers." (4) "They are almost universally Republican in their partisanship (87.8%), and they locate themselves within the staunchest segment of party loyalists: an astonishing 51.7% of Nazarene ministers chose the furthest end of the seven-point party-id scale, “Strong Republican,” as the category best describing them. Only 6% of Nazarene ministers identified as Democrats, which is somewhat surprising given the blue-collar, low socio-economic status of the denomination. However, these evangelicals may be among the “Reagan Democrats” who have realigned over the past thirty years over moral, racial, and other issues. In the year 2000, they were solidly in the Republican camp."(3) 90% Nazarenes agree with the views of Dobson, see ASSOCIATION OF NAZARENE SOCIOLOGISTS & RESEARCHERS, "Social Values and Attitudes in the Church of the Nazarene" (Winter 2008), http://nazareneblogs.org/thinkonthesethings/2009/01/24/what-do-these-polls-tell-us-about-who-we-are/

In August 2002, a 1 August article in the Baptist Press indicates: "Dobson, a member of a Church of the Nazarene congregation in Colo. Springs", see http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4716.htm. (smjwalsh (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) In 2000 it seems that he may have been a member at the Nazarene Church Eastborough 4123 E Pikes Peak Ave COLORADO - SPRINGS, see http://www.peacemakers.net/peace/gam.htm (although source is not strong).
I'm not sure how relevant this comment will be, since your most recent addition caused an edit conflict, but here goes:
Sorry, I should've been more clear about the "influential" bit. The "influential figures" section seems to me as though it's for those who have influenced the church, not members who are influential on their own (although I thought I'd already mentioned that distinction, too) -- and the political argument is just OR, so that can't be used. The first source is a good one, but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the section we're discussing. The third source isn't a RS, so that's out, too. The second is reliable and relevant, though I'm not sure why you've quoted lots of extraneous data, since it's still just a lot of impertinent information and OR. "Grew up in the Nazarene church, graduated from a Nazarene college, and maintains close ties to the denomination" is quite a curious way to put it, as well. It says "close ties" -- does that mean he's a member? If so, why wouldn't they just say that he his? We can't assume that he is based on "close ties" -- that could mean he has friends, he attends once a month, he donates money, who knows? The Eastborough stuff at least brings us closer to finding out, even if it's still not a great source.... hmmmm. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. As I indicated earlier, I did not create section. I would prefer to list Notable Nazarenes rather than Influential. However, I decided to respect earlier editors. As you recall, I began a separate Notable section, but had not got around to fleshing it out before it was deleted. I then tried to work on the basis that 1. Dobson is influential eg Time, New York Times (quoted in 3rd source). 2. Dobson influences many in Ch/Naz, hence survey indicating 90% Nazs agree with his views. 3. QED Dobson is an influential Nazarene. PS sorry for seemingly extraneous material. I was in a hurry and did not have time to edit. At the end of the day, I will try to list Dobson as a Notable Nazarene. As I stated earlier, I am not a Dobson fan, but NPOV demands he be included somewhere. His political views almost invariably provoke inaccurate comments re COTN eg that it is fundamentalist. I have started re-writing History section and integrating key founders (as per Manual Historical Statement) and will flesh out (at least to stub level initially) those so identified). That will result in the elimination of the previous of the entire Influential section, which was my initial instinct.
I have little doubt that Dobson's membership can be established. The goal will be to establish its currency. Dobson has little (if any) active role in any official capacity in the church, although is consulted by the BGS. He is definitely regarded as a favourite son by many (although an embarrassment to a minority).
That's fine, I did re-check the previous location of the "influential figures" and I'm sure now that it started out as historically influential people, as in, influential on the history of the denomination, but I didn't think that you created the section (I don't know who did) and I don't recall having said that I thought you did in any case, so that's a non-issue. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I had only indicated that I was not the author of that section to indicate I was not personally invested in it. I don't think your comments were at all negative. So it's a non-issue for me also. (smjwalsh (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
What is an issue is our apparent need to expand this article and split off some others.--inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I would be surprised if the article did not expand AND generate sub-articles. I see these kind of articles as portals to more detailed information. The casual enquirer would be satisfied with the summary material presented in this article, whereas more serious enquirer is likely to want more detailed information regarding history, beliefs, ethics, etc. I checked the LDS article and see that is done there. Also, there seems to be a desire to keep articles below 32kb. Personally, I am comfortablle about lengthy articles.(smjwalsh (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
I think you're doing a fine job with the expansion bit, and I'll just wait until the dust settles before I jump back in again! I do like that you've pared down the influentials section and moved some names to more relevant sections. As for the Dobson bit, your political references are still OR and can't be included in the encyclopedia factored in as evidence for either being Nazarene or influencing Nazarenes, but I do think it would be good if we can find a more current source on his church membership so that we can use clear language ("close ties" doesn't say much, and we can't assume that he is Nazarene based on his parents or his college, but we might have to leave it at that if we can't find anything else). Speaking of notables, perhaps Edwin Edwards would be one, too, if we can find sources for that, as well. Talk to you again later. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and positive feedback. I have no need (or intention) to include the political references, as Dobson's notability is established already in WP. Eliminating the Influential Nazarene section eliminates the need to demonstrate his influence within the church. If focus WAS on those who influenced the course of COTN, I would struggle to include Dobson (as well as several others previously listed). Edwards is certainly notable (although I had never heard of him), but connection is ancient.(smjwalsh (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
I've seen adherents.com used as a source several times here, and their page on Dobson has him described as a member of the Church of the Nazarene. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Here as in on Wikipedia or in this article? It doesn't look like RS to me. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
About 8000 times in wikipedia as per here. I've seen it in the text of categories a lot, although I honestly don't know why. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
But regardless of wide usage, does it meet WP:RS/WP:V? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I just tagged the Adherents.com article as not using any RS itself. It doesn't seem reliable to me and, despite claims of having garnered information from official sources, Dobson's bio there provides no sources whatsoever. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I also have serious doubts of the veracity of some of the contents on the adherents.com page. Where adherents.com uses official sources eg yearbooks etc, I have used it (see paragraph on stats and national percentages, but re-calculated percentages based on updated populations and church membership statistics). On the adherents.com page, Debbie Reynolds is NOT the grand-daughter of GS Hiram F Reynolds. I recall reading in her autiobiography that she had some Nazarene connections as a child and attended in recent years. Likewise with Tom Hanks, who had attended the Church of the Nazarene (among various other denominations). Those omitted include Wyclef Jean, whose father was a Nazarene minister; John Mellencamp, who was raised in the COTN in Indiana, but rebelled; Gary Hart was a Nazarene. There is doubt about Bill Gaither - whether Nazarene or Church of God (Anderson). There is a plethora of elected officials included on adherents (and many more I could add from other nations) eg Chuck Templeton. Jim Jones also attended COTN (among others) as did RFK's assassin Sirhan Sirhan, see WP article on Haldor Lillenas, but only for a few months. William Bantom, A disgraced Mayor of Cape Town was a Nazarene minister at the time of his demise.(smjwalsh (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Length of Introduction

I have just pruned the introduction as suggested, and re-allocate detailed information to the body of the article.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

I intend to remove the Lengthy Introduction box unless there are specific objections.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Length of Article

While the length of the article conforms to WP:SIZE standards, being just over 11,000 words of readable prose, the nature of the subject almost dictates substantial treatment. Articles on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and United Methodist Church are both about 80,000kb, but comparable to this one in readable prose length. However, as anticipated, the creation of sub-articles is advisable. I have created a separate History of the Church of the Nazarene article by duplicating all content on the main article. I will work on reducing content on main article in the History section, while improving content on History article. As you can imagine this will take time. I would appreciate time to do this, but it would be in order for other editors to reduce the History section as they see fit. I see the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a good paradigm of what the COTN article could be.(smjwalsh (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

SMJWalsh, I don't agree with everything, stylistically speaking, but I think you're doing a great job. The summarise-and-split is exactly what this article needs (as has already been mentioned in other conversations -- JohnCarter really offers excellent counsel in these matters). I'd like to point out one problem with your last comment though: this article really shouldn't be based on another, for three reasons. 1) "other stuff exists", as it's called, is generally an argument to avoid, since articles should follow guidelines and be judged on their own merit rather than inherit notability or quality standards from other articles. 2) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is different enough from the Church of the Nazarene that I'd caution against trying to make them too similar, even in structure, a feature that is often influenced by content. 3) The article of which you speak has not been through any sort of peer review (from what I can tell on the talk page) since it was de-listed as a GA -- since it's sketchy enough to use current FAs as example articles, one really shouldn't use failed or de-listed articles. My advice, therefore: don't look for paradigms to copy in other articles, just make sure this is a good article based on real guidelines (like the MOS). I also noticed some mirroring between the Manual and the article, which is probably something I'll change when the dust settles and I feel comfortable contributing again. Speaking if which, you should probably add an "underconstruction" tag while you're updating the article so heavily, and remove it when you're finished, so that others of us know when we can tidy up a bit without getting in the way (which we surely would at this point). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. I'm not sure what your stylistic concerns are, so perhaps you can give some suggestions. I'm not basing this article on others per se. Primarily I have contributed to biography articles, and have a good understanding of what constitutes a good biography. However, when working on a denomination, I was looking at what the consensus of WP editors found acceptable in articles that are about denominations, hence the UMC and LDS references. While COTN is very different from the LDS in theology and practices, there seems to be a broad consensus of what ought to be in a denominational article eg History, Beliefs and Practices, Criticisms, Worship and Liturgy, Organisation and Structure, Clergy/Ministers, Ecumenical Relations (Memberships & Affiliations), Statistics, Prominent Members. I also loked at the WP article Southern Baptist Convention, not to determine what is missing, but rather what is acceptable or usual. I agree that content ultimately determines structure, and that will be the case with the History of COTN article, which will then be reflected back to the main COTN article. I too saw the influence of the Manual in its structuring when I first encountered this article, and this is understandable given the Historical Summary does a very good job of simplifying a complex subject. I had not read the Talk pages of either article, and believe the LDS article would conform to GA currently. I'm not sure how to add an Under Construction tag. I'm not very fluent with WP abbreviations. This seems to be more the realm of those who specialise in critiquing articles rather than those who are creators. Not a criticism, just an observation. I learn from comments and critiques of others. On reflection, I think editors should feel free to edit the article as they see fit, while avoiding wholesale block deletions.(smjwalsh (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

redirect from Nazarene?

Shouldn't Nazarene redirect to this article? It seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ...see Talk:Nazarene#Requested move for discussion. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not. I don't think that "a member of the Church of the Nazarene" is the primary use of the word "Nazarene". If it aint broke don't fix it. Ltwin (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Concerned Nazarenes"?

Is a small group within a church that has expressed concerns really worth inclusion in the general church article? It states that 500 members of the church presented a petition to the general superintendents- nazarene.org has a statistical sheet (found at http://www.nazarene.org/files/docs/StatisticsAnnual.pdf) that lists total membership at over 1.8 million. 500 is well under any statistical value that could be considered representative. For a general article, I don't see the value in listing the views of a group that apparently represents <1% of the church. Shedinator (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For the Concerned Nazarenes to have inserted themselves into Nazarene History is arrogant. Their group is less than 2 years old and offers the support of NO visible church leader. They have no endorsements from any denominational officials. They are clearly a rogue group with very little backing. This entire section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plungebob (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any clear evidence that the Concerned Nazarene group "inserted themselves" into this article. It's just as possible that an impartial observer or even an opponent felt that the movement was significant enough to include. Either way, if the movement were statistically significant, it would not matter who put the section in the article. The lack of "visible church leaders" endorsing them would also not be an issue if the movement were of large enough significance. However, if you were to include every minor issue that ~500 members of a 1.8 million member group agreed on, this article would explode in size. 12.193.114.26 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As the one who created the Concerned Nazarenes subsection, let me indicate that I am certainly not a supporter of their position. I tried to write this section as NPOV as possible. The size of the group is IMHO not important. The Nazi Party in 1923 was small in numbers but increasingly significant in influence. Likewise the disciples of Jesus, Lenin's cadre etc. The group is large enough to prompt discussion within Nazarene discussion groups, and can be seen influencing some proposed legislation at the 2009 General Assembly. It may be that with the passing of time they will fade into obscurity as did a group of Charismatic Nazarenes in the 1970s, but they certainly are one of the biggest points of divergence in recent times. Further, while 500 signed a petition, most elected officials will indicate that those who sign are often just "the tip of the ice berg". (smjwalsh (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the clarification on your reasoning. The section does appear NPOV, and if it were to remain I would not call for an edit of any sort. I am a CotN pastor, and have enough contact with the rest of the church to know that there are probably more than 500 CNs. However, I think their general defeat at the 2009 General Assembly has quashed much of their momentum, and in general their claims and motives only appeal to individuals who do not have a solid grip on CotN theology. I do anticipate them going the direction of the Charismatics in the 1970s, and in the meantime they deserve at most a sentence or two in the "contemporary issues" rather than their own section, don't you think?

12.193.114.26 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Separations

This is not the article for information on each and every separation from the Church of the Nazarene. Those separate denominations should have their own articles, and there is a place in the infobox to link them. One section to summarise each split should suffice. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. I will shift this section to the History of the Church of the Nazarene WP article, which is a better fit. When I get time, the History section on the main COTN article will be pruned. At some point each of the splinter groups should have their own WP article.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)).

Unique Characteristics of Nazarene Worship

I was disappointed to observe that the few sentences I added on Tuesday to the section on worship have been deleted. I wonder who presumed to know more about the Church of the Nazarene than I. I am 80 years old and have been in the church all my life. Both my father and mother were pastors of Nazarene churches. My step-brother was superintendent of the Southwest Ohio district and was instrumental in building the largest Nazarene church in the nation, Grove City Nazarene Church. I graduated from Eastern Nazarene College, taught 10 years at Northwest Nazarene University, 9 years at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University, and 21 years at Pt. Loma Nazarene University. I have been a counselor at church camps and for a while was Christian Life Director at the old Community Church of the Nazarene in San Diego. My uncle was at Pilot Point, TX, at the formation of the church. I attended Nazarene camp meetings in MA, NY, PA, KS and OH.

I know that, at least while growing up, worship services characterized by what is called "the glory" were much sought after. The order of worship and liturgy were standard fare for services but the order of worship was held loosely. We were warned constantly about the danger of mere emotionalism as a substitute for those unique services where it was a universal testimony of those in them that a special sense of the Holy Spirit's leadership was apparent. These services were unexpected, certainly not programmed. Sometimes they were very quiet. Other times they were characterized by testimonies, spontaneous singing, shouting, weeping, and seeking spiritual help. How in the world can you describe the Church of the Nazarene without referring to this important characterization of its worship?

For further reading, please see "Thank God and Take Courage: the Life of Lewis T. Corlett" by Dr. Frank Carver. I would be glad to mail a copy of my book "In Spirit and in Truth" free of charge to anyone who would like more information about the unique worship services.

199.106.86.2 (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Dr. Arthur F. Seamans Emeritus Professor of Literature Pt. Loma Nazarene University

What exactly are you referring to? If you are referring to the following paragraph, I assure you it is still in the article:

A distinct approach to worship, especially in the early days of the Nazarene church, was the belief that ultimately the Holy Spirit should lead the worship. Services that were considered to be palpably evidenced by leadership of the Holy Spirit were marked by what was called "the Glory." Almost equal to the emphasis on the doctrine of entire sanctification was the emphasis on these unusual worship experiences. Church leaders were careful to avoid emotional techniques to bring about such services. Ritual and the usual order of services were not abandoned but were held loosely. While some of the services were marked by shouting, others were marked by testimony, weeping, and individuals seeking spiritual help.

However, it would help insure that it would not be deleted at a later date by citing reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia within the article. I think what you added is correct. My great grandparents were in the Nazarene Church and the services at one time did fit this description. Ltwin (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ltwin. Here are four books that discuss "the Glory" in worship in Early Methodism, especially in the early days of the Church of the Nazarene, and the revival services of Charles G. Finney who also believed in holiness. This topic is also covered in biographical books about Phineas Bresee, founder of the Nazarene church. 

 Reasonable Enthusiast:  John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism, Henry D. Rack
 P.F. Bresee:  a Prince in Israel, E. Girvin
 An Autobiography, Charles G. Finney
 The Ordinary Saints:  the Lives of B.T. and Ellen Roberts

199.106.86.2 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Arthur F. Seamans, Emeritus Professor of Literature, Pt. Loma Nazarene University

Thanks for that. However, I was actually referring to adding inline citations with page numbers if you wanted to insure that an editor did not dispute the material and delete it later on. Ltwin (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

=

  1. ^ Insert footnote text here
  2. ^ Insert footnote text here
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_the_Nazarene/Archive_1&oldid=509505588"