Skip to main content

Three Initial Thoughts on the Nashville Statement

Evangelical (what does that even really mean anymore?) leaders recently released a declaration regarding sexuality.  The Nashville Statement (hereafter NS) is simultaneously concise, thorough, and Biblical.  As would be expected, it is causing a bit of a stir in the media and across the Internet, where it is generally being portrayed as the hateful vitriol of outdated homophobes.  Here are my initial thoughts on the statement and its subsequent reception.

1) It is sad that it is necessary.  You know how pathetic it is that your cup of hot coffee has to have a warning that says that the contents are hot?  Yeah, the fact that the NS is necessary is sort of like that. Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong?  What?!  Christians believe that gender and sex are related?  What?!  Christians believe sex outside of marriage is wrong?  Again, what?!  This is all so shocking!  Be still, my beating heart!  All the principles of the NS, though given contemporary expressions therein, have been consistently held and proclaimed by Christians for 2000 years, so, while you might disagree with them, you should not be surprised by them.  This is what Christians have always believed.  We are staying the same, while everyone else is changing.  Progressives may consider us backwards, but, when it comes to morality, change is not necessarily a good thing.  In fact, it's usually not.

2) It is absolutely necessary.  The fact that it's sad that the NS is necessary doesn't make it any less necessary.  To say that the liberal Church has imbibed progressive views on sexuality is a drastic understatement.  It now proudly proclaims them, eager to seem progressive and seeker-friendly.  The NS is necessary both to a) draw a dividing line between faithful, Bible-believing Christianity and liberal Christianity; and b) to act as a witness to Christians who might be living in sin within those denominations.  There are many Christians who have simply never heard a Biblical view of sexuality. In that way, the more the media blows this up, the better.  The NS is absolutely necessary and beneficial.

3) The reaction should not be surprising.  Make no mistake about it, battle lines are being drawn. The gray area is disappearing and soon we will all have to decide which which side we will occupy.  This, however, should not come as a surprise to Christians.  Our Savior made it clear that His servants should expect to be treated just as He was, and He was killed.  Taking the name of Christ is signing up for spiritual warfare, so we must be ready and willing to deal with the opposition.  The pervasive worldview of our country, despite claims of religiosity, is antagonistic towards any religion that makes concrete claims about morality.  Secular humanism is diametrically and ideologically opposed to Biblical Christianity.  We need to stop being naive and deal with that fact.  Only when we confront the issue from this foundational perspective will we be able to have productive conversations about the peripheral issues.

I'm sure much more will be said about the NS.  In fact, it could prove to be one of the defining religious documents of our era.  One can even imagine there could be legal ramifications someday for signing it (loss of 501c3 status, etc.).  I encourage you to follow the link I have provided above and read the document thoroughly.  You can even sign it, if you feel like it is something you want to support.  It think it would also make a great tool for a Bible study or Sunday School.  Whatever your opinion, the NS, along with the issues it discusses, is something with which all Christians should be familiar.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...

Some Thoughts on the 2024 Election

So, we had an election earlier this week.  Perhaps you heard about it. I have done my best to remain mostly silent on political issues this time around because I have found that fixating on such matters does little for my mental or spiritual health.  Also, no one cares what I think.  Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts on our recent election. 1) I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not glad he won.  To be clear, that says more about Kamala Harris than about Donald Trump. 2) This election seemed much cleaner--much less suspicious--than the sordid affair we had in 2020.  This election didn't feature any poll workers tallying (discovering? conjuring?) votes behind closed doors in the wee hours of the night, messy mail-in voting, or voter turnout beyond plausible expectations.  The 2020 election had me convinced that we would never see another peaceful, uncontested election, but, as contentious as things were this year, it seems like...