The Nashville Statement from CBMW

There are 19 Comments

TylerR's picture

Editor
Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

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.

John E.'s picture

I praise God for the faithfulness and courage of the signees of this important document.

TylerR's picture

Editor

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 an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

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.

AndyE's picture

TylerR wrote:
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.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

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.

Jay's picture

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

AndyE's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

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."

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?

TylerR's picture

Editor

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:

  1. TylerR signed the Nashville Statement
  2. Mohler signed the Nashville Statement
  3. Mohler signed ECT and the Manhatten Declaration
  4. TylerR and Mohler both signed the Nashville Declaration, and Mohler signed a document which Roman Catholic leaders also signed
  5. Therefore, TylerR and Mohler are endorsing Roman Catholicism and leading people astray
  6. 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 an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

AndyE's picture

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.

TylerR's picture

Editor

It's a joke. Be happy. Smile

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Ron Bean's picture

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

Jay's picture

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

TylerR's picture

Editor

Never tell me the odds!

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

TylerR's picture

Editor

This is the clear dividing line in contemporary Western "Christianity" - the issue of sexuality and identity. There are all sorts of news stories out today from progressive apostates and heretics against the Biblical posiition on human sexuality. The Washington Post recently published a short piece about a Roman Catholic priest (excommunication, anyone?) who tweeted out this in response to the Nashville Statement:

I affirm: That God loves all LGBT people. I deny: That Jesus wants us to insult, judge or further marginalize them.
I affirm: That all of us are in need of conversion. I deny: That LGBT people should be in any way singled out as the chief or only sinners.
I affirm: That when Jesus encountered people on the margins he led with welcome not condemnation. I deny: That Jesus wants any more judging.
I affirm: That LGBT people are, by virtue of baptism, full members of the church. I deny: That God wants them to feel that they don’t belong
I affirm: That LGBT people have been made to feel like dirt by many churches. I deny: That Jesus wants us to add to their immense suffering.
I affirm: That LGBT people are some of the holiest people I know. I deny: That Jesus wants us to judge others, when he clearly forbade it.
I affirm that the Father loves LGBT people, the Son calls them and the Holy Spirit guides them. I deny nothing about God’s love for them.

This is the contemporary battlefield.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

TylerR's picture

Editor

Gagnon's remarks:

If it quacks like a heresy, it's a heresy. Homosexualism is heresy (as is its kin Transgenderism). It is a cancer on the church, now infecting even Evangelicalism (to say nothing of high officials in the Roman Catholic Church and some academics and clerics in the Orthodox church). The sooner this is recognized and faced (as does Article 10 in the new Nashville Statement), the better off the church will be. If the people of God retreat from this assertion out of fear of the le...ftwing forces of the world, the citadel will be overwhelmed.

Our battle is not against flesh and blood but it is against every human thought and practice that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The church must absolutely exercise compassion for same-sex attracted persons and for persons who experience gender identity confusion. That compassion requires clarity, clarity about the truth regarding the male-female foundation for human sexual ethics that, according to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, serves as the standard and basis for all other commands pertaining to sexual purity (save the prohibition of bestiality). Without that clarity, people perish and what masquerades as compassion turns out to be functional hatred. True haters will call us hateful and spew out all sorts of vile condemnations, all in a tactical effort at intimidation and diversion from what has always been the stance of the orthodox church.

The idea, peddled by some, that this is not heresy because it is not addressed in the great creeds won't wash. Church councils were ad hoc affairs; that is, they dealt with pressing heresies rather than covered all possible heresies. The promotion of homosexual unions and transsexualism never had a voice in the church until very recently and so never required a separate council.

On this issue will turn many other central features of the faith, including other positions in sexual ethics (consensual polyamory and incest), normative ethics generally, and the authority of Scripture even as it pertains to core matters of faith and practice. Ultimately, nothing less than the Lordship of Jesus Christ is at stake. If what Jesus treated as the essential foundation for all sexual ethics can be overturned, then the confession of Christ's Lordship has become little more than a facade for human self-exaltation against the Creator.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Joel Shaffer's picture

TylerR wrote:

This is the clear dividing line in contemporary Western "Christianity" - the issue of sexuality and identity. There are all sorts of news stories out today from progressive apostates and heretics against the Biblical posiition on human sexuality. The Washington Post recently published a short piece about a Roman Catholic priest (excommunication, anyone?) who tweeted out this in response to the Nashville Statement:

I affirm: That God loves all LGBT people. I deny: That Jesus wants us to insult, judge or further marginalize them.
I affirm: That all of us are in need of conversion. I deny: That LGBT people should be in any way singled out as the chief or only sinners.
I affirm: That when Jesus encountered people on the margins he led with welcome not condemnation. I deny: That Jesus wants any more judging.
I affirm: That LGBT people are, by virtue of baptism, full members of the church. I deny: That God wants them to feel that they don’t belong
I affirm: That LGBT people have been made to feel like dirt by many churches. I deny: That Jesus wants us to add to their immense suffering.
I affirm: That LGBT people are some of the holiest people I know. I deny: That Jesus wants us to judge others, when he clearly forbade it.
I affirm that the Father loves LGBT people, the Son calls them and the Holy Spirit guides them. I deny nothing about God’s love for them.

This is the contemporary battlefield.

I look for this priest that wrote this (Martin) to eventually be excommunicated.  He's been going rogue for a few years now against Catholic teaching on sexuality and many  US priests and Bishops are starting to get frustrated and have pushed back against his false teaching.  A few of my Catholic facebook friends frequently post articles against Martin.