Nazypocrisy
When the Demand for Doctrinal Purity Becomes a Double Standard
This article is a departure from the normalize rhythm of the blog. But the content is about an ongoing issue within the Church of the Nazarene. As members of clergy in the Church of the Nazarene, we understand that our doctrines and theology are important. But consistent application of doctrine and theology is even more important. Doctrine does not matter if it is not applied consistently. Doctrine is not transformative if it is separated from the relational understanding of our doctrines. Clergy are already dealing with the fallout of cultural, political, and fundamentalist formation of their congregations. This struggle is compounded when we encounter internal attacks upon who we are. This article deals with a specific but continued voice given to someone who disagrees with the Church of the Nazarene on fundamental doctrines, but is invited to speak on those very ideas to a mostly Nazarene audience by mostly Nazarene clergy.
This article examines the differences between Christopher Yuan’s perspectives on the Bible, human sexuality, and gender roles and the established positions of the Church of the Nazarene. Dr. Yuan has been featured multiple times at events organized by The Holiness Partnership. The intent here is not to attack Dr. Yuan personally; his remarkable personal transformation is acknowledged and celebrated. Instead, this article evaluates his views compared to those of the Church of the Nazarene and raises concerns about whether his platforming is appropriate given the contradictions with the church’s beliefs. Let’s get into it.
The roles of men and women
Christopher Yuan is a member of the CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood). This organization affirms The Danvers Statement on male and female roles, establishing a complementarian perspective. Biblical manhood asserts male headship, meaning women must always submit to men. The following, from The Danvers Statement, speaks to his belief.
In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community. (Retrieved: https://cbmw.org/about/the-danvers-statement/ 05/17/2025)
This statement is very much at odds with Nazarene doctrine. We do not ascribe to the complementarian point of view, which assumes male headship is the only authority under which women operate. Nowhere in the manual is it suggested that women should display “joyful submission” to male headship. We believe in women’s equality and their divine calling to serve in leadership roles within the church. For this reason, speakers like Christopher Yuan are not a good fit for a Nazarene event. Many women in our movement have been harmed by Mr. Yuan’s views. Mr. Yuan serves an organization that views egalitarianism as a distortion of clear biblical teachings. Nazarenes disagree. We believe women are called to ministry and possess equal gifts and abilities from the Holy Spirit.
Views on human sexuality
Mr. Yuan’s view on human sexuality differs from the Church of the Nazarene in a couple of key areas. His view on same sex relations is a Side X view, which denies the validity of LGBTQ identity, even when those individuals commit to celibacy and embrace the traditional view of marriage. Nazarenes essentially hold to a Side B view of human sexuality with some caveats. We recognize the existence and identity of LGBTQ people, but we do not encourage same sex relations or queer lifestyles. Nazarenes attempt to recognize what is true about those individuals while guiding LGBTQ persons to embrace a lifestyle of celibacy. Side B is very distinct from Side X or Y. Mr Yuan is solidly Side X, Y; essentially the view that the desire for same sex relations can be expunged, creating an ex-gay category of Christians. Most disturbingly, Yuan's perspective goes to the extreme of claiming that Side B Christians are misguided, even heretical. (“Calling out false teachers: What does the Bible say? With Christopher Yuan. Retrieved:
May 18 2025)
While the Side A, B, X, and Y designations are far from perfect, they do provide a way of discussing various perspectives on the human sexuality debate. Below is a short summary of each view.
Side A: Fully Affirming of LGBTQ
Side B: Recognizes LGBTQ identities, but issues a call to celibacy.
Side X: Orientation change (ex-gay)
Side Y: New identity is formed.
Views on the Bible:
Christopher Yuan’s views on the Bible contrast with views held by the Church of the Nazarene (Article IV). Mr. Yuan is a professor at Moody Bible Institute, where views on total biblical inerrancy are required of its faculty. Moreover, Side X, Y positions are fueled by interpretations of the Bible based on inerrancy views, which is not the position of the Church of the Nazarene. The chart below summarizes views on the Bible, Mr. Yuan believes the Bible is without error; a position we do not hold. Nazarenes historically reject the inerrantist position for many good reasons. We also reject the reimagination and reinterpretation of historical texts to accommodate LGBTQ lifestyles (New Inspiration).
Some readers may be wondering why this article points out these issues. What does it accomplish? That's a fair question. I’ll try to answer. It highlights a double standard. How can a group of people take issue with our Seminary, call for its defunding, while facing their own serious issues? The Holiness Partnership has not been shy in its criticism of Nazarene Theological Seminary for platforming speakers and hiring adjuncts who have views on human sexuality that differ from ours. Meanwhile, they platform speakers who disagree with us on multiple doctrines vitally important to our denomination. Perhaps that is the problem with gatekeeping. It never looks in the mirror; it is always pointing the finger and never looking back.
In conclusion, how can we justify giving a platform to a speaker who dismisses our understanding of human sexuality as a misinterpretation of Scripture? Furthermore, this individual, along with many who embrace a strict view of biblical inerrancy, considers the Nazarene stance on soteriological inerrancy to be a dangerous compromise or as some have dared to claim, “a slippery slope.” How is this not a fundamental issue? Who bears responsibility for this decision?
 |
|
This is an important article and it asks important questions. Unfortunately, I don't think the Holiness Partnership cares very much about doctrinal consistency as it pertains to current Manual statements. It cares about its own interpretations of sexuality, gender, scripture, and holiness.
Because those of us considered too far left on particular issues have been forced out or left voluntarily rather than endure trials, the remaining Nazarenes who consider themselves moderate will, in the eyes of the HP, become the new left. The option to have a big tent is no longer on the Nazarene table. That means the CotN is headed the way of the Amish: a winnowing down a tiny, "faithful" remnant with no flexibility.
He has also spoken at District Assemblies and other such events. If he can speak at non-fringe group events, the “other side” should also be invited to… but that won’t happen.