Some Cautions for the Church of the Nazarene (Part II)

I previously began to articulate some cautions I would share with the denomination that I love. You can see the previous ones in the first part of this two-part series of articles. 

6. Promoting unfruitful or unfaithful pastors. 

An emphasis on fruitfulness has been criticized lately and described as a "church growth movement." We certainly do not need more methods that trivialize the Gospel and the call to holiness of heart and life. We do not need more crowds who disappear at the first sign of rocky waters or challenging messages. But fruitfulness is a byproduct of being connected to the True Vine. 

We cannot continue to be content with no spiritual births year after year after year! We cannot accept the ongoing decline of attendance across the church in the USA-Canada region (and beyond). This is not okay. This can no longer be masked as "faithfulness in a changing world." It can no longer be dismissed with excuses of COVID, changing culture, legalism, uneducated laity, or anything else. There is still power in the blood of Jesus to radically transform the vilest offender and usher those who repent into the holy place of communion with Christ!

Some of the problems lie in the fact that there are some leaders who have been given positions of authority and leadership in the denomination who have not been fruitful or faithful. While someone's familial connections do not prohibit their promotion in the life of the denominational church, it should not be a driving force for the position given and certainly should not be a reason they get a pass for lack of fruitfulness in their ministry assignment. Even worse is when someone is ignored and given an exemption for their unfaithfulness to the church and its doctrines because of their familial ties to other leadership. If we continue to propagate unfruitful or unfaithful leadership in the life of the church, we will continue the pattern of decline in the USA/Canada Region.

7. Changing Theology. 

Obviously the Church of the Nazarene Manual allows for changes. As of late, some have began to teach that this is due to the evolving nature of theology. They would argue that their ordination vows are irrelevant since they agreed to uphold a Manual that constantly changes. Of course many of the proponents of this do not believe God is perfect and therefore unchanging. They have adopted process theology which claims God is developing and growing as he "figures out" creation. They deny his perfect power and the biblical truth that "nothing is impossible for God." Others have become disconnected from a relationship with the Redeemer and therefore view theology as a philosophical wandering open to their ideological influences. Theology, for some, is not the study of God, as revealed in Scripture, but their own form of idolatry in which they create a god in their own image. 

Changes, especially in our Article of Faith, were allowed with the recognition that language changes over time and there might be an occasion in which it is necessary to rearticulate our faith because of the evolution of language. It was never about God changing or our theology being rejected. Much like a new translation of biblical text, which does not change meaning, changes were allowed due to a common sense allowance in our Manual.

Many of the changes and pushes are by those who are seeking to promote universalism. Diminish the problem of sin so that it is non-existent. Reject any mention of God's wrath, justice, or holiness and choose only those characteristics of God to promote which can be culturally defined like "love." Indeed we need to talk about love in relation to God as He is love. But it is to reject the full Gospel when do not speak to all of the character of God.

However, it is no secret that there are some within the church who want to do away with certain components in our Articles of Faith (AoF) all together. There is a move by some to rid our AoF of any mention of a literal hell and some want to eliminate the concept, from our AoF on Atonement, that Jesus died to pay for our sin debt. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

There is also a move to make "AoF X: Holiness" devoid of any crisis language or reference to the sinful nature.

8. The Experience of Entire Sanctification. 

The distinctive doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene (and the broader holiness movement) is that of entire sanctification. Make no mistake, every church of Jesus Christ believes in holiness. After all, it is a clear call to be holy throughout Scripture. However, the holiness movement along with John Wesley and others throughout church history, have emphasized the reality that God, in a moment of time, can cleanse the heart of the sinful nature. You can in fact have a pure heart that has been filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit! Love of God can be made perfect in your heart!

Unfortunately, throughout our recent history, there have been debates about whether entire sanctification is instantaneous or simply a process. While there is much to be said about growing in grace, prevenient grace, and even maturing in our walk with Christ after we are entirely sanctified, it is essential that we do not abandon entire sanctification as a moment in time when a fully surrendered life comes to God in faith and is baptized in the Holy Spirit thus being made entirely holy; body, soul, & spirit.

The need addressed in the new birth is the guilt of sin (personal sin). The need addressed in our entire sanctification is the pollution of sin (sinful nature). Both the need and the solution must be clearly taught and preached in our churches! Vague semantics and the generic use of the word "holiness" does not make us a holiness church, it actually diminishes the message and aligns us more with generic evangelicalism than the holiness movement (Wesleyan or American holiness movements).

9. Lack of Evangelism. 

This involves, but is not limited to, the diminishing influence of revivalism in the Church of the Nazarene. Camp Meetings, revival services, and even evangelists have come to be viewed as an increasingly archaic means of "doing church." Some even ridicule any form of evangelization that calls sinners to repentance and leads to conversion claiming that this is traumatizing or harmful to people. 

With a shift in soteriology by some church leaders, there has been a marked de-emphasis of evangelism. Evangelism, sharing the Gospel with the aim that the listener will be born again, has been rejected by some in favor of cultural fads of social justice and political jargon. Talk of the marginalized, critical race theory, and injustice have replaced repentance, being born again, and faith in Christ. The eternal well-being of an individual is eclipsed by their physical needs. Salvific issues have moved from personal new birth to political revolution (most often as an emphasis toward atheistic Marxism). It is not individuals who are sinful but systems some would claim. In reality, systems are only sinful, because of the people that make them up. 

Do not be confused about what I am communicating: good works and involvement in the social welfare of our culture are of utmost importance for a holiness people, but our primary calling and Commission from Jesus is that people become disciples of Christ. The church cannot allow itself to be diminished to a social services arm of society. The work of the church is primarily a response to Jesus' Great Commission. It is first and foremost the salvific work we are to commit ourselves to welcoming people into the family of God who were once enemies of Christ. Gospel proclamation has become sidelined in favor of institutional preservation and culturally palatable priorities in too many instances.

Is revivalism dead? Is evangelism outdated? There are some that would not only say yes, but actually argue that evangelism is a harmful thing. Others would simply opt for a brand of universalism that negates the significance of evangelism or spiritual awakening (after all, everyone goes to Heaven anyway). We need to be aware that the delegitimization of evangelism is brought about theologically before it is manifest practically. What I mean by that is we need to be careful what we do with articles of faith on sin, atonement, destiny, judgment, etc. There are some who would like for the denomination to become less and less evangelical in our approach.

10. Cultural Acceptance. 

While the holiness movement has had a long history of being counter-cultural, we have recently become much more interested in the approval of those around us. The early holiness pioneers who formed the Church of the Nazarene were determined to live in a peculiarly different way from the culture and world around them. They were convinced that through the power of the Holy Spirit they could transform culture. There is the constant insistence that we must listen to the youth of our church for the direction of the church. If not, they warn us, these youth will leave the church. 

But when has the church ever listened to the youth to plot the course into the future? Why did we give up on seeking God for direction, empowerment, and purity? When did chasing fads become more important than chasing Jesus? When did media outlets become more influential than scripture in the life of the church?

Alas, we now struggle to adequately articulate orthodox, biblical teachings on human sexuality. A vast number of false teachers are not promoting biblical theology, but a regurgitation of cultural morals with the label of theology. They have chosen culture over Christ in their theology. Neglecting the mind of Christ, many live almost exactly like the world around them. Marriage and the divorce rates, personal ethics, financial stewardship, personal appearance, ways of thinking about the world around us, and even ministry can so easily be influenced by these cultural voices in media, technology, news, etc.

Whatever happened to the biblical concept of worldliness?

"The danger is not that we may cease to exist as a corporate body but that we may permit some superficial and unworthy motive to assume the ascendancy in our thinking and loyalty rather than the great central issues of the gospel." (Rev Mildred Bangs Wynkoop. "Foundations of Wesleyan Arminian Theology" p. 12)

Related Articles:

A Way Forward for the Church of the Nazarene (Part 1)

A Way Forward for the Church of the Nazarene (Part 2)

General Assembly Resolution Review 2023

Check out the following articles:

A Perspective Changer

Biblical Authority and Accuracy

Characteristics of True Revival

Why I Like the Church of the Nazarene

Some Cautions for the Church of the Nazarene (Part I)

With all the turmoil taking place in the United Methodist Church (UMC), what warning does it give the Church of the Nazarene and other holiness denominations? Check out the article I wrote previously about the United Methodist Church's descent into disunity, turmoil, and schism. 

The Church of the Nazarene is my home. I love the Church of the Nazarene. We are a denomination formed out of the fires of a spiritual awakening that swept the United States and beyond in the mid to late 1800s. By 1908 a number of smaller groups of churches committed to Scriptural holiness came together to form the Church of the Nazarene. 

The Church of the Nazarene is a theological relative to the UMC; tracing our doctrinal roots back to include the founder of Methodism: Rev John Wesley. For that reason, we regard ourselves as Wesleyan-Arminian in our theology. However, the fledgling group originally called the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene, was not only Wesleyan-Arminian in their theology, but also distinctively focused upon scriptural holiness. The spirit of revival and awakening that gave birth to the Church of the Nazarene (and other holiness denominations/churches) was called the Holiness Movement. 

Though there are certainly some differences, it is undeniable that the Church of the Nazarene is on a similar trajectory of division and decline as the UMC. Indeed, every church and denomination will face some of these same issues eventually. 

In light of our upcoming General Assembly of the international Church of the Nazarene and current obstacles facing the church, I am writing a series of articles that are some cautions for my beloved denomination as we move into the future.

1. Human Sexuality. 

The foremost issue facing the unity of the church manifests itself as various opinions on whether one can be a Christian and simultaneously practice homosexuality. The intent of this article is not to debate that issue. Suffice it to say that both tradition and, more importantly, the biblical position are clear that marriage is between one man and one woman in covenant relationship. God's design for sexual intimacy is exclusively in that context. Homosexual practice, consensual or not, is outside of God's will and thus sin. Those who do theological gymnastics to justify this practice are false teachers who promote a culturally palatable agenda. (This video dives deeper into the biblical/theological truth.) 

The official statement of the Church of the Nazarene on human sexuality firmly supports the biblical view and can be found at this link. The problem arises when a loud, vocal minority of leadership within the denomination push their cultural morality untethered to biblical truth. This is a multi-faceted and sometimes a bit complicated problem. 

For example, there are some leaders who have been convinced by those advocating for the practice of homosexuality that regardless of whether you think it is right to participate in homosexual sex or not, you are well within Christian orthodoxy. In other words, this issue is not an essential issue in their eyes. One way this is seen is when they try to equate the debate surrounding this sexual practice with issues like going to the movies, attending a circus, or playing pool. For them the moral differentiation on the issue of sexual immorality is minimal; it can be accommodated within the larger "tent" of Christianity. 

Our Article of Faith on Scripture says that the Bible is inerrant in all things concerning salvation. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is clear that the practice of homosexual sex is not only detrimental to your salvation, but, by extension, will actually prevent you from experiencing eternal life with Christ. Our official stance is that these verses concerning salvation are not in error or tainted by culture or time; they represent an eternal truth. This is a Heaven or Hell issue. It is essential!

This is the main question that many in our denomination seem to be struggling with: can those who practice sexual immorality inherit the kingdom of God? (The answer is "no" to all sexual immorality, but the point of contention currently relates to primarily to homosexual sex.) One key problem with a denomination continuing to debate that issue lies in the fact that the answer has already been given to us. When it comes to the practice of homosexuality, the Bible (Old & New Testament) is resoundingly clear. There is simply no reference anywhere that views homosexual practice as morally neutral, let alone morally good. It is always highlighted as sinful with strong vocabulary. To come to any other conclusion about the practice of homosexuality requires one to either (1) outright reject biblical authority and historic Christianity or (2) ignore biblical exegesis in favor of culturally informed morality. Either is woefully short of true Christianity.

While the issue is settled in Scripture and has been settled for the entirety of church history, false teachers continue to contradict that truth. It's certainly reminiscent of Eve's encounter with the serpent in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say...?" But what seems to be the deeper issue than that of human sexuality is the authority of the Bible to speak to the beliefs and practices of the church and individual Christians.

**Some would argue that we need to allow those with academic degrees or individuals who are tempted toward such actions to continue to debate and review this "ancient puritanical moral code" as if it is borne of a cultural issue that can change over time. So, some academics, lay leaders, and even elders write petitions demanding a voice to speak and "have a conversation." Should we allow the serpent to continue to whisper his lies? Should we allow the serpent to have "a voice at the table?" Should we passively allow their voices to echo through churches or online mediums while they continue to tout their ordination and position within the Church of the Nazarene?

What if the issue were one different than human sexuality? Would we sit silently, or at least passively by, while a group of ordained ministers who identify as proponents of Neo-Nazism petitioned for change while remaining in positions of authority? What if people advocating for adultery continued to remain credentialed among our ranks? I would hope that we would not be open to them continuing to deceive by directly refuting truth and morality under the guise of "academic freedom" or "healthy conversations" or "love."

Note that there is also legislation being proposed at the 2023 General Assembly on Gender Identity. Will we adopt what is clearly spelled out in Scripture: "In the beginning God created them male and female" or continue to create loopholes for people to propagate cultural narratives about these issues?

2. Church Discipline. 

This one seems to be a difficult one for us to accomplish. Like the United Methodist Church, the Church of the Nazarene is now in a place where some leaders are unwilling to deal effectively with false teachers in the life of the church. The problem is not that there are false teachers. There will always be false teachers that seek to lead the faithful astray. The real problem is that the church seems unable or unwilling to deal adequately with false teachers. 

We should have high standards for clergy. I realize there is a desperate need for more pastors to fill our churches, but quickly pushing an individual into a position without time, discernment, and an awareness of their ethical lifestyle is damaging and harmful. To allow people to remain in positions of authority and leadership who are not living an evident life of holiness or are blatantly teaching against the clear teachings of Scripture is a problem that has seen the UMC devolve, divide, and diminish. 

We need someone in leadership to have hard conversations, implement church disciplines, and in some cases expel false teachers. 

3. Unity Apart from Jesus. 

The constant call for unity from some leadership is vague and unhelpful. It often manifests in a call for unity without regard to who or what we are unifying under. In fact, the insistence to continue to beat the drum of unity apart from Jesus is counter to scripture. What fellowship has light with darkness? We cannot be unified with those who promote evil or sin. For instance, holy people are not unified under the same banner as those who would diminish the value of a person based on their skin color or those who would advocate for the murder of a child in the womb. 

Our unity, in the church, comes from the fact that we have been redeemed from darkness and are now co-heirs with Jesus Christ! Our unity comes from the powerful reality that Christ is Lord of our lives individually so that when we come together corporately, He is the head of the church! Unity outside of Christ is not biblical unity, but a false dilution of our ecclesiology. 

Keeping the big tent of diverse theological persuasions at bay became a priority, but quickly became lopsided in its approach. Those working against biblical truth on the issue of human sexuality like to claim the big tent to make room for them, but all the while they exclude less essential issues. For instance, Reformed theology is not tolerated while various forms of universalism have become tolerated. Questioning our biblical stance on women in ministry is not tolerated while questioning our biblical stance on human sexuality has become tolerated. The professed "unity" from the leftists is only extended as far as their false teachings or agendas. 

A.W. Tozer said it this way, "If you have one hundred concert pianos, and you tune the second piano to the first, and the third piano to the second, and the fourth piano to the third, until you have tuned all one hundred pianos accordingly, you will still have discord and disharmony. But if you tuned each piano to the same tuning fork, you would have unity and harmony. So, too, in the body of Christ. When we each tune ourselves and our lives to Christ's, we will have unity." (from 'The Pursuit of God')

4. Leaning into the Episcopacy. 

The last several General Assemblies (GA) of the Church of the Nazarene have witnessed a number of resolutions passed that give more authority to the Board of General Superintendents. The BGS has more "power" today than they ever have in the short history of our denomination. Our polity has moved us farther away from the local church, not closer to it. District Assemblies, while technically still voting on a District Superintendent, typically have a ballot with one name. A local church has less voice than ever before. The average lay person and even pastor have very little voice as bureaucratic hurdles are placed in the way of congregations being able to participate in the processes of discernment denominationally. This is not an intentional act by most, but it is taking place.

The Superintendency is an important and necessary calling within the church. When Phineas Bresee and others organized the CotN they intentionally curbed the authority of the hierarchical power of the superintendency. Most of the earlier holiness preachers and leaders had suffered at the hands of those who abused the power within the Methodist Episcopal denomination. They did not want the new movement [denomination] they called the Church of the Nazarene to suffer the same fate. (Note: This reality continues with the current split of the UNC and the Global Methodist Church.) In succeeding generations, we have slowly, but consistently given power back to the superintendency. 

There has been a push the last several GA's to prolong the time between them 0from 4 years to 5 years or more. Thus far that has been rejected (though it has taken place this time due to the COVID19 pandemic). I'm not advocating for or against some of these measures, I'm simply pointing out that the longer the time between GA, the more authority we give to the denominational hierarchy.

The election of a District Superintendent (DS) by a district has subtly changed too. Often the General Superintendent (GS) along with the Regional Director, will meet with the District Advisory Board (DAB) or District Advisory Council (DAC) and determine one name to take to the district. The District Assembly votes 'yes' or 'no' on the one name. Much business at District and even General Assembly is simply perfunctory action for those who assemble as delegates.

5. Institutionalism. 

Much of organizational leadership becomes preservation of the denominational infrastructure. There is a tedious balance between the organic/spiritual dynamic of the church and the mechanical/administrative operation of the church. They are not mutually exclusive, and both are necessary. However, at some point any movement that ages can become more protective of the scaffolding of the movement to the detriment of the mission of the movement. It seems in too many ways that the denomination's preservation can become more important than the denomination's mission. 

Some passionate, anointed, zealous leaders have been cast aside because they are deemed too dangerous for the institution. Too much risk is involved for them to operate in controversial ways or, even worse, ways that would risk lawsuit in a litigation society consumed with outrage and offense. They are often black-listed and not directly addressed so they may not even be aware of their unofficial status. This is a common sociological reality among any group of people. However, it is problematic for a denomination because we have, in the words of the Apostle Paul, told the foot we do not need them. 

Some of our best and brightest leaders are pressured to not "rock the boat" and serve in ways that defend the perceived survival of the institution sometimes even to the implied neglect or detriment of truth and mission. "Keep the peace" is a cry of those who have circled the wagons in a desperate attempt to survive the decline of the institutional church.

Blind allegiance to any institution is tantamount to idolatry. Faithfulness to the scaffolding that should serve as a catalyst for the work of the Holy Spirit is only helpful or appropriate when it is faithfully discerned how well that structure/institution actually assists in the divine work. When it becomes a ladder for opportunists or a badge of accomplishment or a haven for hard soil; the tree will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

"I do not fear that the people called Methodists shall ever cease to exist in Europe or America, I only fear that they shall exist as a dead sect, having the form of religion, but not the power thereof.  And that undoubtedly will be the case unless they hold fast to the doctrine, spirit, and discipline with which they first set out."

(Rev John Wesley. “The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M.”, p. 315, 1831)

Upcoming Articles:

Some Cautions for the Church of the Nazarene (Part II)

A Way Forward for the Church of the Nazarene (Part 1)

A Way Forward for the Church of the Nazarene (Part 2)

General Assembly Resolution Review 2023

Check out the following articles:

My Ordination Means Something

Women Preach!

Transformation is Available

How to Lead Your Church into Apostacy

Letter of Accusation Against a False Teacher

In October of 2021, ten ordained elders in the Church of the Nazarene followed the steps outlined in our denominational Manual of polity to file a formal letter of accusation against Tom Oord. In this article, you will be able to read the letter of accusation we sent to his District (the Intermountain District of the Church of the Nazarene) as well as Oord's response to these accusations. The intended outcome of such a letter is discipline and, in this case, the removal of Oord's credentials.

After a few months, I was contacted in March of 2022 and told that, through the process, it was found that "neither the accusations, nor evidence met the criteria for probable grounds for charges moving forward" so the District Advisory Board of the Intermountain district had no plans at that time to move forward on the issue. Oord's credentials were not removed. No action was taken at that time; even after listening to Oord's own words in his response shared below.

Oord's response provided ample evidence of his views on various subjects that put him outside of the Church of the Nazarene's faith and practice. In fact, he does not deny he wants to change the Church's stance on human sexuality from our historic and biblical stance. Since the events of late 2021 and early 2022, Oord has put out two recent books. The first one is a claim that God is not all powerful (against omnipotence) and the second is a book he edited to promote his agenda of pushing for the Church of the Nazarene to be more LGBTQIA+ affirming. More evidence is readily available for Oord to lose his credentials in the Church of the Nazarene. But how much evidence do we really need to do the right thing in this situation?

The Board of General Superintendents recently put out a ruling that clarified that, among other things, the statement on human sexuality was an essential statement. Their ruling verbatim was: “The Articles of Faith, the Covenant of Christian Character, and the Covenant of Christian Conduct, are essential statements of the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene, as well as those portions of the Manual pertaining to what we believe and how we live in light of those beliefs.”

It is important to be aware that the real problem at hand does not specifically have anything to do with Tom Oord. Most everyone within the Church of the Nazarene perceives his theology and agenda problematic, if not anti-Nazarene. But there will always be people like Oord who seek to undermine orthodoxy and orthopraxy within the church universal. The history of the church, including the New Testament, makes us keenly aware that he is only one among a long line of false teachers. The troubling thing about all of this, and the real issue at hand, is the lack of ability from some leadership to deal with this problem: Oord maintains his status as an elder in the Church of the Nazarene. 

The questions keep coming to mind: Why does Oord still have his credentials? 

Turmoil, confusion, and division are the fruits of allowing one to remain who is not willing to hold to their elders' vows. 

Why can't this be handled? Fear of angry voices on social media? Nepotism? Legal lawsuits? Bureaucratic red tape?

==========================================

RE: Formal Accusation against Thomas Oord

==========================================

Date: October 2021

District Superintendent Rev. J. Scott Shaw & Advisory Board of the InterMountain District:

This letter is to adhere to the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene (606-606.12) in bringing a formal accusation against an Elder in the Church of the Nazarene on the Intermountain District: Rev. Thomas Oord.

Listed are a few specific areas of teachings that not only step beyond the boundaries of the Church of the Nazarene's position, but into a place that rejects biblical authority on these issues and adopts unorthodox theological views.

1.) The Bible and the Church's view of Homosexuality. Oord has frequently rejected the church's stance on Human Sexuality (Manual 31). Often opining on social media about the need for the Church of the Nazarene to be "fully affirming," which is vocabulary that indicates Oord believes the Church of the Nazarene should allow those who practice homosexuality to become members and be ordained within the church. (See “Exhibit 1”)

In essence, this is refuting the clear teachings of Scripture on the matter. He seems to be committed to pushing the Church of the Nazarene into a similar position that contradicts the Bible's teaching on this issue or continuing to promote that which contradicts his commitment to uphold the doctrines and practices of the church since the time of his ordination.

On October 7-8, 2021, Oord and Johnathan Foster (a previously ordained elder who no longer has credentials in the Church of the Nazarene because of his persistent push to disregard the clear teachings of Scripture on the issue of homosexual acts) hosted a conference titled, “An Interesting Conference About Sexuality” (See “Exhibit 2”). The conference had four speakers and was described by Johnathan Foster on October 3rd (See “Exhibit 3”). The push was for us to redefine clear biblical and historical teachings of the Church to accommodate current cultural shifts in attitudes about practicing homosexuality.

This shift that Oord is pushing is also evident in the context of marriage as Oord believes that Nazarene ministers should be allowed to marry two individuals of the same sex. On October 27, 2021 Oord advocated online for Nazarene elders to be able to perform same sex marriages. (See “Exhibit 4”)

This is a serious breech of, not only Nazarene teachings, but the historic doctrine and practice of the Church universal. Oord simply rejects Paul’s admonition about, among other things, those who practice homosexuality:

“[9] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”1

2.) The Divinity of Jesus. Oord has taught and promoted his own idea that Jesus is not God, or at least that he is not sure if Jesus is really God. These philosophical musings are not appropriate for an ordained elder who should be able to rightly divide the Word of God. The following are his own words on the issue from a public social media discussion on June 15, 2021: "I know few scholars who think the only people who can rightly self-identify as Christians are those who think Jesus is God" (See “Exhibit 5”). Along the same line of thinking is a denial of the literal virgin birth of Jesus.2

1 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV)

2 Which is a denial of Article of Faith II

3.) The Sovereignty of God. In a denial of our first Article of Faith which states that God is an “eternally existent, infinite God, Sovereign Creator and Sustainer of the universe”3 Oord expresses a different view of God. He elaborates on this view in his book “God Can’t”. He expounds upon his beliefs in a podcast from December 18, 2019 in which he says, “God doesn’t have the power to control nature or the natural processes; any creature whatsoever.”4 He goes on to say: “God in fact is working all the time, moment by moment, to overcome evil. But God simply cannot prevent evil single-handedly.” No doubt some of his vocabulary is intended to be a bit sensational in order to sell more books. However, he continually diminishes the sovereignty and power of God to suit his own process philosophies.

Oord has publicly argued against Creation ex nihilo, which one must argue when one believes that God is not the Sovereign Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Oord simply believes that God does not have the unilateral ability to sustain the universe or effect it apart from cooperation with humanity.

His rather arrogant claim is to have solved the problem of evil (see Exhibit #6).5 However, in purportedly solving the problem, he has compromised some of the most basic tenets of Christianity (and well beyond the tenets of the Church of the Nazarene) about God (His character and ability).6

3 Article of Faith I

4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-QxhfGiXeI

5 "In each moment, additional information is generated in the universe (and in other universes, if they exist). God learns this new information as soon as it’s knowable. God is like an all-absorbing sponge or all-encompassing database who inputs all information available."

"But God learns and grows in knowledge, and yet knows everything knowable in each moment."

Both quotes can be found in his article at http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/gods-omniscience-grows

6 No theologian or philosopher in human history has successfully solved the problem of evil.

4.) Universalism. Though he might describe it using other words, universalism is another conclusion at which Oord has arrived. Denying the existence of hell (and likely any form of eternal punishment) in favor of a non-biblical and "Article of Faith rejecting"7 idea that all people ultimately are received into heaven regardless of faith in Christ alone, repentance, and/or the new birth is a type of universalism. This is a violation and affront to the Bible, the historical creeds of Christianity, and many of the Church of the Nazarene’s Articles of Faith. Oord chooses rather to accept Rob Bell’s views from “Love Wins” which he quotes in his book “God Can’t.” Oord’s false interpretation of the love of God disregards the necessity of faith and repentance during this life. God could not and would not send anyone to a place like hell according to Oord.

5.) Resurrection, Judgment, & Destiny. Oord claims frequently that he does not believe in a “punitive God.” Linked to the claim of his “universalism” above, He would obviously deny the wrath of God and the reality “that the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell.” Hell, like the virgin birth, and maybe even the resurrection of Jesus, is no more than a philosophical construct for Oord’s personal philosophy.

Oord’s narrow definition of love excludes a God who would make a judgment that would send someone to a punitive place.

6.) Scripture. Ultimately the authoritative basis for Oord’s false teaching is found not in Scripture but in his own ability to reason. While Scripture is referenced in his written works, it is not the basis of authority in his teachings. Indeed it cannot be. Denying the virgin birth, the judgment of God, the sovereignty of God, and denying God as Sustainer of creation (unilaterally) gives plenty of warrant to the reality that his theological underpinnings are not biblical, but philosophical. Oord is well within the context of religious philosophy but not that of orthodox Christianity.

7 Article of Faith XVI

The impact of Oord's teachings and ministry also give a context to these specific doctrinal errors. Examples include students leaving the Church of the Nazarene, leaving the Christian faith, and frequently spreading division within the church, its institutions, and among its people.

These events, along with past ones, are the basis for this formal accusation. They are a serious offense to the doctrine and polity of the Church of the Nazarene. These are not innocent mistakes, but calculated, intentional, recurring, and divisive actions taking place within the Church of the Nazarene. Oord is using the Church of the Nazarene as his platform to justify and propagate this false teaching.

The recurring reality of an individual who persistently rejects what the church believes (denominationally) and how the Church of the Nazarene arrives at its theological conclusions (biblically, see Article of Faith IV), lays the foundation for a biblical example of a false teacher who persists in his error without a willingness to submit to the authority of the Church and the theological accountability of the family of God.

The following is from an article in the Miami Herald in regards to an interview initiated by a previous president of Northwest Nazarene University & the District Superintendent of the InterMountain district. It said of Oord,

"In a letter to Alexander that Oord shared, [Jesse] Middendorf and [H. Ray] Dunning say much of what Oord believes is “well within” the traditions on which Nazarene beliefs are based. But “there are positions he holds that raise serious questions of compatibility with the doctrines of scripture and interpretation as understood by our church.”

They suggested the university work with Oord to change those beliefs. “If that is not possible, we would hope that the university could find a way to provide a graceful and meaningful exit for him to exercise his gifts and graces in places more

compatible with the positions and approaches to examining the faith and expressing his grasp of truth as he understands it.”"8

It would seem that in spite of a wave of gracious attempts to restore Oord to orthodoxy within the Church of the Nazarene, it has been unable to bring him to an acknowledgment of the truth. He continually demonstrates his persistence in holding to non-Nazarene and non-biblical theological viewpoints while teaching and promoting these same ideologies to others. Often his rationale is that since the Manual presumably changes every four years, his beliefs are justified in being unorthodox. However, the reality is that such a rationale as his would place every person, Christian or not, within the scope of the Church of the Nazarene’s membership and even clergy.

Questions that need to be answered include: 1. Does he believe, affirm, and teach that a monogamous, homosexual marriage is compatible with orthodox Christianity and, more specifically, the Church of the Nazarene? 2. Can he definitely declare by faith that God exists and that He is revealed to us through the Bible?9

3. Does he believe, affirm, and teach “that the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell”10? Can people reject Christ and the Gospel in this life and yet be in Heaven? 4. Does he believe, affirm, and teach that Jesus is the Son of God? And that this belief is not only located within Christianity, but that failure to acknowledge Jesus as

8 https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article95628932.html

9

“But I’m not 100% sure God exists. I worry when people say they’re certain God exists. These people also usually say or act as if they’ve got God figured out. After all, it would be strange to say you’re certain God exists but not be certain who God is. Brazen certainty often leads to pride. It tempts one to ridicule or even want to destroy those who have different views of God.” From Oord’s article found at http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/love-and-my-search-for-meaning in which he rejects the “certainty of God’s existence”.

10 Article of Faith XVI.

the Christ, the Son of the living God, excludes one from participating in Christian salvation.

Thomas Oord has long been a very public figure within the Church of the Nazarene as he has taught at Northwest Nazarene University, Eastern Nazarene College, and spoken at numerous conferences and other academic institutions. While instructing students, future pastors and leaders he has consistently created a pattern of rejecting the Church of the Nazarene's teaching across a variety of very important subjects and opted to intentionally and persistently choose and promote non-biblical and unorthodox views. The issues listed above represent a systemic problem of long-term proportions as he has consistently been at the forefront of serious concerns by a host of sincere leaders in the Church of the Nazarene. Outside of a repentance and a recantation of his erroneous beliefs, which it seems must be public in nature (as his teachings have indeed been very public), would we not be guilty of "tolerating the teachings of the Nicolaitans"11 if Oord were to remain credentialed within the Church of the Nazarene? It is apparent to us that the answer is an unqualifiedly, yes.

We, the undersigned, appreciate your time and attention in this matter. This letter is not submitted lightly as it is understood how difficult this process is for a people moving forward in grace and truth. We are praying for your part in this process as we also give our attention to the work of the Kingdom.

Titus 3:10-11 “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Signed:

Jared K Henry (Lead Pastor, Mackey Church of the Nazarene, IN)

==========================================

Thomas Jay Oord’s Response to Accusations Brought by Signatories Outside the Intermountain District but Reformulated by an Intermountain District Board

==========================================

by Thomas Jay Oord

What follows are my responses to questions listed at the conclusion of this document. The questions were formulated by a committee from the Church of the Nazarene’s Intermountain District after considering six broad accusations against me made by a group of 10 or so signatories. The people in this accusing group are not members of the Intermountain District but sent their accusations to District Superintendent Scott Shaw. After he talked with General Superintendent Fili Chambo, Shaw moved forward with the proceedings.

Superintendent Shaw met with me in November 2021 to relay the original charges. He explained the process and asked what I wanted to do. I said I would face the accusations and undergo the hearing/trial as laid out in the Manual. Superintendent Shaw said he’d choose the committee to hear my case, evaluate my written response, and receive my verbal defense on a date to be determined. He thereafter assembled a district committee and appointed Assistant District Superintendent Brent Deakins as the chair.

To my mind, the charges against me divide into two parts. One part is theological. The other is about social ethics, specifically the denomination’s stance on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) people outlined in Covenant of Christian Conduct in “Human Sexuality and Marriage.”

The committee assigned to my case wisely set aside most theological charges leveled by the accusing group. Those charges revealed a lack of understanding of how the Wesleyan-holiness tradition thinks about salvation, God’s love, other religious traditions, and more. The accusing signatories fail to understand the range of acceptable beliefs in the Wesleyan-holiness tradition and the Church of the Nazarene.

Because I consider the theological charges without basis, I’ll address them first and rather briefly. I’ll deal with questions about LGBTQ people and the denomination’s view of Human Sexuality and Marriage later. I regard the latter issues as the primary reasons I am undergoing this hearing/trial. Those issues provide an opportunity to explain the meaning and primacy of love in the Wesleyan-holiness theology that undergirds the Church of the Nazarene.

Theological Concerns

The Church of the Nazarene’s Articles of Faith

I appreciate, embrace, affirm, and endorse the Articles of Faith in the Church of the Nazarene.

Occasionally, I am asked why I chose to be ordained in the Church of the Nazarene and choose to remain thirty years after my ordination ceremony. I respond that I’m compelled by the Wesleyan theology undergirding the denomination’s articles of faith. No set of statements can perfectly express all one wants to say about God, of course, and the articles are constantly being revised. I appreciate, embrace, affirm, and endorse the Articles of Faith in the Church of the Nazarene. I have no issues with them and see my views as aligned with the articles.

Part of question three below asks, “How do you deal with any discrepancies between your teaching (in public comments, blog posts, conference speaking engagements, etc.) and your harmonious support of the COTN Articles of Faith?” In my view, there are no discrepancies, so I regard the question as misinformed.

My accusers apparently interpret the articles differently than I do. My beliefs and teachings do not align with their views. But I do not see my teaching as leading to discrepancies about valid interpretations of the articles. And many scholars in the Church of the Nazarene interpret the articles in the way I do, especially those with extensive theological education.

I believe my accusers do not sufficiently understand what it means to embrace the Wesleyan-holiness theology that undergirds the Articles of Faith in the Church of the Nazarene. For example, I make statements about truth in other religious traditions that trouble my accusers. Our Wesleyan theology of prevenient grace, however, supports God’s work in religions other than Christianity. The beauty of the Wesleyan tradition is it’s understanding that God’s love and truth aren’t reserved for just a few; they are available to all. I consider the claims of Christianity, however, more true and more winsome than those of other religious traditions.[1] That’s the major reason I choose to be a Christian.

Or take my view of the afterlife. My accusers apparently do not understand my stance on this subject and have consequently misrepresented me. They seem not to realize the possibility that no one will be “finally impenitent,” to use the statement in the Manual. Wesleyan-holiness people believe God wants to save all. I reject the idea that God forces everyone into heaven. I’m not what many call a “classic universalist,” because of my view of creaturely freedom, another Wesleyan emphasis. Scripture and the Manual leave open the possibility that God’s love will ultimately redeem all creatures through loving persuasion. The Church of the Nazarene is optimistic about the power of God’s grace.[2]

Believing God Exists

I believe God exists. I’m exceedingly surprised by this question.

I’m not certain God exists, however. I doubt anyone can be 100% certain, although I admit some people claim to be. Even if certainty about God’s existence is possible, the Manual doesn’t require anyone to attain this state of confidence.

Throughout history, Christians have typically steered clear of claiming to be certain about God. We talk instead about having faith. Christians are believers, not “certainers,” to coin a word.

I don’t advocate blind faith, however, and I often argue against it. There are good reasons to believe God exists. The phrases I use to describe my stance are that I “reasonably trust” God exists or think God’s existence is “more plausible than not.” Those phrases, in my way of thinking, point to good arguments, evidence, and experiences that indicate God exists… requiring no one to be certain.

Incidentally, most people I talk to about this issue find immense encouragement after hearing they can have genuine doubts about God and yet be faithfully Christian. My statement, “I’m not certain,” offers them hope. They’re relieved to discover Phineas Bresee’s words that “Faith isn’t the absence of doubt; it’s choosing to believe, despite doubt.”[3]

Jesus and God

Christians have throughout the centuries tried to discern how to make sense of Jesus’ relation to God. Some scripture passages say Jesus has a unique relationship with the One he calls “Abba.” Biblical writers, over and again, say Jesus reveals God, and I strongly affirm this. In this sense, I believe Jesus is divine. I stand with Scripture and the Manual.

We Christians have various theories for why Jesus did not have the attributes we think characterize God. One that I’ve cited in many writings says those attributes were set aside in the incarnation. Often, Philippians 2 is the basis for this theory, and I’ve written extensively about this. It fits what I and other scholars call a “Spirit Christology:” Jesus responded perfectly to the Spirit and revealed God’s nature of love.[4] A Trinitarian model that says God is revealed in Jesus makes the most sense to me.

Nearly all Christians think God is omnipresent and omniscient, by which we mean God is present to all creation and God knows all that’s possible to know. But Jesus clearly was not omnipresent. And he lacked complete knowledge, illustrated by the questions he often asked and statements made (e.g., “Who touched me?” “No one knows the day and hour, except the Father”). Simply saying “Jesus is God” can be easily interpreted as meaning Jesus was also omnipresent or omniscient, which, according to the Bible, he was not.

I don’t recall the specifics of the conversation with Michael McElyea noted in question 4c below. I suspect my point in the exchange was simply to say that while Jesus reveals God, he did not have all the attributes many Christians claim God has. But more importantly, I see no conflict between my views and the Manual’s statements on Jesus.

I affirm the Article of Faith on Jesus.

Sexuality Concerns

I have for decades worked for changes in the Church of the Nazarene’s statements on LGBTQ people, their identities, and sexual practices. In my view, the denominational statements do not reflect well the love at the heart of Wesleyan-holiness theology. I was happy about the progress made in the recent General Assembly rewriting of the “Marriage and Sexuality” statement. But I believe more changes are needed.

My desire to see changes in the Manual comes from my love for God, for members of the Church of the Nazarene, for LGBTQ people, and for the friends and family of LGBTQ people. I think God is pleased by healthy LGBTQ sexual practices and God affirms nonheteronormative identities. I think the Church of the Nazarene ought to imitate God’s love by being pleased in the same way.

I am one among a sizable number of members of the Church of the Nazarene who are LGBTQ affirming. I say a “sizable number” because I don’t know the exact total. Most affirming members are reluctant to say so in public, although many divulge their beliefs to me in private. By “LGBTQ affirming,” I mean many members of the Church of the Nazarene believe non-heterosexual (e.g., Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) orientation, identity, and sexual behavior (expressed in a covenant relationship) are compatible with authentic Christian faith.

As evidence for this claim, I rely upon the Pew Research Center. A 2007 Pew poll showed that 31% of those who identify with the Church of the Nazarene thought society should accept homosexuality. That percentage jumped to 40% by 2014.[5] I suspect the percentage is higher today, but Pew has not released current numbers.

Assuming the USA Church of the Nazarene has around 600,000 members, the Pew polls suggest that 200,000+ US Nazarenes hold views about LGBTQ matters similar to mine. From my conversations with pastors and laity on the Intermountain District, I believe the percentage of affirming people on the district is higher. Even if these polls and estimates are off several percentage points, it remains the case that a sizable number of members of the denomination think society should accept LGBTQ people and their behaviors. Every person I know who thinks society should accept LGBTQ also thinks the denomination should accept it. They have the same standard for love in the church and society.

A Barna Report indicates that 46% of practicing Christians under the age of 40 want more laws to protect Same-Sex Marriage and LGBTQ rights.[6] This is not the same as saying LGBTQ is compatible with Christian faith, of course, but most who want protections and rights are also LGBTQ affirming. In other words, they think about these matters much like I do. The two major takeaways from that Barna report are 1) American Christians are becoming increasingly accepting of LGBTQ people and their sexual behavior, and 2) younger American Christians are more accepting than older Americans.

Based on the Pew and Barna polls and my own interactions, I suspect most US Nazarene youth want the Church of the Nazarene’s views on LGBQT issues to change. And from my time speaking in Europe, I believe the percentage of European Nazarene youth who want change is even higher. If the views of the young eventually become the views of the majority, the Church of the Nazarene will undergo change in the coming decades. We have revised many topics in the Covenant of Christian Conduct over the past century; we should expect and welcome changes related to LGBTQ issues.

My experience speaking at nearly every Church of the Nazarene higher educational institution in the US and many Nazarene institutions overseas tells me that most university students and faculty are LGBTQ affirming. Many talk to me about these matters in private, fearing accusations and the treatment I’m currently undergoing. They want a safe forum without fear of reprisal to make their case for full LGBTQ inclusion in the Church of the Nazarene.[7]

Should I Stay Or Should I Go?

Many people – especially young people and including some pastors – leave the Church of the Nazarene because of its current stance on LGBTQ people. A 2008 poll of twenty religions/denominations said the holiness tradition – of which the Church of the Nazarene is the largest denomination — is the worst of all religious groups at retaining young people. Only 32% of Nazarene youth remain with the denomination.[8] A similar poll in 2015 showed no change in this rate of exit.[9]

Some members who want changes on LGBTQ issues ask my advice on whether they should stay or leave. I counsel them on a case-by-case basis. Some leave to become Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, or something else. I respect their decisions, and I wish them well.

Some stay. Despite thinking the denomination’s view of human sexuality is unloving, unbiblical, or just out of touch, some LGBTQ-affirming youth, pastors, scholars, and leaders remain with the Church of the Nazarene. I respect those decisions too.

Why do some stay, despite disagreeing with the Manual on LGBTQ matters? Here are the reasons I often hear…

Family and Friendship

Many LGBTQ-affirming members of the denomination have strong friendship and family ties to people in the Church of the Nazarene. Rather than think beliefs and rules are primary for membership, they think of the denomination as a family or intimate community. As you know, this way of thinking about the church has strong biblical support.

This approach assumes people are more important than rules. Besides, do you leave a family just because other members hold beliefs that you don’t… especially when so many of your siblings believe as you do? Friendship and family are more important than rules and regulations.

2. Changing Groups

Some who remain are students of denominational history. The Church of the Nazarene has changed its views on many issues, especially issues in the Code of Christian Conduct. Divorce is now considered appropriate in some cases, for instance, although it’s still mentioned in the Code alongside same-sex marriage. Jewelry is commonplace today, but was once condemned. Few members today think twice about going to the theater or circus, but these practices were forbidden in the 1928 Manual. The denomination has changed its mind on dancing, movies, and many other topics in the Covenant of Christian Conduct.

Denominational leaders also realize context matters. In some African contexts, we tolerate polygamy among Church of the Nazarene members. In some European contexts, members consume alcohol with no fear of repercussion. Divorce no longer carries the stigma among US Nazarenes it once did.

Groups change, including denominational groups. Why think the Church of the Nazarene will keep its current stance on LGBTQ? We made positive strides at the recent General Assembly to alter the denomination’s official view. But we need more changes for the Church of the Nazarene to become fully LGBTQ affirming. Many stay expecting that eventually change will come, hopefully sooner rather than later. The optimism of grace leads me to believe the denomination will eventually see that love calls it to embrace and affirm LGBTQ people.

3. Loving Experience

Others believe the denomination’s theology implies that LGBTQ people and their loving practices ought to be affirmed. Like me, some cite love as the core of the holiness message. Others consider religious experience vital for discerning authentic Christian faith. They know LGBTQ people who have vibrant Christian testimonies.

Those who oppose LGBTQ people and activity often reference seven or eight biblical verses to support their view. Biblical scholars, theologians, and Christian ethicists have written massive tomes on this material. Many argue those verses either apply to ancient practices not identical to contemporary LGBTQ issues or those verses reflect the cultural biases of their day. The biblical witness to sex and marriage is complex.[10]

Many people in the Church of the Nazarene already endorse this general approach to biblical interpretation when defending the full status of women in ministry. In fact, we could cite more biblical passages that relegate women to subservient roles than verses condemning LGBTQ people and behavior. And yet the Church of the Nazarene rightly privileges Scriptures that support full status for women in ministry and equality in marriage.[11] Many of the passages cited call for love and equality for all people. Love and lived experience matter, and we should use this hermeneutic for LGBTQ concerns.

The Theological Difference

Other members of the Church of the Nazarene ask me if they should leave because of theological differences with the denomination. Those differences are not with the Human Sexuality and Marriage statements; they disagree with the Articles of Faith. I tell them the articles were not handed down from heaven, and each allows for a range of interpretation. The articles have also changed over time, at least to some degree. Articles 15 and 16 are currently going through a major overhaul, and the future will bring more changes.

Many say their theological views differ drastically from the articles. Some believe, for instance, the denomination’s view on biblical inerrancy is too soft. They want a Manual statement that affirms absolute biblical inerrancy. Others think the Articles are at odds with the sovereignty of God. They believe God is in control and we have no freedom to do other than what God decides. Some think the Articles of Faith are wrong about hell, original sin, women in ministry, sanctification as transformation, or something else.

In these conversations, I realize some members of the denomination actually want a Calvinist or Catholic theology. Or something else. So I lovingly tell them to consider joining another community.

Am I wrong to encourage some to leave but encourage some LGBTQ-affirming members to stay?

I don’t think so. As I see it, the essential theology of the Church of the Nazarene is compatible with believing LGBTQ people are welcome in the denomination. Here’s what I mean:

The core of our holiness message is love. “Love” doesn’t mean, “we accept any behavior or beliefs whatsoever.” It means we want the well-being of others. We seek the transformation of ourselves and all creation. Some LGBTQ behavior – including same-sex marriage – can promote well-being. It’s good and healthy; it represents the values of the Kingdom of God. The transformation God desires rarely if ever requires LGBTQ people to change their sexual orientation, identity, or loving behavior.

Let me put this another way: LGBTQ people can live Christlike lives. Some of the most loving people I know are not heteronormative. Living Christlike lives is the holiness gospel, and some LGBTQ people act like Christ. They love like Jesus loved. And their identity or behavior as LGBTQ people is not an obstacle to their being Christlike.

Love calls us to be faithful in our partnering commitments. Those who commit to monogamy – whether heterosexual or same-sex marriage – are called to be faithful to God, their partner, and the Kingdom. If the Church of the Nazarene – as people who seek purity – wants to encourage loving faithfulness and discourage promiscuity, it ought to endorse same-sex marriage. The denomination also ought to lead the way in advocating for transgender people. It ought to recognize the variation of attraction experienced by bisexual people. And so on.

As those who care for the marginalized, Nazarenes ought to be allies for LGBTQ people rather than adversaries.

My Role as a Licensed Minister and Thought Leader

Some questions at the conclusion of this document come from the district committee and not from the original charges against me. These questions pertain to how I see my role as an acting minister and thought leader in the Church of the Nazarene.

One set of questions asks about officiating same-sex marriages. Given what I’ve said above, it will come as no surprise that I look forward to the day the denomination endorses same-sex marriage. If members of the Church of the Nazarene truly believe in sexual purity, they ought to encourage lifelong sexual partnerships in marriage. The holiness message ought to compel members of the denomination to support same-sex marriage.

I have never officiated a same-sex marriage, and I have no plans to do so. But if one of my daughters was a lesbian and wanted me to officiate her marriage to her lesbian partner, I’d do it in a heartbeat. If needed, I’d officiate the ceremony as a layperson and ask the couple to get an official marriage endorsement from a state official. But I love my children and think this love far exceeds any commitment I have to a statement in the Covenant of Christian Conduct I think needs changing. I hope all clergy would privilege love for their children over denominational rules, even if it comes at personal cost. And if they would, they likely understand much of the LGBTQ logic I’m presenting here.

I do not think ordained elders should surrender their credentials if they officiate a same-sex wedding. Our allegiance is first to God and the love to which God calls. But because most members in the Church of the Nazarene currently do not think about same-sex weddings the way I do, I’d encourage the Nazarene elder who wants to officiate a same-sex ceremony to do so and subsequently have it endorsed by some other person or agency. Or do so with a minister of another Christian denomination. I give this advice with a sad heart, however, believing that on this issue, those outside the Church of the Nazarene are more in tune with the Spirit’s leading.

The final set of questions asks about my personal beliefs and the denomination’s. It asks if I support the denomination and whether I’m in “hearty accord” with the statement on human sexuality. I strongly support the denomination; I love the people who comprise this community. I’ve given much of my time, emotional energy, and resources to help the Church of the Nazarene broadly and to help individual members specifically. To use the language of the Apostle Paul, I have “poured myself out” sacrificially for this body of believers.

I heartily support and believe myself to be in accord with the Articles of Faith. But I think the denomination’s statement of human sexuality should evolve. I will continue working to see changes made. That will mean speaking against current denominational practices and ideas I believe are not aligned with our core theology of love. I expect all people associated with the Church of the Nazarene – whether they are ordained or not – to place their allegiance with the God of love and see allegiance to the Church of the Nazarene as secondary. God and denomination are not identical.

I would also expect people who disagree with the Covenant of Christian Conduct to do so respectfully. And to be discerning in how they disagree. I don’t claim to have always been wise, but I feel good about most of my speech and activities. I commit myself to working for change in wise and loving ways. I aim to love in word and deed.

The Process of Change in the Church of the Nazarene

In 2007, I gave a plenary paper at Northwest Nazarene University’s Wesley Center Conference. The paper was titled, “Revisioning Article X: Fifteen Changes in the Church of the Nazarene’s Article on Entire Sanctification.” In my presentation and the paper that circulated widely thereafter, I suggested both major and minor changes to the denomination’s views on sanctification.

No one brought me up on charges. No one thought I was a heretic or was teaching false doctrine when I suggested fifteen changes to the article widely regarded as the denomination’s distinctive doctrine. In fact, many fellow scholars applauded my suggestions, while suggesting changes of their own or noting differences in nuance. An official denominational committee formed soon thereafter, and years later, several of my suggested changes occurred.

Before this event, I suggested a change to Article I in the Manual, the article on the doctrine of God. I suggested we should add a statement about God’s love. My suggestion made its way through the system and now is part of the official statement. Again, no one brought me up on charges for thinking the Articles of Faith needed changing.

To be clear, I’m not claiming I alone orchestrated these changes to the Manual. Others played key roles; it takes a community. But I bring up these examples to note that even with the Articles of Faith—which are widely thought essential rather than nonessential like the Covenant of Christian Conduct—differences of opinion can lead to changes in denomination’s official views. Someone—or many someones—initiates conversations leading to those changes.

It’s also important to note that not all of my proposed changes were accepted. But no one said, “the new Manual doesn’t reflect everything Tom suggested, so he should leave.” Nor did I feel compelled to abandon the denomination. Apparently, differences of opinion are acceptable for the Articles of Faith. How much more should a difference of opinion be acceptable to the denomination’s Covenant of Christian Conduct? While Covenant issues are important, they are not essential.

Far better to follow the advice of Phineas Bresee and many others: “On essentials, we seek unity. On nonessentials, we allow freedom. In all things, we seek to love.”  

How Does Change Occur?

According to the polls I’ve cited and my experience, a huge number of Church of the Nazarene members agree with me. Probably hundreds of thousands. But the majority do not. Some districts or world regions are more “progressive” on this issue. But the majority currently does not think like me and many, many others.

If the change I want to see is to become a reality, how will that occur? What brings people to change their minds about LGBTQ people and issues to endorse views like mine?

Most people who change their minds do not suddenly realize the few biblical passages that directly pertain to same-sex relations don’t apply today. Change rarely comes through biblical argumentation, as important as Scripture is.

Change comes when people we know well – our children, best friends, or family members – “come out” as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or something similar. Close relationships also lead many to realize LGBTQ identity, attractions, and behaviors can be healthy and loving. A growing number of members of the Church of the Nazarene are experiencing these perspective-changing encounters with family and friends.

Others change their minds on issues of human sexuality when they spend time with LGBTQ Christians who love like Jesus. These people may not be family members or friends, but they clearly live lives of love. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” says the adage, and the proof is that many LGBTQ people live fruitful lives of the Spirit. They are transformed into the image of the invisible God.

When I think of those people in my own life, friends like Alicia, Carol, Cindy, David, Dwayne, Flora, Fraser, Gary, Isaac, John, Jordan, Lisa, Manuel, Matthew, Michael, Monica, Scott, Susie, Tim, Tyler, and more come to mind. LGBTQ people show evidence of the gifts of ministry, pastoral leadership, and general good works in the world.

Still others change their minds on intellectual grounds. That’s how I changed my mind. Through a study of scripture, theology, science, and more, some people come to realize traditional binary views of human sexuality do not apply to all people. It’s no minor point that the consensus opinion in psychology and other human sciences is that LGBTQ behavior can be healthy and life-giving.[12] Scientific consensus is on the side of people who think like me about LGBTQ issues. Those who point to examples of LGBTQ misbehavior – e.g., abuse, promiscuity, unsafe sex – often fail to note this misbehavior also occurs among heterosexuals.

What won’t happen is that every single member of the Church of the Nazarene awakes one morning and simultaneously says, “we should change the statement on human sexuality and marriage today.” Instead, change takes time. In the beginning, there are a few dissenters. Momentum builds. And eventually, the majority see the need to alter official statements. It’s a process, and if the statistics I offered and my experiences are correct, the Church of the Nazarene is changing its views on LGBTQ issues.

In fact, change is already here. It’s just that many members of the Church of the Nazarene are afraid to make the public statements I make. They know negative repercussions will probably come if they speak out or ask for civil conversation. But I predict many will become more vocal in the coming days. The issues at the heart of my case are likely to grow in importance.

Where Should We Go From Here?

I know the decisions this Intermountain District committee makes carry real and widespread consequences. If the committee endorses and wholeheartedly affirms what I say, those who believe traditional views about sexuality and marriage will be angry. Some may leave the denomination.

If the committee rejects what I say and votes to take my license, those who want change will be angry. Pastors and laity will leave the Church of the Nazarene. Others will go into hiding, fearing that speaking out will mean their trial and dismissal. Rejecting the way forward I have proposed – opening up a conversation about accepting people with LGBTQ identity, orientation, and loving sexual behaviors – means more Nazarene youth will leave.

It’s not too dramatic to say the denomination’s future vitality is at stake.

I trust that those hearing my case will find my theological views within the spectrum of viable interpretations of the Articles of Faith. I certainly think they are, and so do many others.

Ideally, the committee would join me in seeking changes in the statement on Marriage and Human Sexuality. Even if committee members do not take a proactive approach to make changes, I hope they see the Covenant of Christian Conduct as a nonessential document. There is room for those who in good conscience and in the name of love disagree with the denomination’s statement on marriage and human sexuality.

I hope the committee will also see the need for open conversations about LGBTQ issues. People want to speak freely and without fear of dismissal from their leadership roles or the denomination. My case could spark healthy discussions.[13]

Above all, I hope this committee will stand for what, in my mind, is the way of love.

Rev. Dr. Thomas Jay Oord (January 2022)

Questions for Dr. Thomas Jay Oord

1. Do you affirm and support the statement in the Nazarene manual on Human Sexuality and Marriage (31)?

If not, what areas are of concern for you and why?

If yes, help us understand how your statements in the evidence (Exhibit 1 & 4) and your personal beliefs about human sexuality are in harmony or are not in harmony with the doctrine of the COTN? Specifically, your comments stating: 

   a.  “I am one among those who thinks it (homosexual activity) is not always sinful” (Exhibit 1) 

   b. When asked the question: “Should Ministers of the COTN should be allowed to marry LGBTQ couples?” You responded: “Yes on the first.”  Do you believe Nazarene ministers should be allowed to perform same-sex ceremonies? If you were asked to do a same-sex ceremony, would you do it? In your view, would performing a same-sex ceremony be a violation of the COTN beliefs and be cause for surrendering of ordination credentials? How are your publicly stated views and opinions concerning same-sex marriages consistent and in accord with the COTN statements on human sexuality?

2.  What do you mean by “full inclusion” with your view and stance on same-sex sexuality? (Exhibit 1: “I am in favor of full inclusion of LGBTQ people…”) For which of the following roles are you in favor of a same-sex sexually active person being eligible to serve in the Church of the Nazarene? As an Ordinated minister? As a non-ordained minister? As a member? In an elected Leadership position? As a lay teacher? As an attender? Other? Does your position on “full inclusion” also include marriage ceremonies bless and sanctioned by the COTN?

3.  Do you affirm and support Articles 1-16 in the Nazarene manual?

If not, what areas are of concern for you and why?

If yes, how do you deal with any discrepancies between your teaching (in public comments, blog posts, conference speaking engagements, etc.) and your harmonious support of the COTN Articles of Faith? 

4. Help us understand your statements on the certainty in the existence of God and your understanding of Articles 1, 2 and 3. 

   a. Specifically you say in a blog “But I’m not 100% sure God exists…” (footnote 9 on pg. 5 of accusation document). Are you now certain in the existence of God as stated in Article 1, 2 and 3?

   b. Exhibit 5 “I know few scholars who think the only people who can rightly self-identify as Christians are those who think Jesus is God.”  Are you one of those scholars? If so, help us understand how someone can be a Christian without believing that Jesus is God. (Article 2)

   c. Do you remember or have documentation on the conversation in Exhibit 5 with Michael McElyea? His comment states that you told Michael that “you told me that you do not even believe that Jesus is God Himself.” Does this comment accurately reflect what you said and what you believe personally? Or what did you mean by that implied statement? Do you believe that Jesus is God as stated in Article 2?

5. How do you differentiate your personal beliefs and role as an ordained minister in the COTN and your role as a teacher in the COTN? What responsibility do you have as a Nazarene minister supporting the COTN and respecting the office of an ordained elder for the public/online statements that you make? How do your public/online statements and teachings demonstrate that you are in hearty accord with the statements of the COTN on human sexuality?

[1] For details on my view of God’s loving revelation to all creatures, see Thomas Jay Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Academic, 2015).

[2] For details on my view of the afterlife, see Thomas Jay Oord, Questions and Answers for God Can’t (SacraSage, 2020).

[3] I explain myself on these matters in a book I co-edited called Postmodern and Wesleyan? published by the Nazarene Publishing House. Instead of cutting and pasting paragraphs here, see my essay, “Truth and Postmodernism,” among others.

[4] For more on this, see my essay, “Essential Kenosis Christology,” in Christology: From the Wesleys to the Twenty-first Century, Jason Vicker and Jerome Van Kuiken, eds. (Nashville: Wesley’s Foundry Books, 2020) and my book, The Uncontrolling Love of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2015).

[5] See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/

[6] See https://www.barna.com/research/americas-change-of-mind-on-same-sex-marriage-and-lgbtq-rights/

[7] The call for safe and irenic discussion of LGBTQ issues is also present among the Church of the Nazarene clergy. See the doctoral work of Reg Watson on this matter (R. G. Watson, Nazarene Clergy Responses to Homosexuality and Interactions with LGBT People [Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2015], 123, 125, 279, 317).

[8] See http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/atheists_only_slightly_worse_at_retaining_children_than_holiness_folk

[9] See https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-2-religious-switching-and-intermarriage/pr_15-05-12_rls_chapter2-04/

[10] Among the helpful books and essays on this subject, see Cheryl B. Anderson, Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies: The Need for Inclusive Biblical Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2009); John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980); James V. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (William B. Eerdmans, 2013); Elizabeth M. Edman, Queer Virtue: What LGBTQ People Know about Life and Love and How it Can Revitalize Christianity (Beacon, 2016); Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, eds. The Bible Now: Homosexuality, Abortion, Women, Death Penalty, Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Victor Paul Furnish, “Homosexuality?” in The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009), 55-93; David Gushee, Changing Our Minds, 2nd ed. (Spirit Books, 2015); Karen R. Keen, Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (William B. Eerdmans, 2018); Craig S. Keener, Romans: A New Covenant Commentary (Cascade, 2009); Colby Martin, Unclobber: Rethinking Our Misuse of the Bible On Homosexuality (Westminster John Knox, 2016); Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior (Westminster John Knox, 2006); Russell Pregeant, Engaging the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Eugene F. Rogers, “Same-sex Complementarity: A Theology of Marriage” (The Christian Century, 2011); Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Matthew Vines, God and The Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (Convergent, 2014).

[11] On the role culture plays in discerning LGBTQ matters, see Rev. Bruce Barnard, “Cognitive Dissonance and the Progression of the Church on Major Cultural Norms,” (D.Min., George Fox University, 2016).

[12] I could cite numerous sources to support this claim. But here’s a link to the American Psychological Association statements on LGBTQ issues https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/

[13] I am grateful to wise friends who read previous drafts of this document and give helpful advice. Because some could receive criticism for being associated with me or this document, I’ll not list their names. But I’m deeply grateful for their kindness, encouragement, and suggestions.

Also check out this article:

Why I Like the Church of the Nazarene