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a bit of a stir in the media and across the Internet, where it is generally being portrayed as the hateful vitriol of outdated homophobes.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

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary