Testimony Of A False Teacher In The Nazarene Denomination

Here is Thomas Oord’s “Testimony” from when he was a PhD Candidate.

Dr. Oord is a former professor of religion at NNU who is pushing for same-sex marriage in the Church of the Nazarene.
He was “investigated” sometime around january 2022 by District leaders, but nothing came of it, in spite of his many heresies and particularly his blatant support for homsoexuality and same-sex marriage. It is apparently very difficult to remove credentials from an ordained Nazarene elder in the Church of the Nazarene.

An Adventure in Christian Faith
Tom Oord Ph.D. Candidate in the Philosophy of Religion and Theology program at Claremont Graduate University. …

My journey to process thought has come by way of process theology. It is a journey energized by my faith adventure—an adventure that has mirrored some of the dominant theological movements of the 20th century.

When I attempt to ascertain what process thought means to me, I inevitably refer to my faith adventure. I grew up in a small, rural church that was a part of the American Holiness movement. It was in this setting that my first religious intuitions were fashioned. Like many who also grew up in this tradition, my initial theological conceptions revolved around moral codes and ethical standards. I remember as a second grader not participating in my class dance because it was “against my religion.”

Although Holiness theology need not evolve into Fundamentalism, I would characterize my teenage years as a period when I was a Fundamentalist. Some of these tendencies undoubtedly arose out of the lessons I was taught in Sunday school and some emerged in my bid to establish a solid basis upon which to argue against Mormon friends. I was passionate about my faith and an inerrant Bible was my double-edged sword for battle. Perhaps due to frustrations about failing to convert the Mormons, I went to college and chose to study psychology and social work.

My intent was to serve God by doing practical, compassionate ministry. It was in this field that I first read texts from liberation theologians such as Gustavo Gutierrez. From this exposure, I resolved to actively seek to address the concerns of the poor and disenfranchised. My desire to argue effectively for my faith did not die during those early college years. In fact, it increased. I felt compelled to trudge door to door sharing my faith in nearby neighborhoods. On weekends, I persuaded others to join me. We witnessed often in the streets and drinking establishments of a neighboring city.

Using “The Four Spiritual Laws” and beginning conversations with “If you were to die tonight…” I acted upon my feeling of obligation to preach the gospel “in season and out of season.” I found others who shared this obligation at a Campus Crusade for Christ group. I liked the group’s evangelistic passion and ecumenical posture.

Eventually, not having experienced the results I expected when sharing my faith and not agreeing with the tendency toward Calvinism I found in Campus Crusade, I turned to the Charismatic movement to find the power I seemed to lack. I appreciated how easily Charismatics identified the activity of God in their community and enjoyed the feeling of freedom I found in their worship. I actively sought to cultivate my spiritual gifts and found I was able to speak in tongues. Although I did not always agree that it was God alone who aroused these ecstatic demonstrations, it was refreshing to be in a community of Christians who were animated by their religious experiences.

The conversations I had with the variety of people I encountered while in the church, street, bar, or classroom led me to realize that issues of faith were more complex than I’d previously imagined. Through Bible study and in the years I spent studying New Testament Greek, I came to realize that Scripture could legitimately be interpreted to express different ideas.

My dogmatic tendencies, grounded in my belief that the Bible was inerrant, began to dissipate. I found myself moving toward espousing a more tolerant theology. After discovering how powerfully one’s experience shapes world-views, I found myself attracted to liberal theology in the form of Harry Emerson Fosdick. I liked the way Fosdick appealed to both the experience and rationality of his listeners. I also liked the way he could approach the Bible seriously—without slipping into inerrancy.

The biggest shock to my religious sensibilities, however, came in a philosophy of religion class my final year of college. Until then, I’d never really heard thoughtful argumentation by atheists, agnostics, and nonChristians. Finding myself pushed to decide which of my beliefs were essential and which were not, I turned to natural theology for help. Natural theology seemed a logical fit; after all, I had already spent much of my life trying to articulate my faith convincingly and had only recently been exposed to liberal theology.

By graduation, I’d become keenly aware that my faith adventure had taken me away from the Evangelical mainstream to which I belonged. The issues with which I struggled seemed of little or no consequence to my friends in the pews next to me. Feeling uneasy about this and also wanting a chance to get my hands dirty tackling everyday problems outside academia, I chose to postpone further formal education and became an associate pastor.

For four years I served a mid-size, conservative, Evangelical congregation. My experience there was similar to Karl Barth’s, since I too found a different set of issues in the parish than in the classroom. The optimism I’d discovered in Fosdick and liberalism did not fit here. Furthermore, the congregation was not wrestling with the problem of evil or hammering out arguments for the existence of God.

In my attempt to find intellectually sound solutions to the problems I found in the parish, I turned to the contemporary Catholic theologian Hans Küng. He offered helpful language with which to articulate responsible answers to these concrete questions. It was in this setting that I determined to set a course for my life by which I could receive training to help others asking similar faith questions. So, off to an Evangelical seminary I went.

My pastoral background proved helpful while in seminary by keeping me attuned to both practical and theoretical issues. Though my inclination was still toward classes in philosophy of religion, I continued to minister as an associate pastor in a young church. It was at the Masters level that I became thoroughly exposed to the ideas of those labeled “Neo-orthodox.” I read nearly all the influential texts, but Paul Tillich particularly impressed me. His attempts to correlate the gospel with the concerns of the culture, his creative use of symbols, the categories he used to explain human existence, and his systematic use of relevant philosophical categories were all inspiring. I especially appreciated his insistence that doubt can be an element of faith. However, it was the philosophy of being upon which his approach to theology was based that eventually led me to turn toward process thought.

I can still remember the excitement I felt when I first read John Cobb and David Griffin’s Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Although the technical language was difficult at the time, so many of the ideas I encountered seemed to fit. Many of the positions I had come to take with regard to theology I found in this book—and yet they offered more than I’d imagined.

Not long after, I read Daniel Day Williams’ The Spirit and the Forms of Love and my interest in process theology deepened. Here was a philosophical theology of love from which I could find so much help. Marjorie Suchocki’s God-ChristChurch was helpful as well. I found myself gobbling up all the process oriented books I could find and scouring their indices to discover other process resources.

In my final year of seminary I was introduced to Deconstruction through the writings of Jacques Derrida and Mark C. Taylor. I found Deconstruction wanting and my reading of Derrida only solidified my interest in process thought. The work of David Griffin was influential here as I probed deeper into the insights I had previously overlooked in Whitehead’s philosophy. Perhaps the most helpful aspect of my voyage into Deconstructive Postmodernism was to discover the speculative side of process thought.

Since my religious experiences have been so diverse, I have a great appreciation for Whitehead’s attempt to take all experience into account when developing a metaphysic. The process model allows me to acknowledge specific elements in each theological tradition as helpful and then appropriate them. For instance, I can hold fast to the erotic/passion I felt as a Fundamentalist without buying into an exclusivistic, narrow worldview. I can value the emphasis upon the Holy Spirit evident in the Charismatic movement without identifying all ecstatic manifestations as determined by God. I can treasure the Bible as the result of divine inspiration without asserting its inerrancy.

I can genuinely hope for the possibility of a better world in the future without succumbing to liberal, romantic optimism. Traditional notions of the omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence and omnipresence of God now make sense—though these attributes have been defined in new ways. And, of course, the black clouds that hung over my head with the words “problem of evil” etched on them have evaporated.

In sum, process thought has given me a framework out of which I can selectively appropriate my past without embracing those elements I find objectionable. In light of my adventure in faith, I am grateful for this.

Advertisement

From The Heart Of A Godly Pastor, R.B. Acheson

From October 10, 2010 until sometime just before he passed away on July 10, 2012, I got to know a man named R.B. Acheson. He had previously requested a dvd and other information from me regarding the problems in the Church of the Nazarene. He had also been a District Superintendent and had pastored the Westside Church of the Nazarene for 18 years. I truly believe that if the General Board of Superintendents was composed of men like R.B., there would be a lot of cleaning up done, and there would be hope for the Church of the Nazarene.

R.B. and his wife Dolly

I did not know him for very long, but I knew that R.B. Acheson was a man of God.  His character was such that he was not afraid of speaking complete truth about the Nazarene church and its problems.  He sent his thoughts to General Superintendents and other church leaders without concern of being slighted. He first sent a letter to me via postal service, and then we continued corresponding back and forth via email until he passed away.  During that time, I was honored to know him. I don’t use the words “man of God” lightly. 

I recall when I found out he was in a rehab clinic recuperating from some treatment, and I was able to call him and speak to him personally. It was a joy to talk to him, and to tell him how much I appreciated his encouragement, which meant so much to me. R.B. Acheson was already past 90 when I met him, but age never let the fire for God’s truth die out in him.

The only paper letter he wrote me is shown below, and it included a $100 offering to my ministry.  I am sure that was a lot of money for a retired Nazarene pastor to send to anyone. I was more grateful for his thoughtfulness and kindness, than the amount he sent. What gives me hope, besides the Lord Jesus Christ, are people like R.B. who put Christ first above everything and everybody. I like to think he has already had the opportunity in heaven to converse with two other godly men, my father Rev. Ilidio Silva, and my father-in-law Rev. Eudo Tavares de Almeida.

So below is what R.B. shared with me regarding some concerns he was addressing to then General Superintendent J.K. Warrick, sometime after receiving some of my documented information.  R.B. Acheson was a man of God who did not mince words. I am grateful for servants such as he. I have added a few other emails he sent to me.

Manny, I sent this note to Dr. [J.K.] Warrick today:

You are right, J.K., your note of December 22nd did not give me peace nor calm my concerns about the heresy surfacing in my beloved church. Your statement “the church never required everyone to get in line and stay in line,” certainly doesn’t mean that we should be careless about trying to correct unscriptural practices.
If I read Manny Silva right, he is concerned about college professors and other Nazarene leaders who stray from the truths intrinsic to our Nazarene heritage, and the lack of our Generals taking a strong stand in public rebuke and rebuttal.

In a recent issue of Holiness Today, David Felter’s article on “One Holy Faith” addressed the subject in kid-glove fashion. He wrote: “Since Christendom is increasingly under attack by the forces of atheism and unbelief, it is important for the Church of the Nazarene to periodically review her story.” While there is certainly truth in his statement “that God is always at work fashioning and shaping a people for Himself,” it shouldn’t excuse those who would like to introduce strange practices into the church, calling them “truths that our church has lost along the way.”  Dr Felter states: “We resist trends and fads, knowing that passing fancies do little to enhance awareness of our connection to the story of God calling, fashioning and preserving His people… Some focus on making religion the equivalent of Play-Doh that can stretch, shape and make its content into a religion that fits…and can sever its connection as a branch from the true vine of the Body of Christ.” (However, I don’t consider the heresies that trouble me as mere fads and fancies).

Felter is right in his conclusion: “Any congregation or clergy that no longer affirms in faith and practice these confessions, stands rightly condemned and is presenting to the world a spurious expression of a religious community that has become disconnected from the Body of Christ. No amount of technology, altruistic service to humanity, or polished rhetoric can absolve such clergy or churches from the guilt of compromise.”

It would be difficult to squeeze some post-modern practices into the Nazarene Manual: watering down our belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, making the vagaries of science and evolution trump the inspiration of the Word of God, open theism, making excuses for those in our midst who “find spiritual help” in studying pre-Reformation Catholicism – and much more. I am glad, J.K., that you are talking privately to those who lead our youth astray, but the church needs to hear what you admonish in private. Gullible seekers after truth need their trusted leaders to show them the path of tried and true orthodoxy, and to know that our leaders are doing their best to stamp out error. Attacking the problem obliquely as Dr. Felter did is not enough. Someone in authority needs to take off the kid gloves and speak clearly and forthrightly.

This is also true when the life of the church is being throttled by a pastor who thinks more of himself than he does the church. (What Peter called “little tin gods.”) I was once a D.S. and am aware that his power is limited, but sometimes the District Pastor needs to talk to an aberrant pastor as the proverbial “Dutch uncle” would talk to his unwise and inexperienced nephew.

I wouldn’t class Manny Silva or Orville Jenkins as “reformed fundamentalists.” Having been liberated myself from Calvinism through the study of the Word of God, I know what reformed fundamentalism is, and to believe strongly in the fundamentals of our faith would not brand one as a Calvinist Fundamentalist.  I think I understand how Jude felt when he found “it was needful to write (and exhort) that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

Pastor R.B. (P.S. I don’t have your email!)

An encouraging email R.B. sent to me in November of 2011:

Dear Manny,

     I am so grateful for what you are doing in this Laodicean age. Your ability to ferret out the lies and hypocrisies of the growing number of wolves in sheeps’ clothing, especially those that operate within the church structure, is so needed today. You are a modern day John the Baptist crying in the wilderness, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!.” You have done more to heighten my awareness of these things than any other person. I have loved being a member of the Church of the Nazarene for 75 years and the heretical ideas that are being propogated in some areas of the church break my heart. You are doing a much needed work – be encouraged – and we pray that God will give you strength to keep going for a long time to come. We pray that your efforts will help to cause the church to to turn back to God – a Holy Ghost revival is really what we need. But perhaps we are too close to the reign of Antichrist to expect this to happen – we may get the call to “come up higher” at any moment now.

       Your friend,   R. B. Acheson

An email from January of 2012:

Thanks, Manny, for your answers to Warrick’s note. He appears to be making excuses that don’t cover the facts. I don’t know what’s going on with the Generals, I think they are divided on these issues and don’t want the church to know it. I have known J. K. Warrick to be rather conservative and a straight shooter – I hope he isn’t being won over or muted by the liberals.

Do you get the new periodical Grace and Peace? There is an interview with Mark Quanstrom beginning on page 29 that you need to read. He wrote a book on holiness several years ago that I didn’t care for, and he admits to a Catholic bias in this interview. He has studied extensively under patristic scholars and states: “my immersion in Catholic theology formed me into a more confident proclaimer” of holiness.

I also noted on page 35, Elaine Heath recommended a book on The Gift of Contemplative Prayer by Richard Rohr.  Are you acquainted with that book?

I never had expected that the day would come when I would find it necessary to read our periodicals with such a critical eye! I am sure you are getting a lot of flack from many quarters, but you are certainly not alone. God has anointed you for such a time as this – I wish I could be at least 30 years younger.

     R.B.Acheson

An email from August, 2011:

Thank you, Manny, for the article on Horatius Bonar. He, and others like him, helped me develop my preaching ministry in the early years of pastoring. The letter from Meldora Rapp brought back memories of the old Pittsburgh District when I was the D.S. there. Jerome and Johnstown were churches on my district when we preached and lived and enjoyed old-time religion.

The May’June issue of Holines Today, page 24, the report of the Nazarene Publishing House: “Barefoot ministries continue in the focused direction of helping youth workers guide students into spiritual formation for the mssion of God. Barefoot is experiencing growth, reflected in increased sales….etc.”  Could you update me on Barefoot ministries. I checked your website but didn’t find anything.

I remember you writimg about them – are they doing better?

   Sure appreciate what you are doing,

            R.B.Acheson

More about R.B. Acheson:

Herald of Holiness editions with R.B.’s articles:
https://nnu.whdl.org/en/browse/resources?f[0]=author:2464

Wesleyan-Holiness Digital Library:

https://whdl.org/en/browse/authors/r-b-acheson-2464

General Superintendent’s Answer About Homosexuality Leaves More Questions – Once Again

When will the day come when a General Superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene will answer a question about homosexuality forthrightly, clearly, and unambiguously?

At the Southwest Indiana District Assembly this Summer, General Superintendent David Busic was asked the following question by Pastor Jared Henry, an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene:

“If an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene is advocating publicly for gay marriage or the practice of homosexuality, and the district fails to deal with that- in other words, they don’t take their credentials, what takes place after that…in other words, what recourse may be at that point?”

Dr. Busic begins answering at the :54 mark, in this video.

He finishes his answer some nine minutes later, and no one can reasonably conclude that he gave a straightforward, clear answer.  And yet, it appears to me that that the response he gave to a very specific question has resulted in continued confusion and uncertainty within the denomination, and perhaps will discourage or demoralize pastors who are working hard to uphold biblical standards regarding homosexuality. This should be very troubling to all Nazarenes who have been seeking answers about the direction the church is going regarding human sexuality, and its stance on homosexuality.

Dr. David Busic at SW Indiana District Assembly

A simple and clear answer to the question would have been something like “The Church of the Nazarene will not back one inch from its biblical stance on homosexuality. There is no excuse for any district to fail to uphold our biblical principles, and any pastor who continues advocating for anything that violates biblical principles ought to be required to surrender his credentials and is not fit to serve in the church in any leadership position.”

Instead, like a politician trying to walk a fine line and avoid offending anyone, Dr. Busic spent about nine minutes answering a very appropriate question from an ordained elder in the denomination who clearly is concerned about upholding biblical standards. It was a great opportunity to give clarity for members who are looking for the church leadership to step up in a time where clarity is needed so badly. The LGBT movement which is trying to normalize homosexuality within the denomination is a real danger, and General Superintendents need to be unambiguous when it comes to homosexuality.

Yet, it is not a surprise to me when I see this kind of response to serious questions.  In the past when I had communicated back and forth with several General Superintendents (the emails can be found on my blog), their responses had little substance, and they only spoke in general terms. They seem to not like giving direct answers to specific questions. One of them has promised several times since 12 years ago he would get back to me. I’m still waiting.

At around 1:20 in the video, Dr. Busic says that 2017 was one of the “most extraordinary moments in the Church of the Nazarene”… and that “97% voted on a clear position on human sexuality.”  He described the new Human Sexuality statement as “one of the most poetically and beautifully written statements.” He also stated that “this board [the current Board of General Superintendents] is 100% behind what that [2017] General Assembly did.”

And yet, that specific Human Sexuality document omitted the word “perversion” from the manual, in reference to homosexuality; and it was applauded by LGBT advocates such as Andy McGee and Love Wins LGBT, as well as the Holland Nazarene District, and the New England District also advocated for watering down the statement.

If you did not know, the Holland Nazarene District is basically in rebellion against the denomination, and is already blessing same sex unions. So for them to applaud the Human Sexuality statement is not an indicator of anything good.  And what makes it worse, the Board of General Superintendents knows of their rebellion, and even received additional evidence from me, with an email from a pastor admitting blessing same sex unions, and admitting that the Generals are aware. Read the article here.
What have the General Superintendents done about that? Absolutely nothing.  You may want to ask them the next time you run into them or speak with them. Why is the Holland District being allowed to pervert the word of God openly?

There were other concerns that came out of his response as well. When another question was asked about the Confucius Center at Northwest Nazarene University and why was it allowed to be there, Dr. Busic said:

 “I had not heard about it… but let me say this about all our universities in the USA. I believe 100%, every single one of our Presidents, including NBC and NTS, every one of them, are completely committed to our Nazarene identity.”

My question to Dr. Busic, who is a former President of the Nazarene Theological Seminary, would be: “Dr. Frank Thomas has been scheduled to speak at the seminary in September. Dr. Thomas is a pastor who advocates for Critical Race Theory ideas; it is documented that he is a racist; he is an open advocate of abortion, which goes against Nazarene doctrine; and he supports the LGBT movement. Dr. Busic, is it appropriate that NTS is allowing this man who is against so many biblical principles to speak, and would you do the same if you were still president?

Also, what does Dr. Busic think about a theologian (Dr. Willie James Jennings) who spoke at NTS this year? Would he have invited Jennings? Dr. Jennings is an open advocate for same sex marriage.  (https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2022/02/25/nazarene-theological-seminary-welcomes-gay-marriage-promoter/

So either Dr. Busic is unaware of the many problems at the Nazarene universities and seminaries, or he feels that there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing such advocates of unbiblical principles to speak at Nazarene colleges.  In any case, he is incorrect by stating “every single one of our presidents… are all committed to our Nazarene identity.” There is too much evidence to contradict that statement. And I’m afraid every single General Superintendent would have answered in a similar way.

There are other statements he made that will cause some concern regarding the issue of clarity in how things are addressed. If there was ever a time for full clarity in such areas, now is the time for clarity from those who are charged by the Nazarene manual to be the guardians of biblical truth in the denomination.

My heart goes out to all Nazarenes who are still active in the denomination. My heart goes out to pastors who are sincerely seeking answers and support from the leaders. I was a lifelong Nazarene; my father and father-in-law were true holiness preachers. There are far fewer now, and many of the pastors coming out of Dr. Busic’s former seminary are the very ones who are destroying the church, and yet the people are waiting for someone to step up.

I feel for those who are fighting for biblical truth to be upheld, but to me it seems like a losing battle. But when you have leadership at the highest levels speaking as politicians, rather than giving clear and strong answers that would provide clarity, all you get is a mess that leads into further apostasy.

(This article will be sent to the General Superintendents)

Related articles:

How Dan Boone Hides His False Teaching In Plain Sight

Dan Boone, President of Trevecca Nazarene University, cannot be trusted with disseminating biblical truth. In a recent post on his blog, he suggests three basic areas in which, as he says, “ the church today needs a greater degree of trust.”  I believe he strikes out in all three areas, especially his final point.

I would point out that since I am well familiar with his writings in the past ten years or so, I note again a taste of arrogance, as well as a subtle disdain for those Christians who dare to stick to a biblical principle and not deviate from it.  He can’t help but look down on those kooky “fundamentalists”, and he always uses that term in a derogatory, less than “charitable” manner, as he expressed in his book, “A Charitable Discourse.”

Here are his three points:

“An older generation needs to trust the missional spirit of a younger generation as they seek to reach their changing world.”

“The church needs to trust the Christian college to do its thought-work in a complex world.”

In these first two points, the answer should be a resounding no! Trust must come conditionally, especially in these days.  The younger generation has been poisoned with so much nonsense and unbiblical ideas, especially from people like Dan Boone, that there is no way they should be trusted without scrutiny based on God’s word.  And the same goes even more for trusting a Christian college. All Christian colleges need to be held up to the light of scripture, and be held accountable for their actions and what they teach.  There is no such thing anymore as trusting Christian colleges without subjecting them to accountability.  And I’m sure Mr. Boone does not wish to have Trevecca held accountable, which it should always be.

Finally, point number three, which is the most concerning to me:

If we are to have “in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity,” the million dollar question is—what is essential and what is nonessential?

I would suggest the essential things include a saving experience in which the Spirit of God bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons and daughters of God. I would also include the core of Christian faith as expressed in the Apostles’ Creed and the stated doctrines of the church. (For me this is my denomination’s sixteen Articles of Faith rooted in historic Methodist and Anglican belief.)

My nonessentials list is a lot longer—creation theory, political party, hawk or dove, role of government, method of befriending the homosexually oriented, church music preference, preferred eschatology, favorite authors, method of baptism, church architecture, budget priorities, whether there is one or three authors/chronologies of Isaiah, interpretation of Gen. 1, the death penalty, the right of a woman to preach (although this comes close to being an essential for me), social drinking, reading from the early church fathers, yoga, blessing pets in the church sanctuary, speaking in tongues, Catholic theology, real wine or Welch’s at Communion, casual or coat-and-tie on Sunday, Left Behind opinion, national health care, and so on.

The main mistake Dr. Boone makes in listing a bunch of items as “non-essential”, is that he does not realize that everything that God says in His word, or everything that Christ commands us to do, is essential! Note that he “suggests” some non-essentials, which is good, because he apparently does not know for sure what is essential or non-essential.

The only measuring stick as to what is essential or non-essential is Holy Scripture! And you certainly cannot suggest that something that is clearly taught in scripture cannot be an essential. And the fact that he cannot be specific about what he believes about each of these items makes his list irrelevant, and no one can reasonably agree or disagree with these points, unless he specifically says what he believes about them!

Hiding His False Beliefs Behind Words

What Dr. Boones does is hide his false teachings behind words.

He hides his belief in evolution: For example, his “non-essential” of creation theory.  He wants to shut off discussion of his false belief in evolution, and his rejection of the literal account of creation. This very idea alone makes him a false teacher, since belief in evolution rejects the creation account and the actual existence of Adam and Eve. He makes God a liar by rejecting God’s simple story of creation.

He hides his love of contemplative mysticism and works written by heretics: therefore, his non-essentials of “reading from the early church fathers”, and “yoga’.  This is a reflection of his affinity for contemplative mysticism and Eastern practices such as yoga, practicing the silence, and prayer labyrinths, which he finds nothing wrong with. There are many “early church fathers” who are outright heretics, so no Christian ought to agree that this is non-essential, unless Dr. Boone specifies which ones he is talking about.  And yoga is certainly not a non-essential, because it is based on Eastern mystical practices, and is actually a religious practice which Christians should avoid.  Mr. Boone is well known for his liking of Thomas Merton, and prayer labyrinths, and trips to Merton’s Abby of Gethsemani.  So certainly, he would want these subjects to be non-essentials.

He hides his ecumenicalism: his non-essential of Catholic theology is also disturbing. Dr. Boone is a good example of the many Nazarenes who have compromised biblical truth and who consider Roman Catholic teaching to be okay, and therefore we can get along with them. Catholic theology is so full of heresy, and yet Boone and other misguided Nazarene leaders today are leading people to accepting Catholic theology as no big deal. This is shameful, and this is part of what is destroying the Nazarene denomination-thanks to Dan Boone and many others.

In all these other items, it all is based on what the context is. Even a subject as “speaking in tongues” is all determined by what scripture teaches about it! The matter of “the right of a woman to preach” can also be answered by scripture. Dan Boone does not seem to realize the essential of “obey the word of God and all it teaches.”

The bottom line is, Dan Boone wants all Christians to agree on the things he suggested as being essential, which I agree are essential- but he wants to then leave open anything else as being non-essential. Including his own heretical neliefs.

You can read the entire article he wrote, and perhaps leave your thoughts with him. Since he has advocated a “charitable discourse” in the past, he ought to let everyone give their honest opinion of his writing.

http://www.danboone.me/trust/?fbclid=IwAR1FgLJATwYK7klKsuwbrb5OKt1Y2G6w9fvO4cBNdTKURDcGcFDKVFhzoJw