Responding to Reflections by the NTS President Regarding Human Sexuality

May 9

I have decided to write a response to a friend’s statement about an affirmation of the church’s stance on matters LGTBQ+. Which is to say, I want to write a response to his non-affirming stance, which you can read here.

My friend is Dr. Jeren Rowell, president of Nazarene Theological Seminary, the seminary of the denomination I am no longer in good standing with. Or, hmm … maybe they are no longer in good standing with me … either way, I was officially asked to surrender my credentials over the LGTBQ+ subject matter a couple of years ago.

I will refer to him as Rowell for the remainder of this response, simply because Jeren seems too informal, and constantly adding Dr. is laborious. Rowell is a friend and a good man who loves God and the church. He is someone in the past who, at least with me, has demonstrated patience in this subject matter. He is also an author, someone I have read, appreciated, and benefitted from … unfortunately … this particular writing is not his best. I genuinely take no pleasure in saying as much.

Well, on the one hand, what does it really matter? None of us bat 1.000, as it were, and Lord knows I have struck out a few times! And on the other hand, we all know that written things can get in the way of the real work, which is to be in solidarity with our neighbor. So, why would I even worry about words––especially when they comes from the group that’s already self-selected out of relationship with me?

Sigh… that’s a good question. I’ll give four (yea, even five) brief and hopefully honest responses:

I don’t know why I care. I wish I knew all the ways I’m motivated. I’m probably a mixed bag of desires––equal parts self-seeking and self-donating.
I think I care because this is more confirmation that concerns I posed to the denomination (you can read about it here) will never be addressed. As I was voted off the island for having the audacity to ask such questions, I probably feel––yes, it’s embarrassing to admit–– disrespected. Again.
I think I care because I think religious gatekeepers carry an inordinate amount of power. When things get out of balance, someone must speak up. Religious gatekeepers, in my experience, even well-intended ones, find it very difficult to speak about love without adding unnecessary baggage. I have seen this time and time (and time!) again. When the religious system talks about love, they really want to talk about HOLY-love, or IMMUTABLE-love, or OMINIPOTENT-love, SIN-HATING-love, or BIBLICAL-love, or NAZARENE-love, you know, the kind of love they get to define, which only winds up benefitting them and their adherent-loving followers. (If I didn’t respect myself so much, I would insert a palm-to-the-face emoji right here.) Look, I think it’s possible to mean well when creating these hyphenated-behemoths, but in the end, I’m suspicious it’s not really love because… conditional love is not love.
I guess I care because, despite the number of healthy things Rowell says about love, forgiveness, and unity … I think he’s done little to dissuade the actions of the God-designed-binary-obsessed-biblicists who are responsible for the “inquisition-style” attacks upon faculty and clergy which I experienced first-hand, and which he rightly critiques. So, while I’m grateful for his words condemning the witch-hunts, for me, the bottom line remains: LGTBQ+ human beings, it appears, are still powerless in the COTN. It’s shocking, really …

The system that rallies around the most gracious person who’s ever lived cannot find the grace to re-imagine their ideas around sexuality.

Finally, I think I care because … of the young people.

—————————

Believe it or not, I am trying to be concise in my response, so for time’s sake, I am limiting myself to a few remarks underneath three points. You’ll notice I have assigned snappy names to each point:
1-Wanna Agree 2-Honestly, I’m Confused, and 3-Oh Man, I Do Not think this is Right.

1-Wanna Agree
I want to agree with these statements that Rowell makes …

“Pride and self-righteousness have no place in the life of holiness, including in our attitudes around the complexities of human sexuality.”
“The person who is homosexually oriented does not need a church that condemns their orientation, but rather a church that calls for a response that is in keeping with the character of God. The church should not be a place of ridicule and condemnation, but a place of love, of grace, and of redemption.”
“If we truly believe what we say we believe, then ‘perfect love casts out fear’ (1 Jn. 4:18).”

Yes, I want to agree with these statements. Actually, I do agree with these statements IF … we figure out how to do them well. Just think, if we did them well, the world might never again have to read a church’s statement on sexuality (or my response to the church’s statement on sexuality).

Ironically, we don’t do them well because of how the documents like the one I’m critiquing paint the LGTBQ+ conversation into a cramped, restrictive, take-or-leave-it morality corner rather than out into an open, expansive, creative amoral cosmos with no corners.

A healthier way to frame this whole conversation is to think amoral rather than moral; to think of love being amid all the fluctuations and diversity of life without needing love to cast judgment upon all the fluctuations and diversity. This is not something religious systems do well. Religious systems almost always wind up adopting a moral-God-demands-certain-things-to-happen before love can really be administered, or before someone can be married, or before someone can hold a leadership position in the church.

I’m not comfortable with that approach at all.

I am only comfortable (if that is even the right word to use) with consent. That is, God loves everyone and everything at all times, no matter what. That love never forces its way upon others. That God, like a good parent, is in a consensual relationship with his children … which is how perfect love actually casts out fear … it’s because of this knowledge (revelation) that in the end (and all along the way) that God is actually love!

I write more about the consent thing here, but I just do not think our heavenly parent is interested in relegating anyone to second-class anything. We can trust him. We can have this conversation. We can embrace people of all kinds. We do not have to make this a moral discussion any more than we have to make being left-handed a moral discussion. (Oh, btw, there was a time when the church viewed left-handed as a moral discussion!)

Does seeing LGTBQ+ as an amoral-flesh-colored thing rather than a moral-black-white thing mean anything now goes? Is there now no room for discussion about behavior, choices, or consequences? No, of course not. But if we reimagine standards in light of consent rather than arbitrary commandments and rules (btw, some of which we follow and some of which we do not), we give the next generation a much better chance at spiritual, emotional, and psychological health.

So, yes, I very much want to agree with those three statements but realize I can only do so if our definition of love is freed up from all the hyphenated baggage. One could argue that I’m loading love up with my own baggage. My response is … maybe? But I’d invite you to read what I’ve written, or listen to what I have said before you jump to that conclusion. Unfortunately, the COTN has already demonstrated its unwillingness to do such a radical thing.

Okay, moving on …

2-Honestly, I’m Confused:
If Rowell believes his statement, “The most important way to appeal to Scripture is to have in view the whole story of God which is revealed to us in the Word (Jesus Christ) as the Bible bears witness to God’s revelation,” then why not appeal to the actual whole story?

Which is to say, why not appeal …

to the whole story regarding the eunuch (i.e., someone who found themselves outside the normal sexual categories)? Please consider the trajectory of the eunuch throughout the pages of the bible: In Deuteronomy, he’s out. In Isaiah, he’s in. With Jesus, ha, the whole topic just seems to be a non-issue. And with Philip, the eunuch is not only baptized but likely becomes the first missionary to Africa!
to the whole story regarding Jesus voluntarily becoming a scapegoat? In other words, it was a move Jesus made not because of God’s need for such things but because the “powers at be” needed such things. Jesus identified with the victim in order to subvert the victimary mechanism created by religion. The whole story might be that we are now called to do the same thing. We are now responsible for subverting the victimary mechanism that keeps slotting LGTBQ+ humans in as victims.
to the whole story regarding power? I’m confused. Is God with the minority being forced out of the church because of their sexual identity––the 1? Or is God with the majority offering up pronouncements about sexual identity––the 99?

When denominational leaders suggest they are tapping into the entire biblical story while relegating people groups to a lower class, they should really tap into the entire biblical story.

Sigh… the irony is, if we did, we wouldn’t be able to relegate anyone to a lower class.

Finally …

3-Oh Man, I Do Not think this is Right
The weightier portion of Rowell’s statement concerns “God’s design,” particularly as he sees it emerging from chapters one and two of Genesis. While there are some things that Rowell points to that are encouraging, in the end, as I understand what he is saying, he believes marriage is strictly a biological male and female conversation and that Genesis, with its use of Hebrew parallelism not only validates this approach but leaves no room for ambiguity in this area.

First, I am of the mindset that God’s design in Genesis does not have to be a strict, binary, opposite, biological thing; rather, taking my cue from John Walton here, it is what might be called a functional design. (Dana Hicks talks about form and function in his book as well.)

Functional design isn’t about the one specific way God, like a carpenter hammering and sawing, forces everything to be. No, functional design is about God catalyzing life by working in and with the creative energy of evolution so that things grow and flourish to the best of their ability.

The difference is enormous, for a carpenter can make a house, but a house is not necessarily a home. The functional design of the house is a home. In fact, I’d rather live with love under a rock than live without love in the best put together mansion in the world.

I’m not suggesting the house is unimportant; I’m suggesting that the point is the home. I do not believe love forces anything to go one particular way; instead, I believe that love is in the midst of all things, working, inviting, consenting, and helping them flourish. Which is to say love can work even in unusual and unique situations.

Second, there is a glaring problem with suggesting that the Genesis writer employs Hebrew parallelism (e.g., the opposites of night and day or land and water) to say that God’s design with humanity is a strict, binary, opposite, biological thing. Namely, we all know that stuff exists outside of strict, binary, opposite, biological things.

Clearly, the Genesis writer is talking more than material or literal things here. It must be symbolic for …

What do we think is going on between oceans and lands––marshlands and estuaries?
What do we think is going on between night and day––dawn and twilight?

Rather than using Hebrew parallelism to invalidate people across a spectrum of sexuality (biological and psychological), we could be using it to validate and esteem people.

Sheesh, wouldn’t that be great?

Okay, even if my point here was wrong … even if it was clear that the Genesis writer was attempting to define marriage between male and female, what’s not clear is what this means for those who identify as something other than male and female. Again, these people do exist, something Rowell admits to, given that he mentions the possibility of humans being born “intersexed” or living with “gender dysphoria”.

So what does it mean? What do we do with this information? Well, according to Rowell, we must deduce that these people are evidence of God’s broken design. I just don’t understand why he believes he’s required to go there. To be fair, he’s also attempted to say that heterosexuals are evidence of broken design, but one of many problems is that neither he nor the system approaches sexuality for the heterosexual in the same way as they do the homosexual.

For example, the bible (Jesus specifically) reserves way more condemnation for the divorced than the homosexual. Yet, a divorced person in the COTN can potentially serve as a Sunday School teacher, on the board, lead worship, and even be a pastor. Seriously, try that with someone who is gay. My point is not to condemn the divorced person. Not at all. My point is to question how it is that we’re willing to operate with grace in one area while being so unwilling to operate with grace in another. How can this be?

When we draw lines and call out specific people groups as evidence of the brokenness of God’s design, wow, alarms, or bells, or lights should be going off. Actually, all of them should be going off.

Please, could someone in the COTN denomination have the intellectual honesty to just seriously wrestle with the following kinds of questions?

Is it mandatory for someone to consider male and female to be strict, binary opposites? What would this even mean? Are we talking about chromosomes? Are we talking about hormones? Are we talking about defined reproductive organs? Are we talking complete lack of phenotypic variations? Did the bibilical writers have that kind of knowledge? What scientific approach does the Nazarene religious system suggest its professors and clergy take to determine what is precisely male or female?

Are those who find themselves on an emotional or psychological spectrum outside of “God’s design?” Are the left-handed outside of God’s design? How about skin pigmentation? Or eye color? If one responds with a no, as I hope all Nazarenes would respond, then why is the sexuality question different?

What if God’s glory was revealed in the mystery of the anomaly? What if God loves creativity and diversity? What if evolution is infused with the divine? What if “God’s design” was fluid? What if God wasn’t interested in forcing one specific way upon his creation? Indeed, with the reality of evolution, how is it possible to even imagine such a thing?

Is this not the Wesleyan position? Didn’t Wesley believe in the everlasting flow between creator and creation? Is he, not the one who said …

“that we should use and look upon nothing as separate from God, which indeed is a kind of practical Atheism; but, with a true magnificence of thought, survey heaven and earth, and all that is therein, as contained by God in the hollow of his hand, who by his intimate presence holds them all in being, who pervades and actuates the whole created frame, and is, in a true sense, the soul of the universe.” -John Wesley, Upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mountain

When I read the statement Rowell has put together about God’s design I think, oh man, I do not think this is right. I advocate for something different, something that could …

decrease the number of LGTBQ+ human beings considering suicide,
increase the amount of intellectual honesty in the church,
subvert the power of the scapegoating mechanism,
slow down the exodus of young people leaving the COTN,
diminish the power we give to a system that wants us to define good as over against the bad,
honor the LGTBQ+ human being and all of us.

Ultimately, I think that people who find themselves either on a biological or psychological sexual spectrum, are not the exception to God’s design but are, in fact, the exemplification of God’s design.

The church has missed (keeps missing) this. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why they refuse to rethink their position.

Conclusion
In closing, as I have done elsewhere, I want to express gratitude for my many years with the COTN. I remember many good things that happened. I am uninterested in demonizing, for if I scapegoat the church (in my attempt to point out their scapegoating ways) very little of what I have written or said matters. I hope to be in the service of love. And I hope it serves love to confess that honestly …? I’m always a bit suspicous of my motivations. I hope that none of this is used to cycle us all back and into more scapegoating; rather, I hope to re-cyle the whole thing into love.

I am thankful for the work that NTS has done and for my friendship with Jeren Rowell. Though I’m very disappointed in his statment, I have peronsally never witnessed him treating anyone as anything other than a child of God. I hope he isn’t overly offended by what I have written. I have no need to disrespect him or anyone … though I am fine if I am seen to be disrespecting a system that consistently disrespects the powerless and the marginalized (and so quickly jettisons those who ask it to be more gracious and imaginative).

The world just doesn’t have time for ungracious or unimaginative theology.

I think love is inviting all of us into something much more expansive. I think Jesus embodied this expansive approach. And yes, I think there’s still time for the COTN to do the same.

All my best,
Jonathan

————————-

For the sake of love and future generations, please read …

Why the Church of the Nazarene Should be Affirming

Questions about Sexuality that Got Me Uninvited from My Denomination

Theology of Consent: Mimetic Theory in an Open and Relational Universe

Oh gosh, anything and everything by Catherine Keller, Kathryn Tanner, Linda Kay Klein, Keegan Osinkski, Monica Coleman, James Alison, or Rene Girard.

Also …

The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence

Pluriform Love: An Open and Relational Theology of Well-Being

The Lost World of Genesis series

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins