The Nashville Statement from CBMW
- 1 view
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
If you know, what’s supposed to be wrong with CBMW’s “teachings on masculinity and femininity” ? I vaguely remember the Trinity hullabaloo… was the objection to CBMW that they used a particular view of subordination in the Trinity to argue for submission in marriage/something along those lines? My take on that would be that it’s not the best argument, but who can deny that there is at least functional subordination in the Trinity at least until the eschaton… without an compromise of essential equality among the Persons?
(Don’t really want to start a Trinity subordination debate, but if it’s generally agreed that there is some subordination without essential inequality, I can’t see how the Trinity argument for marital submission is a serious problem.)
As for the Nashville Statement, after one quick read through, I can only say it looks like good work.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I praise God for the faithfulness and courage of the signees of this important document.
I don’t quite remember what Aimie Byrd’s problem is (she’s the one who wrote the piece from “Mortification of Spin”). I seem to remember I think she’s making something out of nothing, but I don’t remember. I don’t think she’ll ever be quite satisfied on this issue. I stopped listening to her on it a while back.I’ve never paid much attention to CBMW, so I’m a bit disconnected. And (gasp), I’m a man, so perhaps I can’t quite understand Byrd’s perspective on this.
Janet Mefferd (and others) have been tweeting that the Nashville Statement doesn’t explicitly repudiate “gay Christianity.” I read the whole thing, and I think it clearly does. Some people will never be satisfied, with anything. And, I’m less than impressed with her discrenment lately. So, meh.
As an immortal poet once said, “Haters gonna hate.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Good statement, really, and regarding Byrd’s criticism, the bigger thing I’d point out is that at least one signer greeted modalist T.D. Jakes as a brother in “Elephant Room 2”; that would be James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel. Maybe I’m missing something here, but the question of whether Christ’s submission was temporal (he “learned obedience” in Hebrews 5:8) or eternal seems to pale in comparison to thinking that the Trinity is a minor enough deal that we can greet a modalist as a brother in Christ.
(come to think of it, if even Christ does not know the day or time, yes, Aaron would be correct that it’s reasonable to see Him as subordinate until the end times….)
Plus, her sources are….her own blog. Um, if you’re going to criticize other people, maybe….quote…them? I guess I’m too picky that way. :^) Seriously, some of this seems like remembering every thing where CBMW has had something possibly flawed and bringing it up just as they’re doing something that could be significant—reminds me of the media these days, really. I appreciate being somewhat persnickety on matters of theology, but sometimes it seems that we’re not only trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but also whether it’s a waltz, a polka, or the macarena.
Overall, I’d like to see something along these lines get widespread acceptance along the lines of the Fundamentals or the Solas—not quite as significant an issue as the Trinity, Fundamentals, or Solas, but pretty close in getting the nature of God right. Dunno if it’s this, but it’s a good start.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[TylerR] Janet Mefferd (and others) have been tweeting that the Nashville Statement doesn’t explicitly repudiate “gay Christianity.” I read the whole thing, and I think it clearly does. Some people will never be satisfied, with anything. And, I’m less than impressed with her discrenment lately. So, meh.I don’t know who Janet Mefferd is or what her objection is but it may be in regard to Article 8. It seems to say that chastity is the way forward and that mortification of these “dishonorable passions” (Rom 1:26; Col 3:1-6) is not necessary. Article 12 talks about putting to death sinful desires but no where does this statement explicitly say what those are. I would view this as a weakness in the statement.
Maybe they didn’t agree entirely on what “moritification” is, in practial terms. As for the sinful desires, probably they would be referring to those in the following article. IX says “sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality.”
Many understand the “dishonorable passions” of Rom. 1:26 to mean that these desires bring shame on those who act on them. In the context, this occurred as a form of judgment. The shame itself is something like disgrace, as in 1 Cor. 11:14 (same word, atimia). Romans 1:27 refers to “shameless acts” … but later, in 1:29, we find that the “debased mind” of the same group of people results in behaviors we tend to be less quick to associate with perversion…
filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless
Anyway, point is that the desire for anti-marriage sexual sin is part of the same decadent soup as all other sinful desires… there may not be much to gain by setting any of them apart in a special way.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I don’t know how someone could say that the Nashville Statement is weak on sexual sin when it specifically identifies any sex outside of a heterosexual marriage as sin (Art. 2), expressly commends those who are seeking to live a productive life for Christ while dealing with SSA (Art. 8), and that Christ gives us the power to put all sexual sins to death in Art. 12.
Maybe this is as simple as TylerR said, ‘haters gonna hate’ and we should shake it off. :p
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Aaron Blumer]So that’s a problem if that is all they are referring to. The statement doesn’t state clearly if homosexual desire is a dishonorable passion that should be mortified or not. If you are going to go to all the trouble of putting together a whole list of affirmations and denials, then why do you leave out this very relevant issue, and not clearly state your position?Maybe they didn’t agree entirely on what “moritification” is, in practial terms. As for the sinful desires, probably they would be referring to those in the following article. IX says “sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality.”
[TylerR]As an immortal poet once said, “Haters gonna hate.”
What has SI come to when you have to quote THAT poet!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
I signed it. I am a true convergent, now. I have, with but a few clicks of a mouse, now bound myself to be personally responsible for everything each major evangelical leader who signed the statement ever does. Secondary separation … it’s a killer. Now, anyone at SI who ever disagrees with me can draw a link that goes like this:
- TylerR signed the Nashville Statement
- Mohler signed the Nashville Statement
- Mohler signed ECT and the Manhatten Declaration
- TylerR and Mohler both signed the Nashville Declaration, and Mohler signed a document which Roman Catholic leaders also signed
- Therefore, TylerR and Mohler are endorsing Roman Catholicism and leading people astray
- Therefore, ya’ll should separate from me, or you, too, will be complicit.
Run, now. Save yourself.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler, who thinks that signing a document puts you into fellowship with the other signatories? The problem with signing the Manhattan Declaration was not who else might sign but that you are, along with the Declaration, affirming and giving Christian recognition to unbelievers. The Nashville Declaration does not do that….so you are in the clear, at least for now.
It’s a joke. Be happy. :)
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Under the rules of separation that I learned, signing this document aligns you with Mohler who signed the Manhattan Declaration.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
That was also what I learned about secondary separation a long time ago. TylerR is more right than he knows in his illustration / example.
To quote from another immortal…well, droid… “Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating [secondary separation] is approximately 3,720 to 1!”
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion