Have It Both Ways?
When Arguing for Change is Illogical
Three contributors to the recently released Biblical Sexuality: Why the Church of the Nazarene is Right are from the Kentucky District within the Church of the Nazarene (COTN). I mention in my review the irony that some contributors have argued for changes to the statement on human sexuality in the Manual: Church of the Nazarene, 2017–2021. I would like to explain how I arrive at that conclusion and why I believe there is a disharmony with our current statement similar to the charges levied by the contributors to Biblical Sexuality against the contributors of the recent Why the Church of the Nazarene Should be Fully LGBTQ+ Affirming. My review of that book is here. This essay will not debate the merits of the arguments in either book except to evaluate the relevance of the subtitle of Biblical Sexuality based upon the proposed changes to Paragraph 31 in the Manual: Church of the Nazarene (Manual) by the Kentucky District of the COTN.
Considering the subtitle of Biblical Sexuality, and a recent podcast interview (see note about this series of podcasts below) by Rev. Dr. Brian Powell, the District Superintendent of the Kentucky District, the charges that only those arguing for the COTN to be fully affirming disagree with our current Paragraph 31, “Human Sexuality and Marriage” is a spurious claim. In the podcast interview, D. Powell characterizes the resolution CA705 to the Church of the Nazarene’s General Assembly by the KY District as a move to make this statement more concise. There is even a claim that the statement is made more global by removing and replacing language (see a critique of that claim here). Upon reading it through, the proposal is not more concise, but seeks to fundamentally change the statement to exclude language of grace and certain pastoral responses. Perhaps, based upon the reasoning given that the resolution shows clergy in the KY District are not in as much harmony with Paragraph 31 as they claim.
The first issue comes with language proposed to address identity. The current understanding of the COTN is that the primary identity of Christians is that of being in Christ. Within that, we acknowledge that we have other identities that make each of us who we are. The language being proposed in CA705 is aimed at forbidding LGBTQ+ participants in the COTN from using the language of identity such as gay Christian, queer Christian, etc. Those are not claims of primary identity, but that of ontological reality. The resolution connects identity, temptation, and sin. To deny the ancillary identity of any human being is to make claims that do not allow us to recognize our ontologies. It is this language that partially explains the proposed deletion of paragraphs acknowledging the complexity of LGBTQ+ experience. The proposal language and reasoning is this: “11. Section: “Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.” Recommend adding the following sentence to the end of the section: “Thus, discipleship serves to lead people to identity in Christ consistent with the call to holiness of heart and life and not with sexual sin or temptations.” This is important because one’s identity should not be linked to any temptation that, if acted upon, would leave one guilty of sin.” Why is this important? because the insistence that one cannot call themselves a gay Christian is one of denying the ontological nature of LGBTQ+ for that person.
As if that were not enough to reject this proposed change, language from Dr. Douglas Hopkins (Ky District) in his essay from Biblical Sexuality, “I’m In Your Corner” shows why thinking along these lines can exclude people from even having conversations. Here is a quote from Dr. Hopkins; “When you start the conversation by declaring ‘this is who I am’ as your selected identity, you effectively limit the conversation. Anyone who disagrees with your perspective is an offense to you. And I don’t want to offend you! If you are in Christ, then you are a Christian; that is who you are. If you identify as LGBTQ+, then for the sake of furthering the conversation, can we understand that as what or even how you are rather than who you are? This subtle shift will allow us to have a real conversation without you feeling rejected as a person, because you’re not.” (I’m In Your Corner) Dr. Hopkins argues that same-sex Christians and others must change their thinking (technically repent) before he will have a conversation with them. Dr. Hopkins is demanding something Jesus never did; change prior to engagement.
Second, Resolution CA705 proposes gutting language, which made Paragraph 31 more grace filled and aligned with contemporary psychological and other scientific recognition. While the argument for change rightly claims that no other statement on sexuality considers origins, that is because no one considers heterosexual attraction to be inherently sinful. But based upon interactions with both Nazarene clergy on a global and local scale, we struggle with the idea that same-sex attraction itself cannot be sinful within our doctrine. The current statement reinforces what we believe about attraction (be it sexual or otherwise) and also shows that we, as a church, understand the costly request we make of those who are LGBTQ+ within our denomination. Because of our beliefs, we must be willing to proclaim the fact that we realize what we ask is hard. An ethical response to questions demands it. The following explanation is concerning because it acts as if the current statement is not our view. “Removing this sentence aligns more clearly with our position:” Because we do hold the position that same-sex attraction is complex in origin. We also do not see same-sex attraction as any more or less sinful than any attraction of human beings to one another.
Here is the reasoning given by the KY District for removal of language from the resolution: 6. Section: “Sexual activity between people of the same sex.” No other form of sexual sin in our statement on human sexuality deals with the origins or roots of the temptations. Those issues are dealt with in the Articles of Faith on Sin. Removing this sentence aligns more clearly with our position: “While a person’s homosexual or bi-sexual attraction may have complex and differing origins, and the implications of this call to sexual purity is costly, we believe the grace of God is sufficient for such a calling.”
The final proposed change is strange coming from clergy because it unnecessarily wants to remove grace and local pastoral responses within our doctrine and polity. Even if it adds ambiguity, which I do not believe it does, it demands that we approach ministry within human sexuality with humility, care, courage, and discernment. This is a complex topic, whether we want it to be or not. The last GA almost codified language that would claim that a couple million human beings do not exist. Here is what CA705 wishes to do to the last paragraph of Paragraph 31. “The last sentence of the statement reads: ‘As the global church receives and ministers to the people of our world, the faithful outworking of these statements as congregations is complex and must be navigated with care, humility, courage, and discernment.’’ Recommend removing this sentence, as it adds ambiguity to our statement on ‘Human Sexuality’ rather than clarity.”
Why does this matter? Because many pastors and local churches minister to those who call themselves queer and Christian. Many churches have people within our churches who are involved and take part in the life of the local church even if they believe that the doctrine of the COTN excludes them. Our current statement is a via Media approach that keeps our doctrine and practice in tension with the reality of human experience such that we can be gracious and consistent. The changes proposed in CA705 essentially gut the current statement such that it takes us backward to a less graceful approach to LGBTQ+ human beings. The current version of paragraph 31 was approved at a GA in which 97% of delegates approved it, a stat that the sponsors of CA705 like to tout, so it begs the question why change is needed. If you are a delegate reading this, please consider any changes prayerfully and maybe remain conservative and reject changes to Paragraph 31.
The current Paragraph 31 in the Manual https://2017.manual.nazarene.org/section/human-sexuality-and-marriage/
Andy Miller is interviewing six people from three denominations on a pro versus con basis for affirming LGBTQ+ fully in those denominations. Here is a link to his podcast: https://andymilleriii.com/media/podcast/
Dr. Douglas J. Hopkins, “I’m In Your Corner.” Biblical Sexuality
Biblical Sexuality: Why The Church of the Nazarene is Right. Edited by Friedeman Dr.Matt and Elijah Friedeman.
Link to Resolutions to the General Assembly 2023 https://gadocs.nazarene.org/index.php/s/Resolutions-EN?path=%2F
Well written and thought out. We should not abandon our current statement 31 on Human Sexuality. It was more than five years in the making and was rigorously handled by committee before being presented to the GA. The 97% affirmation of the GA says a great deal, both Stateside and globally, about how we feel in this matter- no clarification is necessary. The via media is the correct path to take on this issue.