Thomas Oord is charged with teaching doctrine out of harmony with the Church of the Nazarene by calling for inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ+ people. However, given the Manual statement on human sexuality and marriage (paragraph 31 in the Covenant of Christian Conduct) and the Articles of Faith (primarily Articles V [Sin, Original and Personal] and X [Christian Holiness and Entire Sanctification]), I will argue that such inclusion and affirmation is actually fully in harmony with the core doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene, its watchword and song, that is, holiness. Indeed, as the Manual says, “If we fail to honestly confront sin and brokenness, we have not loved. If we fail to love, we cannot participate in God’s healing of brokenness.” The true sin and brokenness in this case lies in the behavior of the Church, and its treatment of LGBTQ+ people. But I digress. The Church of the Nazarene’s denominational unchristlikeness is not what is on trial here. Dr. Oord is being “charged” for calling the Church to follow its own stated doctrine of love, to enact the very “Christian hospitality” and “welcome of love” that the Manual promotes.

In the statement on human sexuality and marriage, “sexual activity between people of the same sex” is listed among the things we should refrain from, for the reason that “we believe that it is God’s intention for our sexuality to be lived out in the covenantal union between one woman and one man.” If this is the case, there is no real reason given. It has nothing to do with “sin” as such, or as explained in prior paragraphs as objectification or selfishness. In fact, let us consider sin as presented in Article V. The most relevant and concise definition of personal sin (as opposed to original sin or depravity) here is this: “Personal sin is primarily and essentially a violation of the law of love.” Certainly, there are myriad ways that sexuality (both homo- and heterosexual) can be deployed in such a violation. However, it cannot be determined a priori that certain sexual activities will necessarily violate this law of love. Even the section about “unmarried [assumedly heterosexual] sexual intercourse” says that “these practices often lead” to objectification and “potentially harms” one’s ability to bond in marriage. It is not and cannot be a foregone conclusion that these sexual activities will be characterized by sin rather than love.

Without getting too much into tangential arguments, we may even note that there is nothing fundamentally inherently at odds between Christian same-sex marriage and the marriage described in the statement on human sexuality and marriage. Nothing about a same-sex relationship precludes it from being “one of exclusive sexual fidelity, unselfish service, and social witness” or from two people of the same sex “devot[ing] themselves to one another as a witness to the way God loves.” Same sex couples may also just as well foster a “Christ-centered home” to “serve as a primary location for spiritual formation.” Indeed, I expect everyone here knows such couples, who bear witness to the capacious grace and hospitality of God in their homes and lives. And if you don’t, you are all the poorer for it.

Teaching and promoting the welcome and acceptance of queer folks in the Church of the Nazarene is in full harmony with precisely what the statement on human sexuality and marriage calls for: “to be a welcoming, forgiving, and loving community, where hospitality, encouragement, transformation, and accountability are available to all.” Dr. Oord has not taught anything contrary to this mandate to love. He does not deny the brokenness and deep need of individuals to be touched by the healing hand of God in the caring company of the church. He does not promote the sins of objectification and self-sovereignty. He teaches the best and most central beliefs of the Church of the Nazarene: that the God of love freely bestows grace upon all people; that the way of Jesus Christ offers freedom and healing from sin; that all may be transformed into the likeness of Christ and be entirely sanctified, that is, motivated by pure and perfect love of God and neighbor.

I have shown that it the statements of our Manual  can lean toward love and acceptance. And if such a reading biased toward love is possible, why favor a reading emphasizing condemnation? Or at the very least, why reject the existence of such a love-focused interpretation? Is an interpretation that errs on the side of love somehow less desirable?

In my view, the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene is, as it should be, founded on the basis of the love of God in Christ Jesus. Dr. Oord’s teaching is ultimately promoting this love. However, if his teaching of love is, as charged, contrary to the Church’s doctrine, there is a bigger problem here.

Dr. Oord is charged with teaching out of harmony with the doctrine of the Manual. The thing about harmonies is they require the simultaneous sounding of multiple different notes. The beauty of a chord is the juxtaposition of diversity. We are lucky to have Dr. Oord’s perspective and teaching in the Church of the Nazarene. While it may diverge from others’, it is not inconsistent with the doctrine of the church, and in fact is an important contribution to the harmony of Nazarene doctrine and its expression in our parishes and the world.

Keegan Osinski