The Shaming of the Church: Part III

Dear Friends,

This three-part series, The Shaming of the Church, was intended primarily for those of us who identify with the orthodox teachings of the Church, for it is now this portion of the Body of Christ, particularly, that is under aggressive attack by progressives for being “unloving.” Despite its denials, the progressive Church has adopted an attitude of “Anything Goes” (thank you Cole Porter) regarding human sexuality. Thank God for those millions of Catholics, charismatics, fundamentalists, evangelicals, the Orthodox Church and those splinter, mainline churches (The Anglican Church in North America, the Global Methodist Church, etc.) who are “holding fast” to Christ and the historical, biblical teachings of the Church.

And I thank God for you, dear listener and reader. I trust you and yours had a wonderful Thanksgiving. As we enter this Advent time of year, let us be anticipating the joys of the season as we celebrate the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ—the Church’s one foundation!

Pressing On!

D. Paul

THE SHAMING OF THE CHURCH: Part III

“Unloving,” “calloused,” “hurtful,” “abusive,” “contemptuous,” “hateful,” “unsafe”— these are a few of the words used by some of the contributors to Why The Church Of The Nazarene Should Be Fully LGBTQ+ Affirming when describing the Nazarene Church and its attitude toward LGBTQIA+ individuals. The contributors, mostly Nazarenes or ex-Nazarenes, are on a mission to transform the Church in accordance with their worldview.

Various contributors represent the wide spectrum that has become the ever-expanding alphabet soup of the LGBTQIA+ community. They identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, intersexual, asexual, etc. Despite the differences in their various identities, they have much in common: most claim to love or to “have loved” the Nazarene Church, only to be rejected by her once they “came out.” Like the spurned lover, they share a pain and similar anger for a Church that has condemned their “true selves.” Frequently, expressions of victimization are common threads binding them, with descriptors such as “abused,” “rejected,” “alienated,” “deprived,” “immoral,” “sinful by nature,” “forsaken” and “abandoned,” elevating them to near martyrdom status. If you’ll excuse the feeble double entendre, in their pursuit to set the the theology of the Nazarene Church straight, they maximize this victim status, shaming and blaming the Church for their personal distress. Rather than “let the Nazarene Church be the Nazarene Church” and move to a “more welcoming” one, they often remain in her pews, pulpits, and classrooms, blaming the Church ad nauseam. Justifying their theological positions, they share a tired, self-serving revisionism of scripture that has been around for decades, which, when followed, has been the death knell for many a mainline church that was once orthodox in persuasion. Ironically, they are now saying that unless the Nazarene Church adapts, it will wither and die on the vine, a vivid example of ecclesiastical projection. If anything, Billy Graham’s prediction may come true—the Nazarene Church may well be the conduit for a great revival. “If,” I would add, “if” it “holds fast” to the teaching delivered to them by the saints, they may well be the spark for another “great awakening.”

And yet, the stiff opposition persists, a position difficult for me to understand. Having spent a year creating an anniversary film for the Church of the Nazarene, scripting and playing its primary founder, Phineas F. Bresee, and consulting closely with the church’s leadership, subsequently performing the show in dozens of churches throughout the denomination, I never once witnessed the blatant hostility toward LGBTQ people that the editors and contributors of this anti-Nazarene polemic attribute to the church’s leaders and laity. I don’t deny its existence; in fact, I’m quite sure it’s there. I would posit, though, that such hostility and animus toward LGBTQIA+ individuals are the exception rather than the rule. My extraordinarily talented makeup artist friend (years later, he went on to win an Oscar!) who turned me into an aging Bresee, with a bald skullcap and all, was gay; we all knew it, and he was welcomed in the church by all whom he encountered in the months he worked and toured with me on the project. Now if my artist friend had joined the Nazarene Church and began making personal and theological demands upon it, I’ve no doubt he would have been told that those demands are antithetical to church doctrine and will not be permitted. And I’ve no doubt he would have been deeply disappointed; but, he would have, I believe, moved on to another church that was more in keeping with his beliefs. But among those progressive allies and LGBTQIA+ activists who remain in the Nazarene Church, and among those who have left but remain lastingly bitter (as if preternaturally attached to the church), there is often this stubborn insistence in “saving” it, in reshaping it into their image of who the caring Christ of unconditional love is. Of course, herein lies a great paradox.

I Corinthians 13:5 tells us that “…love does not insist on its own way.” Paul knew that such insistence would destroy the Church, making Christian “unity” nothing more than a pretense. “But the, Church,” you say, “insists on its way. We have a right to insist on ours, do we not!” One does have the right, but is it ultimately the way of love? Might there be a better way than insisting that the Church change to fulfill our expectations? The Nazarene Church is at perfect liberty in insisting upon the truth of its core doctrines on human sexuality. We ought not to think it strange that the vast majority of global Christians have not and never will agree with the zealous, gender ideologues who have created, according to Andrew Sullivan, “…an entirely new category of humans called ‘nonbinaries,’” asking Christians to “fully affirm” them from the pulpit and the pew. It simply will not happen, friends. Repetitiously so, I ask again: would it not be best to go our separate ways, not affirming the other’s belief, but respecting the other’s right to those beliefs? Surely we have the maturity and grace to do that … don’t we?

As I write this, I’ve been interrupted by an incident directly outside my 2nd floor office window: my wife informs me that a car has been parked on the road in front of our driveway, its lights on, the engine running.

Normally, I would go out and check, but it’s late, dark, so I shine a flashlight on the vehicle without a response. Having witnessed a couple of drug deals this past year in our driveway, I decide to call the police. They arrive in two cars, pull a half-asleep, reluctant driver out of the car, calm him down, give him a breathalyzer, which he fails, handcuff him, and escort him to a third patrol car as a flatbed tow truck impounds the vehicle, our hapless driver crying out for mercy along the way.

While watching this drama unfold, I’m reminded of the commonality of our individual brokenness and of our need for a Savior. That is the great mission of the Church, isn’t it—to introduce everyone to the Jesus who came to “seek and to save” those who are lost—and that is all of us. There is never a need to shame LGBTQIA+ individuals nor for them to blame the Church of the Nazarene. Nor is it the job of Christians to mindlessly affirm the multi-faceted “contagious gender confusion” which has invaded the Church.

As my wife and I watched this sad story play itself out for nearly an hour (my Down’s daughter thought she was watching a live episode of Law & Order), we found ourselves repeatedly praying for the man who was arrested and grateful that he was off the streets—neither a danger to himself nor to others.

My brothers and sisters in Christ: there is no need for the “shame and blame” game. There is a need for wisdom, discernment, forgiveness, healing, and the transformative love of Christ … for all of us.

Well, as is evident, I’ve gone off script, my friends; unacceptable for a playwright, but permissible for a preacher. So I close on a positive note from an old hymn that comes to mind, reminding us we need harbor no shame nor bear any ridicule.

Hallelujah, What A Savior (Philip P. Bliss, 1875)

“Man of Sorrows!” what a name
For the Son of God, who came
Ruined sinners to reclaim.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Guilty, vile, and helpless we;
Spotless Lamb of God was He;
“Full atonement!” can it be?
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Amen