by: Samuel M Powell

For a somewhat longer version of this post, go to: 
Call for Dialog (samuelmpowell.com)

As some of you may know, Tom Oord, Director of the Center for Open and Relational Theology, faces a trial this week. The charges against him, brought by two ordained ministers in the Church of the Nazarene, are 1) conduct unbecoming of a minister and 2) promoting doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statements of the Church of the Nazarene–in particular, the statement on human sexuality.

I and several others will appear at this trial as witnesses for Tom, seeking to defend him against these charges. None of us has the slightest measure of optimism that this defense will succeed. It is as certain that Tom will be stripped of his ministerial credentials as that the sun will rise tomorrow.

In spite of this sad fact that seems preordained, there are members of the Wesleyan community who want to support Tom. To that end, I will be posting, over the next several weeks, essays by people who have volunteered to bear witness to their convictions about LGBTQIA issues. I will contribute a few essays of my own.

Readers will notice that these essays will be uniformly in support of dialog. None will defend the doctrinal status quo. I have, on another FB group, been criticized for creating an ideologically one-sided project. Why, it has been asked, am I not creating a dialog by including essays that defend the traditional Christian view homosexuality?

The answer is that, before dialog can occur, a case has to be made for the need of dialog. I say this because CON appears to have taken the view that there is no need of dialog since 1) the Bible is utterly clear in its condemnation of same-sex sex and 2) the Church of the Nazarene has formulated an immutable doctrine that perfectly encapsulates the clear teaching of scripture. Indeed, for many members of our church, the call for dialog is not only pointless, but is, in fact, sinister in intent, seeking to create division and disharmony.

Given these beliefs, the need for and legitimacy of dialog must first be established. Hence the modest series of essays that I will be posting.

Why do we need dialog on this issue? Because, when it comes to making a case for or against LGBTQ inclusion, the burden of proof has shifted. For many people, it is now the traditional view that has the burden of proof. For others, questions of sufficient strength have been raised to require a stout defense of the traditional view.

CON does not officially acknowledge the shift in the burden of proof. It has instead remained content to buttress its teaching with platitudes and flabby appeals to authority and is doing everything it can to ensure that real dialog does not occur.

What would real dialog look like?

• It would range widely over many areas: not just scriptural teaching, but philosophical assumptions, scientific data and theories, insights from the therapeutic community, and cultural analysis.
• It would involve critical analysis, including laying bare and scrutinizing hidden assumptions in beliefs and methodologies.
• It would be open-ended–there would be no foreordained result. This, I acknowledge, runs contrary to institutional obsession with controlling outcomes.
• It would take time–it could not be accomplished by a weekend conference.
• It would include actual debate, and there would be no premature rush to achieve consensus. Again, I recognize that such debate is contrary to the institution’s horror in the face of diversity.
• Its participants would not be limited to the denomination’s hand-picked representatives.

Can my church undertake such a dialog? I’m not wildly optimistic, but the essays I will post represent a call for dialog and a hope, perhaps as small as a human hand, that it can happen.