User talk:Nwdguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Church of the Nazarene

Hey, sure we should have "both" mission statements? Seems kind of superfluous to me. I'm not sure if we should stick with the one that explains the mission itself, or the one that's more concise. What do you think? Perhaps the concise one, and leave the explanation as an aside? That is, outside of the quoted statement but maybe referencing the original one? I would just do it without asking, but your edit summary was pretty specific in its purpose. Let me know. Aepoutre (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to make it more, oddly enough, succinct. I put the explanation in a note, like you would find most explanations for such things in history books, etc. That's my experience as a former history major, at least. And I do feel it flows better while allowing others to look deeper if they so desire. What do you think? I also think we need a source for the "3 core values" if we're to include them. Mostly because I'm Nazarene and I wasn't aware of any specifically-stated 3 core values... Aepoutre (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, in response to your question about the "Nazarene Church," the answer is actually yes. It's kind of weird because, technically, the name is "The Church of the Nazarene" and "Nazarene Church" might butcher it, but that's what a lot of people I know call it. I grew up Nazarene and work at a Nazarene college, so I'd say it's fairly widespread. It's also used to describle local "Nazarene churches" but informally the Church as an organization as well. Perhaps it's incorrect, but language is a fun balance of proper use and popular use, and that one is definitely popular use. Good question, though. Aepoutre (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MidAmerica

Hey, thanks for the save. Aepoutre (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)