Dissent for Me But Not Thee
Those Credibility Gaps Keep on Coming
I was recently reading an article about the Supreme Court of the United States and the place of dissent within our legal system. The comments on dissent came within a section about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s background and path into the judiciary. Here is the part about Justice Jackson’s comments on dissent:
Asked finally about her many dissents, Jackson said that she agreed with her colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who ‘said that dissents are really written for a future age, that they lay down a marker for the future.’ ‘Dissents, I think, are one of the most extraordinary aspects of the American legal tradition, because they actually embody one of our core values, the idea of freedom of expression and tolerance of minority views,’ Jackson added. ‘This is something that is integral to who we are as Americans, and we have a practice that allows for that.’ (Scotusblog)
Now I don’t want there to be confusion over where I am going. While I do not believe that the ideas of liberty and law within the United States constitute the same ideas we find of those concepts in scripture, I do believe that the way we interact as human beings can be informed by the way ideas like dissent and tolerance work in places like the legal system. These ideas once existed within denominations and Christian traditions in the U.S. As a friend once mentioned; we have lost the ability to disagree with one another while still loving one another. In other words, we once could disagree in love.
A few years ago in the Church of the Nazarene (COTN) our Board of General Superintendents (BGS) issues a ruling on what constitutes essential doctrines in terms of ordination vows. The ruling is broad and made almost everything in the Nazarene Manual essential doctrine. Many of the reactions to this ruling were ones that pointed out that the use of Robert’s Rules in meetings is considered essential doctrine based upon this ruling. A very clever essay appeared that discussed a theology of Robert’s Rules. These rulings by the BGS become permanent commentary and direction on the subject they rule on. It is a messy and often contradictory reality but it is what we have.
The suspected purpose of this ruling was to aid in the removal of clergy who dissented on some sections of our Covenant of Christian Character. This covenant is able to be changed easier than our Articles of Faith and it is also culturally informed by what the characteristics of holiness entail. This ruling was used to remove clergy in regional “trials.” One member of clergy was removed for disagreement with a paragraph in another BGS ruling that forbid any blessings (not officiating) of same-sex marriages. The two words “I disagree” were the ones that led to dismissal. The little reporting from the proceedings highlight the words I disagree as the primary problem with the essay. It was also determined that by writing an essay that was published constituted teaching in the context of teaching against doctrines of the COTN. There was no proof publicly provided that showed that this former member of clergy taught against our doctrines. In fact, testimony showed that he taught our doctrines even in disagreement.
I do not want to rehash much of what happened in the past. But it helps to add valuable context to my understanding of how dissent is handled within the COTN and other evangelical denominations. You may dissent and even teach that dissent when it comes from a fundamentalist direction, but anything coming from what is called “progressive” may land you outside the denomination. This is a credibility gap we just accept. But why? Why do we allow dissent over our article of faith on scripture, but not dissent over Christian character?
Here’s where things get interesting. Within the BGS Ruling on human sexuality that led to the removal of the member of clergy mentioned above there is a section on ordination which was designed for clarity within our official statement on human sexuality. Here is the wording:
Further, in the case of an individual with same-sex attraction, the
primary focus of the individual’s life should be on their new creation
in Christ, and not on their sexual identity. The driving force for the
response to the call to ministry should not be a social or political
statement. The individual must commit to a life of celibacy and sexual
purity, affirming the Church of the Nazarene’s doctrine on human
sexuality. (BGS 22-May-2019)
What this paragraph ultimately sets as doctrine is that human beings who are attracted to the same sex are able to experience entire sanctification and still be same-sex attracted. This makes the COTN what is called side-B in discussions of human sexuality and matters of the Christian life. In other words you may identify as gay or queer as long as your primary identity (like all Christians) is seen in Christ. But you must remain celibate within side-B.
There are many members of clergy in the COTN who not only dissent from that paragraph but teach variations of dissent. The most popular is that one “cannot call yourself gay and Christian.” Or they argue against side-b theology taking positions closer to the idea that human attraction is sinful if that attraction is not toward the opposite sex. There are all sort of weird contradictions that arise out of that argument. The group the Holiness Partnership makes opposition to side-B theology a part of their arguments. They teach that you cannot identify as gay and feature speakers who claim that side-B churches teach false doctrine. That is in clear disagreement with the BGS ruling.
Another idea within the covenants that often meet with dissent which is stated publicly and taught is the idea of social justice. We call our people to work for more equitable societies, to resist systems that harm, and reject religious bigotry. I have been hot with vitriolic comments when I speak about working for equitable societies. In fact, many clergy will say that we don’t believe in equity, we believe in equality. But the word in our covenant is equity.
We also have clergy who dissent from the ordination of women. I mentioned that in a recent essay. Experience shows that these men are usually able to go on teaching their dissent without any action toward education or reconciliation with our doctrines. The COTN has never wavered form its commitment to the ordination of women and men so it is hard to understand how men go through our process of ordination and come out believing women cannot lead.
But the clue to how those men arrive at certain positions comes from a dissent that you bump into a lot. That is with Article IV of the COTN articles of faith. That os our article of scripture which rejects textual inerrancy (without error) by embracing soteriological inerrancy. This is about the ability of inspired scripture to fulfill its purpose of revealing God and how humanity can have relationship with God.
But many of the clergy in the COTN reject our view of scripture. They teach and claim that textual inerrancy is required for the Bible to be authoritative. Some even claim that our position is based in sinful thought. We have multiple sources explaining our doctrine, yet many reject it and dissent. The book ARTWork of God I have mentioned in the past is a public example. It would not have been a big deal until the COTN magazine Holiness Today featured the author of that book in a podcast which was then shared by the USA/Canada COTN social media accounts. There are churches that have contrary language to Article IV on their websites. One in my district has the statement:
We believe that the scriptures were written under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We believe that both the Old and New Testaments reveal to us the will of God and are without error in all that they affirm.
That’s textual inerrancy, not soteriological inerrancy.
Another Article of Faith in which we have dissent is baptism. The COTN stands in the Methodist and Anglican tradition of baptizing infants. Our doctrine is that this is baptism and has been a part of our denomination for its entire history. But dissent on this is so popular that our committee was asked to consider new language to remove infant baptism. The committee rejected that request under deeply doctrinal and scriptural reasons. The point is that we either believe baptism to be a sacrament of God’s doing or we make it an ordinance of our doing.
It is Pentecost this Sunday. The birthday of the Church. When we read the story of the Church from Pentecost in, we see a community growing and also struggling to understand what it is to be the Church. There is dissent that permeates but does not divide. Peter keeps going back and forth, but the unity remained and the Church grew and no one threw Peter or Paul out when they disagreed.
Dissent can be a healthy and natural part of the Christian experience within denominations. But this requires trust and love for one another. Most dissent in our past was healthy and clergy did not teach their dissent as doctrine or even speak of their dissent outside of clergy spaces. Now, dissent is crushed if it leans one way, but ignored or even encouraged if it leans another. Many clergy feel afraid to even acknowledge doctrinal positions that other Christians have when discussing our beliefs, yet some are literally teaching ideas contrary to our essential doctrines.
Dissent for me but not for thee in other words.
Trials is in quotes because a friend of mine receive a charge of conduct unbecoming for misunderstanding that a district action was not a trial.