Church of The Nazarene Expels Prominent Theologian Over Same-Sex Advocacy

IN THE REGIONAL BOARD OF DISCIPLINE

CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE

IN RE THOMAS J. OORD

ON HEARING OF CHARGES FROM THE INTERMOUNTAIN DISTRICT

VERDICT

July 27, 2024

This matter came before the Regional Board of Discipline (RBOD) on July 25, 2024, for hearing on charges filed by the Intermountain District Advisory Board (DAB) against Thomas Jay Oord (Oord).

Oord is charged with 1) conduct unbecoming a minister, and 2) teaching doctrine out of harmony with the doctrinal statements of the Church of the Nazarene, in violation of paragraph 606 of the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, and as further stipulated in the Bill of Charges.

The DAB called Mike Seward, who testified that the District responded to accusations against Oord by attempting to work with him by agreement. Confidential details of the agreement were publicly disclosed by Oord. At the same time, some of the details of the agreement were presented inaccurately by him.

Seward said the District felt compelled to pursue formal charges against Oord because he repeatedly disregarded the instructions of the DAB and repeatedly violated confidentiality. When he was asked to voluntarily give up his credentials, he refused to do so. Once a clear pattern of inappropriate conduct developed, the DAB saw no option other than to file formal charges.

The DAB next called District Superintendent Scott Shaw. Shaw said that after receiving the accusations, the district conducted an investigation. Based on the initial findings, the DAB declined to bring charges immediately but also determined not to dismiss the accusations. Shaw told Oord the decision of the DAB. In response to that, Oord has made public statements online and elsewhere, falsely claiming that charges had been brought against him and dismissed by the district.

Shaw said there were multiple instances where Oord took things from private conversations and made them public. After confronting Oord with the untruths, Oord responded that he would try to be more precise. Despite that, he immediately falsely claimed that he had been through a trial, and that he had been acquitted.

Shaw said that he did not approve Oord serving in an associate role in a local church. When he told Oord of his decision, Oord said that he would be a thorn in Shaw’s side. Oord publicly stated that he was not approved because of his views on human sexuality. Shaw said that he specifically addressed the fact that Oord was preaching a series from a book by Brian McLaren that had no basis in scripture.

Shaw said he asked Oord repeatedly to resign his credential because he was out of harmony with the church. Oord said he did not want to do that because his goal was to change the church. Shaw told him that there is a process for doing so through the General Assembly and offered to allow Oord to write a resolution and submit it through the District. Oord refused to do so.

On cross-examination, Oord stated that some of the alleged untrue statements were sent by him in private emails. He did not challenge whether the statements were untrue. He also said he was confused about whether actions by the investigative committee were a trial. He stated that Shaw’s disapproval of his associate position was an overreaction based on Shaw characterizing the action as disciplinary. He did not refute that Shaw acted within his authority, based on Manual paragraphs 169-169.2.

Both parties submitted Why the Church of the Nazarene Should Be Fully LGBTQ+ Affirming, edited by Thomas J. Oord and Alexa Oord, which we took under advisement. Among the many parts of the book that disagree with the doctrine of the Church of the Nazarene, (specifically, Manual paragraphs 21.2(3), 31, and 530.19) is this passage from the chapter written by Oord:

Some LGBTQ behavior—including same-sex marriage—can promote well-being. It’s good and healthy; it represents the values of the Kingdom of God. The transformation God desires rarely if ever requires LGBTQ people to change their sexual orientation, identity, or loving behavior. (page 465).

Oord called Samuel Powell, who questioned who can know in advance what constitutes “conduct unbecoming.” He also questioned how Shaw could know to whom Oord sent the private emails. Additionally, he said that Oord is not one of the entities that is authorized by the Manual to submit resolutions to General Assembly. He did not address Shaw’s assertion that Shaw offered to let Oord submit a resolution through the Intermountain District.

Oord called Steve McCormick, who testified that the Board of General Superintendents’ ruling on human sexuality is not doctrine because the General Assembly did not vote on it. We addressed this issue in our June 14, 2024, Order on Pre-Hearing Motions and will not revisit that issue here.

Oord called Kara Hudson, Keegan Osinski, Craig Keen, and Eric Severson. None of these witnesses spoke specifically in refutation of any of the specific issues raised by the DAB. We permitted their testimony and gave great latitude to Oord during cross-examination, even though it caused the proceedings to extend well beyond the time allocated to both parties.

In its closing argument, the DAB asserts that Oord’s behavior exhibits a pattern of disregard and disrespect for authority: “Using his own words in a letter to the BGS just recently and then sent to his friends and now posted on social media just weeks ago Dr. Oord states, ‘I will make my own decision on how I speak, when I speak, and what I say.’” The DAB also argues, “In doing so, his continued efforts to promote his agenda and his cause has also brought with it a deep disregard for you as a RBOD, for the Church, for the Manual process, and for the unity of the church.”

The DAB points to Oord’s disregard of this board’s policies and orders. Oord counters that he is not charged with conduct relating to his interaction with the RBOD. We agree, but his conduct from the beginning of these proceedings has done little to persuade us that the behavior described by the district is a mere aberration. It certainly lends credence to the suggestion that it is an ongoing pattern of conduct toward authority that is unbecoming a minister of the gospel.

Oord presented little to rebut the DAB’s evidence concerning the charge of conduct unbecoming. We find the witnesses for the DAB to be credible. That is not to suggest that we do not find Oord’s witnesses credible; however, they offered nothing that countered the specific issues that were raised by the DAB.

In closing, Oord said, “I have been breaking the rule that says everyone ought to affirm the statement on human sexuality, and that makes your job very simple.” He also said, “I know the rules say I should be punished, but I am asking you to break the rules.” He maintains that the church’s rules on human sexuality are wrong and that he is compelled by love to break those rules.

The DAB asserts, “We believe Dr. Oord is living in a false dichotomy that one must affirm someone’s behavior in order to love them. That is simply not true. We love Dr. Oord even today; however, we do not affirm his misbehaviors and poor conduct in recent days. Love does not equal affirmation.”

DECISION

We, the members of the Regional Board of Discipline, unanimously find to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt (Manual paragraph 616) that Thomas Jay Oord is guilty of conduct unbecoming a minister and of teaching doctrines out of harmony with the doctrinal statement of the Church of the Nazarene.

In determining the appropriate discipline, we are mindful that

“The objectives of church discipline are to sustain the integrity of the church, to protect the innocent from harm, to protect the effectiveness of the witness of the church, to warn and correct the careless, to bring the guilty to salvation, to rehabilitate the guilty, to restore to effective service those who are rehabilitated, and to protect the reputation and resources of the church. Members of the church who do violence to the Covenant of Christian Character or the Covenant of Christian Conduct, or who willfully and continuously violate their membership vows, should be dealt with kindly yet faithfully, according to the grievousness of their offenses. Holiness of heart and life being the New Testament standard, the Church of the Nazarene insists upon a clean ministry and requires that those who bear its credentials as a member of the clergy be orthodox in doctrine and holy in life. Thus the purpose of the discipline is not punitive or retributive but is to accomplish these objectives. Determination of standing and continued relationship to the church is also a function of the disciplinary process. (Manual paragraph 600).”

Our sincere prayer is that Oord will repent of his heretical teachings and devote his considerable talents in a way that he and all those whom he has led astray will find wholeness in Christ. The seriousness of his offenses cannot be overstated. Under the guise of being a Nazarene elder and educator, he has sown deep seeds of confusion and division, leading people away from sound doctrine. Only eternity will show how many souls have been led astray through this false teaching.

Oord has shown absolutely no repentance or willingness to submit to the authority of the church leadership. Had he been faithful to his membership vows and his vows at the time he was ordained, he would long ago have resigned his credentials and his membership. He is a Nazarene in name only. He states that he remains part of the Church of the Nazarene primarily to change the denomination to conform to his beliefs.

We, therefore, order that the credentials of Thomas Jay Oord be SURRENDERED1. We also order that he be RELEASED FROM MEMBERSHIP in the Church of the Nazarene. We take this action to prevent Oord from participating in the ministry of any church of the Nazarene2 or reuniting with the Church of the Nazarene without appropriate authorization.3

Verdict released on this 27th Day of July, 2024, by the Regional Board of Discipline:

Jim Bond, Ira Brown, Karen Garrison, Bobby Howard, Rollie Miller, James Nelson, Kelli Westmark (each signed the verdict statement)

BOARD NOTES:

1 “Surrendered Credential — The status of the credential of a member of the clergy who, because of misconduct, accusations, confessions, result of action by a board of discipline, or voluntary action for any reason other than inactivity in the ministry has been relieved of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of being a member of the clergy.” (Manual paragraph 530).

2 “Pastors, local church boards, and others who determine assignments within the church shall not engage a member of the clergy who is not in good standing in any ministerial role or in any other position of trust or authority (such as leading worship, teaching a Sunday School class, or leading a Bible study or small group) until good standing is restored. Exceptions to this prohibition require the written approval of both the district superintendent of the district to which the minister belonged when relieved of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of being a member of the clergy, and the general superintendent in jurisdiction of that same district.” (Manual paragraph 531.9)

3 “Any member of the clergy who withdraws or is released from local church membership when he or she is not in good standing may reunite with the Church of the Nazarene only with the consent of the District Advisory Board of the assembly district from which he or she withdrew or was released from membership. The District Advisory Board may grant its consent on condition that the former minister shall subsequently remain a lay member of the church or, with the approval of the district superintendent and the general superintendent in jurisdiction, that the former minister be readmitted as a member of the clergy under discipline having affirmed his or her willingness to participate actively and consistently in a recovery process.” (Manual paragraph 530.11)