J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet lauds itself on being the “friend” to the holiness, evangelical, Wesleyan Church of the Nazarene.
NazNet is more Unitarian/Episcopalian/Catholic than Nazarene.
NazNet moderator Hans Deventer believes the Bible is just another book. He states he does not believe the Scriptures to be the infallible Word of God. Unitarians believe the same.
NazNet moderator Scott Cundiff agrees with Deventer. NazNet founder Dave McClung permits those positions to remain on his Nazarene-friendly site.
NazNet also permits the belief in an “intermediate state” upon death. Roman Catholic teaching states the same.
NazNet permits the annihilation of the unsaved souls at death. Liberal theologians hold to the same.
NazNet espouses infant baptism for all Nazarenes worldwide. There is no record of an infant baptized in Scripture. Liturgical denominations such as Episcopalians and Roman Catholicism believe the same.
NazNet delights in referring to the Lord’s Supper, not as “communion” in the traditional Nazarene manner, but “the Eucharist.” That term is Episcopalian, Catholic, and other liturgical church verbiage. NazNet thrills as being “high church.”
NazNet permits the belief that all souls eventually go heavenward, that is, no souls are damned. If there is an eternal bliss we all find our ways there. Unitarian-Universalists believe the same. Most theological liberals concur.
NazNet considers it posh to promote the emerging church that holds to no moral absolutes. One writes his own religion in the emerging church. Unitarians in particular hold to that. Liberal theologians in general claim that as a staple.
If NazNet is such a friend to the Church of the Nazarene, why does it not provide more dialogue regarding Nazarene heritage emphases? Why does not NazNet accent more fully the biblical call to a holy life, the sanctified experience?
NazNet is wanting in its serious exploration of Wesleyan history and teaching. And when it does refer to Wesleyan teaching, as Scott Cundiff did in his profession of disbelief in the Bible as inerrant, he was wrong. The context of his statement had nothing to do with Wesleyan teaching; in fact, it countered Wesleyan teaching.
Nevertheless, Cundiff must have felt it opportunistic to use the term “Wesleyan” when discounting Scripture as divinely inspired. Did he really know that the word “Wesleyan” in that context was totally contrary to the context?
NazNet has a perfect opportunity to provide posters with in-depth Wesleyan doctrine, biblical holiness and the real-life sanctified experience.
But seemingly all that is “old hat” to the elitists on NazNet. Who, after all, would want to go back to all that bygone stuff when we can knock the Bible as God’s Word, say that all souls end up in paradise, and debunk an eternal hell?