What do you think?
Rate this book
Here We Stand: Where Nazarenes Fit in the Religious Marketplace
The 20th century brought with it a myriad of opinions, philosophies, doctrines, and idealogies. The world says, "Believe what you want." The authors of Here We Stand shatter that conclusion. More than ever, it is important that we know what we believe. This is a comprehensive study of a wide range of beliefs and where Nazarenes fit into the ideological puzzle.
Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
20 people are currently reading
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 18, 2021
Here is a reflection I wrote on this book for my Nazarene Heritage class under Dr. Randy Cloud at MidAmerica Nazarene University:
I went into reading this book a bit skeptical that it would be good. I’m not exactly sure why. But I found myself pleasantly surprised in reading it as it really helped me gain context for the various Christian traditions. While I already knew the family tree of the Church of the Nazarene quite well, I was not sure how many of the other modern traditions related to each other, especially those with more Reformed roots.
I did feel that when Ingersol discussed the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, at some times he majored on the minors. For example, in his “Core Beliefs” section about Eastern Orthodoxy that was composed of two short paragraphs, he heavily emphasized one of the Orthodox teachings on Mary, the mother of Jesus. While they certainly have a lot to say about Mary and view her as very significant, I don’t know that it was worth including in that section. Similarly, in the same section for the Roman Catholic Church, he states “Catholics oppose premarital sex, homosexual activity, birth control, and abortion.” Is this really accurate to include in this short section as a “Core Belief”? I do not think so. Maybe he was just trying to highlight distinctives, but his section headings were confusing. However, all of that is a bit nit-picky. He actually really helped me understand the history behind the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.
In reflecting on the legitimacy of each tradition as I read about them, I found myself wondering why anyone, knowing church history, would want to be a part of the many innovative modern traditions, especially those that arose in the 18th and 19th centuries in America. These traditions have based much of their theology and practice on the ideas and scriptural interpretations of one or a handful of individuals, many of which were not educated in theology or church history. Why people who know this fact today still choose to remain in these traditions is strange to me.
Even going back to the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, however, I struggle. Why do people think the reformers carried the authority to come up with doctrine previously unheard of in the church (I am thinking of Reformed Theology or the beliefs of the Anabaptists, etc.)? Did the reformers really have grounds to reject all that the church said, taught, and lived for 1500 years? I am not sure that they did. I understand and appreciate the value and necessity of reformation, especially where there was gross abuses and corruption, but the reformers went far beyond that, tossing the baby out with the bathwater in many cases. While I greatly value the contributions and emphasis of groups like the Evangelicals or the Wesleyans or even the Pietists, I do not feel it is necessary to jump on board their respective denominational ships when their emphases can be brought into one of the more historic and grounded traditions without gaining their disunity and stripped-down theology as well.
In thinking about the structure of the book, while it certainly was understandable and accessible, if I had written it, I may have gone about it slightly differently. Instead of jumping around like Ingersol did, I may have started with the oldest traditions and ventured forward chronologically, showing where each new tradition innovated or specialized from the previous. I think this would have aided in getting a “big picture” of church history, BUT I do recognize this is not a church history textbook broadly; it is a comparison guide between the Church of the Nazarene and the other Christian (and non-Christian) traditions, so his approach may, in fact, have been best because he established the baseline of what Nazarenes believe and then was able to compare all other traditions to it. Overall, although I expressed a lot of critical thoughts here, I really enjoyed the book and am grateful for the deeper understanding of church history, the development of theological thought, and the various church traditions that it gave me!
I went into reading this book a bit skeptical that it would be good. I’m not exactly sure why. But I found myself pleasantly surprised in reading it as it really helped me gain context for the various Christian traditions. While I already knew the family tree of the Church of the Nazarene quite well, I was not sure how many of the other modern traditions related to each other, especially those with more Reformed roots.
I did feel that when Ingersol discussed the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, at some times he majored on the minors. For example, in his “Core Beliefs” section about Eastern Orthodoxy that was composed of two short paragraphs, he heavily emphasized one of the Orthodox teachings on Mary, the mother of Jesus. While they certainly have a lot to say about Mary and view her as very significant, I don’t know that it was worth including in that section. Similarly, in the same section for the Roman Catholic Church, he states “Catholics oppose premarital sex, homosexual activity, birth control, and abortion.” Is this really accurate to include in this short section as a “Core Belief”? I do not think so. Maybe he was just trying to highlight distinctives, but his section headings were confusing. However, all of that is a bit nit-picky. He actually really helped me understand the history behind the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.
In reflecting on the legitimacy of each tradition as I read about them, I found myself wondering why anyone, knowing church history, would want to be a part of the many innovative modern traditions, especially those that arose in the 18th and 19th centuries in America. These traditions have based much of their theology and practice on the ideas and scriptural interpretations of one or a handful of individuals, many of which were not educated in theology or church history. Why people who know this fact today still choose to remain in these traditions is strange to me.
Even going back to the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, however, I struggle. Why do people think the reformers carried the authority to come up with doctrine previously unheard of in the church (I am thinking of Reformed Theology or the beliefs of the Anabaptists, etc.)? Did the reformers really have grounds to reject all that the church said, taught, and lived for 1500 years? I am not sure that they did. I understand and appreciate the value and necessity of reformation, especially where there was gross abuses and corruption, but the reformers went far beyond that, tossing the baby out with the bathwater in many cases. While I greatly value the contributions and emphasis of groups like the Evangelicals or the Wesleyans or even the Pietists, I do not feel it is necessary to jump on board their respective denominational ships when their emphases can be brought into one of the more historic and grounded traditions without gaining their disunity and stripped-down theology as well.
In thinking about the structure of the book, while it certainly was understandable and accessible, if I had written it, I may have gone about it slightly differently. Instead of jumping around like Ingersol did, I may have started with the oldest traditions and ventured forward chronologically, showing where each new tradition innovated or specialized from the previous. I think this would have aided in getting a “big picture” of church history, BUT I do recognize this is not a church history textbook broadly; it is a comparison guide between the Church of the Nazarene and the other Christian (and non-Christian) traditions, so his approach may, in fact, have been best because he established the baseline of what Nazarenes believe and then was able to compare all other traditions to it. Overall, although I expressed a lot of critical thoughts here, I really enjoyed the book and am grateful for the deeper understanding of church history, the development of theological thought, and the various church traditions that it gave me!
Displaying 1 of 1 review