Talk:Church of the Nazarene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Church of the Nazarene. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Okay, thank you for clarifying. Cobaltnine 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to local districts/churches

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "151 areas of the world"---wtf???

The article claims that Nazarenes are in "151 areas of the world"--just wtf 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)

[edit] Link list cleanup

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)

[edit] 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)