Thanks for allowing me to speak via Zoom. I don’t know if told you, but my father is on his death-bed. His hospice nurse thought he might die last weekend, but he’s still with us. Under the circumstances, I didn’t feel I could be out of town.

Since (quoting from the Manual) “the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt,” my goal this morning is to raise reasonable doubt about the charge of conduct unbecoming of a minister.

Let me say, first, that all of my remarks this morning are based on the Bill of Charges. I have not had access to this morning’s testimony and am not aware of any other documentary evidence.

Turning to the charge of conduct unbecoming, I want to observe that the Manual offers no definition of this charge and that ministers are not furnished with official case histories where the charge was made. The charge is therefore vague; its use invites the perception that it is applied arbitrarily and capriciously.

Point #1: False and misleading statements

The first bullet point under this charge alleges that Tom made false and misleading statements about a meeting with DS Shaw and that he published these statements to third parties in an email.

My response: Far from making “false and misleading statements,” the email offers Tom’s impression of the resuts of the DAB meeting, an impression formed from talking with DS Shaw and two members of the DAB.

It is also incorrect to claim that Tom “published these statements to third parties in an email.” The truth is that he sent this email to a few people who were advising him.

I suggest that the first bullet point of the charge lacks foundation. It seriously mischaracterizes Tom’s actions. It wrongly claims that the email of March 22, 2022 related strictly to what DS Shaw said to Tom, whereas in fact the email reported Tom’s sense of where the DAB as a whole was on the issue.

Point #2: False and misleading statements

The second bullet claims that Tom “made public false and misleading statements which misrepresented the nature and outcome of the District Advisory Board’s (DAB) meeting and decisions on his accusations and investigation.”

This point rests on the fact that Tom stated that, in his communications, 1) he had “undergone an official trial,” whereas in fact he had faced an investigative committee, and 2) he had faced charges, whereas he had, to that point, not been officially charged.

While Tom Oord admits to the use of imprecise language regarding terms such as hearing, trial, charges, and accusations, it is reasonable to ask whether such imprecise language rises to the level of conduct unbecoming a minister. Three facts are not disputed: 1) that Tom was the subject of an investigative hearing, where he faced accusations (February 3, 2022), 2) that the investigating committee did not recommend further action, 3) that as a result of the the DAB meeting of February 17, 2022 charges were not filed.

Unless the prosecution proposes to accuse Tom of malicious intent, inaccuracy is not conduct unbecoming a minister.

Point #3: Working outside of the agreed upon procedures and processes of the Church of the Nazarene

Rules 14-16 of par. 912 set forth the procedure for presenting resolutions to a general assembly. These rules seem to lie at the heart of this charge. The prosecution’s argument, which is not expressly stated, seems to be that Tom Oord’s public declaration of his views via social and other media constitutes a violation of rules 14-16. The argument, in other words, seems to be that any attempt to effect change in Nazarene doctrine besides the procedure set forth in rules 14-16 constitutes conduct unbecoming.

My response is this: These rules pertain to the formal process of effecting changes to the Manual. They neither expressly nor implicitly forbid efforts to mold public opinion in advance of the formal process set forth. It is true that Tom Oord has not participated in the formal process described in these rules. This is because, according to rule 14, Tom Oord is not one of the entities allowed to present resolutions and petitions to the GA.

Whether the Manual prohibits efforts to mold public opinion remains an open question; what is clear is that the paragraphs cited in this charge do not support the charge and are, in fact, irrelevant.

Point 4: Tom did not surrender his credentials when asked by the District Superintendent.

There seem to be two issues here:

• Is an ordained minister obliged, by Manuel requirement, to surrender credentials when his or her DS requests it?
• What is the constitutional force of the ordination application?

As to the first: The Manual makes no provision that requires an ordained minister to surrender credentials upon request by a district superintendent. Additionally, the Bill of Charges does not state that DS Shaw made this request.

As to the second:

• As a matter of church law, I have not found that the Manual requires a minister to surrender credentials under the conditions mentioned in the ordination application.
• As a practical matter
  • Does the Church of the Nazarene really expect every one of its ordained ministers to “conform to the standards, doctrines, and government.” By the standards of the ordination application, a minister who felt the church’s doctine or standards to be even slightly in need of amendment would be expected to surrender his or her credentials. I suspect that if we applied this standard rigorously and consistently, we would have no ordained ministers in our church.
  • The truth is that the stipulated process for changing the Manual assumes disagreement with the Manual’s status quo. Every change to the Manual, including changes to the articles of faith, begin with at least one person feeling and then expressing the need for change. If we acted rigorously and consistently according to the standard mentioned in the ordination application, as soon as a minster became convinced that the Manual required change, that minister would surrender his or her credentials. The result is that change would never occur. But it does occur.

Conclusion: There is no constitutional or practical basis for this charge

Point 5: Promoting doctrines out of harmony

This point is identical with the second charged lodged against Tom Oord. It is therefore redundant.

Point 6: Failure to show due regard

The salient aspects of this point are:

1. Failure to show due regard.
2. Causing division and disunity.

Relying on statements found in the Bill of Charges, I can find nothing to indicate Tom’s failure to show due regard. I would say, in fact, that (quoting from the Bill of Charges)

• When “Rev. Shaw presented Rev. Oord with two options: the surrender of his credential or walking through the process outlined in Section 606 of the Manual,” Tom in no way failed to show due regard. He simply exercised his right.
• The fact that “several members of the DAB expressed a great deal of concern regarding his activity and beliefs” and that the DAB “would continue to evaluate Rev. Oord’s activity” does not constitute united advice.
• DS Shaw’s concern about whether Tom Oord’s teaching is “Wesleyan and Nazarene” is portrayed as a “concern,” not as the “united advice of the District Superintendent and the District Advisory Board.”

As to the charge of causing division and disunity: This is a question about fact. It is notable that the Bill of Charge offers no evidence. Without evidence, this charge is nothing more than speculation. Nothing in the Bill of Charges proves or even supports the contention that Tom Oord has caused division and disunity.

Conclusion

I urge that Tom Oord be found innocent of the charge of conduct unbecoming of a minister for the following reasons:

• The Manual offers no definition of this charge and ministers are not furnished with official case histories where the charge was made. The charge is therefore vague; its use invites the perception that it is applied arbitrarily and capriciously.
• The Bill of Charge makes claims that are not supported by evidence.
• Much of the charge rests on disputed matters such as whether certain statements were false and misleading, matters where there is a notable lack of evidence.
• The charge rests on disputed semantic issues, such as what constitutes publication.
• Tom Oord’s admission that he used imprecise language, though perhaps regrettable, does not rise to the level of conduct unbecoming in the absence of proof of malicious intent.
• The claim that Tom Oord has worked outside established policies and procedures is mistaken. The rules cited in the Bill of Charges are not relevant to Tom’s conduct.
• The Manual does not require a minister to surrender credentials upon request by his or her DS without appropriate action by the DAB and board of discipline. It is not even clear, from the Bill of Charges, that DS Shaw ever demanded Tom’s credentials.
• The constitutional status of the ordination application is unclear. Additionally, the application imposes unrealistic expectations that are in conflict with actual practice in the Church of the Nazarene.
• The charge is partially redundant with charge #2 (promoting doctrines out of harmony).
• The claim that Tom Oord has failed to show due regard to the united advice of district leadership is not substantiated by the Bill of Charge with facts.

These points lead inescapably to the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Tom has acted in ways unbecoming of a minister. I urge the board to return a verdict of not guilty on this charge.