For those who Google my name, you will discover that I was at the center of a church controversy that resulted in a trial, conviction of heresy and removal of my credentials within that denominational tradition. Dream Work is not bound by any faith tradition, but rather is appreciated across many faith traditions. Some want a dream guide to be of a particular faith. I don’t require that of others, nor of myself. I believe in the endless breadth of God’s ability to communicate grace and love toward all creation. Nevertheless, for those who want to know my posture and reasoning regarding my Christian-based view on one aspect of human sexuality, I offer those details below.

In February of 2023 I wrote an essay because I thought it might add to the important conversation, within the Nazarene church (Protestant), regarding how the church engages the LGBTQIA+ community.  As a result of the essay, I was convicted of heresy and was no longer allowed to serve as clergy, or in any position of leadership in the denomination. The judicial process included one investigation and three trials.

In these few paragraphs I would like to simply state how I come to the belief that the church should allow clergy the choice to preside over the marriage of two people, of the same gender, who love each other in accordance with John 15, and offer blessings on the lives of those individuals.  

Since every argument from the denomination is supposedly based on the church's interpretation of Christian scripture, I will limit my response to my understanding of these scriptures, though there are many important arguments unrelated to scripture.

A. Foundational perspectives on what I believe about the Bible.

1. The Bible is the great written revelation we have regarding God; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I love the Bible because it teaches me about Jesus.  However, I don't worship the Bible, but rather I worship the Christ the Bible reveals. C.S. Lewis wrote, "It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him. We must not use the Bible as a sort of encyclopedia out of which texts can be taken for use as weapons."

2. I believe the Bible inerrantly contains all things necessary for salvation, but it is not inerrant.  Literary criticism, cultural context, linguistic studies, genre analysis and endless commentaries don't undermine the document.  They just make us better students of a sacred and ancient collection of writings. They can also lead us to a place of humility regarding how much more there is to understand of this beautiful piece of literature.

3. The Bible can be described in many ways. One of those ways is that it is a record of God's pursuit of humankind, a pursuit born out of love.  And God invites humankind to respond to that love by loving God and loving others. All conclusions regarding the meaning of scripture should be viewed and evaluated through the lens of love.

B. With these three foundational statements regarding the Bible, I offer my reasoning regarding specific scriptures.

1. We will always be debating whether we view a particular expectation (command) in scripture as descriptive of a particular individual/group, or prescriptive for all people at all times. For example, the Israelites are told to never wear clothes made of two different materials. Most people conclude this is descriptive of a command to a group of people at a particular time, not prescriptive for all people at all times.  Likewise, Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all he has and give the proceeds to the poor.  Again, most interpret this to be descriptive of one man's experience, not prescriptive of something everyone must do. That distinction leads me to ask if the scriptural admonitions against certain sexual behaviors are descriptive for a certain group, in a certain time, or are they prescriptive for all people at all times?  There is disagreement on the answer to that question. And, there are reasonable arguments on both sides, but the arguments are neither definitive nor persuasive. That leads me back to A.3. above, which says that they must be evaluated through the lens of love.

2. As already stated, the plot of scripture is God's loving pursuit of humankind, and God's invitation for us to respond in love. Humankind's greatest, and most consistent temptation is to choose power over love.  Scripture repeatedly condemns the abuse of power. So it is reasonable to ask if certain passages which condemn certain sexual behaviors, might be a protection against those who would abuse their power. Most of the passages quoted against the LGBTQIA+ community could reasonably fall into this category (a condemnation of those in power who abuse their power in sexual ways). So, once again, are the commands directed at those who were abusing their power (in other words, descriptive of a particular group) or are they prescriptive for all people at all times? When I look at the arc of scripture it seems more likely that these passages are descriptive of situations with significant power differentials, not prescriptive for all people at all times. But I don't know that for certain.  So I am back to A.3. above, which is to evaluate any response through the eyes of love. 

My conclusion is that I simply must trust the other person and God to work out there salvation and there sexuality, just like I have to work out mine.  And it really is work, because relationships take work.  And the journey of faith is a relational journey.  I want to simply bless people on their journey and be an encouragement in their efforts.

-Dee

P.S. There are 7-10 scripture passages which occupy a lot of space in the debate on this issue. The contextual issues related to this collection of passages are many, and are important, but they seem to lead to more polarization, not to more unity. I don't think that more debate will get us to a unified response, but love might.