As some of you may know, Tom Oord, Director of the Center for Open and Relational Theology, faces a trial this week. The charges against him, brought by two ordained ministers in the Church of the Nazarene, are 1) conduct unbecoming of a minister and 2) promoting doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statements of the Church of the Nazarene–in particular, the statement on human sexuality.

I and several others will appear at this trial as witnesses for Tom, seeking to defend him against these charges. None of us has the slightest measure of optimism that this defense will succeed. It is as certain that Tom will be stripped of his ministerial credentials as that the sun will rise tomorrow.

In spite of this sad fact that seems preordained, there are members of the Wesleyan community who want to support Tom. To that end, I will be posting, over the next several weeks, essays by people who have volunteered to bear witness to their convictions about LGBTQIA issues. I will contribute a few essays of my own.

Readers will notice that these essays will be uniformly in support of dialog. None will defend the doctrinal status quo. I have, on another FB group, been criticized for creating an ideologically one-sided project. Why, it has been asked, am I not creating a dialog by including essays that defend the traditional Christian view homosexuality?

The answer is that, before dialog can occur, a case has to be made for the need of dialog. I say this because CON has taken the view that there is no need of dialog since 1) the Bible is utterly clear in its condemnation of same-sex sex and 1) the Church of the Nazarene has formulated an immutable doctrine that perfectly encapsulates the clear teaching of scripture. Indeed, for many members of our church, the call for dialog is not only pointless, but is in fact sinister in intent, seeking to create division and disharmony.

Given these beliefs, the need of and legitimacy of dialog must first be established. Hence the modest series of essays that I will be posting.

Why do we need dialog on this issue? Because, when it comes to making a case for or against LGBTQ inclusion, the burden of proof has shifted. For many people, it is now the traditional view that has the burden of proof. For others, questions of sufficient strength have been raised to require a stout defense of the traditional view.

Here is what I mean: In the year 1400, it was reasonable for people to hold geocentrism because: 1) the available scientific astronomy affirmed it; 2) it agrees with everyday, phenomenal perception; and 3) it seems supported by those OT texts that say that the earth does not move. These factors meant that the burden of proof lay on anyone who would deny geocentrism. Galileo thus had an uphill battle and it was reasonable, for a while, to cling to geocentrism. However, with time, Galileo’s view became better at explaining data, especially data that geocentrism could not. At some point, the burden of proof shifted: Today, the burden lies on anyone who would affirm geocentrism. By analogy, for centuries, the traditional view of homosexuality was reasonable: there are biblical texts, it fit into generally held philosophical assumptions, Jewish writers argued against homosexuality, etc. But we are today in a situation where developments in biblical scholarship, in the sciences, and in other areas have resulted in the burden of proof shifting. For many people, it is now the traditional view that has the burden of proof. For others, questions of sufficient strength have been raised to require a stout defense of the traditional view.

CON does not officially acknowledge the shift in the burden of proof. No one in CON has offered a rigorous and thorough exposition and defense of its doctrine of human sexuality. It has instead offered platitudes (“The Bible is clear”) and flabby appeals to authority (“The General Assembly voted”), while is doing everything it can to ensure that real dialog does not occur. But, you ask, what about the 2019 statement on LGBTQ matters by the general superintendents? What about Jeren Rowell’s video (Affirmations – Nazarene Theological Seminary (nts.edu)) in which he defends CON’s stance? I will be considering the statement and the video in future posts, but for now I will say only that neither is as thorough as the subject demands, and both prove to be persuasive only to those who need no convincing. Neither creates the basis for dialog, and the general superintendents’ statement is really an attempt to eliminate the possibility of dialog.

What would real dialog look like?

• It would range widely over many areas: not just scriptural teaching, but philosophical assumptions, scientific data and theories, insights from the therapeutic community, and cultural analysis.
• It would involve critical analysis, including laying bare and scrutinizing hidden assumptions in beliefs and methodologies.
• It would be open-ended–there would be no foreordained result. This, I acknowledge, runs contrary to institutional obsession with controlling outcomes.
• It would take time–it could not be accomplished by a weekend conference.
• It would include actual debate, and there would be no premature rush to achieve consensus. Again, I recognize that such debate is contrary to the institution’s horror in the face of diversity and disagreement.
• Its participants would not be limited to the denomination’s hand-picked representatives.
• It would proceed in a spirit of inquiry.

Recent history gives us an example of honest dialog in the church. In 1999 there was an important occasion. After many years of dialog, the Roman Catholic church and the World Lutheran Federation issued a “Joint Declaration” on justification. In it, they stated that, on essential points, there was no disagreement between the two bodies. Keep in mind that the doctrine of justification was one of the chief matters of dispute between Martin Luther and the Medieval church. Yet 500 years later, in a calmer spirit and with some changes along the way, the two groups announced basic agreement. This is an example of ecclesiastical dialog: neither side took part with the assumption that it alone had the whole truth and that its task was to bend the other side to its own view. Instead, there was a recognition that the previous 500 years had witnessed misstatements, overstatements, distortions, and misunderstandings.

Can my church undertake such a dialog? I’m not wildly optimistic, but the essays I will be positing represent a call for dialog and a hope, perhaps as small as a human hand, that it can happen.

Raphael – Web Gallery of Art. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens