Rev.

Tom Newman Interview

Sarah Arney(SA): Thank you for being willing to speak with me. I would like to start this

interview by playing you something I heard while at General Conference. This is a

Bishop who is about to start some group discussions.

Bishop Palmer: So I want to tell you a quick story. The Council of Bishops a couple of

years ago was having table conversations about some of our most challenging issues in

the life of the church and the several cultures that we represent around the globe. One

of our colleague bishops at the table where I was sitting said, We all need to take a

step back. There was a pregnant pause, as you might imagine, not knowing what would

be said next by this particular bishop, who Ill not throw under the bus as we speak. He

said, Why dont we try telling our story, before we take our stand. I found those words

memorable, and Im grateful for them to this day, no matter what the subject is before

us. So, would you see this as a time for you to tell your story, and you dont have to give

every detail of your life, but as it relates relevantly to this conversation that weve been

engaged in over many decades around human sexuality. And as you begin that, the

statement is coming, that ought to be available at the heart, but think about telling a

story, telling your story, before you take your stand.

SA: So, I play that before interviews to set the tone that this is not necessarily about

finding a spectrum or placing a camp, but asking you about the formational experiences

that have brought you to where you are alongside this debate. So, would you like to say

your name, your occupation, and a bit about yourself.

Rev. Tom Newman (TN):

 Okay. Im Tom Newman, I pastor Sunrise United Methodist Church. Its my fourth

appointment, and Im focused on whats best for the church.

SA: Could you tell me a bit about your call to ministry?

TN: Sure, I didn't grow up in church. My grandmother did this to me, she prayed for a

minister in the family. My mother was the youngest of seven, incidentally by 11 years.

Theres 23 years between the oldest and youngest in my mothers family, so there were

grandchildren children older than me when I was born. My grandmother had always

gone to the church in Hull River, and it was from Republican Methodist tradition that has

now ended up in the United Church of Christ. James O'Kelly and Bishop Asbury did

didn't play well together. So, I learned basically Methodist theology from her. It was a

vacation Bible school that I went to. My dad wouldn't set foot in the church so my

grandmother was supposedly on her death bed, and she used that for several years.

We had to go to vacation Bible school. I had to take my sister in. We got there

late, the fellowship hall was full, there was no place to sit other than the front row. So, I

was on the front row, it was hard to get out, and instead of taking the young ones out

first they took the older ones. So, with the youth pastor looking at me, who was a really

funny neat guy, I ended up in a classroom in the basement without a window to even

escape. I didnt want to be there, but I had a good time. I thought it was surely a fluke,

so I went back a second night expecting thoroughly to be bored to death and prove my

point that it wasnt a place I wanted to be. I had an even better time, and at the end of

the week the best I can do is say I was hungry to go back to church.
 So, Ive hungry to be part of the church ever since. Now I say I'm the most

blessed man I know because not only can I go any time I want, theyve got no better

sense than to give me a key. I can let myself in any time of day or night.

SA: Is that what led you to be a pastor?

TN:

Well that hunger, it expressed itself in many different ways. When I was in youth

group, I was 15 at this time, we were doing youth Sunday. I had intended to sign up to

assist with the children's message. Somehow or another I misread, or I made a mistake,

and I had signed up to do the sermon. By the time I realized that it was very late.

Someone else would have to be inconvenienced or the pastor was going to have to

speak. I was brought up old-fashioned, if you give your word you keep it. If you say yes

you follow through. I had said yes, I needed to follow through. It was with a big swallow

that I fulfilled that role, and in fulfilling that role there were four of us dividing the

traditional sermon. They preached in that church closer to 30 minutes was more

normative. So, the four of us divided up that time. Near as I can say, for the first time in

my life, I was extraordinary. In many ways in life I had been just run of the mill, but at

that point it's like I knew this is what I have to do for the rest of my life. There have been

times Ive been happier about that than others, but from that moment on Ive kind of

known this was the trajectory that was chosen for me. This is what I was created to do.

SA: How important would you say that culture is in shaping your religious beliefs?

TN:
 Well if I was quoting Niebuhr, I would probably be Christ against culture. The

culture I see is moving in the direction opposite to biblical values, on a host of issues,

not just this one. Cultures become more secular and hostile towards religion, almost

hostile towards religion in any shape, form, or fashion. So that even now there's plenty

of people who think the world would be better off, starting John Lennon as sweet a guy

as he appeared to be. Imagine, his song from the late 70s, one of his last, to now

people believing the worlds really a better place if we could do away with all religion

Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, doing away with all of us and just be people.

I dont see it that way. Theres such a rich wealth of experience, religion has

helped shape our world. Everything from the Veneration of the Virgin Mary leading to

women's suffrage and full inclusion. That didn't happen anywhere else. Except from the

influence of the Roman Catholic Church and the Veneration of the Virgin Mary, because

that didnt happen in China, that didnt happen in the Middle East, it didn't happen

anywhere else in the world. Now it took a jolly well long time, there are plenty of sad

chapters along the way. But yeah, thats one of the ways that had it not been for thewe

can even pinpoint it to the building of Chartres Cathedral in France, the Veneration of

Virgin Mary, chivalry beginning, taking hundreds of years to get us where we are, but

thats a formative moment where Christianity made the world a better place.

SA:

Would you say that living in the American South or in the Bible Belt adds a

particular context which youve noticed?

TN:
 Well I have noticed. I have a unique experience in that my wife of 14 years was

from upstate New York, almost Canada. So, I know what it's like to worship in

congregations far North. So, Im not just a product of the South if you will. In many ways,

I found the Methodist Church very familiar. They sing hymns faster up north than they do

here in the south, thats one of the differences that is readily apparent.

Ultimately though, as far as shaping biblical views, not as much. There are

pockets of conservative belief in the north as there are pockets of far progressive belief

in the South. Believe it or not, some of the rural areas of New York, country music is as

popular there as it is here and the good old boys fly rebel flags, as strange as that may

seem.

So being in the Bible Belt I don't think has produced me. There are certain

advantages, there are more churches in the South and they are some of our more

vibrant churches, are I think theres a little less hostility, but I see that changing. I see

culture creeping in and the South is going the way of the North, its just taking us a little

longer.

SA: How would you describe your view of the United Methodist doctrine in the church

about human sexuality and the debate that's been going on about the doctrine?

TN:

I think the church's doctrine is healthy. I think the debate is unhealthy. The

doctrine, without quoting all text whether Scripture or the Book of Discipline, recognizes

the humanity, the situation we are, and has a lot of care and concern. People of all

sexual orientations are people of sacred worth. Theyre not to be abandoned and looked

down upon. We are to embrace them as whole people, they are. Gifts of God, I think our
discipline recognizes that. It also recognizes there has to be some hedge on our sexual

expression. Not all sexual expression is acceptable to God, and I think it recognizes a

very traditional, biblically held, healthy, hedge on sexuality without harsh judgment as

some churches have done.

The debate however, as Ive watched it I entered the conference in 1995. I

finished high school at 17 and started college, went straight to seminary, so when I was

appointed I was 23 years old. I was the youngest full-time pastor in the North Carolina

Annual Conference under appointment that year. So, with that in mind, since 1995 I

have seen the debate go from talking about gay marriage and including gay people to

the other harder to understand letters of the alphabet soup in this debate. I have

watched people become further entrenched, angry. I have watched people who wish to

make a change in the discipline to allow more inclusion, more sexual options denigrate

others who disagree with them as being hate filled, hateful people. I'm sure there are

people who are hate-filled, but I havent met them in the United Methodist Church. I

don't look at people who are homosexual as being hate-filled, single issue people, and I

resent people looking at me that I must be hate-filled because I disagree with them and

a single-issue person. I'm not. I am a mix of many different views and beliefs, often

traditional, but Im a systematic guy. In seminary, systematic theology is very, very, very

important to me, to have a system of theology that holds together and isnt randomly

pieced together.

Part of that led me out of the United Church of Christ and into the United

Methodist Church. As said at the outset, my grandmother basically taught me Methodist

theology. As I learned more about the United Church of Christ, which is far more

progressive than the United Methodist Church has been, there wasnt a thread of

theology that held them together. They were together because they chose to be
together, not because they believed in any way alike. Not just on the issue of human

sexuality, the virgin birth, you name the theological perspective. Perseverance of the

Saints, almost any major issue you name there was radical diversity. So, I went from my

grandmother's church which was from the Christian tradition again tracing back to

James O'Kelly. There are others that are part of the Puritan standing order, the

Congregationalists to a couple of German groups including the Reformed Tradition.

My grandmother's church had an altar call every Sunday. If you walked in and

didnt pay any attention to the sign out front you would have thought that it was a Baptist

church. Because it had a 30+ minute sermon, the pastor never wore a robe or any sort

of clergy vestment, it was a lot like the average Southern Baptist Church. Thats not bad,

that's just descriptive. Versus the Reformed Church I served for 18 months as an

assistant to the pastor. They always wore vestments, very high church, very formal.

There was a reformed book of worship on the altar from which the pastor read regularly,

very priestly in his function, and never an altar call. When I asked curiously, one old fella

told me there might've been one in the late 40s but he wasn't real sure. But that was not

part of their faith because they were reformed going back to Zwingli who really taught

more conservative than Calvin. Some people are going to heaven, some people going

to hell, people going to heaven are going to find their way in here, and Gods already

settled it so why do evangelism? Needless to say, that was a church that had peaked in

its heyday, beautiful facility, but was declining for lack of outreach, because that was not

part of their theology.

So that bothered me deeply. I needed some denominational purity. I needed

some systematic theology, which is what made the United Methodist Church one,

familiar to what my grandmother taught me to believe on a host of issues whether it was

perseverance of the Saints or, that was just the theology I learned. Incidentally one of
the sore spots in my life, my grandmother gave a very Methodist point of view that she

was taught from the time she was a little girl in Sunday school, that one could backslide

out of ones salvation. Almost within, I say deathbed, within months of my grandmother's

death, I remember, I wouldnt say an argument as if it was heated or angry, but a

theological disagreement with her pastor, who came from a different part of the UCC,

who was very much arguing and preached from the pulpit Perseverance of the Saints,

that once youre saved youre always saved. As a kid, I didnt understand that. When I

went to seminary and learned, I was angry about that. He should've been able to

acknowledge he was serving a church that came from a different tradition than he did.

Why pick that issue to argue with on a lady whose more than 80 years of age and has

just months to live? Why is that an issue you want to pick and pull at? It really did bother

my grandmother to be at theological odds with her pastor, and this is a time when you

need your pastor.

So, I was angry, and I embraced Methodist theology because it is more

systematic, and we follow John Wesley's theological bent. I can give an altar call every

Sunday. In fact, every Sunday that I have preached in my life I have given an altar call,

and will until I retire. Its a part of who I am fundamentally, that you need to make sure

that youre in a right relationship with God, and part of that may require a trip to the altar

on your knees. And Ill pray beside you if you need it, or you can pray where you are,

you dont have to come forward, nothing magic about the coming forward. But yeah its

important. So, the systematic theology is very important to me. I think Ive digressed a

bit from your original question.

SA: No, not at all, that was great.

TN: Occupational hazard.

SA: So, were going to go back in time a little bit, which you have some already. When

you were growing up, was there any discussion of the debate at the time when you were

growing up either in the church you were at previously or when you went to the United

Methodist Church?

TN:

No, the debate really happened in my awareness through the 90s. I was born in

1970. So, the world was simpler then. Yeah there were debates, and Im sure there were

people who debated it, it was part of the Methodist debate. I was unaware of that,

blissfully unaware.

I grew up in a very rural section of Alamance county, where the nearest neighbor

was over a mile away on dirt roads. I didnt have shoes through most of the summer,

kind of way I grew up. You didn't need shoes, youd outgrown them, I grew up very poor.

We heated the house with wood. We had electric heat, but couldnt afford to turn it on.

We were interested in survival, not debating those sorts of things. I graduated from high

school in 1988. Yeah, that was not part of ourgay was bad, if you were called gay

that was not good, no one wanted to be gay, it wasnt questioned. I'm sure some people

looking back there were some people who were effeminate. Not all of them were gay,

Im talking about guys primarily. One of them turned out to be the most heterosexual

man Ive ever met, and he used it to his advantage. He would talk to girls about maybe

they could be the one to help him change and hed use that to have relations with them,

but he was definitely not gay. He just liked soap operas and Duran-Duran, and Ooh
child hed do like that, I think he used it to his advantage. But he wasnt gay in the least

bit. Some I think may have been more or less effeminate than he was.

And of course, entering the church. The church that I grew up in, near as I could

say, because I was 12 before I entered the church, it wasn't a debate. The theology was

very conservative. The first major theological debate I remember was over

perseverance of the Saints, and I forget his name, but was a very famous basketball

star who died of an overdose who had claimed to be Christian. Did he go to heaven or

not? The pastor said very much absolutely because he had professed Christ, no matter

how far he strayed from it. So that was a burning issue for us, not whether you're gay or

not.

I was really unaware of, like I said until the 90s going to college. College always

opens up a realm of thought and ideas, and so it was in my college. And Elon college is

not a conservative place, very progressive on many fronts. So that's where I was

exposed first to homosexuality and thinking about it. Is it right, is it wrong? So that's

where I entered, it was in the late 80s, but really early 90s.

SA: What was that like in college?

TN:

There again, I was not the traditional college student, I was younger than most.

One of the things that had been preached from the pulpit was 88 Reasons Why, I forget

the author, I probably should know, but the author of that book had decided that Jesus

was returning in 1988 and we were all going to be raptured. So, I remember starting

college walking across the campus with my book sack on my back thinking, Ive at least

got to start college before Jesus comes back and we all get raptured away. I was in a

very different place. Naturally, the rapture didnt occur and the author subsequently
wrote another book explaining why he was wrong, sold a bunch more books, and so he

laughed all the way to the bank. That was the debate in the church that I was part of, so

homosexuality wasn't

And in college you meet people with different lifestyles, people from different

places. I didn't live on campus, I was commuter. I also was in business for myself; I was

automotive reconditioning. I had a partner, we had several contracts including one with

the local Cadillac dealership. We washed and waxed and detailed their cars that came

in used before they were sold. We did other private clients. So, I was actually one of the

first people to have a cell phone. I was able to call my partner and if necessary pick up a

car on the way to our shop rather than have to drive all the way. So, it saved a lot of time

and money to have that cell phone and make those calls. But yeah, homosexuality

wasn't a big part ofI was focused on surviving, living, running a business. An

academic scholarship is what got through Elon. I was able to graduate without debt,

which most of that was academic scholarship, so I had to maintain very high GPA, and I

did. So that was not a burning issue. Its kind of like youd come up and youd listen and

think, Huh, and just go on without judgment. Youd just say, This is interesting, those

are ideas, because we all try out different ideas when were in college. So, I wasnt

hostile to people, Ive never hostile to people who are of a different sexual orientation

than me.

Part of it is I just dont understand. I think that I'm genetically predisposed to be

heterosexual, and I just never looked at a man in a way that would make me I just

don't understand how another man could look at another man. I think women are

beautiful, this is who I am, so if Im going to be sexually involvedso I just hear that,

thats really odd, I don't understand. But no hostility.

SA: Was it at all a part of your training as a pastor? Did any of your professors talk

about it or your peers talk about it in divinity school or seminary?

TN:

It came up. There's a wonderful article written by Stanley Hauerwas, Dispatches

from the Front, and it's this short little article that says gays are morally superior than

Christians. And as he unpacks his argument, and of course its satirical. Stanley

Hauerwas is a brilliant man, I cant say enough positive about him. Hes like the Howard

Stern of the theological world; hes a shock jock. He says things to be intentionally over-

the-top, grab your attention, and make you think. Some of that can be very good and

healthy. But his argument was gays at least have managed to get themselves kicked out

of the military at the time for being gay. Some of the arguments about what happens in

shower and locker rooms. He actually says its a shame Christians couldnt get

themselves kicked out of the military. Spontaneous baptism, youre here in the shower

we could baptize lots of folks, this whole peaceful notion of turn the other cheek. So,

gays have managed to do what Christians cant. Making this really more than

homosexuality, that article to me has us think more about pacifism, because Stanley

Hauerwas is a pacifist. And war, military, those sorts of things.

But yeah it was mentioned and talked about. There was a group called Sacred

Worth that I assume is still functioning at the divinity school, which is the LGBTQ

support group if you will. A place to join and belong. And there can still kind of, okay.

Because I was working 35 hours a week, third shift in a homeless shelter before I

became Methodist, when I was still part of the United Church of Christ. So, I didnt have

a whole lot of time for frivolous debate. I was carrying an academic scholarship, getting

me through Duke. And 35 hours a week is a lot of hours, and for that to be third shift
there were days I was a walking zombie. I can tell you stories outside of this, that I was

doing my best to keep myself together. Again, it was one of those the debates that were

interesting.

I listened, but I never heard a theologically compelling argument. The best

argument I have heard, that resonated with me, is the genetic predisposition. If some

people are homosexual because theyre genetically created be that way, just like I'm 58

or I have a certain hair color or eye color, I understand that. I cant change my eye color,

or hair, I guess I could dye it. You know what I mean. I could color it, but I wouldnt

change it. It would still be underneath the color; would still be the color it was created to

be. I understand that. That's the argument that resonated with me. Not some of the

other. Because I really do have a hard time scripturally explaining homosexuality.

SA: So, youve talked about this a little bit also, but how would you describe the course

of the debate? Over perhaps your time in college through your time as a pastor, about

the trajectory you think the debate is taking?

TN:

Further and further entrenched, I think is the trajectory. Here I was not intimately

involved with it until I became Methodist. If we were Baptist, each church could choose

to do what they wanted to do. Pullen Memorial Church has been doing gay weddings

20+ years, maybe 30, I don't know, but for a long time. Long before it was legal. My

understanding is that Pullen Memorial Church in Raleigh has been doing that. and

theyre Baptist. Theyre not part of the Southern Baptist Fellowship but they are Baptist,

and so as an autonomous unit able to do what they do.

 Methodists, were not autonomous units. So, youve got a General Conference

that writes the Book of Discipline that is normative for every Methodist Church in every

place throughout the world. So, it kind of got thrust. And then it's the various groups that

push the issue so that it can't be ignored; whether its people with the little rainbow

stoles they wear or the tables that are set up, there's lots of displays. And of course, the

debates are far more heated because we have to elect delegates to send, and those

delegates are going to vote one way or another on this issue. Among others, but this

seems to be the hot button issue. So, this is not something I could look at and say,

Okay, well I agree or disagree and move on, its something youve got to make your

stand about.

I have also seen it move from the debate about do we have same-sex unions or

marriages? to all the other letters. I remember having a real candid conversation, I

forget the person's name, but well-intentioned, someone I believe loves Jesus as much

as I do, but happens to be homosexual. I said, If we can just backup, if you could draw

some lines, you would find a lot of people to be supportive. If we could talk just about

same-sex weddings, marriages, unions, whatever we call that. If those sorts of

partnerships, you would find a lot of support from the people youre alienating because

weve got to take about bisexuals and trans-genders. At the time, I think it was mostly

transvestites, but that of course now that technologys increased so the T means a lot

more than it used to mean.

Having said that, that person along with the movement has been unwilling to

draw any lines. As far as I can tell. I guess the only line they're willing to draw is that

pedophilia is not good. But apart from that, we keep adding more, and that's where I

said, Ive got to check out of the debate, because I can't go all the other letters. I watch

more letters be added, and Ive found myself pushed further and further and further
towards the more traditional or any word I use here is going to be polarizing and not

helpful. I don't know the better language to say the traditional view of the church. I have

been pushed further and further, and part of that I resent because Ive had to kick in my

heels. But youve got to draw a line somewhere, and it just doesn't seem to be

The latest issue, germane to your question, is the Q. Does that mean queer or

questioning? I haven't been able to get a clear sense on what the Q means. Because if

its queer, I dont understand how that simply different than gay. If its questioning I'm

back to wait a minute. When I first came into the conversation I was understanding

some people are homosexual because they're made that way. I understand that What I

don't understand is why you question, because I don't, I have never questioned

throughout any of the debates. Growing up I was a small kid and sometimes in high

school I got called queer, it was a term of derision, but I never question my sexuality, Ive

just always known.

Kind of like my youngest son wasn't eating in a restaurant in Greenville, we were

in Greenville at one point. He wasn't eating, wasn't eating. Finally, his mother and I said,

Youve got to eat, youve got to eat, and he said, But Mom, the waitress is so pretty!.

So fundamentally, he was like three or four, theres a fundamental part. I think he's

natured to be heterosexual, its who he is and I understand that. Ive never questioned.

So, I dont understand the Q and that's where I in the debate feel pushed.

SA: One of the things Ive heard other pastors talk about is the importance for them of

covenants, in the specific context of marriage covenants, and why gay marriage or

unions for them, they were willing to have that as part of the conversation because it is

within that kind of covenant which I believe matches more closely with other biblical

ideas of what relationship between two people should look like. I was wondering if that
was a similar distinction for you, if that was what was important to you, about human

sexuality is maintaining that covenant relationship? Or if there was a different reason to

distinguish between different letters of the alphabet?

TN:

I understand covenant, and that's where I think there is room at table to have

conversation for lesbians and gay people, homosexual people who would like to live in

lifelong monogamy. Because the objective reality is us heterosexuals are not doing so

well with lifelong monogamy. Even those of us who hold traditional values and consider

ourselves biblically literate, divorce happens. I find myself divorced when I didnt think I

would be. So, lifelong monogamy, if I choose to remarry at some future point, and I've

not ruled that out, then by definition I cant have lived lifelong monogamy. So, with that in

mind I understand, and there's a place to have that conversation. In some ways, to

piggyback on Stanley Hauerwas, if a homosexual couple can pull off lifelong monogamy

they may be morally superior to a vast majority of heterosexuals who havent been able

to pull that off. So, I understand in a host different ways.

Now personally, if there had been some reasonability in the debate, civil unions I

think could have been accepted. Whether that was a stepping stone or a terminal point I

don't know, if we could go there first with civil unions, not called marriage, it would've

been a lot less polarizing and would help to move the needle. Where I see things as

unreasonable is the whole all or nothing. Either its all okay or then you must be a

hateful person, filled with hate speech, and all negative things apply to you. That's

where it really stymied the debate and further entrenched. That kind of language doesn't

give us room to have to debate, to grow in our position, to change our understanding.

That has just polarized and entrenched and that's exactly where you see us.
 Now the notion of covenant is secondary to some of the polarizing sort ofeven

to the point of the absurdity of saying we want to honor the lifelong covenant of marriage

with homosexual peoples, and in so doing were going to break the covenant that we

made when we were ordained to support the discipline of church. Were going to subvert

the conversation, the discussion. Were going to jump to the end that we think is best

and do what we want to do. Which is a breach of covenant. There is no way to look at it

other than a breach of covenant when youre breaching the discipline. At this point its

just total anarchy. Weve got whole Annual Conferences, Jurisdictions, bishops being

elected, thatits just not compatible. Our denomination has already split, and it's a

matter of acknowledging that and how do we divide assets? I feel like we need to go to

divorce court.

SA: Have you or in any church youve been in taken any steps to try and facilitate a

discussion about the debate?

TN:

I have some. My second appointment we actually wrestled some with

homosexuality. What has, especially in this appointment I have not let it be an issue in

my congregation, part of that is its just become so polarized. If you go back 10 or 15

years we could talk about it without people getting so angry and hotly contested. But

now, even in this church, if we were to have a conversation it would quickly devolve into,

Youre denying my child the right to live their lives the way they want to. And suddenly

now were hurting peoples children to even talk about it, and I just don't care for that. It is

too polarized and theres no room for debate, a healthy debate. At this point you either
agree with me or youre a bad person because you disagree with me. I don't know how

to facilitate beyond that.

Youve seen it in our culture around us. The whole House Bill 2 debate and the

just animosity, acrimonious, its just ugly. Even down to were going to punish you

financially unless you fully include. Theres no debate possible, people have already

made up their minds, were deeply entrenched. Now my role here is to keep the church

focused on mission and ministry, moving forward on things that we can agree with and

let the denomination sort this out. And if the discipline changes then there's decisions

well have to make. If the denomination fractures, well have to decide where were going

to go on that. But until something big like that happens, Im not letting it be a topic.

Theres more important things to talk about.

There's hungry people. There are people that need help. There are, in this

affluent community, women who are being beat senseless by their husbands that need

a place to go, they need shelter. I could keep naming other big human needs. That's

what were doing. Were doing the work we are called to do, and Ive said for many years

now, when the left and the right are finished arguing over this issue I hope they leave a

church for me to be part of.

SA: So, have you ever in any of these conversations youve facilitated, had someone

who is a part of the LGBT community be a part of it, and if so, how has their perspective

changed the conversation or contributed to the conversation?

TN:

Not someone from the a representative. Im not quite sure what that would be,

whether that would be somebody outside of the church or inside of the church. You
bring in the outside token gay person, I dont think that would really be fair to the

outside of a gay person, to put quotes around that. There are clearly people who have

friends or relatives who have a different sexual orientation, so that's where we've had

representation if you will. Maybe not direct, might be indirect. In this congregation, there

may well be people who are homosexual. I dont want to ask, and really dont care.

Do you love Jesus? Do you want to help me feed hungry people? Do you want to

help me take care of folks who are being beaten and battered or abused? Do you want

to do the work of the church? Lets do that, I dont care what you are. Ill let God work

out the sin and not sin. Were all are sinners. Im a sinner, condemned, unclean, saved

by grace of God, not in a position to judge anybody just because they sin differently me.

So, its just not an issue.

Interestingly enough, in my third appointment, Ive only had four, that makes me a

little bit unusual. Ive been serving full time for 21 going on 22 years now. In any case,

my third appointment was probably the most theologically conservative congregation I

served.

The first one I served, this wouldnt be a debate because they don't see that it

should be, and they would with open arms would've embraced people of all and

wouldnt have any problems with same-sex marriages and stuff. So that would be the

first. The second one was far more conservative.

Third one was way conservative, and in that very conservative congregation they

had no less than three lesbian couples living together. At the time, you couldnt call it

marriage, but they were as committed and as together as any married couple could be.

One had even adopted a biracial child, they were of course Caucasian. The whole

church wasnt Caucasian, but that couple was. They adopted a biracial child who had

some developmental issues, and the whole church was raising that little child and put up
with outbursts and all sorts of things. Because he, I dont know if he had fetal alcohol

syndrome or what, but he had some issues, and probably ADHD or something else. So,

we embraced them and loved them; they were fully included, served on committees,

assisted in children's ministry. That church did a lot of cooking, a lot of eating. They

were able to, one of them, one of that couple was able to, with the most conservative

person in the church that ran the kitchen, partner every week, show up. And they were

good friends. It was kind of don't ask don't tell, because we all knew, it wasn't hidden,

but it wasn't talked about. And because it wasnt an issue there was a lot more common

ground they could continue to serve on. I think that was very healthy for everybody,

because they kept coming; they didn't ask us to change the discipline, they didn't have

to ask dont preach on the topic because theres just so much more to talk about.

I dont know, Id have to go back and look, there are people who are more

scholarly than I am, but I dont think there's an anti-homosexual passage as part of the

lectionary text. I think youd have to go out of your way to preach an anti-gay sermon.

So, Ive never preached an anti-gay sermon, and have no plans to ever preach an anti-

gay sermon. Folks I think are convicted of their sin, whatever it is, thats between you

and the Holy Ghost. If youre convicted, you don't need me to stand up and beat you

over the head with it. You and God will get it right, and I'm okay letting you and God get

it right. Im going to preach a message of grace and hope and new possibility every

single Sunday. Or Saturday, I have Saturday service now too.

SA: Great, thank you. So, what values or aspects of your faith do you lean on most

when you either have a conversation about this debate or watch it happening within the

denomination?
TN:

Well, without getting into quoting the scriptures whether from Romans or I

really don't like to go too much into the Old Testament because there's plenty in the Old

Testament that the law has been fulfilled in Christ, and those passages arent as

binding. I love ham for instance, so I don't want to preach against eating pork because I

eat a lot ham and I dont think its wrong to eat ham.

But without getting into the texts themselves, one thing that is formative for me in

the debate is it seems clear from beginning to end, big picture, big paint brush, god

created a natural order. Some folks when they hear me say that chafe and some folks

get angry, but I do believe theres a natural order that God created. And the further we

step outside of God's natural order, the more hardship we bring on ourselves. That's one

of those, as a systematic theologian, that holds a theme from genesis to revelation.

There is a divine creator created that created us a certain way. Sin entered the picture

and thats where the sickness and disease and all sorts of things come, and now the

just and the unjust are punished. So, theres not a clear line between If I commit sin A

that sickness B is always going to apply it doesnt work that way. I think we all suffer,

many of us unjustly.

But having said that there is a natural order. Germane to the question you asked,

when it comes to human sexuality, we are created man for woman, and woman for man,

and for that's how were created to be. Since even the natural debate has changed

among the homosexual community, the LGBTQ so forth community. Even they are not

willing say they are genetically homosexual. Im not sure you could prove that, science

may one day prove that, but you know at some point, what if science genetically proves

we are not natured to be monogamous? There some scientists now talking about serial

monogamy, that we were natured to pair bond for a certain number of years to raise a
child to certain level of self-sufficiency, and then move to the next partner. What if

science proves that? Will we jettison life-long monogamy? Will marriage no longer be

valid? Will we move past it? Im kind of hoping not.

I hope to be more than the sum of my genetic programming. What if I'm

genetically programmed to be just not a nice person? What if I'm genetically

programmed to fits of whether its sarcasm or just nastiness? I think the vernacular we

might use if we all understand, what if Im just natured to be an asshole? Is that

supposed to be okay? Oh well hes natured that way. I hope I would still be called to rise

above that, and somebody put a polish on me a so little bit to get the rough edges

sanded own. You need to exist in polite society and not be hateful and mean spirited,

and even if your geneticsbecause this is probably a bigger battle for some people

than others.

So, I do believe there's a natural order, and sin has entered into that. The further

we get away from that natural order the more hardship were going to bring on

ourselves. So, with that in mind, the original plan for us was to be natured heterosexual,

and those who are not natured heterosexual, outside the bonds of a traditional marriage,

may need to consider lifelong celibacy. I dont say that with a hatefulness or the desire to

deny somebody something. Now as a divorced man, I'm struggling with lifelong celibacy.

What if I don't remarry? I'm not asking the church to change their stand and tell me it's

okay if I a sexual partner or multiple sexual partners. Im not asking for any of that to

change, which means to my honor commitment to the church and the vow of ordination

made that I am committed to living a lifelong celibate life if God doesnt send a spouse.

So, in that sense, I don't think Im asking more of someone who may find themselves

homosexual than Im asking of myself. So, I hope no one listening to this hears any
mean-spirited judgment in that. I stand under the same judgement. This is something

thats hard.

Part of what makes me angry with culture, going back to one of my first answers

of Christ against culture, is that culture is teaching us that if were not sexually involved

in the moment were less than whole people. Culture is teaching us that I cant fully

express my love for another being unless somehow it becomes sexual. That I think is a

lie, its a heinous, ugly lie. Two men I think can love each other very deeply.

I have loved some of my mentors coming through ministry. I deeply, dearly loved

two field ed. supervisors, deeply loved these men. Were this not controversial I would

name them because I respect them to this day and learned a great deal from them. But

that didnt mean I needed to in any way be sexual with them, I never felt any call. To this

day if any one of them called me on the phone and asked me any outrageous thing to

do, I would do it because I love them. But that love doesnt have to be sexual to be full.

Because I think that is a full and complete love I have for those men.

But that is the lie society puts on us. Were robbing our children of their

innocence. I'm raising two little boys. As I see mainstream TV now, when I was their age

in the 1970s wouldve been pornography. Were making them think about sexuality,

theyre bombarded with sexually. Now of you hand your 10-year-old an IPhone he has

the sum total of human knowledge at his fingertips in any place, private or public. And it

comes at them so quickly. If you do a google search you have to be so careful, because

you can get pornographic images on perfectly innocent search for something totally

unrelated, and here it comes. The White House for instance. I have never done this, but

I've been told if you google the White House you get things related to the president and

things that are very unrelated to the President. So, Im angry about the sexual images

that are bombarding my little boys and denying them their innocence. They have their
whole lives to be sexual beings. Let them be innocent children for at least 10, 12, 13

years before nature takes over and they develop sexually. So that's where culture, Im

really angry about that. And that's more homosexuality. Those are the heterosexual

images that come too. Im angry that culture is teaching our children they have to be

sexually involved people at such a very young, and increasingly younger age.

And where, germane to homosexuality, kids in Cub Scout now you have to deal

with gay and straight. Those little boys in Cub Scouts are not equipped to think about

that, leave them alone. That's not an issue they should be having. Nor in my mind in

elementary school, in any of the grade schools, their sex ed. when it comes to fourth

and fifth grade shouldnt be covering these sorts of things. It should be talking about

changes in their bodies not whether theyre gay or straight, or having sex, host of

contraception. I just think we should leave our kids alone.

SA: If you could speak to or ask a question of someone who does not share your view

point, what question would you ask them?

TN:

Why cant you draw some lines? Why is it all or nothing? So, entered the debate

pretty much a middle-of-the-road moderate, a moderate-moderate. And Ive watched

myself be pushed. No one allows me to be a moderate in the debate. Its so polarized

you got to go to one extreme or the other. So, Ive been pushed as a systematic guy. I

can't jettison my Scripture, so I've been pushed further and further to right as the debate

has become more and more polarized. Why cant you take some low hanging fruit? Why

can't you just draw some lines and say, Were not going to talk about bisexuality or

transgender, or any other letters that are coming. Were going to keep with covenant of
lifelong monogamy for people who are homosexual. Why cant we just have that debate

and not all the other? That's what Id like to know.

SA: I asked this question of some of the other pastors that Ive spoken to, and one of

them said, what is at stake for you in this debate when you think of the potential, if

discipline changed for whatever reason, what would be at stake for you in whatever

outcome of this?

TN:

If we made it more judgmental to people who are homosexual or made it more

plain that we oppose that, I think we will alienate. I would lose partnerships with some

people who may either be homosexual or have children who are homosexual. I like it as

it's written now. If we change it so that were fully inclusive of homosexual persons, its

okay to perform same sex unions, I see a loss of systematic theology. I also see a split

church. I also see the anarchy that we currently have. There's no way. Weve broken

covenant with one another. Were not abiding by the discipline by whole conferences

and jurisdictions now. I feel like I'm losing my church. I feel like the Methodist church as I

know it, the United Methodist church is ceasing to exist, and thats so painful.

I was excited when I first took my Methodism class, which was one of my As in

seminary if I can brag. That was a hard class I had Heitzenrater which, wow, I think he

knew more about John Wesley than John Wesley knew about himself. Having said that,

we were courting merger with the Pan-Methodistsall of the CMEs, the AMEs the

AMEZs, because really we believe the same thing, theres no reason color should divide

us. I was excited about one day being part of a more United Methodist Church that

would include the Christian Methodists and African Methodists, and that was exciting to

me. And to see all that just evaporate. Now were on a whole other, were going to divide
again after hard-fought unions to pull us together with the Methodist Protestants and the

Episcopal church South and North. And that's really sad.

Now, on a real nuts and bolts level, I'm sure some colleagues would criticize me

for not having enough faith. I also fear and think I will lose financially from a smaller

church. We will have less resources. It's probably going to affect my pension. Im having

money deducted from my salary even when it was meager, because I entered with

minimum salary barely above $20,000 a year. Yeah so when youre taking percentages

of that, I think its going to hurt that. Its probably going to hurt our ability to ensure each

other, so insurance rates with a smaller group probably higher premium Im going to pay

for insurance. Yes, I see that hurting my golden years because of this debate and that

makes me angry.

It also makes me angry that as hard as Im trying to put together a coalition for

Jesus Christ in this congregation, this new, that when its thrust upon us, choose. Draw

your line hard. Either or. When that line, that time, and I dont see a way around it, its

coming, youre going to have some folks like me in the middle and theyre going to be

pushed one to one side, one to another, and I think Im going to serve a smaller

congregation. It's going to hinder this congregation's ability to continue to build facilities,

to fund ministry, to feed hungry people, to shelter those who are being abused, and

name all the other many good things this congregation is doing.

Even to the point of how its affecting me now. I have been holding a break on our

next big building project. Because when this time comes, and 2018 seems to be the

time, when it comes and we lose people, well still have a mortgage to pay. If we max

out our mortgage potential and then lose people, what happens if we can't make our

mortgage? This is where Im sure there are colleague who say, pastor, have more faith,

and I do have faith in Jesus Christ, but also see where this debate is polarizing and
losing people. And I also know dollars and cents, and Jesus said, You should count the

cost before you consider discipleship, and in this case using Scripture I need to count

the cost of what its going to be like to lose people and have a mortgage on a million-

dollar facility. That's what I think of all this. And I think it's senseless. We don't have to

do this.

Like I said, my third appointment was a great example of how, as a whole, the

church is far more traditional and conservative, but there was an active welcome space.

Not like you can come and sit in a pew and well ignore you, but there was an active full

inclusion of three lesbian couples that were in that community. They were not judged,

they were not looked down upon, and we did good work together. It can be done. This

doesn't have to divide us.

SA: That concludes my official set of questions. I there anything else you would like to

say, or that you wish I had asked you about?

TN: That's a very good question, I appreciate you asking. No, think I probably told you a

lot more than you wanted to know.

SA: No, not at all. Alright, thank you.