The Nashville Statement has now been released, and many things about it are praiseworthy and commendable. The mayor of Nashville has denounced it, so there’s that. And the drafters and signatories have deliberately committed themselves to any number of hate crimes, which in these bent days is no light praise, and they have successfully and carefully targeted any number of shifts and evasions that are routinely used when it comes to individual sexual choices and practices. So I do want to offer some honest praise. But they have also carefully avoided some other stuff, and the omissions are not insignificant.
I do not intend to get into all of that right now, but I did need to say something about it. The buzz about the statement is real, and writing about sex and culture is part of what I do. But I will keep this brief, in that I will be working with some friends on a fuller response. Hopefully we can get that done before North America is consumed in a giant fireball from heaven for allowing more wives than Allah permits. You know.
Even acknowledging the truth of particular statements made about sexual ethics, the statement is chasing the wrong horse out of the wrong barn. The preamble sets the whole thing off on the wrong cultural foot. The statement begins with this line:
“Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition.”
The word transition here indicates a belief that the transition is already a fait accompli, and that our task is to live faithfully in a society that has transitioned, or live faithfully in a society that is going to transition whether we like it or not. The word assumes that the bad guys are going to win everything they lust after, and that our job is to live like righteous Lot in Sodom, vexed in our souls daily.
Not on the table is any idea of stopping this historic transition, or turning it back. But we are dealing with sexual totalitarians, and maneuvers of modest containment won’t work. Maneuvers of modest containment are how we got ourselves to this place of historic transition.
And “find ourselves”? We don’t find ourselves anywhere we didn’t willingly come. Notably missing from the statement is any acknowledgement of the great evangelical sin of not putting up stiffer resistance when the first signs of this “historic transition” began to manifest themselves. To say we find ourselves here is like Azariah son of Hoshaiah and Johanan son of Kareah coming up to Jeremiah and saying, “So, we find ourselves in Eygpt” (Jer. 43:2ff).
But allow me to close by returning to the top. There is much to praise in this statement. But there is also much to do.
Amen.
Excellent
That first sentence struck me as wrong-footed as well. If the transition spoken of is the culture’s turning away from revealed truth, which it seems to be, I’d say that really is an accomplished reality. Why the preamble mentions it without condemning it, I don’t know. As for turning things around, I don’t know that any of us will live to see it. It would be awesome if it happened in any time frame. I do know that the church is to present a daringly true witness regardless of the culture’s attitude. I believe that the message “save yourselves from… Read more »
Hi Nathan!
Turn THEIR culture around? Is that our goal?
Ain’t the best we can do = Turn OUR culture around, inviting loads of them to join us?
Do we teach & cajole Satan to clean up his act?
I’ve made some comments on other significant/telling omissions, here: http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-nashville-statement-on-human.html
As always, spot-on. Somehow that statement wants to talk about sexuality and the holiness of sex inside marriage and all that stuff and somehow divorce doesn’t come up, and being a crappy spouse doesn’t show up. And the insight on the phrase “we find ourselves” is probably too close to comfort here. Scooby and Shaggy always seem to “find themselves” staring Zen Tuo or the Creeper square in the face — but not until they willingly put down the sandwich and let Fred take the girls the other way. The are the ones who chose to split up, even if… Read more »
The intent of the statement determines the content therein. It’s impossible and unnecessary to cover every single item. Althought those things you mention are at the very least implied in the statement where it speaks of fidelity in marriage.
“Nash Ville Cats”
“Been playing’ since they’s babies.”
And I sure am glad I got a chance to say a word about
The wording of the statement from Nashville.
For you youngsters, that’s a quote from John Sebastian of the Loving Spoonful circa 1968?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulVQsQBenvs&sns=em
Nashville cats, Nice and old school!
“get work before they’re two”. appreciate the login’ spoonful reference.
“lovin”
The “timing” thing is driving me insane, coming from Christians. “You can’t speak the words of life, people are suffering!”
I wonder what Jen thinks of the timing of God’s statement in 1 Cor. 6?
9 Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual 10 will share in God’s kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.
Who needs a Nashville statement when we already have a God breathed Corinthian statement?????
Exactly. “PS, Houston is underwater” >> should have had “PPS, And while they’re underwater, I’m here commenting on your work”
Ha! Nailed it Eric.
I agree with you that the criticism of timing is pretty silly, especially since the Statement does not include anything either new or controversial. It is not calling for uprisings, or parades with pitchforks. If this statement must wait until there are no natural disasters or international incidents distracting our attention, there are no racial and political divisions in our nation, and there is a moral, upright president in the White House, it will never be made.
“… it will never be made.”
That’s what the critics want.
Never a good time for revealed truth … must wait … and wait … for some reason.
Exactly. Any criticism of timing goes in with the implicit assumption that laying out the teaching of scripture on matters of human sexuality is somehow an aggression toward people, well intended or not, rather than a ministry of mercy. And while I’d fully expect the world to see it that way, it bothers me intensely that Christians start from there. And I’ve seen it not only from the “usual suspect” types, but from people I would expect to think more clearly about it.
I can’t wait for the fuller response.
I really feel the Statement’s position is closer to Scriptural truths than this article…
I long for the day when people actually go looking for scriptural truth……. in scripture ,rather than in declarations, statements, and blog articles.
1Cor. 6 works for me, (and applies to everyone) on multiple issues.
Who in Nashville, or anywhere else, speaks with more Authority than God? ????????????
in Scripture, yeah, or in just plain in earth around them…
Seems to me we’re not dependent on Scripture for the truth, are we?
Don’t get me wrong, Bible is wonderful helpful — but once we make it necessary, we’re gonna lose the real source of power.
Eric, the Word, and the Word made flesh, are the same thing, they are not separate!????????????
Isaiah 55
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
adadO — could you clarify? Is Bible Jesus?
Here is what God says: John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. God… Read more »
Inasmuchas … the words of a text accurately describe, then you metaphorically attest:
“Hey, that’s (true about) me!”
But the Word (Jesus) is so much more than a very few limited words, no, adad0?
Point being, a statement about reality should really be based on more than a few limited documents, most of which the audience don’t buy anyway.
How about basing it on reality, period?
E’,
What is more real than an infinite God? Nothing so far as I can tell. After that we have His Word, His Spirit and His Presence to guild us.
What with God being infinite and all, obeying His Word is a great way to navigate reality!????????????????
adad0 — following His (written) word as your trail guide is like driving a car with the perfect steering wheel! >> but no tires or wheels or seats or frame or …
That steering wheel, though … it’s a dandy.
Matthew 24
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
“perfect”?
That’s Eternal to you! ; – ) You know E’, the next post is talking about gnat stranglers.
I wonder if one of us is doing that? ; – )
Swallowing camels was not mentioned!
“Don’t get me wrong, Bible is wonderful helpful — but once we make it necessary, we’re gonna lose the real source of power.”
I think I agree with you. Our reliance on “this is biblical,” can get a bit silly. If we have to look to the law book for our morality because it is not living inside of us, something has gone all awry. On the other hand, if our morality is not living inside of us, we need to get into The Word more because something has gone all awry.
Amen! Pastor Wilson does not disappoint. I do hope God delays the giant fireball at least until we have had a chance to explore this farther.
The turn of the century is around the time that all christians abandoned the true visible creed of creation established to be seen in worship. This is lip service.
“All Christians”? Even you Steve?
Ok, lighter topic.
Any update on a reunion with Journey?
????????????
Working on it. The tour is called, When the light goes down in the nation.
“Egypt” is misspelled in the penultimate pargraph
@Mark B. Hanson, True, but I then find it amusing to see you misspell “paragraph”.
The law of conservation of misteaks.
Mistakes were mad.
Plenty to think about here. Does Article IV contradict the views held by some that the submission of women is a direct result of Eve’s having been deceived? Does the statement about equality before God mean that woman’s relationship with God is not mediated in any sense through her husband? Does Article VII mean that a person must not view himself as a chaste homosexual? Does Article VIII mean that a person with homosexual desires may strive to live chastely without trying to direct his desires toward the opposite sex? Are IX and X disapproving specifically of immoral conduct and… Read more »
I am well pleased Jilly, that you are asking all the juicy questions.
Nothing depresses me more than this modern attitude of how just clicking “like” on a website, or publicly signing a declaration, is now an acceptable substitute for critical thinking.
Will our host’s ultimate response be done to the tune of “Nashville cats”?
Gosh I hope so!
As should any self respecting cat lover!
Yes, that would be you Jilly! ????????????
Nashville cats
Take on the gays and trannies.
Nashville cats
Make it clear as mountain dew.
Nashville cats
Been cis since they were babies.
Nashville cats
Will marry one, not two…
“And “find ourselves”? We don’t find ourselves anywhere we didn’t willingly come. ”
I find myself quite in agreement here. One thing that often drives me nuts is this “spirit of the age” stuff,as if we are all just hapless victims of culture, rather than active participants.
One cannot help but wonder how many of the people who signed the statement also supported the pussy-grabbing, thrice-married serial adulterer now in the White House.
And no, I have not fallen into the logical fallacy of tu quoque; that an evangelical leader talks one way and votes another does not mean that the Nashville Statement is wrong. What it does mean that there are reasons fewer and fewer people are paying attention to orthodox pronouncements about human sexuality. What you do speaks so loud that I can’t hear a word that you say.
“What you do speaks so loud that I can’t hear a word that you say!”
Thanks ‘chek, that’s the ultimate commentary on why Hillary Clinton lost. She somehow managed to make DJT look good by comparison! ????
(Welcome back! By the by!)????
Thanks, adad, been busy with other things.
I disagree that she was that awful, though she was far from perfect. I would also be curious just how much buyer’s remorse there now is among Trump voters six months into it. And let’s have this conversation again a year from now and see how things are looking then.
“I would also be curious just how much buyer’s remorse there now is among Trump voters six months into it. ”
I have yet to experience any buyer’s remorse. In fact, I’ve been pleasantly surprised on more than a few occasions.
MeMe, I’m glad you’re happy on a day that there was a major explosion at a chemical plant in Houston because safety regulations the Obama administration put in place that would have prevented it were delayed by Trump’s EPA.
You mean the group that banned a perfectly safe chemical, DDT, and it’s subsequent disuse internationally may have contributed to increased malaria and subsequent deaths?
Bethyada, first, DDT was far from safe; it was wreaking environmental havoc. Second, even if DDT had been safe, “the group” that banned it is dead or retired by now since it happened in 1970 so I’m not sure how you think the Obama administration is to blame for it. Third, even if one regulatory decision is bad, it does not follow that all regulatory decisions are bad; each one rises or falls on its own merits. And finally, the bottom line is that Houston, which can ill afford it right now, just suffered two major chemical explosions in part… Read more »
” in part because an Obama regulation that would have prevented them was gutted by the Trump administration”
“The rule in question probably wouldn’t have prevented Thursday’s explosions” –Politico
Do you have an actual link for that Politico article? Even not having read it, I’m betting that’s not a quotation from someone who knows what they’re talking about, but I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Nonsense, extremely safe. And helps fight malaria. EPA was involved in banning DDT, I didn’t say anything about Obama.
The scientists disagree with you, but even if you’re right, are you seriously suggesting that one bad regulation from 47 years ago means there should never be any regulation ever again? If that’s your position, then we just disagree.
The appeal to “scientists” means nothing. Scientists differ an a large number of things. And some of us have also studied science.
You were appealing to a hypothetical from an organisation which has probably influenced the dead of far more people than it ever saved.
Bethyada, I think you’re wrong on the facts, but let’s assume you’re right. That doesn’t change the fact that there were two massive chemical explosions that would likely not have happened had the Trump administration not blocked this particular regulation.
As long as you’re not conditioning your consideration of either the content of the statement or the intentions of the framers upon the behavior of people who have chosen to agree with it.
Jane, there’s two separate issues here. The first is the merits of the Nashville Statement which, to no one’s surprise, I completely disagree with. The second, though, is the moral authority of the speakers, which is more of a public relations issue than a logical one. And that’s the issue I’m addressing. Think of it this way: A convicted pedophile who gives a speech on caring for children would be hooted off the stage, even if everything he said were right on the mark. A disbarred attorney who publicly commented on legal ethics would be laughed off the stage, even… Read more »
And again, the moral authority of the speakers is unaffected by the moral authority or lack thereof of everyone who might choose to agree with them.
So, find me evidence that the people who actually wrote this thing are Trump supporters, which is by no means a safe assumption, and you’ll have a point. Barring that, evidence that people who merely signed onto it are Trump supporters, can hardly count against it.
Jane, you’re still viewing it as a logic problem rather than a public relations problem. The public will not draw the distinctions you’re drawing; all it will see is an institution that sold its soul for political power. That you disagree with their analysis doesn’t change the fact that that will be the analysis.
I think you’re quite right here, Krychek. If I as a Christian am questioning the moral authority of the people who wrote this declaration, than many others will not trust it either. It becomes nothing more than subjective morality, as if to say, here are the sins we consider comfortable and politically correct in a churchian sense to issue statements against.
Also Krychek, take note of the fact that I am a Trump supporter and did not sign it.
If it’s simply a public relations problem, then the only answer is to shut up, go away, and never make a moral pronouncement again, because every Christian will be held to the standard of some Christians having vocally supported Trump. (Or some other moral compromise in the past, or in the future with respect to some other issue.) I don’t deny that there are those who will reason that way. I simply deny that it’s a reason to stop speaking. Those who do not have ears to hear and are inclined to respond based on irrelevancies that confirm their prejudices… Read more »
Jane, the Pharisees were mostly right on the law, but Jesus shredded them for being hypocrites anyway. He considered bringing the Gospel into disrepute through hypocrisy to be a huge problem. I suppose by your rationale he should instead have instructed his hearers that they should listen to the Pharisees because they were mostly right on the law and pointing out hypocrisy was merely their prejudices at work.
You’re not reading what I’m writing. The framers of this document only align with the Pharisees if in fact they’re hypocrites, which you have assumed, not established.
However, if people insist on claiming that the framers of this document are hypocrites on the sole basis that hypocrites exist, they weren’t interested in giving it an honest hearing anyway, because that’s not honestly dealing with anything.
No, my basis is not merely that hyprocrites exist. My basis is that if you take a list of the signers of the document — not just the framers, but the signers too — and run their names through google to see if they publicly supported Trump last year, a lot of them did. Not all of them, but way too many.
And if someone voted for that serial sexual predator we now have in the White House, I’m simply not interested in their views on sexual morality.
Just because someone voted for a candidate does not mean that they support everything about them. It was a despicable choice, but I would rather vote for a ‘sexual predator’ who claimed to be pro-life over someone who promised to try to kill more babies
But for goodness’ sake, how are the framers responsible for the signers? This is open to being signed by anybody. “People who agree with me are hypocrites who voted for Trump, therefore I have no moral authority.” You can’t be seriously proposing that.
Jesus did say that his hearers should listen to the Pharisees because they “sit on the seat of Moses.” Then he said what amounts to, ‘do what they say, not what they do.’ (Matthew 23:1-3)
For me to connect the dots, I would need evidence that both framers and signers defended Trump’s sexual immorality as unimportant. I personally think it was so important as to disqualify him from office. But a person can hold a different view: that his sexual ethics and conduct, though vile, are less important than his policy positions.
I am extremely troubled, however, by any attempt on the part of Christians to justify a pattern of lying on the grounds that he lies for the right side.
Jill, I understand that argument. My question, then, would be if there is *any* private conduct so immoral as to disqualify someone from public office so long as he has the right policies. And don’t forget, during the Clinton years there were a lot of evangelicals saying that Clinton’s sexual immorality disqualified him from office. I guess times have changed.
I agree with you that there absolutely is private conduct that should disqualify one from public office regardless of his policies. Clinton’s sexual immorality with Lewinsky might not have been a total deal breaker for me (I’m not sure), but his lying about it under oath definitely was.
I may be missing something here @Jill Smith. What exactly has Trump done that disqualifies him from office (in your eyes) that Clinton may or may not have done with his adultery?
A very good question, Bethyada, and I am going to think it through as I sit in this 113 degree heat that has come to make me truly miserable. Suppose Clinton had committed no sexual wrongdoing in his life of public service until he one day had oral sex with an intern in the White House. Well, actually the intern part would bother me because sex with interns is what people lose their careers for every day. Textbook imbalance of power. So make Monica a fully adult woman, and much closer to Bill in age, not employed by the White… Read more »
Thanks @Jill Smith . Was generally interested in your thoughts here. Not wanting to defend Trump or his behaviour at all. All I know was that he has adultery in his background. I wanted to know why that disqualified Trump (which it may) but only maybe disqualify Clinton. Now it has been said that Clinton’s adulteries antedate Lewinsky. If so, is it adultery does not disqualify but brazen adultery does? Or is it that there is a minimum number that Trump has exceeded which Clinton did not? Or are there issues outside adultery? I get you find his sexual proclivities… Read more »
Sure, Bethyada, but I did note twice that that if I had known about Cinton, his conduct would have disqualified him from being my candidate. (He was not my candidate in any event so this is theoretical). If the stuff I have heard about Clinton is true (unlike Trump, he doesn’t make a whole bunch of self-damaging disclosures), my concern about his moral fitness would be similar to my feelings about Trump: disrespect for women in general; abuse of power; possibly criminally assaultive behavior; attempting to obstruct justice to avoid exposure. But there is a difference between the standards applied… Read more »
Thanks. Noted.
Que Daffy Duck! ????????
Bethyada, you didn’t ask me, but one fairly obvious difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton’s attempt to cover up his sexual shenanigans was an acknowledgment that they were shameful. Trump, on the other hand, brags about them. I think Trump’s utter shamelessness about it is something we haven’t seen before, and puts him in a class by itself. Since the Nashville statement is what started this conversation, I’d say it’s the same difference as a homosexual who quietly and discreetly has gay sex without telling anyone, versus the one who actively promotes it. You may not approve of… Read more »
K2,
Trump shamelessly brags about what traditionally Christians, and culture under Christian influence, would call depravity, and there are professing Christians among the many who don’t care. That’s the point we’ve gotten to. That’s what our culture has produced, and the effect it apparently has on a portion of the church. Those Christians have no right to be offended at any other degeneracy that same culture produces. Logical exercises aside, scripture calls it hypocrisy. Something like that would be your point?
JohnM, yup, that’s a pretty good synopsis of my position.
JohnM, the only thing I would add is that the problem isn’t even that some professing Christians are among the many who don’t care. The problem is that it’s the leadership of the professing Christians who are among the many who don’t care. That makes it worse.
More properly, it is some among the leadership of the professing Christians who are among the many who don’t care. No one who is actually in leadership over me, or is in leadership over any organization that I support, is among that group. I say that not to distinguish myself, but to point out that there are enough who are not in that group, that many Christians have no connection to “leadership” that is in that group. I am far from unique in this as an evangelical.
Jane, 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump. If you’re in the 19% that didn’t, good on you. I’d like to know, though, where are the evangelical voices condemning Trump for his actions? They sure weren’t silent when Clinton was president.
Yes, it’s easy not to be able to find things if you aren’t interested in looking for them.
The people who are against Trump are the ones who doesn’t go around making a lot of political noise outside of evangelical circles. That doesn’t make them any less evangelical leaders. In fact that makes them more authentically evangelical leaders since they’re not making politics their primary day job.
With 81% of evangelicals having voted for Trump, I’d say the anti-Trump evangelical leaders, if they exist, need to be making all the noise both inside and outside evangelical circles they can, for the same reason mainstream Muslims routinely condemn Islamic terrorism. Otherwise, the world will think the pro-Trump ones do speak for you since they’re not hearing contrary voices. I take pains to keep informed of what is going on inside evangelical circles, and I’m not aware of any real anti-Trump voices within it. The only voices I’m hearing are the ones who can’t sing his praises loudly enough.… Read more »
Thing is Jill, Clinton did what he did in office – and in the office – thus it wasn’t even private conduct.
I agree that immoral private conduct should disqualify someone from public office. But what if the choice is between someone whose immoral conduct is less related to policy or someone who has been proven to hypocritically and blatantly disregard national security, and who is a proven liar (and whose policies I disagree with)?
Jane, this is from The Federalist: “Beaty reaches still more strenuously, however, when she tries to link the whole group to Trump. We may need a new Godwin’s Law for our time: anytime a journalist wants to set fire to his subject then walk away without looking back at the explosion, he ties it to Trump and lets it smolder in the fever dens of social media. But this particular instance of such journalistic mischief is flat-out silly. Yes, some signatories of the Nashville Statement supported Trump—Beaty lists ten, a rather humble counting. (All would furnish thoughtful and even judicious… Read more »
Krychek, I do see your point about credibility, and I don’t think the Hillary comparison is appropriate unless equally serious sexual misconduct was being alleged against her. Nor can I see any way in which Hillary’s ethics make Trump’s look good by comparison. They are both deeply flawed people, and it seems to me disgraceful that either could have become candidates. I think the most honest thing for any Trump supporter to have said is, “His sexual and business ethics are deplorable, but his policies are better than hers.” And I think a lot of evangelical and Christian voters did… Read more »
I agree with you that, judging from the polls, most ordinary people are not really listening to what the conservative branches of the church have to say about the sinfulness of gay sex. Or about the sinfulness of sex outside marriage period. But I don’t see hypocrisy unless there is a direct parallel. If Christians refused to vote for a gay candidate specifically because he is gay while ignoring Trump’s own sexual history, that would be genuine hypocrisy.
Bro. Doug, Methinks you’re picking at nits too small. Humans did this. It won’t be perfect. Lots of difference flavors of Christianity are involved, including even my own beloved pessimillenialism. Societies come and go. This one appears to be going — down the tubes. They’ve split the difference on that by simply saying that the times, they are a-changing, a position I would have thought everyone could consent to without grumping. Guess not. As for “turning back” something, the statement itself does that very well, actually. It affirms Bible-centered sexual morals and in Article XIV, it says Jesus saves sinners.… Read more »
Yes, well said. Thank you Bro. Steve.
I agree that we need to do more to steer the ship away from degeneracy, but my question is, how exactly do you plan to do it? The Alt Right is the only movement that’s even attempting to explore real solutions to this problem, yet the Evangelical Intelligentsia seem incapable of any other reaction to them than catty accusations of “white supremacy.”
Hi Ben, what are the Alt Right’s proposed solutions to the problem of sexual immorality, gay and straight?
Considering how to deal with those elements in society who vote for and support degeneracy and destruction of the family.
Could you be a bit more specific, Ben? Jews? Hispanics? Women? Liberals? And what do you mean by remove?
You know, I appreciate this comment. Most of the alt-right wants to claim silly things like “we support the Christian culture so crucial to so much of the West’s progress”, but you’re more honest, laying the credit right where it belongs: at the feet of the white race itself. “Whites are, after all, the most talented race when it comes to building civilization.” And what kind of civilization would it be if it allowed just anyone to enjoy membership and the rewards of all that civilization-building? No, you’ve got to exclude everyone but the elite, the ones who are doing… Read more »
On your reasoning, Ben, you shouldn’t be any hurry to get rid of Ashkenazi Jews who score up to 15 points higher than the average white and who have contributed quite a lot to science, medicine, and technology? Or, is there such a thing as being too smart in the world you envision?
How do you imagine this pure ethnostate, in which women are oppressed, coming about? Will you make the undesirables leave, or will you carve out some little settled portion of Alaska? Or do you foresee some apocalypse following which you can recreate society to your liking?
Ben Garner wrote:
Who needs “catty accusations of “white supremacy”” with Ben Garner campaigning on that very platform in broad daylight?
So if, before you were born, you were given the choice to live in a western European country or some other place, you really wouldn’t have a preference one way or another? That sounds like cultural relativism to me.
You realize that predicating your argument on what people would choose if they had the choice about to whom to be born is the same as saying, “If it were okay to play God, what would you do?”
But it’s not, so that’s vain speculation and borderline blasphemous. Which means no argument taking that form can be accepted by Christians.
“Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?”
@Ben Garner I read somewhere the other day that there are now more Christians in China (persecuted minority though they are) than in the whole of Europe. Would you choose a place where the gospel is flourishing in the midst of superstition, worldliness and oppression? Or a place where ancient churches are being turned into mosques?
No. I want to win through the Word, and through water, and through bread and wine. Nothing “fair” about that.
Excellent.
Personally, I’m inspired by the sweet Christian fragrance of the idea that if we’re not thinking and behaving as the world does, clearly there’s something wrong with our approach. /sarc
I’ve been re-reading the statement and mulling it over. One commentary I read says that this statement moves closer to the Catholic position by saying that same sex attraction is not sinful in itself. Is this a fair reading of the text? Would this tend to go against some of Doug’s previous writings that sanctification involves losing any type of effeminacy and moving toward the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex? I noted that the statement condemns all sex outside heterosexual marriage. According to Gutmacher and other polling companies, 95% of Americans have sex before they are married.… Read more »
I would say that same-sex attraction is intrinsically disordered. Does that mean it’s a sin?
And this is not a compresensive statement on human sexuality, at least in my reading of it. I think it has a narrower focus.
Mark, I agree with you. Intrinsically disordered, but not sinful. What one does about it can certainly be sinful.
What? Christ said adultery of the heart is a sin. Why would homosexual acts be excluded?
Not the acts. The attractions.
I think we really need to draw a distinction here. For men to be attracted to women is design, it is good, it doesn’t become sin until it moves into the realm of coveting and lust. There is no sin in male-female attraction.
However, attraction to a whole slew of other things is wrong, sinful, even if you don’t ever act on it, animals, children, homosexuality, death, whatever, are all disordered.
To be intrinsically disordered is sinful, not because people are “bad,” but because it deviates from God’s design and it is unhealthy.
Would you view a congenital mental illness as sinful?
That’s actually a complex question, Jilly, one I cannot adequately explain in a single comment, in part because I suspect you have the more Catholic view that “sin” is just the “bad” things fully within our own power to resist.
Also, I don’t believe homosexuality is a congenital mental illness, but rather learned behavior, as all other human sexuality is learned behavior.
On the positive side, the statement denied the idea that homosexual or transgender orientation is consistent with God’s creative purpose and affirmed that it is immoral for Christians to be ambivalent about the moral legitimacy of homosexual or transgender perversion. Furthermore, it never used the Orwellian acronym used to describe the homo-brigade that many Christians adopt in a foolish attempt to appear neutral. Still, this needs to be shouted from the roof tops in this day in age. It needs to be repeated by Christians whenever confronted about this issue. Unrepentant homosexuals are damned. You will go to hell unless… Read more »
“The second principle follows on the first: the spectacles of obvious disagreement happen precisely because we have not been more focused on ordering our own houses. I suggested above this statement fails to meet a minimal, biblical standard for expressing judgment. Jesus’s demand that those who seek to correct others examine the planks in their own eye is framed in an interpersonal context, to be sure. But the same principle is given ecclesiastical form when Peter suggests that “judgment begins at the house of God.” The latter verse is interesting because Peter frames such introspective judgment as a response to… Read more »
I really enjoyed his article. It’s the hypocrisy of this declaration, the politics surrounding it, the lack of moral authority that causes me to object. Also, Eternal Subordination of the Son, that blasphemous little bit of aggravation, is a belief held by many of these writers, supporters, and signers. So homosexuality is wrong, but attempting to reframe the very nature of the trinity so it comes more into alignment with your desired world view is all good? Also, they specifically wrote (in article 12) I think,that we will just agree to disagree on ESS.
We will not.
On first reading the statement seems reasonable. Some thoughts about the complaints against it. How I read it is a general statement that clarifies several teachings of the Bible on sexuality but specifically addressing sexual sins that are more prominent currently. I suspect it is written to be addressed in the church and has not been written as a polemic against the world. Much like the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy or the Nicean Creed. I am not saying it is as important, or as true, just where it is directed. As such, the response of unbelievers is of less consequence,… Read more »
The fact that the statement was a cultural action aimed at turning the cultural tide seems to allude everyone here….We complain about the sweeping away of Christian culture, then we complain when someone does something because it wasn’t done exactly right or whatever. Organize you’re own proclamations and see if they are heard as far.
Reading the document further I would say that I would word a few things differently. Still, if asked to whether I basically agree with the affirmations and denials, yes.
Yeah, basically agree — useful for getting a conversation focused.
Bethyada, I wandered on over to Tim Bayly’s site and listened to a podcast where he and others discussed their disappointment with the statement because it doesn’t go far enough. For the moment they considered only points 4, 5 and 8. They felt that the divinely ordered differences, in conjunction with different reproductive structures, don’t give much guidance on what it means to be a man or a woman in the biblical sense. Surely being faithful to the gender assigned me by God must cover more than refraining from having sex with other women or not seeking gender reassignment surgery.… Read more »
Here is Gagnon’s response to Anderson: If I understand the matter correctly, Matthew Lee Anderson’s reasons for not signing the Nashville Statement range from (1) the NS doesn’t cover dozens of other sexual sins of the body, including remarriage after invalid divorce, “reducing a spouse to an instrument of one’s pleasure,” and the alleged sins of in-vitro fertilization and contraception (yet confessional statements rarely cover everything for the practical reason that doing so would reduce the amount of agreement; and it should be obvious that no signatory is excusing, let alone endorsing, various heterosexual immoralities); to (2) the NS doesn’t… Read more »
@Jill Smith I have given a response above which covers what I would probably say. The question is what is one trying to do and say into what context. The church has spilled much ink over divorce and there are really tough questions there. Surrogacy and IVF are not clearly sinful nor is there an absence of ethical issues. Does one want to create a document so specific that only half the elders of one church in an independent denomination feel they can sign it? This is a response to many people in the church advocating what traditionally the church… Read more »
Catholics hold that IVF is inherently sinful. I didn’t realize that some Christians are okay with it.
I don’t think IVF is inherently sinful. But even if it were sinful (perhaps it is), I don’t think it is clearly so.
Many object to embryos being created without the intention of implanting them.
I had to look up the reasons why. Just as it is sinful to have sex without a general intention to have a baby, it is sinful to make a baby without having sex. The unitary and procreative functions may not be separated. Then, the method by which a sperm sample is normally obtained is mortally sinful. Finally, there is the problem of creating extra embryos which are frozen indefinitely or destroyed.
Jilly, you said:
Really? A post-menopausal woman having sex with her husband is considered sinful?
Here’s a link to the Leftist attack on the statement from — surprise, surprise — the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/nashville-statement-lgbt-christians.html
It’s worth reading to gauge their spin.
Pastor Wilson is correct: the Nashville statement is classified by the Times as a potential hate crime, or at the least a hate crime trigger. If so, then the same could be said for the Word of God.
The same *is* said about the word of God. Go read Romans 1 aloud, anywhere.
This is actually quite convicting. I really appreciate the insight into the preamble. It’s helped me to see a sinful compromise or weakness that I was giving in to.
You’d better enjoy sitting down in a public place and blithely hammering out hate statements like this while you can. I have a feeling concerned citizens in black masks are going to have something to say about that in the future.
So? I doubt most of us here find the persecution of the wicked as a result of faithfulness to be a new idea, and certainly not anything that should modify what we do.