CBMW Publishes Its Nashville Statement – Some Are Asking Why Now?

"Evangelicals [need] to come together to produce a new statement of conviction concerning these current challenges. This will be hard work and will likely take some time. But it will be worth the effort to produce a statement of evangelical unity on these matters that can serve as a reference point for churches and Christian organizations that are looking for confessional language on these issues."

Denny Burk

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aiga_toilets_inv.svg

Male / Female Symbols

Thirty years ago (1987) a group of evangelical leaders held a clandestine meeting in Danvers, Massachusetts to hammer out their core beliefs which would come to be known as "The Danvers Statement". It purportedly justified the need for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). The following year this group published the Danvers Statement in its final form. You can read the rationale and affirmations here.

The term "complementarian" was invented by this group. Not only that, key leaders of CBMW began promoting something called "The Eternal Subordination of the Son (to the Father) aka ESS. Those who affirm ESS claim that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Rachel Miller has written an excellent summary in case you would like more detail. Many consider ESS (as well as EFS and ERAS) to be heretical.

As we have previously discussed, last November the focus of last year's Evangelical Theological Society meeting was "The Trinity".  There were heated debates about it, and we kept waiting for the ETS to release some sort of information regarding what had been discussed. Nothing was forthcoming.

Then Kevin Giles shared some very important information, which we discussed in our posts entitled:

Kevin Giles on the Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity

Kevin Giles on Complementarians Who Now Reject Wayne Grudem's View of the Trinity

In the second post, we highlighted these words by Kevin Giles in his recently released book The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity:

"Powerful complementarians who a year ago were enthusiastically teaching the complementarian doctrine of a hierarchical ordered Trinity and confidently grounding women’s subordination in divine life are now saying they reject this teaching."

When Denny Burk was named as CBMW president (due to Owen Strachan's resignation), Aimee Byrd challenged him in her post What Denny Burk Could Do. To our knowledge, she received no response.

In the wake of The Trinity debate at last year's ETS meeting and thirty years after the Danvers Statement was crafted, CBMW, which now describes itself as "A Coalition for Biblical Sexuality"  has released a new manifesto called the Nashville Statement.

John Piper has already gushed over it. In a recent CBMW post, Denny Burk explained why they came up with this statement and why now. In that post, he explained about the timing of the Nashville Statement (see below):

1. Timing

I have been asked numerous times today why this statement and why now? We began planning this statement months ago. In fact, when I accepted the position as president of CBMW over a year ago, I announced what we planned to do:

Evangelicals [need] to come together to produce a new statement of conviction concerning these current challenges. This will be hard work and will likely take some time. But it will be worth the effort to produce a statement of evangelical unity on these matters that can serve as a reference point for churches and Christian organizations that are looking for confessional language on these issues. We will need all hands on deck for this effort, and I am hopeful that a broad coalition of like-minded brothers and sisters will come together to have a hand in this work. I am confident that we can achieve this.

About nine months ago, we began making plans to convene the meeting in partnership with the ERLC’s research institute (which is headed by my good friend Andrew Walker). The ERLC’s national conference is held annually in late August. So once ERLC agreed to host our meeting to finalize the draft, the date was set—August 25. We have been planning for this particular date for many months now.

I'm irritated about the above date (August 25) they selected because that's my birthday!

According to an article in The Tennessean,

It's named after Nashville because a coalition of scholars, pastors and other leaders finalized a draft of the statement in Nashville, said Denny Burk, president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, in an email. 

The group met last week at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center during the annual conference for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

The mayor of Nashville is upset about the statement's name, and Burk explained the reasoning behind it (see below)

There is a long Christian tradition of naming doctrinal statements after the places where they were drawn up: The Nicene Creed (325), the Constantinopolitan Creed (381), the Chalcedonian Creed (451), etc. Even more recently, there was the Barmen Declaration (1934), The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), The Danvers Statement (1987), and the Manhattan Declaration (2009). There are countless other examples. In each case, the name simply indicates where the statements were drawn up. Whether The Nashville Statement will prove to be as enduring as those others remains to be seen. But that is the reason for the name. We were simply following a precedent set by many before us.

In his post, Denny Burk indicated that they have received the most push back because of Article 10, which states:

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Aimee Byrd over at Mortification of Spin has expressed her concerns about this new statement by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womahood (see screen shots below)

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-few-questions-about-the-new-cbmw-statement?utm_content=bufferf44a1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.WaYbLIqQwUu

http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-few-questions-about-the-new-cbmw-statement?utm_content=bufferf44a1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.WaYbLIqQwUu

Various news outlets are beginning to respond to the Nashville Statement and leveling much criticism at CBMW. If you just search "Nashville Statement", you will see what we mean.

One of our astute readers had this to say regarding the Nashville Statement:

This is going to turn out badly.  Of all the things they could rally around, why this?  Statistically, the types of churches that would sign on to this probably have many more abused children and women in their congregations than people who are LGBT. This shows that they don’t care about abuse. Many people are going to be damaged by the fallout of this.  I don’t believe the signers care all that much about LGBT issues.  I think it’s a backdoor way to subordinate women now that ESS failed.  See articles 3, 4, and 13, and this statement from the preamble: “his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female.”  They are using the LGBT issue to solidify gender roles, which directly supports their goal to subordinate women.  The people damaged by this new statement will be shrugged off as incidental collateral damage.

We hope you will take a look at the Nashville Statement and share your thoughts with us.


Comments

CBMW Publishes Its Nashville Statement – Some Are Asking Why Now? — 809 Comments

  1. a surrogate raison d’etre.

    they invented a culture war (gender roles = the gospel) with an invented weapon (ESS). Their weapon is now a flaccid nothing. They look silly. They need something to deflect attention away from this.

    The empire they built, complete with revenue and personal power and on which they’ve staked their reputations, is too much to lose.

    so they seize the red-hot weapon of fear of homosexuality and transgenderism. and suddenly they’re virile and relevant once again.

    they are using vulnerable members of society to save face, money, and power. Exploiting them to reinvent their organization.

    it’s beyond shameful.

  2. http://www.bpnews.net/49446/evangelicals-counter-agree-to-disagree-sexuality
    From the article:
    ‘ Nashville Mayor Megan Barry, however, took exception to the name and the content of The Nashville Statement, tweeting: “The @CBMWorg’s so-called ‘Nashville Statement’ is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville.” ‘

    Ha! I was waiting for the first female mayor of Nashville to comment!

  3. CBMW is stoking the fires which have heated up fear of these members of society to red-hot.

    Gives them a new cause to rally around. Makes them look and feel like heroes in their own minds.

    All to keep their organization viable, and so they can continue to justify (in their minds) the subjugation of women.

    LGBTQ individual’s suffering will be compounded by the Nashville Statement. ‘Love the sinner but hate the sin’ serves merely to soothe the christian who self-talks in such terms — it does nothing to mitigate the rejection & all manner of hurtful messages, spoken and unspoken, which these human beings experience from the christian community.

    CBMW is exploiting these human beings for entirely selfish reasons. it’s appallingly egregious. and everyone who signs the Nashville Statement is party to it, as well. although their awareness of such things seems as keen as a butterknife.

    and to all those who are signing for the sake of your careers and standing amongst your peers, shame on you. that goes double for CBMW for forcing professional christians into this predicament.

  4. I am surprised at the arrogance of this lot trying to suggest their statement is of the same importance and worth as the Nicene Creed. I dont imagine for a minute that the Church Fathers met behind closed doors to decide that they would call their new position – “Here’s a good idea that will make us look clever theological heavyweights, let’s call it the Nicene Creed”. But I can imagine that’s how this lot did it. They’ve spoiled a perfectly good to programme. What will Will Lexington say?

  5. @ Lowlandseer:

    i don’t know who Will Lexington is, but i say give them all tall paper hats to wear (like in the paintings depicting the Council at Nicaea — i won’t paste the link again). ridiculous regalia for ridiculous people.

    (but i’ve brought up silly hats one too many times, now)

  6. I think what’s confusing all of you here is that you’re looking for the perfect church.

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it, because you’ll spoil it!

    Yours sincerely,

    Arnold Smartarse

  7. I can imagine this lot trying to respond to the first-century scandal first noted in Caesarea when Peter preached to uncircumcised Gentiles, with the result that he induced a wave of dangerous charismatic hysteria amongst them. Not only that, but Saul (or whatever he called himself) and Barnabas were stirring up trouble among the gentiles in Antioch and further afield by encouraging them to get ideas above their station.

    God’s Word as revealed in the scriptures unquestionably showed that the uncircumcised were not to approach the things of God. Gentiles, therefore, were not to attempt to manifest the Spirit or to consider themselves “saved”. But praise God for his Word, and for his faithful witnesses! Certain faithful men came down from Judea (Acts 15:1) and began to instruct the well-meaning but deceived Gentiles towards a proper Biblical lifestyle.

    And the rest is history.

  8. I know some people who signed it insisting that it didn’t draw the line at salvation. “The language isn’t that strong, so I signed it,” they said. Same with some of the big non-Cal pastors who signed it when asked on Twitter: “Article 10 isn’t talking about salvation.”

    In comes Denny Burk, the next day, to clarify, “Oh yes, it is about salvation!”: https://cbmw.org/the-nashville-statement/why-the-nashville-statement-now-and-what-about-article-10/

    I know how these guys work. The language is purposely vague, so they thought it would stay that way. But these are the guys that turn “respect your elders” into “you are under church discipline for having a brain”. I’m pretty sure there’s going to be more “clarifications” where the language will be upgraded. I am guessing article 4 will be the next to be clarified, so we can get a real good picture on how everybody is supposed to act as a male or female.

  9. Almost as important as the statement itself is the “Ten Principles For Training Boys To Become Men” written by the International Director of CBMW, Gavin Peacock.
    1 Submit to the authorities over you
    2 Shake hands firmly and look a person in the eye
    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman
    4 Dress like a man not a woman
    5 Speak clearly and be a man of your word
    6 Do the right thing even if it costs you
    7 Take initiative and be chivalrous with women
    8 Avoid pornography
    9 Pursue a wife
    10 Pursue God above all

    (Tweeted by him on 25 Aug)

    And they wonder why no one takes them seriously?

  10. @ elastigirl:
    Sorry Elastigirl. He’s the gay cowboy country star in the (fictional) tv programme who has just been signed by Budweiser to do a commercial for them. I have a soft spot for Country & Western. I blame Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash for that.

  11. Two quick points:

    1. Someone who is LGBT has said that “I’m sad about the numbers of people who will feel hate from the Nashville statement”. This concerns me greatly. Whatever your views on sexuality are, I’d hope you’d agree that people should not be feeling hatred.

    2. I’m wondering if the Nashville statement is an attempt to promote complementarianism by the back door. Many Christians will agree with the statement’s views on matters of sexuality, and it refers to the differences between men and women without giving details. It’s a small step for CBMW to then say, “but the Biblical teaching is that men lead and women follow, and if you deny this, you open the door to same sex marriage”.

  12. If there are sins that shut the door to salvation, doesn’t that automatically mean that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, that the cross is not enough, that Jesus is not enough, and that, therefore, Jesus is a fraud?

    So THAT is what they are saying.

    Good thing they don’t speak for Jesus.

  13. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Almost as important as the statement itself is the “Ten Principles For Training Boys To Become Men” written by the International Director of CBMW, Gavin Peacock.

    I was about to say it would’ve been better if it had been the other Gavin Peacock (formerly of Newcastle United and Chelsea fitba’ clubs) but, whilst fact-checking this, I fear that may be the same Gavin Peacock. Apparently he authored a book promoting complementarianism.

  14. Paul said this of the pro-circumcision group: ” “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”” I believe the sentiment strikes just the right note for the anti-LGBTQ group.

  15. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Yes, Nick, he is THE Gavin Peacock, the footballer. He also likens himself to Eric Liddell, Olympic gold medalist and missionary who died in a Japanese prisoner of war camp!

  16. Lowlandseer wrote:

    He also likens himself to Eric Liddell, Olympic gold medalist and missionary who died in a Japanese prisoner of war camp!

    Well, if he cited Eric Liddell as a role-model and someone whose capacity for self-sacrifice he admired, that would be one thing. Likening himself to Liddell is quite another, unless he aspires to martyrdom in a country in which Christians are persecuted.

  17. This all seems like damage control to me. This and all the other legalistic smoke and mirrors aimed at controlling the sheep is an aberration to those who call themselves by the name of Christ. I wish they would get back to what really matters.

    As much as they love to quote the Apostle Paul, you surely never hear them quoting from Galatians 5: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.”

    Some Carpenter from Nazareth also had this to say about burdens and yokes, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
    Binding more burdens and ‘roles’ around people’s necks is not the solution.

  18. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    …doesn’t that automatically mean that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, that the cross is not enough, that Jesus is not enough…

    Well, obviously Jesus is not enough. We also need to obey the Law.

    The thing is, the only problem with the Old Covenant was that it was missing just a few extra laws. Jesus came partly to deal with a few legal technicalities that were causing problems behind the scenes, but mostly to pave the way for various church Councils in the following few centuries to collate God’s ultimate and supreme self-revelation: the Bible (although exactly which bible remains a matter for religious warfare to test the faithfulness of God’s true followers). The Bible is sufficient.

    Now, when I say the Bible is “sufficient”, that clearly doesn’t mean we don’t need preachers and teachers to explain the correct interpretation of the Bible to us, because we’re sinners and we would refuse to properly understand the bible if we had our own way. So, the Sufficiency of Scripture doesn’t actually mean the bible is enough on its own; only that it is Sufficient.

  19. It bothers me that a group of men think their beliefs are so significant, they can compare it to the Nicene Creed.

    Aside from that, I don’t believe the church is spoken for through the expression of a, ” manifesto “. Who are these people to speak for all believers?
    I certainly do not view them as leaders of THE church. Too much hubris, too little accountability.

  20. So far this morning I’ve read CBMW supporters liken themselves to the Council of Nicea, a Scottish Olympian, and now the Reformation. Owen Strachan wrote the following in 2015.
    “They say that the Reformation was a revolution not of weapons, but of words. The movement advanced through the preached Word and the written word in particular. Just as the Reformation constituted a mighty preaching and writing engine, so evangelical complementarianism has produced many millions of words that have revived and strengthened God’s church.”

    Humility? We’re the most humble people who’ve ever lived and just to prove it we bought C J Mahaney’s book on the subject. Now there’s another truly humble man. In fact I’m sure the Good Lord had us in mind when He spoke about the subject.

  21. @ Lowlandseer:

    What am I missing here? I did not read the book, but in looking at the list you posted I don’t see what is wrong with that. Having raised one and only one boy child I am wondering if some of those things are necessary, like don’t they do that anyhow without being told, but I conclude that I am surely missing the point.

    FWIW I think the way you raise a boy child to be a man is first you marry a man that you want your boy children to grow up like. Okay all you English majors, I know my limitations, but you get my drift.

  22. I was just talking about the ham-handed timing of this statement with an old seminary friend. Now, it makes a bit more sense in light of the ESS smack-down. Good catch, Dee!

    Did you notice that the statement on “biblical” sexuality spends a lot of time on transgenderism and homosexuality, yet it NEVER mentions “adultery” by name? Not. Even. Once.

    More thoughts here: http://www.divorceminister.com/divorce-minister-nashville-statement/

  23. @ Lowlandseer:

    The first point pretty clearly states that the Founding Fathers, the soldiers in the American Revolution, the men who fought the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe were NOT 'real men.'

    It's truly appalling that their very first thought is that people (in their minds the only 'real people' are men) MUST submit to THEIR authority.

  24. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Almost as important as the statement itself is the “Ten Principles For Training Boys To Become Men” written by the International Director of CBMW, Gavin Peacock.
    1 Submit to the authorities over you
    2 Shake hands firmly and look a person in the eye
    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman
    4 Dress like a man not a woman
    5 Speak clearly and be a man of your word
    6 Do the right thing even if it costs you
    7 Take initiative and be chivalrous with women
    8 Avoid pornography
    9 Pursue a wife
    10 Pursue God above all
    (Tweeted by him on 25 Aug)
    And they wonder why no one takes them seriously

    Hey…don’t some of these apply to ALL believers.

  25. “I’m irritated about the above date (August 25) they selected because that’s my birthday!”

    Lucky…you?

  26. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Here is the reason he gives in the Independent in July 2017.
    “After reading Duncan Hamilton’s biography of him, For The Glory, I related to Liddell quite a lot,” Peacock says. “Not that I was ever a great Olympian but just the whole thing about sports and ministry and he died for the sake of ministry in China. Even our backgrounds too. I’m from Eltham in south-east London and Liddell actually went to Eltham College. When I was back in the UK a couple of months ago, my sister said, ‘You know that you have a bench dedicated to you in Eltham High Street?’ I had no idea but went out for a meal that night and I saw a bench dedicated to Bob Hope – who was born there – and then Liddell’s one too. So, we went looking for mine and we’re up and down the street and it’s night-time. There’s a guy sitting on a bench outside KFC and he says, ‘Have you got any money, mate?’ And I just said to him, ‘Sorry, but can you move out of the way – I’m just trying to see if this bench is dedicated to me.’”

  27. Never mind that one of the biggest scandals to come out of their movement concerned protecting child molesters. And the “child molester protector”, CJ Mahaney signed the statement! Maybe kids don’t count in their bubble when it comes to sexual sin?

  28. I believe the upset over this statement is overdone.

    The things in this statement are things that Christians have believed for 2 millennia.

    The issues addressed in the statement are things that have been in the news over the last couple of years.

    I am not upset that these folks decided to address these issues as opposed to some other issues.

    The church does need a clear restatement on matters relating to sexuality given all that has occurred over the last few years and months.

    Btw, the statement does say that sex outside of marriage is sinful and that faithfulness inside marriage is correct. Adultry is clearly condemned.

    I agree strongly that this statement could have been drafted better in many places.

    I also believe that the CBMW being the organization that is out front on this is not helpful. Who knows? For all we know, they tried to reach out to other groups.

    But I would have preferred that every Christian organization they could get to join in the US would sign on. A list of every Christian denomination, seminary, university, and ministry would make it stronger.

    I also looked for some names that should be in there because they agree with all of this, but are not is interesting. I think of Tim Keller, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Timothy George, and many others.

    To me this indicates a reticence that is not based on the theology of the statement but the social side of the statement and whether it is likely to be effective and have staying power.

    That returns us to the driver – the CBMW and whether the statement has or is seen to have a dual purpose or baggage. And that is the problem.

    To wit: the ERLC hosted all of this. Russell Moore is a signer and former spokesman for the CBMW. But if you look at the ERLC website, there is nothing on this. At least as of last night. To me, that is VERY telling. It says even the ERLC is less enthusiastic than it may appear.

    Aimee Byrd’s comments about opposite sex relationships was also a good thought. They are so important to me, especially in the endurance athletic community that I hang out in. But in the CBMW crowd, I have a sense those are frowned upon.

    So, I am not upset by this. I see a need for the church to address these issues clearly, but I wonder in the approach and the organizer (the CBMW) damaged this project and will limit its effectiveness.

  29. The thing that bothers me most about the Nashville Statement is the same thing that stirred me up about New Calvinist views on The Trinity and ESS … the new reformers come across as being 'the' voice of evangelical Christianity and the one and only orthodox church on the earth today. Therefore, all of Christendom must look to them for truth on everything; when, in fact, the majority of Christendom does not accept most of their positions – some approaching heresy.

    The second thing that bothers me is that much of this noise is coming from Southern Baptist ranks (Nashville is also the corporate home of SBC), which was formerly known for evangelism rather than Calvinism. These guys are killing a once-great denomination, one statement at a time.

  30. I wish they would spend half as much time expounding on (and setting the example!) all the ways the Bible (whichever) describes caring for the poor and marginalized, welcoming the stranger, selling all one has and giving to the poor, loving the enemy and visiting the sick and imprisoned. You know, stuff God said was important.

  31. ishy wrote:

    I know some people who signed it insisting that it didn’t draw the line at salvation. “The language isn’t that strong, so I signed it,” they said. Same with some of the big non-Cal pastors who signed it when asked on Twitter: “Article 10 isn’t talking about salvation.”
    In comes Denny Burk, the next day, to clarify, “Oh yes, it is about salvation!”

    Who knows, we may follow some of the same people on Twitter. One of the signers was arguing with an LGBT Christian whom I follow, saying that it doesn’t say one has to agree with the statement to be saved. When it was pointed out that Denny Burk says it totally does, the signer in question went silent. Hmm…

  32. Ian wrote:

    1. Someone who is LGBT has said that “I’m sad about the numbers of people who will feel hate from the Nashville statement”. This concerns me greatly. Whatever your views on sexuality are, I’d hope you’d agree that people should not be feeling hatred.

    I agree that we shouldn’t be hating LGBT people. I will just ask you to keep in mind that in the U.S. at least, there has been a concerted effort to label even the slightest disagreement with anything they say or do as “hate”. This sort of language twisting has become popular with the political left wing, and it bugs me because of its dishonesty. As far as article 10 goes, it appears to me consistent with articles 7, 8, and 9. The whole thing is pretty much what I would expect conservative protestant churches to affirm.

  33. So the Nashville Statement has been around for a couple days now, and has been a fairly big thing on social media (and even has broken through into mainstream media).

    Does anyone know why The Gospel Coalition has had ZERO to say about this? There is absolutely nothing on the website about it. That strikes me as odd.

  34. @ Juulie Downs:
    I don’t think it’s fair to expect people who live paycheck to paycheck to always “welcome the stranger”. Part of the tithe system in the OT was to go for helping poor “Israelites” so I don’t buy the proof texting overall. . That thinking has become a club to beat some people with.

  35. Aside from the rubbish contained in the statements the Nashville Statement makes about transgender people, it’s problematic on sexuality as well even from a traditional point of view.

    Specifically, Article 7 states that “self-conceptualizations” apart from straight and cisgender are forbidden, which means that they believe that calling oneself a “celibate gay Christian” or a “celibate Christian who experiences same-sex attraction” brings damnation upon oneself.

    In that vein, note that none of the authors from the traditionally-minded Spiritual Friendship site have signed the Statement; the minuscule minority of signatories who are not straight and cisgender are people who do not “identify as LGBT.”

  36. I’ve noticed that, of the two founders of TGC (D.A. Carson and Tim Keller), only Carson signed the statement. It is possible that has something to do with the fact that the TGC website is acting as if The Nashville Statement doesn’t exist.

  37. NJ wrote:

    As far as article 10 goes, it appears to me consistent with articles 7, 8, and 9. The whole thing is pretty much what I would expect conservative protestant churches to affirm.

    This means that conservative protestant churches are saying that even gay people who intend to remain celibate forever in obedience to the traditional understanding of Christian ethics are not saved.. Even the Catholic church with its “intrinsically disordered” nonsense does better than this. For shame!

  38. Max wrote:

    The thing that bothers me most about the Nashville Statement is the same thing that stirred me up about New Calvinist views on The Trinity and ESS … the new reformers come across as being ‘the’ voice of evangelical Christianity and the one and only orthodox church on the earth today. Therefore, all of Christendom must look to them for truth on everything; when, in fact, the majority of Christendom does not accept most of their positions – some approaching heresy. The second thing that bothers me is that much of this noise is coming from Southern Baptist ranks (Nashville is also the corporate home of SBC), which was formerly known for evangelism rather than Calvinism. These guys are killing a once-great denomination, one statement at a time.

    Yes, they do not speak for all of, Christendom! All of Christendom is not Reformed, nor have bought into, ESS or, believe in the inequality of females, within the Church.

    I am not Southern Baptist. We lived in Georgia for a number of years and became a little familiar with their beliefs/practices. Because of that, this yankee can sympathize with you watching the demise of your denomination.

  39. I cannot get past that what I ‘hear them saying’ sounds a lot like stances on some issues that were espoused by CertainNation in the middle of the last century and some sound like stances embedded in the politics and culture of OldSouth in the century before that. As to the latter, there is a strong cultural bent in the privileged ones of hereabouts which would welcome some statement like this as official church doctrine and practice. This idea of biological hierarchy, class structure and obedience are necessary building stones for certain types of tyranny. It looks for all the world like deja vu all over again, like the fellow said.

    One has to ask why people flock to such a statement. I think I know why. I can’t put it into words and get it published because it gets into forbidden territory, but for me it is as obvious as a thing can get. Let me just say that I think they are positioning themselves to be the chosen church when their target audience gets in the positions of power they want.

    These are not the only ones jostling for power; these just happen to be the subject we are currently discussing.

  40. Somebody gets quoted as:

    “This is going to turn out badly. Of all the things they could rally around, why this? Statistically, the types of churches that would sign on to this probably have many more abused children and women in their congregations than people who are LGBT. This shows that they don’t care about abuse. Many people are going to be damaged by the fallout of this. I don’t believe the signers care all that much about LGBT issues. I think it’s a backdoor way to subordinate women now that ESS failed. See articles 3, 4, and 13, and this statement from the preamble: “his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female.” They are using the LGBT issue to solidify gender roles, which directly supports their goal to subordinate women. The people damaged by this new statement will be shrugged off as incidental collateral damage.”

    I seem to be turning into a curmudgeon this morning.

    Knowing men like this the way I do, I think they really do worry about LGBT stuff. It’s not that they no longer wish to subordinate women; I’m sure they do. After getting their butts whooped last year, they need to stay relevant somehow, and this was the next obvious thing. I have no reason to disbelieve Denny Burk when he says they had been planning on this statement for months. They seem to be capitalizing on a powerful undercurrent of concern among Americans of a more traditional bent.

  41. @ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

    My problem was the sponsoring organizations and the timing. And the fact that they think their influence is so great it comes off as tone deaf arrogance. Hello! ESS doctrine for decades??? The content is typical boilerplate for the guys who drafted it. I think the process was typical politics.

    The SBC desperately needs unity and to change the subject from ESS, ERLC's Russ Moore and his calling certain voters rednecks who may not be real Christians. What better than a cultural statement to rally the fast dividing troops?

    The goal is conformity. Sign the statement to be in the right group. See, we are good guys. Sadly, many drafters have quickly forgotten their part in protecting child molester protectors. CJ Mahaney. Or Vulgarians like Driscoll, or the spiritual abuse at Chandlers Villiage over a child porn missionary by putting his beleaguered wife under church disciple for seeking divorce. And on and on and on.

    For a bunch of guys concerned about "biblical" sexual behavior, they sure managed to ignore the worst of it in real life. They have no gravitas. Why would anyone trust them?

    It doesn't seem to be having the inside the bubble response they expected. 🙂

  42. Josh wrote:

    Aside from the rubbish contained in the statements the Nashville Statement makes about transgender people, it’s problematic on sexuality as well even from a traditional point of view.
    Specifically, Article 7 states that “self-conceptualizations” apart from straight and cisgender are forbidden, which means that they believe that calling oneself a “celibate gay Christian” or a “celibate Christian who experiences same-sex attraction” brings damnation upon oneself.
    In that vein, note that none of the authors from the traditionally-minded Spiritual Friendship site have signed the Statement; the minuscule minority of signatories who are not straight and cisgender are people who do not “identify as LGBT.”

    This begs the question, what about Intersex people? (That raises a whole lot more problems for the CBMW bunch, now doesn’t it?)

  43. Josh wrote:

    NJ wrote:
    As far as article 10 goes, it appears to me consistent with articles 7, 8, and 9. The whole thing is pretty much what I would expect conservative protestant churches to affirm.
    This means that conservative protestant churches are saying that even gay people who intend to remain celibate forever in obedience to the traditional understanding of Christian ethics are not saved.. Even the Catholic church with its “intrinsically disordered” nonsense does better than this. For shame!

    Hmm. This is opposite of what TGC was proclaiming not long ago. They featured a post that a celibate Christian homosexual.

  44. Josh wrote:

    This means that conservative protestant churches are saying that even gay people who intend to remain celibate forever in obedience to the traditional understanding of Christian ethics are not saved.. Even the Catholic church with its “intrinsically disordered” nonsense does better than this. For shame!

    I haven’t seen any Christians saying that celibate gay brethren aren’t saved. There has been a debate on whether anyone in the universal Church should describe themselves as a “gay Christian”, given that nobody would be okay with someone using the moniker “adulterous Christian”, or “pedophile Christian”, etc. In other words, whether any sinful inclination should be turned into a label of *identity*.

  45. @ okrapod:
    Thank goodness that sort of tyranny is still voluntary! No magistrates coming to your door about missing mandatory church services.

  46. Lowlandseer wrote [quoting wee Owen Strachan]:

    evangelical complementarianism has [1] produced many millions of words that have [2] revived and [3] strengthened God’s church [numbers added]

    Well, he’s correct on exactly one of his three points.

  47. Sam wrote:

    This begs the question, what about Intersex people? (That raises a whole lot more problems for the CBMW bunch, now doesn’t it?)

    Speaking of which, article 6 contains:

    They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb”.

    I wonder what they would say about someone born intersex, who with professional help is able to identify their true sex, or else chooses one, and has at least some working genitalia, who falls in love and wishes to marry. Are they assuming that won’t ever happen?

  48. Sam wrote:

    This begs the question, what about Intersex people? (That raises a whole lot more problems for the CBMW bunch, now doesn’t it?)

    Yes. They just steamroll over that with Articles 5 and 6.

    NJ wrote:

    In other words, whether any sinful inclination should be turned into a label of *identity*.

    Well, the CBMW has clearly decided that it’s time to end that debate once and for all. Devout Christians who hold to a traditional view but still wish to have a useful label for how their brains are wired differently than those of the majority of people – such as Ron Belgau and Wesley Hill – can no longer be considered Christian. So saith Denny Burk and friends.

  49. I appreciate all of you who are focusing on the big picture, because that is of utmost importance, but I can’t help but point out some of the terrible details. Denny Burk hath declared in Article 11 that it places one outside the bounds of Christianity to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns. True Christians must only use the pronouns for the sex the transgender person was assigned at birth. These CBMW folks are nothing if not control freaks par excellence! (but then, you all knew that already)

  50. Lydia wrote:

    @ NJ:
    Wow. Great point.

    Thank you.

    I’m still mulling this issue over in my mind. I can see somebody describing them self as gay in the event that somebody else of the opposite sex asks them out on a date or otherwise expresses romantic interest.

  51. Divorce Minister wrote:

    I was just talking about the ham-handed timing of this statement with an old seminary friend. Now, it makes a bit more sense in light of the ESS smack-down. Good catch, Dee!
    Did you notice that the statement on “biblical” sexuality spends a lot of time on transgenderism and homosexuality, yet it NEVER mentions “adultery” by name? Not. Even. Once.
    More thoughts here: http://www.divorceminister.com/divorce-minister-nashville-statement/

    THIS.

  52. Lowlandseer wrote:

    Owen Strachan wrote the following in 2015.
    “They say that the Reformation was a revolution not of weapons, but of words. The movement advanced through the preached Word and the written word in particular. Just as the Reformation constituted a mighty preaching and writing engine, so evangelical complementarianism has produced many millions of words that have revived and strengthened God’s church.”

    Tell that to the women and children who were skewered, or those that were burned just for their own word of disagreement. Talk about the blind leading the blind. Try to remind reformation minded folks about all of the clashes with real weapons and real blood spilled during the so-called “Reformation” and you are likely to have a fight on your hands. Try reminding them that those “words” produced violence and they will blame that on the culture at the time.

    Words mean things, have real consequences, and often produce real bloodshed. What a legacy these people perpetuate with words that they will give an account for one day…. Blind fools!

    They are nothing more than arrogant bloviators. Comparing their words to the Nicene Creed is laughable at best. It might even be an indicator of a serious mental instability inherent in their “movement” which, at this moment, resembles a deposit in an outhouse, and not even a good one at that! What a pile of crappy-crap-crap!

  53. @ NJ:
    Those of us who are Christian and something other than straight have been mulling this over for quite a while. We’re a diverse group, and we’ve reached a variety of conclusions. But those of us who are ok with describing ourselves as Christian and gay are less interested in what straight people think who’ve never had to deal with all the crap the church has put us through, and more interested in simply this: are you going to treat us like brothers and sisters, or like the supporters of this Nashville Statement, are you going to consider us anathema?

  54. Josh wrote:

    Denny Burk hath declared in Article 11 that it places one outside the bounds of Christianity to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

    If it’s in the workplace, I can see just using someone’s preferred pronouns as a matter of professionalism. If these guys disagree with that, then let’s see them say so. It would put a lot of like-minded Christians in a dilemma.

  55. CBMW Publishes Its Nashville Statement – Some Are Asking Why Now?

    Because it’s their way or the highway.
    Because they don’t have anything better to do with their time.
    Because they don’t want to talk about gluttony, divorce (you name it) …better to talk about the speck in someone else’s eye than the log in your own.
    And on and on…..

  56. @ NJ:
    Yep. It’s complicated. At the same time it goes with the whole labeling problem and why can’t we just be individuals first. Why can’t I get to know Bob or Sue as Bob or Sue?

    I think it has to do with the fact that people are not even quasi private anymore. It never occurs to me to ask a person why they never married unless I have a really close relationship with them. I just don’t consider it my business.

    I remember one of my mom’s 2nd cousins who was a successful businessman (very handsome) who never married. No one ever said a word about it. It was just accepted that he never married. Same with never married older women at church. Maybe I come from a different world where personal privacy was considered a virtue?

    And I think it works the other way too. Why isn’t a heterosexual married? Daisy talks about this all the time. So why can’t people just get to know daisy as Daisy but church people will often zero in on the fact that a person is not married yet and relegate them to some beleaguered status. Or they are divorced. (The latter is becoming so common though and more accepted.)

    I think both sides are a bit guilty of focusing on “sexual status” to the detriment of the individual themselves. It’s belittling in a way.

  57. Josh wrote:

    But those of us who are ok with describing ourselves as Christian and gay are less interested in what straight people think who’ve never had to deal with all the crap the church has put us through, and more interested in simply this: are you going to treat us like brothers and sisters, or like the supporters of this Nashville Statement, are you going to consider us anathema?

    Well, they can consider us both anathema.

    Not that it matters. I don’t think they’re going to return in glory to judge the living and the dead, nor that their kingdom will have no end.

  58. @ A.Tumbleweed:
    The typical punishment from the Reformers was drowning. They tied a large Stone to a bound person and threw them in a river or lake. And always with an audience to make an example.

  59. Just a minute ago, TGC’s “#Right Now” section put a link to “CBMW Releases Statement on Biblical Sexuality” which is a link to the CBMW’s press release (I think) on this. The press release/article is dated August 29. This is the first thing on TGC about the Nashville Statement.

    I strongly suspected it would come up on the website sooner or later. Just surprising it’s later, rather than sooner. (Indeed, I’d expect TGC to be well in front of this, rather than 2 days behind.)

  60. Consider this scenario. Somebody agrees with, let us say, the pronoun issue as in the Nashville statement. In their heart they believe it is a sin to use a preferred pronoun rather than an anatomical pronoun. But they have to work, and on the job the rule is preferred pronoun or a pink slip. So they use the preferred pronoun but every time they do they feel guilty, like someone too weak to stand up for their beliefs. So, they resent more and more the person who requires that people use some preferred pronoun of he when he used to be Susie. The person then who feels guilty becomes more and more angry and rejecting of formerly Susie and more rejecting of the political system that requires that formerly Susie be called he, and becomes more and more fanatically fundygelical and sworn to the cause.

    Is that a trap or what?

  61. @ NJ:
    Actually, they have said that if you have gay feelings, then the feelings themselves are a sin even if one is celibate. I wrote this article addressing the issue.

    Spiritual Friendship: Even Celibacy Is Not Enough For Some Christians

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/03/27/spiritual-friendship-even-celibacy-is-not-enough-for-some-christians/

    These two statements cannot be equated. I am a gay Christian. I am an adulterous Christian. The former describes are reality about one’s sexual. emotional makeup. The latter is describing a one time (or a series of acts. A person’s biological/emotional makeup is not the issue.

  62. NJ wrote:

    I wonder what they would say about someone born intersex, who with professional help is able to identify their true sex, or else chooses one, and has at least some working genitalia, who falls in love and wishes to marry. Are they assuming that won’t ever happen?

    Sheesh. Even Judaism has more less-condemning ideas concerning that.

  63. While it is right to point out the attack on the non-cis-gendered, the primary thrust of this statement is to sandbag their CBMW position, as pointed out by Byrd.
    Read article 4 in light of this:

    WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.

    WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.

    Friends, they aren’t talking about biological differences, but gender roles. Again, they’re saying to Christians: agree to CBMW, or go to hell (literally.)

  64. @ Josh:
    As I read the New Testament, Christians are called to turn away from anything that is sin, and not purposely keep walking in it as a way of life. Those who have repented and still do so, although we will all stumble in this world, are our brothers and sisters. The only ones considered anathema and excommunicated are those who claim to be Christians while spreading false teaching, or openly sinning while justifying it.

  65. Sorry haven’t made my way through everything yet, but this jumped out:

    But it will be worth the effort to produce a statement of evangelical unity on these matters that can serve as a reference point for churches and Christian organizations that are looking for confessional language on these issues.

    Influence of the Presbyterians?

  66. Lydia wrote:

    Maybe I come from a different world where personal privacy was considered a virtue?

    That was still true when I was a kid, and I think that’s an excellent point. It seems like in the media, at least, you get all sorts of things about sex shoved in your face all the time. I’m not surprised when that video My Sex Junk with Bill Nye and what’s-her-face got reactions like, “that’s it! I want to go live in the woods and be a monk”. The 1960s gave us some good things, but there have also been drawbacks.

  67. Lydia wrote:

    For a bunch of guys concerned about “biblical” sexual behavior, they sure managed to ignore the worst of it in real life. They have no gravitas. Why would anyone trust them?

    I don’t trust them. They’ve lost that.

  68. Lydia wrote:

    @ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

    My problem was the sponsoring organizations and the timing. And the fact that they think their influence is so great it comes off as tone deaf arrogance. Hello! ESS doctrine for decades??? The content is typical boilerplate for the guys who drafted it. I think the process was typical politics.

    The SBC desperately needs unity and to change the subject from ESS, ERLC’s Russ Moore and his calling certain voters rednecks who may not be real Christians. What better than a cultural statement to rally the fast dividing troops?

    The goal is conformity. Sign the statement to be in the right group. See, we are good guys. Sadly, many drafters have quickly forgotten their part in protecting child molester protectors. CJ Mahaney. Or Vulgarians like Driscoll, or the spiritual abuse at Chandlers Villiage over a child porn missionary by putting his beleaguered wife under church disciple for seeking divorce. And on and on and on.

    For a bunch of guys concerned about “biblical” sexual behavior, they sure managed to ignore the worst of it in real life. They have no gravitas. Why would anyone trust them?

    It doesn’t seem to be having the inside the bubble response they expected.

    These are very good thoughts.

    I suspect that some traction will be lost with other groups given the roll out and the persons involved and their past.

    And again, I can’t get out of my mind the fact that this was put together at an ERLC conference, Dr. Moore signed it, but you go to the ERLC website, and its crickets.

    Someone asked about TGC. Isn’t Keller on that?

    I also didn’t see Jeff Iorg (sp?) from Gateway seminary on there.

  69. Bridget wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    For a bunch of guys concerned about “biblical” sexual behavior, they sure managed to ignore the worst of it in real life. They have no gravitas. Why would anyone trust them?
    //
    I don’t trust them. They’ve lost that.

    They’re already reinterpreting the statement to suit their agenda. I don’t know why anybody who is familiar with them thought they wouldn’t.

  70. Lea wrote:

    confessional language

    Who’s confession? What confession? “Evangelical” is another term that has lost all meaning since most people who self identify as “evangelical” wouldn’t agree with their “confession”, would they? They are in the minority and don’t even know it. They have EBS – Ecclesiastical Bloviation Syndrome.

  71. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    confessional language
    //
    Who’s confession? What confession? “Evangelical” is another term that has lost all meaning since most people who self identify as “evangelical” wouldn’t agree with their “confession”, would they? They are in the minority and don’t even know it. They have EBS – Ecclesiastical Bloviation Syndrome.

    They’re in trouble over ESS and the Nicene creed. Pretty sure it’s branding.

  72. NJ wrote:

    The 1960s gave us some good things, but there have also been drawbacks.

    Yes. For example, the pill first got FDA approval then. I was grown and in med school, and here are some things that changed with the advent of the pill No doubt it prevented some unwanted pregnancies, but it also put pressure on women to take the pill, including eventually unmarried women who did not want to drop their drawers but had lost the really big excuse of the danger of unwanted pregnancy. The thinking became, the pill is available so why are you not taking it? You must be either a lesbian or a religious fanatic. Also there arose the reality that some women were taking the pill without their husband’s knowledge much less agreement. This is now a matter of ‘it’s my body’ but it is also an occasion of deception which can get problematic. Also, when the economically disadvantaged had too many children they were criticized for not taking the pill, it being apparently that they had lost their right to choose for themselves. The year I spent as a public health nurse I heard that one right much.

    So, IMO the pill was a good thing but there were a lot of issues that went along with it.

    Now decades later we have this that people think that they have the right not only to secure their own freedom in matters of sex/ sexuality/ gender but that they have the right to demand that other people agree with them in whatever it is that they are thinking and doing. That would be forced to either agree, or to pretend to agree.

    We have gone from permission to requirement to demand for agreement.

    And that is just sex/ procreation/ gender. I have not even mentioned marriage or co-habitation or polygamy or polyamory.

    As to the Nashville statement I am thinking that of corse these are issues, real issues for a lot of people. But and also the line divides along lines established by other issues like authority and power. This is a good choice to argue over for people who want to link religion and politics in some counter cultural way.

  73. Lydia wrote:

    @ Juulie Downs:
    I don’t think it’s fair to expect people who live paycheck to paycheck to always “welcome the stranger”. Part of the tithe system in the OT was to go for helping poor “Israelites” so I don’t buy the proof texting overall. . That thinking has become a club to beat some people with.

    I certainly agree that giving and sharing should be carried out under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and carefully considered.

    But my concern is that these folks are acting as though the Bible doesn’t even address those issues. Whereas there are many many more verses about how people are treated than there are about LGBTQ and women’s place.

  74. From the OP:

    I have been asked numerous times today why this statement and why now? We began planning this statement months ago. In fact, when I accepted the position as president of CBMW over a year ago, I announced what we planned to do:
    Evangelicals [need] to come together to produce a new statement of conviction concerning these current challenges. – Denny Burk

    To which I will respond with a quote, commonly attributed to William Faulkner – Talk, talk, talk: the utter and heartbreaking stupidity of words.

  75. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Ha! I was waiting for the first female mayor of Nashville to comment!

    I heard that the mayor of Nashville commented but not that she was female! Nice.

    Also want to quote about a million country songs by women at these guys, since they chose to set up shop at opryland. Dolly would eat them for lunch and spit them out, and she’s do it winsomely too.

  76. The statement sort of reminds me of a bunch of corporate higher-ups giving each other congratulatory plaques and gifts. Meaningless to anyone outside a very small circle and designed mostly to make those in that small circle feel good about themselves.

    In other words, completely out of touch.

    Also, why is it always the sexual issues that get such attention? It’s almost like an obsession with these guys. When some of these clowns come out with “manifestos” against greed, pride, dishonesty, and lack of love for neighbor, then maybe I’ll be impressed.
    But I know that’s not going to happen. It would offend too many in the inner circle.

    They’ll know we are Christians by our needless and exclusionary manifestos. Yeah, that’s it.

  77. @ dee:

    Thanks for the link. If nothing else, you’ve made me think more deeply about this.

    I think it comes down to (if you’ll pardon the cliche) habits of the heart. If an adulterous straight person ought to discipline their thought life and possibly their schedule so as to not commit adultery with anyone else even in their heart, the same pattern of deliberate action would hold true for any other sinner who experiences a Biblically illicit sexual attraction. Instead of indulging such thoughts, they are immediately put away along with prayer for God’s help, and thanks for His amazing grace in Christ. All part of being transformed through the renewing of our minds.

    Now, if these CBMW guys are saying that even momentary temptation itself is sin, then Jesus Himself sinned and His crucifixion was in vain for the rest of us.

    Hope that helps.

  78. Also let’s not view this as some esoteric theological discussion. There is a direct correlation between CBMW/ evangelical ideology and the forces that elected Trump.
    Also I should point out that saying goodbye to local evangelical churches is easy for people like me who live in urban areas, but would be social suicide for many small town southerners

  79. elastigirl wrote:

    The empire they built, complete with revenue and personal power and on which they’ve staked their reputations, is too much to lose.

    so they seize the red-hot weapon of fear of homosexuality and transgenderism. and suddenly they’re virile and relevant once again.

    they are using vulnerable members of society to save face, money, and power. Exploiting them to reinvent their organization.

    it’s beyond shameful.

    I visited TWW immediately after checking on a local Reformed Jewish temple’s plan of action for ministry (my word) to local refugees and working poor.

    One org sounded like it’s doing the work of Jesus Christ. The other — what @elastigirl said.

  80. John wrote:

    Also, why is it always the sexual issues that get such attention? It’s almost like an obsession with these guys.

    Sexual issues are an obsession in our culture right now, on both sides of sexual issues. I think that the churches have no option but to step up and speak out, wherever they are on the spectrum of ideas.

  81. Mae wrote:

    It bothers me that a group of men think their beliefs are so significant, they can compare it to the Nicene Creed.

    I will never say that it wasn’t political, however wasn’t part of the point the council of nicea to gather bishops from all over, who naturally had some different opinions on things, to gain consensus? This thing was just a bunch of likeminded people putting out what is…well I wont say a PR statement but a line in the sand I guess. They certainly didn’t attempt to get any differences of opinion in there.

  82. John wrote:

    The statement sort of reminds me of a bunch of corporate higher-ups giving each other congratulatory plaques and gifts. Meaningless to anyone outside a very small circle and designed mostly to make those in that small circle feel good about themselves.
    In other words, completely out of touch.

    Sadly, a bunch of people signed it thinking it was a statement on homosexuality and transgender issues being against “Christian witness”. They got those initial signatures and immediately CBMW started reinterpreting the words to mean more than that. Their first “clarification” was that if you denied the statement, you couldn’t be a Christian, based on the vaguely worded article 11. There are signers who are furious about that and many who are still insisting that can’t be what it meant because they wouldn’t have signed it if it did mean that. They tricked people, pure and simple.

    Article 4 sounds like it mentions biological sex, but I have no doubt a clarification will come that makes “male” and “female” mean “authority” and “submission”. While I am still studying issues on homosexuality, I could not sign it based on what I know they mean by article 4.

  83. okrapod wrote:

    Sexual issues are an obsession in our culture right now, on both sides of sexual issues. I think that the churches have no option but to step up and speak out, wherever they are on the spectrum of ideas.

    Respectfully, I disagree. The church should not be dragged along by the culture. It should stand as a beacon in the midst of it, proclaiming the gospel and loving our neighbors. The rest is noise.

  84. “The statement sort of reminds me of a bunch of corporate higher-ups giving each other congratulatory plaques and gifts.”

    I’m pretty sure they’ve actually done this.

    “Also, why is it always the sexual issues that get such attention? It’s almost like an obsession with these guys.”

    When it comes to the political consequences of the Sexual Revolution, I hate to sound like a third grader, but it’s true; they started it.

  85. In his post, Denny Burk indicated that they have received the most push back because of Article 10, which states:

    WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

    WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

    The Fag Card rides again, and Trans is the new Fag.

    Can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

    Ever wonder if Fred Phelps’ REAL sin was being too open about it?

    (And the Unpronounceable activists are going to blow back, tit for tat. There’s already rumors going around here in Cali about new laws with mandatory prison time for even addressing a trans with the wrong pronoun.)

  86. ishy wrote:

    Their first “clarification” was that if you denied the statement, you couldn’t be a Christian, based on the vaguely worded article 11.

    Correction, that’s article 10.

  87. I keep waiting for the great upset at my church. I want to pre-decide whether I am going with one side or the other before the storm hits. Waiting until one is in the middle of some conflict is not a good idea if one values clear thinking. Right now I think there is no way for me to come out unscathed on this one.

  88. NJ wrote:

    “Also, why is it always the sexual issues that get such attention? It’s almost like an obsession with these guys.”

    Long ago, I concluded that “these guys” are just as screwed-up sexually as the rest of us, just in a different (and usually opposite) direction.

  89. TomkeinOK wrote:

    It’s truly appalling that their very first thought is that people (in their minds the only ‘real people’ are men) MUST submit to THEIR authority.

    It is indeed.

    Nothing to do with manhood, but true and decent human beings ought to be using their brains and hearts in making decisions about their actions, regardless of what ‘authority’ is telling them to do. I hate to go to that Nazi place, but isn’t this a lesson we should all have learned by now? We do NOT follow orders when those orders are bad.

  90. There is a long Christian tradition of naming doctrinal statements after the places where they were drawn up: The Nicene Creed (325), the Constantinopolitan Creed (381), the Chalcedonian Creed (451), etc. Even more recently, there was the Barmen Declaration (1934), The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), The Danvers Statement (1987), and the Manhattan Declaration (2009). There are countless other examples.

    Thus placing their manifestos on a level with Nicene, Constantinople, and Chaldecon.
    Ego much?

  91. OldJohnJ wrote:

    I think I’ll check in 3709AD and see how well the Nashville statement has lasted.

    Your username will definitely check out then! 😀

    I’d never claim to be a prophet, but even I can guess what you’ll [not] find when you check in then.

  92. ishy wrote:

    Sadly, a bunch of people signed it thinking it was a statement on homosexuality and transgender issues being against “Christian witness”. They got those initial signatures and immediately CBMW started reinterpreting the words to mean more than that. Their first “clarification” was that if you denied the statement, you couldn’t be a Christian, based on the vaguely worded article 11. There are signers who are furious about that and many who are still insisting that can’t be what it meant because they wouldn’t have signed it if it did mean that. They tricked people, pure and simple.

    “I warned you not to trust me.”
    — “Littlefinger”, Game of Thrones

  93. @ NJ:
    Nice, formulaic, tidy. Too bad it doesn’t work that way in real life. Tell that to a person who has been sexually abused, who’s mind is often a very dark place. Just saying…

  94. Philmonomer wrote:

    I’ve noticed that, of the two founders of TGC (D.A. Carson and Tim Keller), only Carson signed the statement. It is possible that has something to do with the fact that the TGC website is acting as if The Nashville Statement doesn’t exist.

    The second thought I had on reading the “initial signatories” was of Ben Stein calling the roll– “Keller? Keller?”
    The first thought was that they could only find a dozen women to go with something like 140 men. And 4 of those are wives of SBC seminary presidents.

  95. Josh wrote:

    Denny Burk hath declared in Article 11 that it places one outside the bounds of Christianity to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns. True Christians must only use the pronouns for the sex the transgender person was assigned at birth.

    That explains the rumors going around here in Cali about new Diversity(TM) laws underway that make “using the pronouns the trans was assigned at birth” illegal with mandatory prison time. Tit-for-Tat Blowback.

  96. John wrote:

    The church should not be dragged along by the culture. It should stand as a beacon in the midst of it, proclaiming the gospel and loving our neighbors. The rest is noise.

    So what does the gospel say, repent or don’t worry about it? Surely loving one’ neighbor requires telling the truth, so what is the truth of this matter; what is the gospel position in this matter?

  97. @ A.Tumbleweed:

    So what are you saying, that there are biblical requirements which are impossible and which should be ignored, or are you saying that homosexual and heterosexual desires are analogous to post-trauma residuals? I never really saw day to day sex as all that traumatic.

  98. NJ wrote:

    There has been a debate on whether anyone in the universal Church should describe themselves as a “gay Christian”, given that nobody would be okay with someone using the moniker “adulterous Christian”, or “pedophile Christian”, etc. In other words, whether any sinful inclination should be turned into a label of *identity*.

    This crosses over into Identity Politics and Tribalism. (Like Hutu & Tutsi in Rwanda.)

    Some years ago, my writing partner told me of a psych profile test given to the first batch of Mercury astronauts back in the early Sixties. Said test was a 100-line fill-in of “I am __________”, with no repetitions. Most people given it pooped out somewhere between 30 and 40. Though he did tell me about a couple anomalies.

    One that’s germane to this subject was that self-identified homosexuals (at the time not distinguishing between orientation and behavior) normally pooped out around 20 (about half the average) and most or all the replies had to do with their sexual orientation.

    I don’t think this was indicative of sexual orientation per se; more like subjects who defined themselves and their being mostly or entirely by their sexual behavior. (I wonder if straight horndogs and PUAs would have gotten the same results.) Also cultural differences between the time of the test (50+ years ago) and now.

  99. Lydia wrote:

    Hmm. This is opposite of what TGC was proclaiming not long ago. They featured a post that a celibate Christian homosexual.

    They’ve Doubled Down and are SCREAMING LOUDER.

  100. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    If there are sins that shut the door to salvation, doesn’t that automatically mean that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, that the cross is not enough, that Jesus is not enough, and that, therefore, Jesus is a fraud?

    So THAT is what they are saying.

    Good thing they don’t speak for Jesus.

    “A fanatic is someone who does what God would do if God only KNEW what was REALLY going on.”

  101. ishy wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    For a bunch of guys concerned about “biblical” sexual behavior, they sure managed to ignore the worst of it in real life. They have no gravitas. Why would anyone trust them?
    //
    I don’t trust them. They’ve lost that.

    They’re already reinterpreting the statement to suit their agenda. I don’t know why anybody who is familiar with them thought they wouldn’t.

    Exactly! I noticed the same thing.

  102. Josh wrote:

    Denny Burk hath declared in Article 11 that it places one outside the bounds of Christianity to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

    Wait what? I must have glossed over that one through all the eyerolling and irritation.

    I agree with those who said they didn’t really deal well with intersex. I would love to hear what they actually have to say on that point, although I highly doubt I would agree with it.

  103. Divorce Minister wrote:

    Did you notice that the statement on “biblical” sexuality spends a lot of time on transgenderism and homosexuality, yet it NEVER mentions “adultery” by name? Not. Even. Once.

    And shut down what’s become a Privilege of Pastoral Rank?

    “I did not know that woman in a Biblical sense.”
    — Cosplay Douggie, ESQUIRE

  104. TomkeinOK wrote:

    It’s truly appalling that their very first thought is that people (in their minds the only ‘real people’ are men) MUST submit to THEIR authority.

    Wasn’t old Adolf in Germany also into “MUST submit to MY Authority”?

  105. NJ wrote:

    I can see somebody describing them self as gay in the event that somebody else of the opposite sex asks them out on a date or otherwise expresses romantic interest.

    I think that is highly preferable to marrying someone you can never truly love in the way that they should be loved. That stuff only ends in tears.

  106. KMD wrote:

    While it is right to point out the attack on the non-cis-gendered, the primary thrust of this statement is to sandbag their CBMW position, as pointed out by Byrd.
    Read article 4 in light of this:

    WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.

    WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.

    Friends, they aren’t talking about biological differences, but gender roles. Again, they’re saying to Christians: agree to CBMW, or go to hell (literally.)

    Exactly.

    That and the hubris of mentioning their “Nashville” statement in the same breath as “Nicene” and those are pretty much my thoughts.

    Another thought that keeps returning: What kind of god would deliberately create people who are wired a certain way and then set up the rules so that they can never experience love and belonging according to those rules?

    Same kind of monster “god”, I suspect, as the one who is said to have created the vast majority of humanity in order to condemn them to eternal torment and suffering. For his glory, no less.

  107. Lydia wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Proof is John Piper’s Twitter feed.

    That guy went BEYOND just screwed-up long ago…

  108. okrapod wrote:

    I keep waiting for the great upset at my church. I want to pre-decide whether I am going with one side or the other before the storm hits. Waiting until one is in the middle of some conflict is not a good idea if one values clear thinking. Right now I think there is no way for me to come out unscathed on this one.

    But that’s a problem when they put several issues under one big umbrella. Another reason I don’t like Creed’s or statements of affirmation.

  109. NJ wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:
    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman

    Uh, what?

    Unzip and swing it around?
    “SEE WHAT I’VE GOT!!!!!”

  110. okrapod wrote:

    So what are you saying, that there are biblical requirements which are impossible and which should be ignored, or are you saying that homosexual and heterosexual desires are analogous to post-trauma residuals? I never really saw day to day sex as all that traumatic.

    I’ll add, that the manly-man who wrote the NS are the same ones who shelter abusers. So they are ignoring “biblical” requirements each and every moment of each and ever day. The log in their own eye is huge, imo. Who gives a flip what they have to say about the subject anyway?

    I cannot even begin to understand or reply to your last sentence.

  111. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    Thank goodness that sort of tyranny is still voluntary! No magistrates coming to your door about missing mandatory church services.

    Yet.

    “TAKE BACK AMERICA! CHRISTIAN NATION!”

  112. NJ wrote:

    Now, if these CBMW guys are saying that even momentary temptation itself is sin, then Jesus Himself sinned and His crucifixion was in vain for the rest of us.
    Hope that helps.

    Which means they are admitting to blaspheming the crucif- Duck and cover people! *runs to escape God’s wrath on judgement day!*

  113. Refugee wrote:

    Another thought that keeps returning: What kind of god would deliberately create people who are wired a certain way and then set up the rules so that they can never experience love and belonging according to those rules?

    A god just like themselves, of course.

  114. Sam wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Unzip and swing it around?
    “SEE WHAT I’VE GOT!!!!!”

    Oh no, please no, no, no, no, no, no, no….

    “No no no no no no no…” that I said that or that you could see these Manly Man Dudebros actually doing it?

  115. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    TomkeinOK wrote:

    It’s truly appalling that their very first thought is that people (in their minds the only ‘real people’ are men) MUST submit to THEIR authority.

    Wasn’t old Adolf in Germany also into “MUST submit to MY Authority”?

    And notable that the very first item on the list of ten things to teach boys is “submit to authorities”. Because that’s what matters, you know. Not palfrey things like that pesky word that’s repeated in 1 Cor. 13, or those inconvenient fruit of the Spirit in Galatians (which only apply to peons, anyhow).

  116. Lydia wrote:

    But that’s a problem when they put several issues under one big umbrella. Another reason I don’t like Creed’s or statements of affirmation.

    Kind of like how politicians tie the bills for ‘stuff everybody agrees we desperately need’ to the ‘this would never pass on its own’ together and make you pick yes or no?

  117. @ KMD:
    I thought the same but also noticed they were using much more Broad and vague terminology than they have in the past. We see, “God’s design”, but not “roles”. And they use “Covenant” several times which always makes me a little leery because they get to define it.

  118. @ Lea:
    Bingo! Then you are a bad person because you voted no that would help a whole lot of people. But there was billions of pork in there too.

    I do think this statement works in the exact same way.

    Have you signed the statement yet, comrade. Sigh

  119. okrapod wrote:

    I never really saw day to day sex as all that traumatic.

    Wait a minute…That’s a humble-brag, isn’t it?

  120. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “No no no no no no no…” that I said that or that you could see these Manly Man Dudebros actually doing it?

    Sadly enough, I could see them doing that (y’know, to prove that they are IN FACT men. In case anyone y’know, doubted it…)

  121. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Wait a minute…That’s a humble-brag, isn’t it?

    You seemed to equate non-abusive sex with abusive sex in seeming to say that the biblical ideas of how one thinks, what goes on in one’s mind, would not apply to anybody because they would not be applicable to those with a history of sexual trauma.

    I think that is a false analogy since most sex is not traumatic. Why would the same expectations be in place for non-analogous groups of people?

    This is not complicated. I am saying that the reasoning from exceptions to the rule does not negate the rule. The bible, and in the words of Jesus, places sexual sin all the way to the mind (lust) and not just the body. If there is residual emotional damage from prior trauma then of course that would be an exception.

  122. Refugee wrote:

    Another thought that keeps returning: What kind of god would deliberately create people who are wired a certain way and then set up the rules so that they can never experience love and belonging according to those rules?
    Same kind of monster “god”, I suspect, as the one who is said to have created the vast majority of humanity in order to condemn them to eternal torment and suffering. For his glory, no less.

    The wording on that seemed very unclear to me. Who decided what biological gender they are? CBMW? Their church? The doctors at the hospital when they were a baby? Their parents? The one thing they did specify was that it wasn’t the person themselves. Doctors certainly can be wrong. They’ve been wrong with me to the point that I almost died.

    I’m guessing church or parents is their answer, but once again, it’s showing me that they were intentionally vague.

  123. okrapod wrote:

    This is not complicated. I am saying that the reasoning from exceptions to the rule does not negate the rule. The bible, and in the words of Jesus, places sexual sin all the way to the mind (lust) and not just the body. If there is residual emotional damage from prior trauma then of course that would be an exception.

    Are you sure that the word “lust” is only mental? That’s a translated English concept with a modern meaning. Both the Hebrew and Greek words have connotations of idolatry. Idolatry implies an active covetousness.

    The church needs to stop using single English words with modern connotations to sum up complicated issues in the Bible like “homosexuality” and even “marriage”.

  124. Off the topic. I will keep it short.

    In a short while I have to go pick up G’kid#2 from school for the last time since she has been withdrawn from that school for being the victim of persistent bullying which the school cannot get under control. She is constantly picked on because of her height (short) and her weight (slender) and her reading speed (slow but accurate) and her vision (near sighted) and the fact that she is Asian. We are talking a pack of mean girls which nobody can get under control. We have third part evidence, not just complaints.

    She has experienced some degree of this since first grade and cannot endure it any more. Our physician has been consulted and he has advised that it is necessary to change her circumstances and not just give her happy pills. She will be homeschooled, and the state of NC has given permission for the home school with me as one of the teachers. I well be teaching science and math and music at the sixth grade level.

    This is problematic, but RE who teaches high school (masters/ 25 years on the job) says that the whole culture has climbed into the proverbial hand basket in this area and there is nothing for it at this point but to rescue the child. The schools cannot solve it. The state of NC reviewed our credentials and gave permission for the school in a matter of hours. There are thousands of such homeschools in this state it seems.

    So, as of today we are officially a home school. The curricula are not even here yet. So we start beginning piano tomorrow, and I am going to teach her various systems for medical dosages and how to convert from one system to the other in lieu of a math text. That is all practical information. And we will find something to practice reading and vocabulary. I am new at this. We will overcome.

    If anybody wants to know why I think our culture is deteriorating, here you see one reason.

  125. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    No. Renewing ones mind is not that easy.

    A lot of Christians sure act like it is.

    I call it the “Five Fast Praise-the-LOOORDs will fix everything” Syndrome.
    Usually coming from those who have NEVER had anything bad happen to themselves.

    (And then you add in Godlier-than-Thou One-Upmanship games…)

  126. I would never sign their statement, but there is some gold in my opinion amid the dross. We don’t have all the answers yet re transgenderism, but often do confuse it with transsexualism. So I would have to agree that absent any biological reason, seeing oneself/living/dressing/ as the opposite gender, provided it is also absent any emotional/mental illness component, is sinful. It goes against natural law. (Bear in mind those with physical deviations from the norm and those with mental illness components, emotional disturbance such as history of abuse, etc are not sinner in my definition. However, neither is that license.) To me it is the same issue as those with overly high sex drives and low self control, such as bipolar in a manic state. We can understand what drives the deviancy (and it is statistical deviancy)and be compassionate without accepting the behavior and condoning it as Christians.

    I believe the same applies to homosexuality.

    And to be honest, I do not understand how one can be a Bible believing Christian and see it otherwise.

    We don’t have to choose between condemning people and condoning what the Bible forbids. We can choose to love the people and not condone the behavior.

    Case in point my mentally ill son: Do I love him? YES! Does that mean I condone his acting out with sexual violence and deviancy when manic? NO! Rather, I believe society and I should hold him to a good decent code of conduct, provide treatment, including commitment if necessary to protect others, and put our scientific minds into finding relief for him.

    I know even that is controversial, and do understand many involved in transgenerism and homosexuality find it offensive to suggest a cure is better than condoning, but so be it. Those are my convictions. Your mileage may vary. To those who disagree, I will only say if you want the freedom of public discourse to present your side, you must allow the conservative side to also be heard. Without name calling, unless you really enjoy those rude and vulgar names your side used to be called.

  127. okrapod wrote:

    She has experienced some degree of this since first grade and cannot endure it any more. Our physician has been consulted and he has advised that it is necessary to change her circumstances and not just give her happy pills. She will be homeschooled, and the state of NC has given permission for the home school with me as one of the teachers. I well be teaching science and math and music at the sixth grade level.

    God bless you for standing behind her! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen parents ignore bullying. (“It’ll make him a man.” “It’s part of life.” “She’ll get over it!” “I was bullied too, and there’s NOTHING WRONG with me!”. “They’re just teasing”. “You’re just too sensitive!”)

  128. @ ishy:

    I have in my younger days actively coveted somebody else’s husband. You don’t think that was lust? The heck it wasn/t. Sin is not conquered by changing it’s name to something less offensive.

  129. Refugee wrote:

    And notable that the very first item on the list of ten things to teach boys is “submit to authorities”.

    “Kadavergehorsham” auf Deuscth.
    (The word literally means “Corpse-obedience” but a better translation of the meaning would be “Zombie Obedience”. Obeys like a (pre-Dawn of the Dead) zombie.)

  130. Sam wrote:

    (“It’ll make him a man.” “It’s part of life.” “She’ll get over it!” “I was bullied too, and there’s NOTHING WRONG with me!”. “They’re just teasing”. “You’re just too sensitive!”)

    Been there.
    Now 61, and there’s still lingering damage.

  131. okrapod wrote:

    Our physician has been consulted and he has advised that it is necessary to change her circumstances

    I think that’s great advice. I had a bad year in 7th and switched schools and all was well. I wish you all the best.

  132. @ Lea:
    I should note that in my case it was the Christian school that was terrible and a public school that was safe.

  133. okrapod wrote:

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Wait a minute…That’s a humble-brag, isn’t it?

    You seemed to equate non-abusive sex with abusive sex in seeming to say that the biblical ideas of how one thinks, what goes on in one’s mind, would not apply to anybody because they would not be applicable to those with a history of sexual trauma.

    I think that is a false analogy since most sex is not traumatic. Why would the same expectations be in place for non-analogous groups of people?

    This is not complicated. I am saying that the reasoning from exceptions to the rule does not negate the rule. The bible, and in the words of Jesus, places sexual sin all the way to the mind (lust) and not just the body. If there is residual emotional damage from prior trauma then of course that would be an exception.

    If a person is a victim of sexual abuse, the collateral damage also involves the mind of the victim. Rarely, I suspect, is renewing the mind a linear thing. It’s not like an equation. A+B+C= a renewed mind. Being a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I speak from experience on the subject, albeit my own admittedly. Nevertheless, I have reason to believe based on the research I have done that others have experienced the same thing.

    It’s one of the things that makes the NS so ridiculous. Human sexuality is rarely so formulaic or easy-peasy. Take the statement, or your own words, and apply them to a rape victim for instance. Do you really think that “day to day sex” is really no problem for their mind? I don’t think so.

    Until you have been awaken from a dream involving the perp and yourself, and you find that you were doing the deed and actually enjoying it, you have no idea how much confusion that causes; guilt, shame, theological, gender, and a whole host of other issues. Can you imagine how much pain that causes a man in his relationship with his wife?

    Once there are “rules” laid down, the immediate question is “How much?”. How renewed does the mind have to be? 100% pure, 24/7/365? How is that even possible? as I have said before elsewhere here, often when I think I have defused the b*mb it goes off again.

    I’m glad it’s not complicated for you. But it is for me and others like me who have been victims of abuse, who did not ask to have our minds messed with, who struggle daily to feel anything, and who are asking God the “why me?” question often.

    Manly-men-o-gawd want to make it simple by issuing edicts and preaching to the choir. The issue of sexuality is just not that simple, and neither is renewing the mind. To suggest that it is a simple thing is like saying “just renew your mind and get over it already.” Where is the love in that?

  134. @ A.Tumbleweed:

    What about this am I not communicating? I specifically said and i say again that it is different for those who have been abused and for those who have not. The word is used is that abuse is an exception. Not the rule.

    Why do you have a problem with my saying that those who have not been abused are held to standards which are different from those who have been abused? i totally do not get where you are coming from.

  135. elastigirl wrote:

    CBMW is stoking the fires which have heated up fear of these members of society to red-hot.
    Gives them a new cause to rally around. Makes them look and feel like heroes in their own minds.
    All to keep their organization viable, and so they can continue to justify (in their minds) the subjugation of women.

    Referring back to my prophecy of a few days ago on a Giles thread here that CBMW/GospelGlitterati/Burk would do this during their publishing pause, this is what they must do to recover viability, as you put it. Last summer Denny Burk embarrassed himself on Twitter about ESS and then had to pretend he was always OK with it, and then Mohler and Burk made the hilariously incredible claim that Danvers does not depend on ESS.

    The Nashville Manifesto is a transparent attempted PR pivot away from that VERY BIG AND UNANSWERED CHALLENGE which they will never answer because there is no answer. The Magical Mystical Pre-Fall Clobber Verse does not exist and never has existed except in the minds of certain textual fabulists, and I say that as one of the Wartburger Inerrantists. Said clobber verse is not in Ortlund’s chapter of RBMW or any place else in the de factoBible of the CBMW faith. How many times have I asked a Complementarian guy who shows up here where that verse is? No answer.

    The rocks cry out that these men are cowards who do not answer questions and do not respond to challenges, especially from women ***for whom they have utter contempt*** despite all their empty words about love and respect. They give double negative honor to women like Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller and the Deebs who have better facts and better reasoning.

    It took them one year to come up with The Nashville Statement. I’m thinking CBMW is in a flat spin.

  136. @ okrapod:
    I hear ya. There’s an awful lot of talk out there against bullying, programs for dealing with bullying, even an anonymous hotline tip for our public school system and yet —nothing is ever really done. Nothing is resolved. They often put the bullied child in the same room with the bullies and tell them all to shake hands and make up. The resolution only serves to help the bullies. And nothing is done because they can’t deal with bullies parents.

    And frankly, aside from the extracurricular activities a lot of excellent education is now online. We use Khan Academy all the time.

    In case anyone is interested, “Love and Logic” parenting has some interesting and great tips for teaching your child how to deal with bullies. We actually role played them back in elementary school.

  137. Philmonomer wrote:

    the TGC website is acting as if The Nashville Statement doesn’t exist.

    TGC has posted an article. Better late than never. Now to read it.

  138. Dave A A wrote:

    Philmonomer wrote:
    the TGC website is acting as if The Nashville Statement doesn’t exist.
    TGC has posted an article. Better late than never. Now to read it.

    Correction– just a link to a CBMW article– nothing still on TGC’s actual site.

  139. okrapod wrote:

    @ A.Tumbleweed:

    What about this am I not communicating? I specifically said and i say again that it is different for those who have been abused and for those who have not. The word is used is that abuse is an exception. Not the rule.

    Why do you have a problem with my saying that those who have not been abused are held to standards which are different from those who have been abused? i totally do not get where you are coming from.

    Well, I guess I can just cut that passage out of my Bible because it doesn’t apply to someone as defective as me. I guess you are right.

  140. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    A.Tumbleweed wrote:
    @ okrapod:
    No. Renewing ones mind is not that easy.
    A lot of Christians sure act like it is.
    I call it the “Five Fast Praise-the-LOOORDs will fix everything” Syndrome.
    Usually coming from those who have NEVER had anything bad happen to themselves.
    (And then you add in Godlier-than-Thou One-Upmanship games…)

    So true. Too many Christians are shallow in their empathy tank. Too many glib answers. Not enough trying to walk in someone else’s shoes.

  141. @ okrapod:
    Okrapod,

    God bless you for being willing to homeschool your granddaughter. I’m sorry to hear what she has been through. What’s infuriating is that schools could deal with these intractable bullies if it weren’t for the compulsory schooling law, and the highly litigious society we now live in, especially the latter. If Principals and/or Superintendents were free to send them off to alternative school after a certain number of incidents, regardless of how much the parents raised hell, we wouldn’t need these silly and ineffective “anti-bullying programs”.

    I don’t know where you folks live in NC, but next spring I encourage you to avail yourselves of the nearest large home schooling convention, especially if you decide to change any curriculum you are using. Even if you’re not interested in any seminars, I find it nice to be able to inspect and compare various products before buying, especially after not having looked at that stuff for years.

  142. Lea wrote:

    Mae wrote:
    It bothers me that a group of men think their beliefs are so significant, they can compare it to the Nicene Creed.
    I will never say that it wasn’t political, however wasn’t part of the point the council of nicea to gather bishops from all over, who naturally had some different opinions on things, to gain consensus? This thing was just a bunch of likeminded people putting out what is…well I wont say a PR statement but a line in the sand I guess. They certainly didn’t attempt to get any differences of opinion in there.

    That’s because the Neo Cals regard themselves as,THE CHURCH. Don’t you know they have the authority to speak for all?

  143. okrapod wrote:

    I have in my younger days actively coveted somebody else’s husband. You don’t think that was lust? The heck it wasn/t. Sin is not conquered by changing it’s name to something less offensive.

    Um, that was what I said. It’s more than what people in the church think it is…

    However, that wasn’t the point. The point is that oversimplifying anything is not helping the discussion here. You minimized what Tumbleweed was saying by saying, “It’s not that complicated”. It IS that complicated for many, many people. It is so for me, too.

    Just because you have a great married life doesn’t mean that’s what the world has. And implying such it’s really kind of offensive to those of use who don’t. Many of us are here on this site for that very reason.

  144. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    To suggest that it is a simple thing is like saying “just renew your mind and get over it already.” Where is the love in that?

    I did not say that. I don’t know where you got that quote, but not from me. We are probably not even talking about the same thing. I was talking about what you said to somebody who was not talking about abuse and you said what about those who have been abused. And I have said that those are two separate issues.

    I am sincerely sorry that I have not had the sensitivity to follow this conversation. I did not mean to offend you or criticize you but merely to state that the two issues are not identical. Period. No more or less than that. That has been my entire purpose-nothing more.

    Again, I apologize and I will not pursue this any further since I am obviously not capable of doing so in any civilized or understandable manner.

  145. Gram3 wrote:

    The Nashville Manifesto is a transparent attempted PR pivot away from that VERY BIG AND UNANSWERED CHALLENGE which they will never answer because there is no answer. The Magical Mystical Pre-Fall Clobber Verse does not exist and never has existed except in the minds of certain textual fabulists, and I say that as one of the Wartburger Inerrantists.

    Well said.

  146. ishy wrote:

    Just because you have a great married life doesn’t mean that’s what the world has. And implying such it’s really kind of offensive to those of use who don’t. Many of us are here on this site for that very reason.

    I do not have a great married life. I was only married for 17 years out of my 83 years and it ended in tragic and extremely hurtful circumstances. How did marriage get into the conversation anyhow? The conversation was about sex. I took the stance that the scripture has certain ideas (rules) that should be followed if possible and that understanding the applicability of those idea when they apply is not complicated. Living the christian life is not easy nor did I say it was.

    I also said that there are exceptions as to what is required of people, which is something which I think I see in scripture. Not everybody has the same issues. How is it wrong to think that? What on earth has happened here?

  147. Josh wrote:

    Denny Burk hath declared in Article 11 that it places one outside the bounds of Christianity to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

    I think anyone who attempts to add to the gospel of salvation is treading on dangerous territory.

  148. Gram3 wrote:

    The Nashville Manifesto is a transparent attempted PR pivot away from that VERY BIG AND UNANSWERED CHALLENGE which they will never answer because there is no answer. The Magical Mystical Pre-Fall Clobber Verse does not exist

    Which is why a bunch of this other stuff is a feint. The ‘not a result of the fall’ language is in their to tell Women to know their place. There is no other reason. In these men’s day to day lives, the most important thing to them is that the women in their lives do what they are told. I don’t believe they really care about the other stuff. They use transgender and scare quotes about same sex marriage to tell women to get back in their boxes. Because otherwise the world will end. [That doesn’t mean this stuff doesn’t hurt gay people too, because it absolutely does.]

  149. okrapod wrote:

    The conversation was about sex. I took the stance that the scripture has certain ideas (rules) that should be followed if possible and that understanding the applicability of those idea when they apply is not complicated.

    Particularly in the Christian life, abuse in marriage is often intimately tied with sex. You can’t separate them. That’s what I heard Tumbleweed saying.

    And I totally disagree that it’s easy to understand what Scripture says about sex and marriage. The church might have simple rules, but the Bible does not. Love, yes. Gospel, yes. Sex and marriage? Absolutely not.

    Just the fact that this site exists and so many sexual abusers in the church think the Bible tells them it’s okay to rape women and children tells me so.

  150. NJ wrote:

    There has been a debate on whether anyone in the universal Church should describe themselves as a “gay Christian”, given that nobody would be okay with someone using the moniker “adulterous Christian”, or “pedophile Christian”, etc. In other words, whether any sinful inclination should be turned into a label of *identity*.

    Let me make sure that I understand you. Are you saying that a, person who is gay who cannot change their gay identity (even the SBC says reparative therapy is ineffective), is sinful just because they are gay?

    Take Sam Albury a celibate gay pastor much beloved by TGC and kin. He might agree with you that he doesn’t think of himself as a gay Christian. However, having followed his writings and talks over the last couple of years, he always brings up the fact that he is same sex attracted in every writing I have seen by him. Should he just shut up and not mention it since it is, if I am reading your thinking correctly, a sinful inclination?

    (For anyone reading this, I do not look at it this way. I am merely trying to understand the trajectory of some thinking on this matter.)

  151. Josh wrote:

    This means that conservative protestant churches are saying that even gay people who intend to remain celibate forever in obedience to the traditional understanding of Christian ethics are not saved.. Even the Catholic church with its “intrinsically disordered” nonsense does better than this. For shame!

    I, too, believe that this is what some of the people involved with TGC believe. In fact, rewrote about that very issue.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/03/27/spiritual-friendship-even-celibacy-is-not-enough-for-some-christians/

  152. ishy wrote:

    And I totally disagree that it’s easy to understand what Scripture says about sex and marriage. The church might have simple rules, but the Bible does not.

    Were you the one talking about moral laws, verses other laws the other day? Maybe it was someone else, but I just ran across a Challies article from 2012 about this. Interestingly, he said that all the sexual stuff is reinforced in the NT and that’s why it’s all still operational.

    So, I told you that to mention that I saw a funny (or maybe more wry) comic on twitter the other day that I sadly didn’t save, that contrasts ‘biblical approved relationships’, Ie M+W in marriage, with actual sexual relationships in the OT, including rape victim/man, polygamy, concubines, slaves acquired in war, etc. So obviously, if we are not at M+W only, we’ve ditched a bunch of that stuff too. So was that not ‘moral’?

  153. Philmonomer wrote:

    I’ve noticed that, of the two founders of TGC (D.A. Carson and Tim Keller), only Carson signed the statement. It is possible that has something to do with the fact that the TGC website is acting as if The Nashville Statement doesn’t exist.

    Now that is an interesting idea. I bet some of them are reading this blog post and comments. My guess is that they will have to say something, sooner or later. It ought t be interesting to see how it comes down.

  154. Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

    To wit: the ERLC hosted all of this. Russell Moore is a signer and former spokesman for the CBMW. But if you look at the ERLC website, there is nothing on this. At least as of last night. To me, that is VERY telling. It says even the ERLC is less enthusiastic than it may appear.

    There are all kinds of unnecessary stepping on a rake about this. But that is what happens when there are powerful men in a closed circle who are used to getting their way and who feel threatened. They felt threatened after their public thrashing last summer. Russell Moore is a political guy from Mississippi, and he is a Mohler man. Burk is a Mohler man. CBMW and SBTS are inseparably wound together, and ESS is inseparable wound together with CBMW, no matter what Burk and Mohler say They need to unwind and somehow extricate and pull out the ESS from CBMW and SBTS, and this is part of that, I think, and this is only the foundation.

    Using my personal speculative Occam’s razor, Russell Moore used ERLC’s relative weight to assist CBMW’s re-positioning and re-launch. For the past several years, he has been using his position at ERLC trying to get everyone to forget his former life as the “Complementarianism is really Patriarchy” guy, so I think this move by ERLC on behalf of CBMW is logical. Not necessarily effective or wise, but having a certain logic from Mohler’s and Burk’s POV. After this, I do not expect ERLC to be involved, mainly because it will cost Russell Moore too much career capital.

  155. @ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:
    Here are a couple of my thoughts on the matter. I really would love to hear what you think about this.

    Article 1. Declares marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman. The problem with the over view of this statement is that it is saying this is for all people which to me means people outside of the faith. A covenant is a contact entered into by (in this case) 2 people. However, a covenant does not exist when both of the parties who enter into it do not know they are signing a binding contract.

    I contend that the covenant only exists when both parties agree to it. Since most people outside the Fatih, and many inside the faith are not taught that this is true, then the covenant only exists for those who agree the contract.

    I do not agree that it is a covenant for those outside ht faith. Instead, I take CS lewis’ approach on the matter. (Mere Christianity)

    “Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The conception of marriage is one: the other is the different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.
    My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”

  156. Refugee wrote:

    Another thought that keeps returning: What kind of god would deliberately create people who are wired a certain way and then set up the rules so that they can never experience love and belonging according to those rules?
    Same kind of monster “god”, I suspect, as the one who is said to have created the vast majority of humanity in order to condemn them to eternal torment and suffering. For his glory, no less.

    This is exactly why I can’t go along with the traditional view any more. And I deliberately use the word “tradition” because that is what it is. It is a large stretch of the text to say that two men who love each other cannot hold hands simply because of something completely different happening centuries ago: Heterosexually inclined people had male to male sex as an act of violence against strangers (as in Sodom where they threatened “we will do worse to you”) or as an “offering” to a false god (Leviticus 18).

    Remember, rules are of no value in themselves. A good father makes rules for the wellbeing of his children. He does not make the children for the rules. The children are the joy of his heart and the rules are subservient. They are of no use when they are not serving the good of man. This is why Jesus said “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath!” As someone who experiences “same-sex attraction” I had to face the very question you asked. Like Stephen Fry I detest the very thought of the specific act condemned in Leviticus and it actually very unhealthy and dangerous. But this does not mean that gay people cannot love and express that in other ways. The church has got it wrong – just like John Piper’s rules on divorce and battered wives.

    A lot of folk on TWW forums hold to the traditional position and they also treat gays with compassion and grace. I respect that position because they are following the command to “love thy neighbour” whilst at the same time aware of texts like Romans 1 and Leviticus 18. I have no respect however for those who use those texts to violate the “love thy neighbour” and pour contempt on the LGBT community.

    I have actually devoted a website to these subjects and the relevant verses at https://challengingchurchtradition.wordpress.com/

  157. @ Lea:
    Is this what you saw?

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

    dee wrote:

    I, too, believe that this is what some of the people involved with TGC believe. In fact, rewrote about that very issue.

    Hey, I remember that thread… A little CTRL+F and yes, I do recall, goodness gracious was that a fun time. /kidding/

    It seems that there are those who believe that merely experiencing “the attraction” is sinful in and of itself (e.g. Denny Burk). With that said, I don’t know that this belief per se ended up in the Nashville Statement. It does seem to recognize that some people will experience persistent, life-long “attractions,” but the prohibition of such “self-conceptualizations” seems to imply that such people must suffer in silence, forbidden even from naming their “struggle.” So I’d say there’s a range of views within the CBMW umbrella, from bad (as reflected in the statement) to worse (what Denny Burk has taught elsewhere).

  158. A. Tumbleweed, I’m sorry to hear how you’ve been hurt. I sincerely hope you’ve been able to receive some competent professional help. When I made my comment about renewing the mind, I was not thinking of abuse victims, though I can see how you would have a harder time than other people. In my life time, I have known several victims of pedophilia, and that is something that leaves life long scars. One of them, being in her golden years, once told me that at her lowest point she discovered that when she was too weak to hold onto God, as she had been taught that she had to do, she found instead that He held onto her. That wasn’t the end of her personal struggles, but that bedrock of grace seems to have remained over the years. I hope you also find that even a human tumbleweed can never end up beyond the reach of God’s notice or His love and mercy.

  159. okrapod wrote:

    So, as of today we are officially a home school.

    Home schooling was something that became necessary for our family due to inadequacies of the system for handling certain issues. It is something we would have never considered until we realized my wife was re-teaching everything after school anyways. Both of our kids thrived. Even though it wasn’t our first choice, God blessed our family throughout the journey. Praying for your Granddaughter, you, and your family today as you start down this path.

  160. Mae wrote:

    So true. Too many Christians are shallow in their empathy tank. Too many glib answers. Not enough trying to walk in someone else’s shoes.

    Look at Job’s Counselors in the Book of Job. It’s always those who have NEVER been there who are first in line with the Glib Advice for those who are. Whether that Glib Advice is Bible Bullet Zip Codes or Special Revelations.

    The kicker is, Job’s Counselors first came alongside Job for a time, then they had to open their mouths with Advice and everything went downhill from there.

  161. @ NJ:
    Let me see what you think about this. What if an alcoholic struggles his entire life not to take a sip of alcohol because he knows that it will lead to a binge.

    For that person, drinking alcohol is a sin.Are you saying that struggling with this for a lifetime means that they are just weak Christians? Is there any value at all in knowing what is right and consistently resisting the temptation to do wrong even though there is an underlying desire to do so?

    Here’s another example. Long term studies of pedophiles and other people with paraphiliac struggle with their issue for a life time. In other words, they never fully lose the desire. Yet, as a Christian, they commit to never acting on that impulse and they never do, despite the compulsion or desire.

    Many people believe that God will come in and *heal* that issue. But, in my experience, often He does not. Such a person who bravely struggles for a lifetime, who does not fall to the temptation which is there but still feels the pull is following the Lord. Are you saying that he should be constantly berating himself for even the feelings that he will struggle with for his life?

    I guess I am not there. I believe that the God forgives it all and that it is us who put unbearable burdens on many people.

  162. Philmonomer wrote:

    I’ve noticed that, of the two founders of TGC (D.A. Carson and Tim Keller), only Carson signed the statement. It is possible that has something to do with the fact that the TGC website is acting as if The Nashville Statement doesn’t exist.

    Carson was Grudem’s colleague and has written articles which are strongly Complementarian. Keller is soft Comp, at best, and is a pastor in NYC. They exist in different tails of TgC.

  163. Lydia wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    I hear ya. There’s an awful lot of talk out there against bullying, programs for dealing with bullying, even an anonymous hotline tip for our public school system and yet —nothing is ever really done. Nothing is resolved.

    But the Admins are protected from lawsuits by Following the Rules, plus doublepluswarmfeelies that We’re Doing Something.

    They often put the bullied child in the same room with the bullies and tell them all to shake hands and make up. The resolution only serves to help the bullies. And nothing is done because they can’t deal with bullies parents.

    Message taken: Become a Bigger Bully.

    “Be a User, be an Abuser,
    BE A WINNER, NOT A LOSER!”

  164. Aimee Byrd challenged him in her post “What Denny Burke Could Do”. To our knowledge, she received no response.

    Men in those circles don’t see the need to respond to females making cogent, reasonable arguments. Uppity wimmenfolk, on the other hand, need to be rebuked as Jezebels. And where is that line to be drawn between a reasoned, thoughtful response, and an uppity Jezebel? I can’t help but be puzzled why intelligent, rational women such as Aimee Byrd remain in the Comp. Camp when they are so easily dismissed.

  165. Just a quick reminder, TWW does not want discussions to turn into politics. There is too much pain on all sides of the current political climate and we get in enough trouble confronting what we do in the church. On that note, one comment not approved.

  166. dee wrote:

    These two statements cannot be equated. I am a gay Christian. I am an adulterous Christian. The former describes are reality about one’s sexual. emotional makeup. The latter is describing a one time (or a series of acts. A person’s biological/emotional makeup is not the issue.

    Thanks Dee, I agree.

    Adultery is mentioned specifically in Romans 13:

    Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves [e]his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love [f]does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

    Adultery is listed as a sin against a fellow human being, not against an institution. This is the same all sin, including sexual sins. They are not sins against an alleged creational order or a “Biblical gender role”. The “love your neighbour” should be the basis for sexual ethics and is at the heart of it in Leviticus 19 (where we find many sexual prohibitions listed). Two unmarried gay men are not violating this commandment, nor are a heterosexual couple who live together and support each other faithfully. I have colleagues in both categories and I refuse to condemn them.

  167. elastigirl wrote:

    so they seize the red-hot weapon of fear of homosexuality and transgenderism. and suddenly they’re virile and relevant once again.

    “Homophobia: the fear that someone Stronger and Manlier than you will use you like you use a woman.”

    Homosexuality(TM): Just the mention of the word shuts down every neuron above the Christianese brainstem and waves the Bright Red Murder Flag in front of what’s left.

  168. @ dee:

    I guess it would depend on who Mr. Albury’s audience is, and why he keeps bringing his same sex orientation up. I’m not familiar with him as I don’t bother with TGC.

    And I also am not thinking of reparative therapy.

    Because of the larger culture in which we live, I have always understood a ‘gay identity’ as encompassing more than just a same sex attraction that is experienced every so often. Being ‘heterosexual’ (a concept that didn’t exist before the late 19th century) is something I guess you could describe as an integral part of our personhood, since it is part of God’s original creation as described in Genesis. The question is, are deviations from that also to be considered an integral part of the personhood of those who experience them?

    I gotta go pick up my kids. Be back tonight.

  169. dee wrote:

    Here’s another example. Long term studies of pedophiles and other people with paraphiliac struggle with their issue for a life time. In other words, they never fully lose the desire. Yet, as a Christian, they commit to never acting on that impulse and they never do, despite the compulsion or desire.

    In a culture as sexually saturated as today’s (on both sides of the Christianese border), I don’t think it’s possible to get past puberty without developing some sort of paraphilia. The best you can hope for is that your paraphiliae will only be embarrassing and not actually destructive.

  170. dee wrote:

    @ NJ:
    Let me see what you think about this. What if an alcoholic struggles his entire life not to take a sip of alcohol because he knows that it will lead to a binge.

    For that person, drinking alcohol is a sin.Are you saying that struggling with this for a lifetime means that they are just weak Christians?

    No weaker than other Christians. We all have our besetting sins.

    Is there any value at all in knowing what is right and consistently resisting the temptation to do wrong even though there is an underlying desire to do so?

    Absolutely. We are exhorted to do that many times in the New Testament.

    Here’s another example. Long term studies of pedophiles and other people with paraphiliac struggle with their issue for a life time. In other words, they never fully lose the desire. Yet, as a Christian, they commit to never acting on that impulse and they never do, despite the compulsion or desire.

    Many people believe that God will come in and *heal* that issue. But, in my experience, often He does not. Such a person who bravely struggles for a lifetime, who does not fall to the temptation which is there but still feels the pull is following the Lord. Are you saying that he should be constantly berating himself for even the feelings that he will struggle with for his life?

    No way. This is why we have the gospel.

    I guess I am not there. I believe that the God forgives it all and that it is us who put unbearable burdens on many people.

  171. Lydia wrote:

    The SBC desperately needs unity and to change the subject from ESS, ERLC’s Russ Moore and his calling certain voters rednecks who may not be real Christians. What better than a cultural statement to rally the fast dividing troops?

    I had not considered the explicit political aspects. But he certainly did act in a way to alienate the Jeffress voters and like-minded folks. How I long for the days when Baptist pulpits did not mention names in November. It makes sense to me that CBMW would bundle Female Subordination with LGBTQ issues more explicitly now that they have lost strength due to losing ESS.

  172. Mae wrote:

    That’s because the Neo Cals regard themselves as,THE CHURCH. Don’t you know they have the authority to speak for all?

    The Invincible Arrogance of the Predestined Elect, God’s Speshul Pets.

  173. @ NJ:
    Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. I resonate with the bedrock of grace and God holding on to me. Personally, if I had to rely on my level of mind renewal I would be toast. Thanks again.

  174. ZechZav wrote:

    It is a large stretch of the text to say that two men who love each other cannot hold hands simply because of something completely different happening centuries ago

    I was actually just thinking about this. For people who really do believe that they shouldn’t commit the act of sex, where is the prohibition against kissing, holding hands, etc? Is it simply that it isn’t believed that people can stop (which teenagers often manage to do, and of course sometimes not, although it would be harder if you thought you would never able to move forward I’m sure), or is it something else?

  175. NJ wrote:

    I guess it would depend on who Mr. Albury’s audience is, and why he keeps bringing his same sex orientation up. I’m not familiar with him as I don’t bother with TGC.

    I really can’t understand Sam Allberry. He seems to be towing the party line in the church on speaking about “homosexuality”. But he is sharing a stage with CJ Mahaney at T4G next year, he has spoken at Matt Chandler’s church, he has written for John Piper’s website and he has written for the 9Marks website. So I don’t trust him.

  176. ishy wrote:

    I know how these guys work. The language is purposely vague, so they thought it would stay that way. But these are the guys that turn “respect your elders” into “you are under church discipline for having a brain”. I’m pretty sure there’s going to be more “clarifications” where the language will be upgraded.

    Upgraded language like the BFM 2000? And the average Southern Baptist doesn’t even take notice.

  177. Cobber wrote:

    @ Lowlandseer:
    The order of that list exposes their priorities: authorities first, God last.

    Not that I don’t agree on their priorities, but it is common for the first and last things to be most important. We tend to look at the ends more than the middle so you can start strong and end strong and muddle the middle.

    just a thought.

  178. Lea wrote:

    ZechZav wrote:
    It is a large stretch of the text to say that two men who love each other cannot hold hands simply because of something completely different happening centuries ago
    I was actually just thinking about this. For people who really do believe that they shouldn’t commit the act of sex, where is the prohibition against kissing, holding hands, etc? Is it simply that it isn’t believed that people can stop (which teenagers often manage to do, and of course sometimes not, although it would be harder if you thought you would never able to move forward I’m sure), or is it something else?

    I think it is due to the belief that people can’t stop and “one thing leads to another”. I used to think the same but several considerations made me change my view. One was the realisation that many gay men don’t do the act mentioned in that verse anyway, and some (like myself) are repulsed by it. Added to this is my belief that no physical act is inherently sinful – it is the motive and intent behind it which makes it sinful. Social policy, our legal systems and even God himself makes a distinction between murder, manslaughter and just execution in the form of capital punishment. But the physical act is the same. In Romans 14 it says that nothing is sinful of itself. What was the motive of the men of Sodom, of Canaan and Corinth, and what is the motive of gays and lesbians today? They are actually worlds apart.

  179. ishy wrote:

    I know how these guys work. The language is purposely vague, so they thought it would stay that way. But these are the guys that turn “respect your elders” into “you are under church discipline for having a brain”. I’m pretty sure there’s going to be more “clarifications” where the language will be upgraded.

    Upgraded language like the BFM 2000? And the average Southern Baptist doesn’t even take notice.dee wrote:

    Just a quick reminder, TWW does not want discussions to turn into politics. There is too much pain on all sides of the current political climate and we get in enough trouble confronting what we do in the church. On that note, one comment not approved.

    Thank you, Dee. I’m so glad TWW doesn’t engage in political debate. I can find that elsewhere all over the Internet.

  180. Whoops. My post above didn’t quite turn out right. It was just meant to show my response to Dee.

  181. Lydia wrote:

    And they use “Covenant” several times which always makes me a little leery because they get to define it.

    It seems to me that when people use ‘covenant’ in these contexts they tend to mean that you can never, ever leave. No matter how much the other person in the ‘covenant’ breaks every promise they ever made, you are still bound to yours.

    I pretty much consider covenant a fancy word for contract, and you wouldn’t have a contract if it weren’t possible to break it, you would just have a promise by itself.

  182. Deb
    They did such an *awesome* job with the theology behind ESS…Now, we should trust them with this statement which I believe is a diversionary tactic. ESS was imploding. What do you want to bet that they decided to warm up the *homosexual* debate once again? Let’s all start a big old fight over this one and maybe they will forget about the last one. I won’t…

  183. FW Rez wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    So, as of today we are officially a home school.
    … Praying for your Granddaughter, you, and your family today as you start down this path.

    I second those prayers, okrapod.

    Homeschooling was my first choice, but circumstances led to our eldest spending K, 1st, and half of 2nd grade in a local public school. Even among those little folks, he experienced serious racial discrimination and bullying. It was so frustrating and disheartening! I sympathize with your situation.

    May the Lord of all comfort bless your granddaughter with healing and peace.

  184. KMD wrote:

    WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.

    WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.
    Note that this is a bare assertion of Pre-Fall male hierarchy (Genesis 1-2) without any proof at all from the text. If they had the Magical Mystical Male Hierarchy Clobber Verse, I’m sure they would provide it. It is asserting hierarchy which is what Danvers asserted which was based on ESS. So this is a restatement of something based on ESS which is being supported by one of Muff’s Hueys, I guess, because Mohler and Burk no longer affirm ESS!

    Doctorates in Comedy.

  185. Deb
    I heard the Mayor of Nashville is not amused that they named this after his city. Burk apparently tried to explain that important Christian declarations are always named after the city where it was written. he mentioned the Council of Nicea. I just have to say this.

    The Nashville Statement is no where near the theological level of the Nicene Creed and it is amusing to think they think it is.

  186. KMD wrote:

    WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome

    IN FACT we as men thing far from being tragic, ruling over women is pretty awesome.

    ~The NotReallyFromNashville Bros

  187. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In a culture as sexually saturated as today’s (on both sides of the Christianese border), I don’t think it’s possible to get past puberty without developing some sort of paraphilia.

    Is chocolate a paraphilia based obsession? Tell me now so I can repent.

  188. @ Gram3:
    I can’t stand it from either side at church. But they all do it to done degree. Little snarky jokes, etc. That is another reason I am a done.

    When you get guys like Moore and Jeffers vying for influence, it’s a train wreck. But people also forget where the political pulpit came from. Supposedly, it’s not free speech. But it seems to work one way.

  189. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    @ NJ:
    Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. I resonate with the bedrock of grace and God holding on to me. Personally, if I had to rely on my level of mind renewal I would be toast. Thanks again.

    *hugs*

  190. dee wrote:

    Deb
    I heard the Mayor of Nashville is not amused that they named this after his city.

    Even Better, dee, the Mayor of Nashville’s name is Megan. She went to Vanderbilt and seems pretty irritated.

  191. @ okrapod:

    Sorry your granddaughter has been continuously subject to bias and bullying.
    You’ll be able to teach/share with her, a wealth of knowledge.

  192. CBWM, a self-appointed special interest group, has decided that they speak for the church universal, which is supposed to ignore their role in facilitating the ESS heresy. If this is how binding authority is established, then I’m going to start a Facebook group to resolve the issue of whether ICEEs or Slurpees are better. Our finding will be binding on all drinkers of frozen drinks. Then we will tell people which flavor they should drink.

    It is ironic that the Council, whose chief end is to establish that men have an authoritarian role over women, is not bound to any authority based in the local church.

  193. dee wrote:

    … The Nashville Statement is no where near the theological level of the Nicene Creed and it is amusing to think they think it is.

    The emperors have no clothes and they were called out on it, but so many egos and paychecks depend on their convincing the Christian public that they’re not nekkid that they had to come up with another story. The one thing these men fear more than *unbiblical* men and women is their own irrelevancy.

  194. From the CBMW site:

    “That is why Article 10 of The Nashville Statement is as important as any other article before you today… We are not arguing today about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We are not spinning our wheels about adiaphora or some issue of moral indifference. We are declaring what it means to be a male or female image-bearer. We are defining the nature of the marriage covenant and of the sexual holiness and virtue. To get these questions wrong is to walk away from Jesus not to him. There is no more central concern than that.”

    First, I need to offer a disclaimer of sorts. I believe we, as followers of Jesus, are called to live holy lives. We are to hunger and thirst after righteousness. We are to take up our cross and follow Him. We are to present our bodies as living sacrifices. Is it easy? No. In fact, for me, living the Christian life is pretty much impossible. I desperately rely on the Holy Spirit to live it through me. (Ah, but the rewards — even in this life — are so much worth it! In His Presence is fullness of joy.)

    Having said that, I have some issues with what I quoted.

    “We are defining…” Nope, sorry, “we” don’t get to do that. We don’t get to define the nature of sexual virtue — only God does. Plus, honestly, the Nashville Statement did an abysmal job of defining “the nature of the marriage covenant” or of “sexual holiness and virtue”. It said nothing of love (the greatest two commandments!) and nothing of familial life, although the word “procreation” did at least make one appearance. As for sexual holiness — the statement was deafeningly silent on the rampant sin issues that are destroying countless families within our churches. How can one claim to “define sexual holiness” while pretending as if the scourge of pornography doesn’t even exist? Why no mention of the myriad sexual sins that we excuse or minimize or ignore or blame on anyone but the perpetrators?

    The Nashville Statement was, in my opinion, cowardly. It didn’t go far enough. It was not a true call to holiness or it would have stepped on way, way, way more people’s toes.

  195. Lydia wrote:

    Never mind that one of the biggest scandals to come out of their movement concerned protecting child molesters. And the “child molester protector”, CJ Mahaney signed the statement! Maybe kids don’t count in their bubble when it comes to sexual sin?

    I was discussing this issue with a friend a few hours ago. I mentioned how strange it is that the TGC/9Marx/CBMW self-appointed leaders dropped Mark Driscoll from their tribe when Janet Mefferd exposed his plagiarism and his doctrine was shown to be suspect; yet C.J. Mahaney is still a member of the celebrity club even though it has been credibly demonstrated that he blackmailed Larry Tomczak, led the conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of children in the denomination he presided over, and authorized a hush fund to be deceptively established to keep a pastor quiet about the sexual abuse his son was a victim of at the hands of another pastor’s son. Clearly “correct doctrine” matters way more to these men than leading a conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of children.

    Pleas tell me again about the horror of the Penn State scandal Dr. Mohler.

  196. Lydia wrote:

    Never mind that one of the biggest scandals to come out of their movement concerned protecting child molesters. And the “child molester protector”, CJ Mahaney signed the statement! Maybe kids don’t count in their bubble when it comes to sexual sin?

    Well, I haven’t read this Nashville Statement as of yet, but does it even address child sex abuse, paedophilia, domestic abuse, and the cover up of these things in churches across the U.S.? I’m guessing ‘No’.

  197. NJ wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman

    Uh, what?

    The Four Seasons! “Walk like a man, talk like man, walk like a man my son….”

  198. FW Rez wrote:

    CBWM, a self-appointed special interest group, has decided that they speak for the church universal, which is supposed to ignore their role in facilitating the ESS heresy. If this is how binding authority is established, then I’m going to start a Facebook group to resolve the issue of whether ICEEs or Slurpees are better. Our finding will be binding on all drinkers of frozen drinks. Then we will tell people which flavor they should drink.
    It is ironic that the Council, whose chief end is to establish that men have an authoritarian role over women, is not bound to any authority based in the local church.

    They have no authority governing them but themselves.
    How convenient to set one’s self, and one’s best buds up as THE authority for,The Church and it’s believers.
    When does the book come out or the conferences commence?

  199. Darlene wrote:

    Well, I haven’t read this Nashville Statement as of yet, but does it even address child sex abuse, paedophilia, domestic abuse, and the cover up of these things in churches across the U.S.? I’m guessing ‘No’.

    Nope. Nary a mention.

  200. NJ wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman

    Uh, what?

    Which by the way, makes me wonder how these Comp. folks think a woman should stand and walk.

  201. Darlene wrote:

    NJ wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman

    Uh, what?

    Which by the way, makes me wonder how these Comp. folks think a woman should stand and walk.

    Maybe they think we should be taking little, mincing steps beneath our hoop skirts or standing with our shoulders drooping.

  202. Darlene wrote:

    Which by the way, makes me wonder how these Comp. folks think a woman should stand and walk.

    There used to be rules for that and also how to sit and how to stand up from sitting and sit from standing. Not religious rules, societal rules. There were also rules for not leaning on stuff and how to bend down with the knees while keeping the back straight, and which foot goes in front of which other foot and when. Maybe more that I have forgotten. I/we used to practice how to do all that, but about the time we learned how society pretty much gave up the rules. The term ‘like a lady’ was attached to each movement. How to sit in a straight back chair like a lady. That would be bolt upright with the knees together and both feet on the floor with one foot slightly in front of the other and both legs tilted slightly in a left direction.

    Don’t tell them that or they may have another meeting to carve it into stone. It was all terribly uncomfortable.

  203. Just a thought, but by issuing the Nashville Statement, aren’t these men assuming the office of Vision Casting Leader – a.k.a. Apostle?

    I wasn’t aware that these men believed that the office of Apostle was still valid. Or do they?

  204. @ okrapod:

    And not to forget that we did it in tight straight skirts which came just below the knee and all without showing any leg above the knee and in some positions not showing the knees. That was a real challenge.

  205. Because I have nothing better to do with my life, I put together a spreadsheet with the initial 154 signatories to the “Nashville Statement.” I am now in the process of adding the 40 mere signers to it. All this information is on the CBMW website.

    Then I searched out every name and determined their race, if I could.

    So here are the results, from the top of my head:

    90 percent of the inaugural signers (men & women) are white.

    89 percent of the signers are white males.

    Fifteen of 154 are women. Some of those women are married to male signatories.

    In the complete list (194 people), I noticed six people had the last name “Akin”. That would be Danny Akin, his wife Charlotte (inaugural signatories) and what appears to be their four sons. Nepotism much?

    Oh yeah, and CJ Mahaney, the guy who covered up child sexual abuse at Covenant Life Church is also an inaugural signatory. So is Steve Gaines, the current president of the SBC, who also has a rotten record on this subject. I guess covering up child sex abuse does not matter when the Calvinistas are hunting for signatures.

    I will continue to work on my soreafsheet, but it’s pretty clear who’s behind it all…the same dudes who brought us patriarchy in the Danvers Statement in 1987.

  206. The concluding paragraph of the preamble to the Nashville Statement:

    “We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. God’s good plan provides us with the greatest freedom. Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it in overflowing measure. He is for us and not against us. Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials.”

    The first affirmation is this:

    “WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.”

    I stand corrected about my earlier post: love is mentioned here. But this entire statement is really about a narrow focus on what it means to be a man or woman created in the image of God, or what marriage means.

    Yes, I understand that this statement was never intended to be the evangelical equivalent of the “Theology of the Body”. But it provides further evidence of my biggest complaints about most evangelical teaching on sexuality: it is mostly culturally driven. “Oh, we used to think contraception was wrong but now only Roman Catholics and nutcases think that and, if we preached against it, people would flee our churches in droves — so, hey, contraception is cool now!” “Abortion is such an unpopular, painful topic. Let’s just stay silent.” “Child sexual abuse? That’s even worse! We’ll pretend it’s only a problem for Roman Catholic priests because they can’t marry!” “Yeah, we used to be against ‘worldly’ movies but now that porn is so widespread and popular, we’ll start telling wives that they need to be more sexy for their husbands! After all, we don’t want to ‘lose’ the men in our churches or tick off our buddies.” “Uh oh. The LGBTQ issue is huge in the media right now. Let’s get together with our buddies and make a statement that our ‘base’ will like and our enemies won’t!”

    So of course nothing is going to be said about the radical teachings of Jesus, in which we are called to be servants, to lay our lives down for others, to die to ourselves, et., etc…

  207. @ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:

    You don’t say. Well, well. Who would ever have guessed. I remain judiciously silent.

    I would be interested in the geographic distribution of the signers. And the level of education. And maybe the net worth. Kind of like what a wiki article would tell us.

    I am not suggesting you do that, just some random thoughts.

  208. Lea wrote:

    The ‘not a result of the fall’ language is in their to tell Women to know their place.

    They must ASSERT this and hope everyone buys it because 1 Timothy 2:12-14 absolutely depends upon a Pre-Fall Order of Creation hierarchy for Paul’s argument there to “work” in favor of the Complementarians/CBMW/Female Subordinationists. The
    Eve reference doesn’t work for them because Paul uses Eve as a type of *all* deceived persons in 2 Corinthians. Backstopping their Order of Creation “argument-by-assertion”was the ESS interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3, but they lost that argument that the Eternal Father is the authority over the Eternal Son.

    That is why they have lost the battle *and* they have lost the war. They know that, and everyone else know that who is paying attention and connecting the dots with and open mind and an open Bible and a closed RBMW.

  209. Another thing: until there is a cogent, evangelical articulation of what it means to be human, to be created in the image of God, how can issues like what it means to be male or female even be addressed? They keep putting the cart before the horse.

    Plus, these guys need to stop thinking they have the authority to convene any sort of meaningful council…but that’s another issue entirely…

  210. Gram3 wrote:

    That is why they have lost the battle *and* they have lost the war.

    Well, I am thinking that they lost that battle but maybe not the war, because I think that they are after a larger slice of the pie than just some success over some idea about the Trinity. Maybe if they give up the ESS thing they can build a larger cohort of fellow travelers and be glad of it. If they want to be big and bigger dogs in the world of religion then they will need more than just evangelicals, depending on how big their ambitions are.

  211. @ okrapod:

    They’re mostly seminary presidents and profs, pastors, people in parachurch organizations, wives, and former presidents of the SBC.

    There are exactly two people out of 194 who do not have jobs within the Evangelical bubble. They are physicians. (The two attorneys work for Alliance Defending Freedom, which might as well be a parachurch organization.)

    And I actually thought about going back, looking at official pictures and counting how many guys have beards. There are SO MANY!

  212. @ Rebecca Prewett:

    I have wondered what it could mean to be created in the image of God when the same narrative says that they did not know how to tell good from evil-hence the temptation to become like God. That all sounds a tad contradictory.

  213. Just as a reminder, please do not ask or point out your comment is in moderation. We use a series of filters that put some comments into moderation do you use of words, phrases, etc. It can happen for may reasons. We have a life as well as a blog. That means we may not get to a moderated comment for a few hours.

  214. Lea wrote:

    the Mayor of Nashville’s name is Megan. She went to Vanderbilt and seems pretty

    ROFL! Those uppity women….

  215. I read the names of quite a few of the signers of the Nashville Statement. A list of Who’s Who in contemporary Evangelicalism. Take note of how the small number of women signed it.

  216. NJ wrote:

    Darlene wrote:

    NJ wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:

    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman

    Uh, what?

    Which by the way, makes me wonder how these Comp. folks think a woman should stand and walk.

    Maybe they think we should be taking little, mincing steps beneath our hoop skirts or standing with our shoulders drooping.

    And don’t forget eyes cast toward the ground.

  217. Darlene wrote:

    NJ wrote:
    Darlene wrote:
    NJ wrote:
    Lowlandseer wrote:
    3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman
    Uh, what?
    Which by the way, makes me wonder how these Comp. folks think a woman should stand and walk.

    Maybe they think we should be taking little, mincing steps beneath our hoop skirts or standing with our shoulders drooping.

    And don’t forget eyes cast toward the ground.

    Thou shalt not look upon the face of the Biblical Comp Man Thy God and live?

  218. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    90 percent of the inaugural signers (men & women) are white.

    89 percent of the signers are white males.

    Fifteen of 154 are women. Some of those women are married to male signatories.

    And if a Biblical Manly Man signs a manifesto, Widdle Christian Wifey has no choice but to sign. No disagreement with her God-Ordained Superior can ever be tolerated. (Stay Sweet…)

  219. @ Gram3:
    I am glad Lea brought that up about ‘not a result of the fall’ in the statement. That jumped out at me, too. Gotta make sure there is NO full co-inheritance redemption for the gals.

  220. okrapod wrote:

    There used to be rules for that and also how to sit and how to stand up from sitting and sit from standing. Not religious rules, societal rules.

    There were dress-code rules like that for both men and women, though women probably got the short end of the stick.

    For instance, I remember my stepmother insisting that before sitting down, a man would reach down, grasp the front of his pants legs between thumbs and forefingers, and hitch them up an inch or two as he sat down. I only saw this gesture in vintage footage of Harry Truman, who had the same mannerism before sitting. I can only conclude it was a dress code convention of that time.

  221. @ okrapod:

    Oh yes, the rules! In the public school I attended, we learned those rules in eighth grade.( 1964 for me ) Such things as, never call a boy on the phone, never wear a white bra under a white shirt, always wear a slip, at least a half slip, under your skirt/dress….etc.

    We had to wear nylons or knee socks with our skirts. ( No pants allowed, even in cold snowy, Massachusetts. ) We were also instructed to have a spare pair of nylons in our lockers, in case we got runs in them.

    How about gym class? Since we could not wear shorts, we wore hideous knee high skirts, with big bloomers underneath.

    The males had none of this nonsense to endure.

    Of course, that’s just a smidgen of the ridiculous rules females put up with. Your post about skirts being a certain length triggered those memories.

  222. NJ wrote:

    Maybe they think we should be taking little, mincing steps beneath our hoop skirts or standing with our shoulders drooping.

    Ever heard of a “hobble skirt”?
    It was a womens’ fashion around the time of WW1. Long skirt tapering down from full hips to a narrow “wasp waist” around knee-level, restricting movement of the legs to a few inches/centimeters at the knees. With a hobble skirt, you could only take “little, mincing steps”.

  223. okrapod wrote:

    Well, I am thinking that they lost that battle but maybe not the war, because I think that they are after a larger slice of the pie than just some success over some idea about the Trinity. Maybe if they give up the ESS thing they can build a larger cohort of fellow travelers and be glad of it.

    They have lost the Female Subordination War. There is nothing on the CBMW site in the past year that is close to that topic. Danvers is being downplayed, though it is mentioned. I think that that Mohler and Burk and Moore have left themselves some strategic wiggle room by not explicitly putting hierarchy into the Nashville Statement but mentioning Pre-Fall and leaving it to the reader to infer hierarchy. That way CBMW can move the goalpost gradually as the older generation graduates to glory.

    The problem some of the younger guys like Platt and Chandler and DeYoung and Challies will face is they have been so strident about this being a gospel issue. I have learned that there are many more Cranky Conservative people like me who do not like this Counterfeit Conservatism. It is fine for people to have different ideas about what the Bible is or how it is to be interpreted. But when a pastor claims to be teaching the actual text and instead he is teaching something that is not in the text while pretending it is, then that really upsets me, and that is *not* Conservative, no matter how loud you say it or how many times you scream liberal feminist at me.

    People like me are Al Mohler’s and Denn Burk’s and the other’s worst nightmare, and the pity of it is that we should be the very best of friends. I agree with their philosophy of Scripture. I just insist that they live by their own rules. I’m not an awful liberal; I’m a conservative. On paper we agree in principle. In practice, however, they make stuff up that isn’t in the Bible, and I don’t see how that is materially different from saying the Bible isn’t true whenever you don’t like what it says.

  224. NJ wrote:

    Knowing men like this the way I do, I think they really do worry about LGBT stuff. It’s not that they no longer wish to subordinate women; I’m sure they do. After getting their butts whooped last year, they need to stay relevant somehow, and this was the next obvious thing. I have no reason to disbelieve Denny Burk when he says they had been planning on this statement for months. They seem to be capitalizing on a powerful undercurrent of concern among Americans of a more traditional bent.

    This is why I think they don’t really care that much about the LGBT issue. Yes, they care a bit about it, but not much because it does not impact them very directly. Rather, they care about power and authority. Since their last tack did not work, they are going for something that they are sure will be much more readily accepted.

    Why choose this topic and not some other? For example, obesity is an obvious health problem in churches in the deep South. So why not tackle gluttony? Because it’s not exciting enough and one cannot use it establish a power base to subjugate people (including one gender to another). Why not go after abuse? Same reason. Why not go after homelessness, poverty, human trafficking, or any of the other pressing problem that the Bible talks about? Same reason. This is purely about consolidation of power.

    One of the biggest problems with the statement is how it can be so easily misunderstood. This was on purpose. Had they made it more clear they would not get the widespread support they are looking for. They made it so unclear in order to more easily guilt people into signing it, without the signers fully knowing what they signed up for. I’m guessing there is not an “unsign” option.

  225. Gram3 wrote:

    Danvers is being downplayed, though it is mentioned.

    If they can get enough people on board with this new statement they will no longer need Danvers. This accomplishes all that they needed from Danvers, and more. What do you want to be that Danvers will pretty much disappear from their vocabulary within the next few years?

  226. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    This is why I think they don’t really care that much about the LGBT issue. Yes, they care a bit about it, but not much because it does not impact them very directly. Rather, they care about power and authority. Since their last tack did not work, they are going for something that they are sure will be much more readily accepted.

    Why choose this topic and not some other?

    Another factor is The Other.
    It’s always the OTHER Guy who is The Unpardonable Sin.
    And among Christians, the mere mention of “Homosexuality(TM)” is sufficient to induce — PANIC.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQuieWA3SWY

  227. Rebecca Prewett wrote:

    So of course nothing is going to be said about the radical teachings of Jesus, in which we are called to be servants, to lay our lives down for others, to die to ourselves, et., etc…

    Of course not. There is no power or money in that.

  228. A.Tumbleweed wrote:

    Just a thought, but by issuing the Nashville Statement, aren’t these men assuming the office of Vision Casting Leader – a.k.a. Apostle?

    I wasn’t aware that these men believed that the office of Apostle was still valid. Or do they?

    Remember His Humbleness, “Head Apostle of the People of Destiny”?

  229. FW Rez wrote:

    It is ironic that the Council, whose chief end is to establish that men have an authoritarian role over women, is not bound to any authority based in the local church.

    “Morals are for men, not… GODS!”
    — Second original Star Trek pilot, “Where No Man Has Gone Before”

  230. okrapod wrote:

    @ Rebecca Prewett:

    I have wondered what it could mean to be created in the image of God when the same narrative says that they did not know how to tell good from evil-hence the temptation to become like God. That all sounds a tad contradictory.

    Perhaps I tend to think overly-simplistically, but I don’t see a contradiction between being created in God’s image and yet not being equal to Him or having all His knowledge, power, or attributes.

  231. okrapod wrote:

    And not to forget that we did it in tight straight skirts which came just below the knee and all without showing any leg above the knee and in some positions not showing the knees. That was a real challenge.

    This reminded me of the nude “posture photos,” taken decades ago, of women at Seven Sisters colleges, and men at Ivy League colleges, in the name of science. Brilliant students obeyed when told to undress for the camera. Photos were also taken at other colleges and institutions to prove some link between posture and other qualities (manliness, criminality, etc.). Somebody tracked down surviving images in 1995 and wrote this for the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/15/magazine/the-great-ivy-league-nude-posture-photo-scandal.html?pagewanted=all

    To link to our topic… the Nashville Statement is valid theology in the same way that the eugenic posture photos were valid science.

  232. dee wrote:

    What do you want to bet that they decided to warm up the *homosexual* debate once again? Let’s all start a big old fight over this one and maybe they will forget about the last one. I won’t…

    They’re pointing the finger at The Other Guy and yelling “FAAAAAAAAAG!”

    Like that background townsman in Lenny Bruce’s “Masked Man” (Lone Ranger parody) after Masked Man outs himself.

  233. Lydia wrote:

    But good posture. We used to practice by putting encyclopedias on our heads and walking up and down the stairs.

    I used to amaze people at the co-op back in the 1980s by putting a coke can on my head and walking up and down the stairs. Yes, it really was a coke can. Then it became a diet coke can.

  234. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    If they can get enough people on board with this new statement they will no longer need Danvers. This accomplishes all that they needed from Danvers, and more. What do you want to be that Danvers will pretty much disappear from their vocabulary within the next few years?

    Not if I have anything to say about it. *smirk* I’m going to hang Danvers around their necks for as long as I have to. And I’m going to use the nasty word “patriarchy” to describe Danvers every single time.

  235. Rebecca Prewett wrote:

    Perhaps I tend to think overly-simplistically, but I don’t see a contradiction between being created in God’s image and yet not being equal to Him or having all His knowledge, power, or attributes.

    That is a grossly extended version of what I did not say. The issue is about good versus evil. What sort of image of God is there which excludes the knowledge of good and evil? If a creature does not know good from evil, that is he is not a moral being, so then what part of the image of God does he represent?

    It is a legitimate question in the form of if not that, then what?

  236. okrapod wrote:

    If anybody wants to know why I think our culture is deteriorating, here you see one reason.

    Does anyone here NOT think that our culture is deteriorating? Indeed this is one reason – out of hundreds…

  237. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    Because I have nothing better to do with my life, I put together a spreadsheet with the initial 154 signatories to the “Nashville Statement.”

    Then I searched out every name…

    I will continue to work on my soreafsheet, but it’s pretty clear who’s behind it all…the same dudes who brought us patriarchy in the Danvers Statement in 1987.

    Mirele: You beat me to it. I’ve been looking at some of those signer’s names.

    Paige Patterson: Spoke about how a woman in the church he was pastoring got a black eye – without an ounce of sympathy. In fact, he was responsible for that woman’s injury because he counseled her to go back to her physically abusive husband and pray for him by their bedside, knowing that she would be in danger of being battered. All this wad said publicly at a conference hosted by CBMW. And he’s never once be held accountable by his BFF’s.

    Then we have Todd Wagner of Watermark Church who was written about recently here at TWW, and his shaming of working mothers.

    Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood
    Baptist Church in Texas, where cover-up and non-reporting of a child molester occurred. Amy Smith reported about this extensively on her blog.

    C.J. Mahaney: Need I say more?

    I bet we could add to this list.

  238. okrapod wrote:

    Rebecca Prewett wrote:

    Perhaps I tend to think overly-simplistically, but I don’t see a contradiction between being created in God’s image and yet not being equal to Him or having all His knowledge, power, or attributes.

    That is a grossly extended version of what I did not say. The issue is about good versus evil. What sort of image of God is there which excludes the knowledge of good and evil? If a creature does not know good from evil, that is he is not a moral being, so then what part of the image of God does he represent?

    It is a legitimate question in the form of if not that, then what?

    Sorry. I did not mean to misrepresent what you said. I think I am the wrong person to have attempted to engage with your question.

  239. Darlene wrote:

    I read the names of quite a few of the signers of the Nashville Statement. A list of Who’s Who in contemporary Evangelicalism. Take note of how the small number of women signed it.

    What I meant to say is the way in which they signed it.

  240. @ dee:
    It is actually quite depressing that they even consider it on the level of the creeds… and think, how many thousands of people follow them? And they do not have courage/interigty/etc to recant that they were pushing/demanding ESS?
    The more I think of this “we” should demand these “leaders” publically recant ESS before they make a new “proclimation”.
    I went to the CBMW web site myself, and they NOW prominately display that they endorse the creeds…. as if they always did??

  241. Lydia wrote:

    @ Rebecca Prewett:

    Good comment. One of the things that struck me about it (in addition to the orgs sponsors and timing) is that it doesn’t sound very Neo Calvinist.

    Well, that way they get more Evangelicals to sign it. Strategy, always strategizing. Now the question is: Is Calvinism the Gospel? 🙂

  242. roebuck wrote:

    Does anyone here NOT think that our culture is deteriorating? Indeed this is one reason – out of hundreds…

    Yep. On a lighter note, I think the tipping point came when they played with the veggies and developed large and brittle and tasteless species. How can one endure crisp watermelon and juiceless tomatoes?

  243. Rebecca Prewett wrote:

    We are declaring what it means to be a male or female image-bearer.

    What *does* it mean to be an ‘image-bearer’? Like all this role-playing it doesn’t sound quite real.

    We were created human. Why can we not just be what we are?

  244. KMD wrote:

    WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.
    WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.

    I’m a gonna take the liberty of re-stating this …… in plain English:
    ” WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for the good of men and male flourishing.
    WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome; women have always been second class, subservient beings – just as God intended them to be.

  245. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    This is why I think they don’t really care that much about the LGBT issue. Yes, they care a bit about it, but not much because it does not impact them very directly. Rather, they care about power and authority. Since their last tack did not work, they are going for something that they are sure will be much more readily accepted.

    Why choose this topic and not some other?

    Another factor is The Other.
    It’s always the OTHER Guy who is The Unpardonable Sin.
    And among Christians, the mere mention of “Homosexuality(TM)” is sufficient to induce — PANIC.

    But have they not written enough about homosexuality ad nauseum? Who doesn’t know where they stand on this issue by now? What about addressing the issue of racism, or gun violence? What about the pollution of our environment? What about corporate greed gone rampant in this country? What about corruption in Right-wing politics? What about poverty in the ghetto s across this nation? There’s plenty of subjects to address besides homosexuality and gender roles.

  246. One of the things that struck me as I just reread the statement:

    It does not help me at all in ministering to the ladyboys in Thailand. I’ve met a number of them during my visits to Thailand and have had some in depth, even ongoing, conversations with a few. The ones who told me their life stories were born unambiguously male yet, for various reasons, they were raised as girls. In their teens, they were given female hormones. Eventually they had varying degrees of surgery. It is not so easy to simply “go back to being a man” when one Never experienced life that way.

    I know that some Christians would make a moral issue out of insisting that new Believers immediately give up all their ladyboy ways, toss out their female clothes and make-up, stop taking hormones, and start acting as men. But, as it was explained to me, doesn’t it make much more sense that a new Believer learn about his or her identity in Christ first, and allow the Holy Spirit to heal sexual identity issues in His timing?

    “I was once a ladyboy, but now I am a man,” is only part of the testimony of a man who I consider a friend. It has not been a quick or easy transition. God has powerfully transformed him and is continually transforming him — what gender he identifies as is not the most important aspect of his new identity in Christ.

    The missionaries I met in Thailand who minister to ladyboys have a lot to teach me. They are uncompromising on the issue of sexual chastity (and they define it, IMO, more Biblically and completely than the Nashville Statement) but they are also filled with love and grace. Love is patient. Love and grace recognize that the Holy Spirit does not heal and sanctify us all at once. We either trust Him to do the work only He can do — or we don’t.

    I’ll confess something. Before going to Thailand, I was pretty hard nosed about refusing to call anyone “she” unless they were “really female”, as in born that way. Once in Thailand, I realized quickly that I couldn’t be the gender police, especially since it was sometimes impossible to know who was a ladyboy and who wasn’t. Then I decided that one of the simple ways I could show respect is by addressing people and referring to them in accordance with their wishes. I don’t think it’s a sin to call someone by a name other than the name given to them at birth. I don’t think it’s a sin to use a different pronoun either.

  247. okrapod wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    Does anyone here NOT think that our culture is deteriorating? Indeed this is one reason – out of hundreds…

    Yep. On a lighter note, I think the tipping point came when they played with the veggies and developed large and brittle and tasteless species. How can one endure crisp watermelon and juiceless tomatoes?

    Exactly!! Why don’t these Conservative Culture Warriors address the issue of GMO’s? Or do only liberals care about what we eat?

  248. Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

    If they can get enough people on board with this new statement they will no longer need Danvers. This accomplishes all that they needed from Danvers, and more. What do you want to be that Danvers will pretty much disappear from their vocabulary within the next few years?

    Danvers is the founding document of CBMW, so they can’t just make it disappear, though they can start ignoring it in favor of legitimately pressing issues like racial reconciliation and other things they find important. I do not think CBMW will disappear until the last of the founders sees Jesus face to face, and I understand and respect that, even though I really disagree and think the far better path would be for them to repent and teach sound doctrine. I am a realist.

    There are many people with strong convictions that prevent them from examining the issues with a really open mind. It isn’t because they hate women but rather because they desire to please God and because they have been truly appalled by some things they have seen just as some of us have been truly appalled by some of the things we have seen. I have a lot more patience with those folks than I have with the Seminary Professors and Pulpiteers who know better or who should know better. I believe they are protecting their positions and their paychecks and pensions.

  249. okrapod wrote:

    There used to be rules for that and also how to sit and how to stand up from sitting and sit from standing. Not religious rules, societal rules. There were also rules for not leaning on stuff and how to bend down with the knees while keeping the back straight, and which foot goes in front of which other foot and when.

    Did you ever see the movie A League of Their Own? The girls who are going to play baseball go to a manners class and learn all this stuff.

  250. Darlene wrote:

    The Four Seasons! “Walk like a man, talk like man, walk like a man my son….”

    I remember that song well from back in the day. Sort of ironic in that the Four Seasons had rather un-masculine voices for the most part – their schtick was a high almost whiny sound, with falsetto on the harmonies.

  251. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    I’m going to use the nasty word “patriarchy” to describe Danvers every single time.

    Russell Moore earned that back in 2006, IIRC, when he said that they (Complementarians) needed to start calling it Patriarchy because that’s what they were talking about. So, hey, he would appreciate it!

  252. Darlene wrote:

    Exactly!! Why don’t these Conservative Culture Warriors address the issue of GMO’s? Or do only liberals care about what we eat?

    It’s been a long time since conservatives cared about conserving anything. Not that liberals do, either. I have no use for those labels – they have become meaningless.

  253. Refugee wrote:

    Another thought that keeps returning: What kind of god would deliberately create people who are wired a certain way and then set up the rules so that they can never experience love and belonging according to those rules?

    Same kind of monster “god”, I suspect, as the one who is said to have created the vast majority of humanity in order to condemn them to eternal torment and suffering. For his glory, no less.

    Your sentiments are shared by many, myself included.

  254. roebuck wrote:

    Sort of ironic in that the Four Seasons had rather un-masculine voices for the most part

    I just remembered another hit of theirs from the early 60’s, which kind of adds to the irony, or something: “Big Girls Don’t Cry’.

  255. Josh wrote:

    Denny Burk hath declared in Article 11 that it places one outside the bounds of Christianity to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

    Bet he can’t find it scripture though!

  256. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    I went to the CBMW web site myself, and they NOW prominately display that they endorse the creeds…. as if they always did??

    For ***years*** the mantra was some variation of “Of course this is compatible with Nicea. It’s only functional/economic” and its snarky variant “this has always been the orthodox view of the Church (you idiot).” Or “this is nothing more than the Covenant of Redemption (you Reformed idiot).” Or “How do you think the Son could be obedient to become incarnate? (??????)” Those are just a few of the various dismissals. I have forgotten others. Funny how older Roman Catholic and older Protestant and older Baptists look at my like I’m crazy when I tell them about ESS. They don’t believe that some Seminoids actually teach that.

  257. ishy wrote:

    Are you sure that the word “lust” is only mental? That’s a translated English concept with a modern meaning. Both the Hebrew and Greek words have connotations of idolatry. Idolatry implies an active covetousness.

    Even in the German language the word Lust simply means desire. It doesn’t have the baggage and the English connotations (mostly negative) we typically associate it with.

  258. Muff Potter wrote:

    Even in the German language the word Lust simply means desire. It doesn’t have the baggage and the English connotations (mostly negative) we typically associate it with.

    Well, the German word ‘Lust’ is not the English word ‘lust’, that’s all.

  259. Rebecca Prewett wrote:

    The missionaries I met in Thailand who minister to ladyboys have a lot to teach me. They are uncompromising on the issue of sexual chastity (and they define it, IMO, more Biblically and completely than the Nashville Statement) but they are also filled with love and grace. Love is patient. Love and grace recognize that the Holy Spirit does not heal and sanctify us all at once. We either trust Him to do the work only He can do — or we don’t.

    This reminds me of missionaries to cultures where polygamy is acceptable. The missionaries taught that way of Christ is not to divorce all but the first wife and send away all other and their children but to not take any more and to remain faithful to the wives and children that the men have. They taught that the unmarried men should take one wife and be faithful to her. Changing any culture to conform to Christ is difficult. In different ways, of course.

  260. okrapod wrote:

    If anybody wants to know why I think our culture is deteriorating, here you see one reason.

    Very much agreed okrapod. And you have my prayers and solidarity in your endeavor to educate your granddaughter away from the public wastelands.

  261. @ Gram3:
    I could not believe they were screwing with the Trinity either! As I have said on this blog many times, there is so much beyound our limited human minds, to think one can further explain the Trinity, especially after people have wrestled with it for 2,000 years is the height of arogance…. but then, thee YEC types dismiss basic physics with a level of arogance that is shocking to me as well…

  262. Gram3 wrote:

    Russell Moore earned that back in 2006, IIRC, when he said that they (Complementarians) needed to start calling it Patriarchy because that’s what they were talking about. So, hey, he would appreciate it!

    All 100lbs of him declared that “comps are wimps and we need more patriarchy”. He actually wrote that.

    I know that is mean but there were many times I found the whole thing so ironic and bizarre I would crack up. Although I know it is deadly serious what they are teaching.

  263. okrapod wrote:

    In a short while I have to go pick up G’kid#2 from school for the last time since she has been withdrawn from that school for being the victim of persistent bullying which the school cannot get under control.

    So sorry to hear about this! You’ll be a great teacher and what a blessing you can take this on for a time.

    Was this a private or public school?

  264. @ Jeffrey J Chalmers:

    Every cult ministry will tell you that tampering with the Trinity in such declarative ways that tweak it to be anything but the One True God is the biggest clue its a cult. Mormons. JW’s, etc. CBMW was taking subjugation of women to whole new levels. Including eternity. Like the Mormons.

  265. Darlene wrote:

    I read the names of quite a few of the signers of the Nashville Statement. A list of Who’s Who in contemporary Evangelicalism. Take note of how the small number of women signed it.

    Also, note that the only people who signed it who aren’t straight are people who claim an “ex-gay” conversion of some sort or another (e.g. Rosaria Butterfield). For a statement ostensibly about what it claims to be about, virtually no people who have experience with such things actually signed it.

  266. There’s a fundamental cruelty to all the bloviations of these guys. We are the elect and you are helpless in your own unregenerate state, but you should behave as if you have sanctifying power of God at your disposal. Every tweet, every statement, and every book is an insular, pharisetical, and childish taunt directed at the unredemable masses. Their statement has the effect of sexualizing every aspect of our lives, including our faith. True shepherds walk with their sheep,but these guys issue statements from afar.

  267. Cobber wrote:

    @ Lowlandseer:

    The order of that list exposes their priorities: authorities first, God last.

    I thought that as well when so read it.

  268. Darlene wrote:

    Well, I haven’t read this Nashville Statement as of yet, but does it even address child sex abuse, paedophilia, domestic abuse, and the cover up of these things in churches across the U.S.? I’m guessing ‘No’.

    Nope.

  269. NJ wrote:

    Being ‘heterosexual’ (a concept that didn’t exist before the late 19th century) is something I guess you could describe as an integral part of our personhood, since it is part of God’s original creation as described in Genesis. The question is, are deviations from that also to be considered an integral part of the personhood of those who experience them?

    I’ve never been straight. I don’t know, nor do I particularly care what caused me to be gay (likely a mix of genetic and intra-uterine environmental factors, but the only thing we’re parenting factors and childhood trauma have little to no influence, contra what conservative evangelicals customarily teach). Y’all can debate all you want how I should be allowed to refer to myself, but if you want to have any influence on what I think, you’re going to have to deal with reality – a reality which is that some people grow up exclusively experiencing bi- or same- oriented emotional and/or physical attractions. And if you somehow managed the impossible and deleted from the world’s collective memory the words we presently use for those experiences, as long as well-intentioned matchmakers continue to try to introduce us to their opposite-sex single relatives, people like @Zechzav and myself will invent new words to say why we’re not interested.

  270. scott hendrixson wrote:

    We are the elect and you are helpless in your own unregenerate state, but you should behave as if you have sanctifying power of God at your disposal.

    If it were not for the fact that a certain segment of Evangelical Christians actually pays attention to this garbage, it would be laughable. As it is, it deeply saddens me that they have any influence over anyone. They really are about the most arrogant popinjays I can think of. So juvenile, so clumsy and stupid and amateurish, and so convinced of their own gravitas, of which they have zero.

    I’m afraid it’s a stark comment on the vacuity of a certain segment of American ‘Christendom’ that these clowns are even able to get a hearing, much less strut around comparing themselves to the Council of Nicea, without Christians all across the land ROFL. What a world.

  271. *@ Rebecca Prewett:

    “…the Nashville Statement did an abysmal job of defining “the nature of the marriage covenant” or of “sexual holiness and virtue”….nothing of familial life, although the word “procreation” did at least make one appearance.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    hmmm… just how far are we going to go in defining everything, which the bible itself doesn’t even define?

    quite frankly, no one is going to define what my family life must look like, or whether or not (or how) I procreate.

    the problem is in all these vague terms —
    -holy lives
    -holiness, sexual or otherwise
    -hunger and thirst after righteousness
    -take up our cross and follow Him

    they mean whatever christian A thinks they should mean. Christian B sees things a bit differently, christian D as well.

    If christian A is a person of influence with power, then they get to decide on what all these nebulous terms mean. to the point of making themselves the arbiter of who is a christian and who isn’t based on their definition of everything. (a la Denny Burk and co.)

    this silly christian religion of mine is tying me & everyone up in invented rules rules rules. Enough.

  272. NJ wrote:

    I guess you could describe as an integral part of our personhood, since it is part of God’s original creation as described in Genesis. The question is, are deviations from that also to be considered an integral part of the personhood of those who experience them?

    Yes. That was before sin/fall. Since then everything is a mess. Babies are born with all kinds of sickness and deformities. How do we treat people born with one arm? Do we expect them to function like they have two? Is there biological reasons that cause different sexual orientations like there are issues that cause other abnormalities at birth? What do we expect of people with different sexual orientations and other sexual issues that ‘seem’ abnormal?

  273. Refugee wrote:

    Another thought that keeps returning: What kind of god would deliberately create people who are wired a certain way and then set up the rules so that they can never experience love and belonging according to those rules?

    I’m gay, and I understand and feel the attraction to that argument. It can leave me in a sorry mental state if I follow that train of thought hypothetically – what if the conservatives are right that I’m incapable of showing or receiving “true” [romantic] love?

    But with that said, I’m uncomfortable with saying that because God allowed me to come into existence this way (which I believe – as the scientific evidence points – that God did), that I deserve what I want. We don’t have to stray far into the hypothetical to find scenarios where we may naturally desire something that we oughtn’t to have.

    I’m not saying it’s a slippery slope, because that’d be a fallacious argument, but I prefer to look at it from the perspective of Brownson, Gushee, et. al. in terms of seeing the experience of people like myself as one that was not recognized at the time Paul was writing, and therefore not something that he would have had in mind when he penned the condemnations of … something. I don’t read Greek, but scholars argue over the meaning of the words in question because they are unclear… although straight fundagelicals dispute that lack of clarity.

    So I look at the lack of clarity in the original text, the likelihood that a loving, committed, lifelong relationship between two consenting adults of equal status is not what Paul had in mind, and the fact that the vitriol coming from church leaders on this topic belies their contempt and disgust for people like me – bringing their bias into broad daylight – and I come to a similar conclusion as @ZechZav.

    But with that said, my goal is not that I need to convince any of you, nor that I demand that anyone agree with me. All I’m getting at is that (1) my following of Jesus is not contingent upon whether some ivory tower empty suits think I can call myself “Christian” and (2) if you want to have a debate about something so silly as what words I can use to describe my personal experience without taking into account my perspective and input on the matter, then … well … pardon me if I find your conclusions non-binding.

  274. Bridget wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    Is chocolate a paraphilia based obsession? Tell me now so I can repent.

    Meant to add . . .

    LOL. Me too.

  275. Bridget wrote:

    Bet he can’t find it scripture though!

    Of course he can’t. I have found that much of what various camps hold dear has at best a derived view by inference about Scripture, not an explicit text one way or the other.

  276. Josh wrote:

    I’ve never been straight. I don’t know, nor do I particularly care what caused me to be gay (likely a mix of genetic and intra-uterine environmental factors, but the only thing we’re parenting factors and childhood trauma have little to no influence, contra what conservative evangelicals customarily teach).

    FWIW, I am as conservative as it comes, and I think that is likely true. I say likely only because I do not have the scientific knowledge to back up my intuition. I don’t think I would be so certain about childhood trauma. I just don’t know.

    I can find no justification for calling any orientation or feeling sinful because, as I understand it now, I would put that in the category of things that are not sinful but are not the way God wanted them to be. That is a very large category of things, including the earth and its atmosphere and the ocean, as we are learning this week. This world we are living in is not the New Creation. Yet.

  277. Lea wrote:

    Mae wrote:

    It bothers me that a group of men think their beliefs are so significant, they can compare it to the Nicene Creed.

    I will never say that it wasn’t political, however wasn’t part of the point the council of nicea to gather bishops from all over, who naturally had some different opinions on things, to gain consensus? This thing was just a bunch of likeminded people putting out what is…well I wont say a PR statement but a line in the sand I guess. They certainly didn’t attempt to get any differences of opinion in there.

    From the sources I’ve read about Nicaea, there was quite bit of disagreement & wrangling going on. They hammered ideas out and didn’t just easily arrive at a consensus. Things got quite heated at times.

  278. I’m going to ask a somewhat obvious question. Who or what is their intended audience? If it is the people already persuaded by CBMW, then it was a colossal waste of time and effort. They labored for a year to bring forth this baby?

    If it was the secular culture, then they just gave the secular culture another reason to mock them mercilessly. That might be a plausible reason if the purpose is the position themselves as culture warrior martyrs. I think they should have consulted Keller if that was the purpose.

    If their purpose was just to bring the conservatives offended by Moore last November back in line, this seems like overkill because those folks are not going anywhere else on the LGBTQ issues anyway.

    So, unless I am missing something, the remaining option is that they needed to resuscitate and rehabilitate CBMW and with it the legacy of Grudem, Piper, and Knight without mentioning ESS explicitly. They were founders of CBMW. I don’t believe Ware was.

    Honestly, I cannot think of any social issue, with the possible exception of late-term abortion, that is less controversial in the very conservative evangelical church than LGBTQ. To make this big, splashy deal about it is very curious once you stop to think about it. Maybe it’s just because I’m a creature of conservative evangelicalism, but I was surprised at this.

  279. okrapod wrote:

    I have in my younger days actively coveted somebody else’s husband. You don’t think that was lust? The heck it wasn/t. Sin is not conquered by changing it’s name to something less offensive.

    Unless you actually did the hanky-panky with the guy, all the hand wringing about ‘lust’, ‘falling short’, and a host of other self-flagellating recriminations are much ado about nothin’. My opinion of course, and just another example of Potter’s unabashed and reprobate heresies.

  280. Gram3 wrote:

    So, unless I am missing something, the remaining option is that they needed to resuscitate and rehabilitate CBMW and with it the legacy of Grudem, Piper, and Knight without mentioning ESS explicitly. They were founders of CBMW. I don’t believe Ware was.

    This was lost on me until you and others here brought it up, but it does seem like an attempt to subtly change the anchor point for patriarchal gender role teachings.

    To restate what I understand y’all to have been saying, I’d put it like this: Centuries ago, all the way back to the church fathers, they just said that women are inferior, therefore patriarchy. Then, when they couldn’t get away with saying that any more, they shifted the underlying justification from one thing to another until they ended up landing on ESS. Now, having had that taken away, they’re hoping to attach patriarchal gender roles to “traditional sexual ethics” and fear of the transgender boogeyperson. Somehow I doubt they’re going to get too far beyond their own limited circles, given the overall poor appetite for patriarchy in the broader Christian world today.

  281. Muff Potter wrote:

    Unless you actually did the hanky-panky with the guy, all the hand wringing about ‘lust’, ‘falling short’, and a host of other self-flagellating recriminations are much ado about nothin’. My opinion of course, and just another example of Potter’s unabashed and reprobate heresies.

    Consider what “nothing” meant in Elizabethan slang, and you will see why I found this comment funnier than I probably should have… 😮

  282. Josh wrote:

    To restate what I understand y’all to have been saying, I’d put it like this: Centuries ago, all the way back to the church fathers, they just said that women are inferior, therefore patriarchy. Then, when they couldn’t get away with saying that any more, they shifted the underlying justification from one thing to another until they ended up landing on ESS. Now, having had that taken away, they’re hoping to attach patriarchal gender roles to “traditional sexual ethics” and fear of the transgender boogeyperson

    I’ve said before that it is a bit difficult for those guys to establish biblical gender hierarchy in same sex relationships.

  283. I couldn’t even finish reading the new statement all the way through. Boring. Laughable. The writers/signers are legend wannabes. I am so glad I don’t give a rats hairy hiney anymore about what these pampered, celebrity pastors have to say.

  284. Gram3 wrote:

    If it was the secular culture, then they just gave the secular culture another reason to mock them mercilessly.

    The Nashville Statement got a lot more attention than I would have expected. I found out about it when the mayor of Nashville denounced it and said it did not reflect her city. (Seriously, was looking at my phone and “What’s this Nashville Statement and why is the mayor upset? OH.”) CBMW also had the bad taste to release this thing on the same day Joel Osteen was being raked over the coals online for not opening up his church to refugees from Hurricane Harvey. (Of course, there is no good day to release it, to be honest.)

    On top of that, there’s been an ongoing conversation on Twitter for the last couple of weeks under the hashtag #EmptyThePews and those guys took up the absurdity of the Nashville Statement and pushed it along. Then there was the California congressman who denounced it, as well as public figures DeRay McKesson, Lauren Duca and shockingly, comedian Dennis Leary. He was quite profane in letting his opinion be known. Honest to God, I couldn’t even imagine Leary caring. But there he was, letting everyone now in his own profane way how he felt. There are others, but these are the people I remember off the top of my head who are outside the religion sphere. There are also at least four counter-Nashville Statements, including one by people who live in Nashville itself.

    I’m pretty sure CBMW thought it’d be an in-house argument with progressive and liberal Christians, and didn’t expect it to go outside or get the traction it did. They made a mistake.

  285. M. Joy wrote:

    I couldn’t even finish reading the new statement all the way through. Boring. Laughable. The writers/signers are legend wannabes. I am so glad I don’t give a rats hairy hiney anymore about what these pampered, celebrity pastors have to say.

    Well said. I am not interested in their statement either as I’ve read enough to know what they are all about! 5 minutes reading their boring statement is 5 minutes of your life wasted which you will not get back!

  286. Lowlandseer wrote:

    9 Pursue a wife

    Apostle Paul didn’t say being married or wanting marriage was bad, but he did not tell people to “pursue marriage.”

    He said staying single is preferable. Am so tired of Christians who elevate marriage above singleness, as though singles or singleness is defective.

  287. NJ wrote:

    Because of the larger culture in which we live, I have always understood a ‘gay identity’ as encompassing more than just a same sex attraction that is experienced every so often. Being ‘heterosexual’ (a concept that didn’t exist before the late 19th century) is something I guess you could describe as an integral part of our personhood, since it is part of God’s original creation as described in Genesis. The question is, are deviations from that also to be considered an integral part of the personhood of those who experience them?

    I think we read more into Genesis 1-2 than what is actually there. I am going to requite a selection that I have written elsewhere:

    “The creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 is a descriptive (as opposed to a prescriptive) account of how God started the human race.  Genesis is an etiological narrative which explains how and why things came into being.   It explains the origin of marriage as a custom and says “this is how it started”.  It is not necessarily saying “this is way it should be”.  Much less is it saying “this is the way it should always be – no exceptions”.   General and normative patterns do not exclude deviations or anomalies.  It was the province of the law of Moses and the New Testament letters to govern sexual morality…Using etiological accounts to establish rigid blueprints to argue “this is the way it should be” can have very hurtful consequences. Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel reminds us that in 1847 the church condemned women for using anaesthetics in childbirth.   The objection was based upon Genesis 3 where God says to Eve “I will greatly multiply your pain in labour” and women were even burned to death for attempting to circumvent this.”

    Gay conversion therapy, or consigning to celibacy and not lifting a finger to help (which many churches are guilty of) is another very cruel and inhumane result of the same mindset. All we can really conclude from Genesis 1-2 is that God created two human beings to start the human race. Anything beyond this goes into the realm of speculation.

  288. @ Ian:
    I used to be a gender complementarian, and I’ve said on this blog many times before that comp is really based on other things, not merely a pure respect of God or the Bible or whatever they claim.

    Comp is an excuse to endorse sexism, to say sexism (male control of women) is biblical.

    Secondly, it’s a reaction or tool they want to use against things they dislike or fear, such as
    liberal, secular feminism, gay marriage, etc.

    I still have fairly traditional values (I’m not a liberal), but I have felt the last few years that a lot of other social conservatives may be going about things the wrong way.

    I don’t think teaching male rule over women as complementarians should be used to fight against feminism, transgenderism, gay marriage, etc.

  289. Josh wrote:

    women are inferior, therefore patriarchy. Then, when they couldn’t get away with saying that any more, they shifted the underlying justification from one thing to another until they ended up landing on ESS. Now, having had that taken away, they’re hoping to attach patriarchal gender roles to “traditional sexual ethics” and fear of the transgender boogeyperson.

    That’s a good summary. You’re young, and probably don’t remember life before Gender Roles. I still am surprised by nearly middle-aged young people who assume Roles are in the Bible. When I ask them what it means for God to play a role or have a role, I get a blank look, because it is just something that has been assumed and never really thought through.

    Fear is the most powerful and primitive emotion, and, if people stop to think about it, there is fear from several perspectives. Only love and trust can bridge that. This document obviously does not help. I have not been in your position, but I hear rejection and maybe sadness or something. I’m not sure. Maybe that is a fear of being rejected by people. Or maybe that’s me projecting how I imagine I would feel. I’m a grandmother, and if you were my grandson, I would not reject you but would tell you that you are a dearly loved grandson. I would tell you to live your life to be like Christ, which is exactly what I would tell each of my grandchildren. I would go to the gospels and examine Jesus’ life there. I would tell you to be celibate and that it will be difficult because following Jesus is difficult. It is what I would tell any young person at my church. Imitate Christ. He is the standard, not any other human being. I apologize in advance if I am out of line and have been too personal, but I was moved at a grandmother level by what you wrote.

  290. Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

    Btw, the statement does say that sex outside of marriage is sinful and that faithfulness inside marriage is correct.

    LOLOLOL. Yes, many Christians say that, but there is no support for adult celibacy. Zilch.

    There is no such creature as someone who is a virgin and still single past the age of 25, so there is no support for celibates.

  291. Dee please feel free to remove this if it is a bit over the top. I have always found the way evangelicals deal with sex to be troubling. I have been a “Christian” for 37+ years I even had my testimony for my baptism and all the stuff that I really treasured notes from bible studies etc. I have thrown all that stuff out in the trash and never felt better. But that is another post. I lived a celibate life one out of conviction and the other I was the primary care provider for my entire family, who are all gone but my one brother. I just did not have time between that and ministry which I felt called to so strongly, of course, I repudiate that a lot because of the many gifts I have gotten from my evangelical faith groups.

    Not one time was I encouraged in my celibacy I was always treated like I was evil because I was not married yet. I mean literally, people who had messed around had kids with other people, not their Husband/wife being forgiven restored even celebrated because they overcame sin. Not for us singles, we were evil and pathetic and well evil. All that is unimportant. Some of the people I work with in the past were chronic “self-stimulus” I mean all the time, and why it bothered me is the Bible is very clear if you continue in chronic sin you are not saved because Christ will not allow you to continue to sin. You will either stop or God will kill you. Sort of like God killed Rich Mullins before he became a Catholic. Yes, people believe that I know I heard that type of nonsense all the time.

    The Bible says nothing at all about developmental disabilities, mental illness etc. It basically says if you continue to sin you are condemned and in Hebrews, it even says that if you tasted the fruit and reject it you can never be brought back to repentance.I also took care of folks that did other “sexual” things to themselves that were a direct result of their cognitive dysfunction/brain injury. All of them went directly to hell because they did not repent and become a Christian. I use to take that stuff really seriously and it really made me, no, it still does kill me deep down. The I did not preach the gospel right to them, God ordained this to His glory. Then I started working with folks with eating disorders, emotional issues, in the homeless shelter etc. I met people who were gay, transgender, etc. They were some of the most dedicated honest and even conservative folks I had ever met. I even met a few folks who were in the faith groups who were hiding deep in the proverbial closet loathing every cell in their body and every breath they took because they were so convinced they were children of Satan. The terror was palpable.

    Some would tell me well God will grant grace to people “like I work with” was one answer, the minority opinion. Most of the answers were “So” God said it that settles it move on. I mean they would quote a few verses and give you that “see I’m right look” then that was the discussion. It was at times followed up with the You don’t have enough faith, you did not witness right, sin in your life stuff. That’s also very comforting when people explain to you why your families blood is on you because they died and went to hell. No good news there. I am being a bit more direct but this was the crux of the problem. This is one of the primary reasons I became a universalist.

    I have seen how this statement leads to people doing very bad things to themselved, the cutting, the eating issues, the self mutilation, and the suicide. I have seen two of those in person as a kid one “successful” one my mother saved the person’s life. I will never figure how God gets glory out of such events. I can see how he can reconcile them but that is an entire book. Sorry for the length.

  292. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    I’m pretty sure CBMW thought it’d be an in-house argument with progressive and liberal Christians, and didn’t expect it to go outside or get the traction it did. They made a mistake.

    I think they should have paid more attention to the Weather Channel or Accuweather. That is part of what I meant by stepping on a rake. It might as well have been signed by Wiley Coyote. How utterly stupid can Doctors of Philosophy be? How un-pastoral. Russell Moore is from Biloxi for crying out loud! He should know from hurricanes after Katrina, and Mohler is a former denominational newspaper reporter from Florida, so presumably he knows how hurricanes work. Denny lived in Texas for awhile at least. Nashville was flooded not that long ago. The irony. Thankfully I have missed the Twitter drama, so I didn’t even know about this craziness until TWW. Even then I’m usually a thread behind. 🙂

  293. Here are my thoughts on the statement:

    “the emergence of roles for men and women in church leadership that do not conform to Biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of Biblically faithful witness”

    This is hogwash. In North America and Western Europe it is actually offensive culturally to deny male-female equality. Many secular companies have a zero-tolerance policy on discrimination on the basis of sex, gender or sexual orientation. This is because these leaders see the value and dignity of all human beings better than patriarchal Christians do.

    “the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts”.

    These texts have a specific cultural context and often something different today than what it means today. Many complementarian churches are selective in this area. For example they rightly reject the head-coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 as “cultural” whilst they ignore the historical context behind 1 Timothy 2 and treat it as “timeless”. And some churches ignore the “plain meaning” of 1 Corinthians 12 and reject speaking in tongues whilst insisting on head coverings from “the plain meaning” of 1 Corinthians 11. Other churches do the reverse: women speak in tongues without head coverings. They take chapter 12 literally whilst rejecting chapter 11. So it is not always that simple and conservative churches can’t agree amongst themselves as to what the “plain meaning” is.

    “the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity”

    That is hypocrisy coming from Calvinists who resort to endless technicalities to explain away the clear meaning of words like “whosoever”, “the world” and “all” from texts like John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4.

    “We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.”

    And enabling violence against women and children (such as the teachings of John Piper, Voddie Baucham and the practices of CJ Mahaney) are not destructive?!?

  294. Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

    Aimee Byrd’s comments about opposite sex relationships was also a good thought. They are so important to me, especially in the endurance athletic community that I hang out in. But in the CBMW crowd, I have a sense those are frowned upon.

    I don’t remember who wrote it (I think this blog covered it months ago?) but not only do certain types of Christians not want people having opposite sex friendships, but one of these doofi actually wrote an editorial basically also condemning same- sex friendships, implying, there may be homosexual undertones, and that that close same sex friendships can turn into an idol.

    Then you have the awful “Billy Graham Rule” that tells married men that single woman are harlots and married Christian women to shun all single women because we’re supposedly all hussies who want to have affairs with their husbands.

    All of which makes me wonder, as a never-married middle aged lady, where am I to go for companionship and friendship?

    They’re eliminating anyone and everyone I could possibly be friends with. The Bible says to treat a lady like me as a sister, not as a temptress or freak.

    These CBMW guys and others basically say I should be treated like a leper: totally avoided. I might as well go into my closet and curl up into the fetal position.

  295. Josh wrote:

    This means that conservative protestant churches are saying that even gay people who intend to remain celibate forever in obedience to the traditional understanding of Christian ethics are not saved..

    If it makes you feel any better, Protestants and Baptists treat HETERO celibate adults over 25 like weirdo loser freaks who have failed God because we aren’t married and don’t have a Family to Focus On.

  296. Gram3 wrote:

    So, unless I am missing something, the remaining option is that they needed to resuscitate and rehabilitate CBMW

    I suspect you are onto something. As happens with many organizations, after a period of years the goal of the organization becomes the perpetuation of the organization, everything else becomes expendable.

    I wonder if deep down many of them were not truly convinced or devoted to their doctrine but instead saw it as a means to prominence or power. Once general agreement left the absurd ESS claims behind they are now struggling to regain relevance. My guess is CBMW proponents are going to thrash about in the years to come and exhibit more inconsistencies and thus look even more foolish. This is when politicians often announce their retirement “to spend more time with their family”.

  297. okrapod wrote:

    In a short while I have to go pick up G’kid#2 from school for the last time since she has been withdrawn from that school for being the victim of persistent bullying which the school cannot get under control.

    I’m very sorry.

    I was bullied constantly too, and due to Dad’s job, we had to transfer to new states every 2 – 3 years.

    At almost every school I went to, I was bullied, though I never instigate it.I was a shy, nerdy kid who obeyed authority figures and didn’t pick on other kids.

    My mother raised me to be a passive doormat who should never fight back,which only made me more of an attractive target for bullies.

    The teachers and bus drivers would see me getting picked on and never step in to help me, even if I asked them for help.
    I even got blamed for being bullied by one school principal in one incident, though I was the victim, not the aggressor.

    Since I’ve become an adult, I’ve noticed this stays the same. A kid gets bullied, and the school refuses to step in and do anything. Teachers will witness a kid being abused and not put a stop to it.

  298. Gram3 wrote:

    I would tell you to be celibate and that it will be difficult because following Jesus is difficult.

    This is where I have severe issues. Some Christians tell people like me to stay single and then shut door to go back to their own families. They leave me out in the cold to work out what it all means.

    I am not in a relationship but that is by circumstance, and to be honest I can live with that. Many straight people also have to face this reality – either never married, widowed, divorced or possibly other reasons. But I don’t want to be consigned to it. I do not want other Christians to expect it from me when they do not practice it themselves. I do not want other Christians to expect it from me unless they are prepared to help bear that burden and make some sacrifices themselves. Jesus said “treat others as you would expect them to treat you – this is the law and the prophets” and “bear one anothers burdens and fulfil the law of Christ”. This is of supreme importance and yet these commands never come up in the discussions of same-sex attraction and celibacy. One of my friends went through a divorce and she was told by a Christian influenced by John Piper’s teaching to “remain unmarried”. She was told that remarriage was a sin, even though she was badly wronged and the divorce was just and necessary. She replied “so is the church going to invite me to family meals every night, arrange regular visits, take on responsibility of care if I am unwell” etc. And she had a right to ask that. It works both ways.

  299. Gram3 wrote:

    I would tell you to be celibate and that it will be difficult because following Jesus is difficult

    Yes following Jesus is difficult but the context of that in Scripture is from unbelievers who oppose the gospel. Much suffering that single people endure is caused by the church with their idolatry of marriage. It was at church that I felt most lonely, most alienated and excluded. Since I took a back seat and went less frequently I have become a lot more content in being single. The Bible nowhere permits believers to inflict suffering on each other.

  300. ishy wrote:

    Just because you have a great married life doesn’t mean that’s what the world has. And implying such it’s really kind of offensive to those of use who don’t. Many of us are here on this site for that very reason.

    I’d also say what may be a struggle or temptation for one isn’t for another.

    I’ve always taken marriage very serious and have never personally “actively coveted somebody else’s husband” as okra was saying was true of herself.

    That’s another reason I resent the crud out of the Billy Graham Rule, it assumes ~ all ~ women are lusting after married guys, when for some of us, like me, that has never, ever been the case.

    If a married guy had hit on me, I would not have taken him up on it but slapped his face and reminded him he was married. I would’ve been insulted by it, not flattered.

  301. Refugee wrote:

    Another thought that keeps returning: What kind of god would deliberately create people who are wired a certain way and then set up the rules so that they can never experience love and belonging according to those rules?

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean here.

    I’m over 40, a hetero, and have never married, so I have never had sex. I may never “experience love and belonging” if we are referring to marital sex and marriage here, because I may never marry.

  302. Darlene wrote:

    I can’t help but be puzzled why intelligent, rational women such as Aimee Byrd remain in the Comp. Camp when they are so easily dismissed.

    I was just saying this very thing a few days ago on this blog on a prior thread.

  303. ZechZav wrote:

    Two unmarried gay men are not violating this commandment, nor are a heterosexual couple who live together and support each other faithfully. I have colleagues in both categories and I refuse to condemn them.

    Are we talking celibates here? If not, I cannot agree. If you’re saying sex outside of marriage is oakley doakley, it’s making a mockery out of my virginity at 40-something, which I don’t appreciate.

  304. Daisy wrote:

    I’m over 40, a hetero, and have never married, so I have never had sex. I may never “experience love and belonging” if we are referring to marital sex and marriage here, because I may never marry.

    Because I don’t accept the traditional view, I am now in the same position. I am not in a relationship and there is a very high possibility that I will be single for the rest of my life. And I can live with that. And marriage is not a bed of roses, relationships are hard work. So I try to keep a healthy perspective.

    But if gay people are told that they must stay celibate under threat of ex-communication or church discipline whilst you are free to look for someone, it shows that it is not the same thing. And this alienation, exclusion and double standard has a very cruel and deep psychological impact.

  305. Rebecca Prewett wrote:

    or what marriage means.

    Human sexuality does not have to = marriage.

    Some of us never marry. Complementarians like to brush over that.

    I don’t lack sexuality because I’m single, and my femaleness or femininity doesn’t need a male partner to complete or define it.

  306. Gram3 wrote:

    Nashville was flooded not that long ago

    Nashville is flooding tonight…….. not as bad as 2010, though. Rescues are under way – that is the true Nashville Statement!

  307. Daisy wrote:

    Are we talking celibates here? If not, I cannot agree. If you’re saying sex outside of marriage is oakley doakley, it’s making a mockery out of my virginity at 40-something, which I don’t appreciate.

    I respect your decision to live according to your own conscience and conviction before God. If you feel something is wrong then you live by it. But I will be bound only to my own conviction and understanding of the Bible. I don’t want to get into a digression on this topic on this forum but there are many good books out there that challenge the traditional position and go through exegetically each Scripture used in relation to this, and brings up many passages which are either ignored or explained away by the church. One is Philo Thelos’ volumes Divine Sex and God is Not a Homophobe.

  308. Rebecca Prewett wrote:

    It does not help me at all in ministering to the ladyboys in Thailand. I’ve met a number of them during my visits to Thailand and have had some in depth, even ongoing, conversations with a few. The ones who told me their life stories were born unambiguously male yet, for various reasons, they were raised as girls. In their teens, they were given female hormones. Eventually they had varying degrees of surgery. It is not so easy to simply “go back to being a man” when one Never experienced life that way.

    Reminds me of this-

    GIRLS II MEN – Inside the baffling Caribbean village where little girls turn into BOYS at the age of 12… and even suddenly grow penises
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4187004/guevedoces-girls-turn-into-boys-salinas/

    “Children thought to be female grow penis at puberty due to rare genetic disorder”

  309. Josh wrote:

    To restate what I understand y’all to have been saying, I’d put it like this: Centuries ago, all the way back to the church fathers, they just said that women are inferior, therefore patriarchy. Then, when they couldn’t get away with saying that any more, they shifted the underlying justification from one thing to another until they ended up landing on ESS

    That’s what I get at here:
    The Shifting Goal Posts of Complementarianism Show How Bankrupt It Is
    https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/the-shifting-goal-posts-of-complementarianism-show-how-bankrupt-it-is/

  310. ZechZav wrote:

    I do not want other Christians to expect it from me when they do not practice it themselves. I do not want other Christians to expect it from me unless they are prepared to help bear that burden and make some sacrifices themselves.

    I had expected to be married but still find myself single at 40+, I am hetero, and I am a virgin.
    I was a devout Christian for many years and lived this out.

    The church does not provide practical or emotional support for hetero celibate people.

    They prefer to fixate on hetero married couples who have kids still living at home. Anyone who doesn’t fit that demographic is “persona non grata” in most churches.

  311. ZechZav wrote:

    Since I took a back seat and went less frequently I have become a lot more content in being single

    Me too! Singles are ignored in churches. I prefer to spend my Sundays sleeping in then watching “Walking Dead” repeats all day.

  312. Daisy wrote:

    The church does not provide practical or emotional support for hetero celibate people.

    But it also doesn’t judge you or expect you to stay single! You can go on dates and they will encourage you, but they will frown if I had even a close friendship with another gay guy (even if sex was not involved – and to be honest, I am not interested in gay sex).

  313. ZechZav wrote:

    or church discipline whilst you are free to look for someone, it shows that it is not the same thing.

    I don’t entirely agree here. I can go look, and believe me, I used to try dating sites, but most men are weirdos or jerks, so I remain single.

    Being able to look is not a guarantee I am going to get married.

    I’d love to be married, but it looks to me I’m going to the grave single. I think time has run out for me.

  314. ZechZav wrote:

    But it also doesn’t judge you or expect you to stay single! You can go on dates and they will encourage you, but they will frown if I had even a close friendship with another gay guy (even if sex was not involved – and to be honest, I am not interested in gay sex).

    Uh, no. LOLOLOL. No. I am told I should be content in my singleness, Jesus is my husband, and wanting to be married is “idolatry.”

    I am discouraged from having close male friends single or married because BGR (all women are harlots), and married women don’t want to befriend me (see BGR), and I don’t often bump into single ladies at my age.

  315. Daisy,

    I am really sorry to hear that. That is very different from my experience with church. And what they are telling you is hogwash. It’s normal to want a companion, to want a friend. And we would manage it a lot easier if they would help and be that family and fellowship they only talk about being.

    I really think you would benefit from reading alternative positions. I had to grapple with some very deep questions and face these issues head on, and a simple knowledge of “the Bible says” is not sufficient. All people, gay or straight, married and unmarried, are human beings with emotional and physical needs and desires. Whilst it is technically true that nobody will die of celibacy, people do die of loneliness and we are both as much a human being as they are. And I share this in a spirit of love and hope that you will find peace, contentment and human companionship in a way that is pleasing to God.

    I am sorry if I came across as belittling your position and struggle, it has been very painful for you. Whilst we may disagree theologically, as brother and sister in our Lord I will pray that God will provide for you in this area of your life.

  316. GMFS

    Point 1 of 1: “Reformation”

    Lowlandseer quoted young Mr Strachan upthread on how CBMW and it’s ilk are (in Mr Strachan’s mind) carrying the mighty torch of The Reformation.

    I think he, and others, have got it completely wrong.

    “The Reformation” began, not over doctrine – certainly not the sacred truth that women are babies – but over the selling of indulgences. Luther was not questioning “The Roman Catholic Church”; he was questioning “The Church” as it was then. Throughout the whole of western Europe, there was no other visible or accessible manifestation of the Body of Christ anywhere in existence.

    I realise things were very different further east, but I’m talking specifically about “The Reformation” here. And it seemed to Luther that The Church had become worldly and corrupt; its leaders were in bed with kings, emperors and political power in general, and they were unashamedly greedy for money. The church, IOW, had become just another kingdom of this world, and its love had grown cold. Meanwhile, because of its title and the trappings that came with it, The Church nevertheless claimed – to all intents and purposes – complete ownership of God. Of course, “God” was often something of a sock-puppet.

    The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.

    Wind forward a few centuries. The various “Protestant” sects and splinter groups demanding that God is imprisoned within the houses (doctrinal or otherwise) their hands have made are rather like The Church was back in the day.

    The “C” for “BMW” does not carry the reformation. It is a dead, religious system of this world that itself is part of the very system that shuts the door of the kingdom in people’s faces. We need ongoing reformation, precisely to set people free from it.

  317. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I think he, and others, have got it completely wrong.

    P.S. “He” refers to Mr Strachan, not Lowlandseer – just to be clear!

  318. Gram3 wrote:

    If it was the secular culture, then they just gave the secular culture another reason to mock them mercilessly.

    If this were about secular culture, and they wanted to get good press, they could have put something out about race, not sex.

    We resolve that all people are equal and beloved of god, regardless of race or sex. Period. Done.

  319. Darlene wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Never mind that one of the biggest scandals to come out of their movement concerned protecting child molesters. And the “child molester protector”, CJ Mahaney signed the statement! Maybe kids don’t count in their bubble when it comes to sexual sin?

    Well, I haven’t read this Nashville Statement as of yet, but does it even address child sex abuse, paedophilia, domestic abuse, and the cover up of these things in churches across the U.S.? I’m guessing ‘No’.

    My guess is they think it’s covered under the “no sex outside of marriage” declaration.

  320. Gram3 wrote:

    . I think that that Mohler and Burk and Moore have left themselves some strategic wiggle room by not explicitly putting hierarchy into the Nashville Statement but mentioning Pre-Fall and leaving it to the reader to infer hierarchy. That way CBMW can move the goalpost gradually as the older generation graduates to glory.

    That is close to my opinion. I thought it was terribly broad for them. Although I think they would argue that it’s a statement of affirmations and not meant to be detailed. (That will come later as they see fit)

    The big indicator to me is was they made sure to include “pre fall” in the statement. They are covered. 🙂

    The pre fall business is vile.

  321. Darlene wrote:

    I can’t help but be puzzled why intelligent, rational women such as Aimee Byrd remain in the Comp. Camp when they are so easily dismissed.

    I have known a lot of women like that for years. Educated, professional,smart, accomplished and totally free to function within their marriage in any way they see fit. Comp doctrine is not limiting for them because they have no desire to pastor a church.

    In order to leave comp Doctrine they would usually have to change their entire Social Circle.

  322. ZechZav wrote:

    Many straight people also have to face this reality – either never married, widowed, divorced or possibly other reasons. But I don’t want to be consigned to it.

    Indeed. There is always the ‘possibility’ left open to straight people, but that is different. Of course you could throw off the rules you learned in sunday school and say they are meant for another time, not meant for people single after 25 or so, not for committing loved same sex relationships. Many many straight people have and as long as you don’t get pregnant or move in together, your church will never mention it.

    But then, I don’t think consensual sex between non-married people is a terrible sin at this point. It doesn’t hurt anyone else. And at this point, you could get married if you choose. Or you could hold hands, kiss, etc, as we talked about above.

  323. Lydia wrote:

    My guess is they think it’s covered under the “no sex outside of marriage” declaration.

    This is just another form of sin leveling!

    There is a huge difference between two consulting adults having sex outside of marriage and adults raping children! But they don’t seem to care about abuse at all. There actions speak volumes about what is important to them.

  324. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    GMFS

    Point 1 of 1: “Reformation”

    Lowlandseer quoted young Mr Strachan upthread on how CBMW and it’s ilk are (in Mr Strachan’s mind) carrying the mighty torch of The Reformation.

    I think he, and others, have got it completely wrong.

    “The Reformation” began, not over doctrine – certainly not the sacred truth that women are babies – but over the selling of indulgences. Luther was not questioning “The Roman Catholic Church”; he was questioning “The Church” as it was then. Throughout the whole of western Europe, there was no other visible or accessible manifestation of the Body of Christ anywhere in existence.

    I realise things were very different further east, but I’m talking specifically about “The Reformation” here. And it seemed to Luther that The Church had become worldly and corrupt; its leaders were in bed with kings, emperors and political power in general, and they were unashamedly greedy for money. The church, IOW, had become just another kingdom of this world, and its love had grown cold. Meanwhile, because of its title and the trappings that came with it, The Church nevertheless claimed – to all intents and purposes – complete ownership of God. Of course, “God” was often something of a sock-puppet.

    The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.

    Wind forward a few centuries. The various “Protestant” sects and splinter groups demanding that God is imprisoned within the houses (doctrinal or otherwise) their hands have made are rather like The Church was back in the day.

    The “C” for “BMW” does not carry the reformation. It is a dead, religious system of this world that itself is part of the very system that shuts the door of the kingdom in people’s faces. We need ongoing reformation, precisely to set people free from it.

    Amen. Great comment.

  325. Daisy wrote:

    No. I am told I should be content in my singleness

    Some do this, some don’t.

    I would like to talk about the statement that marriage is made for ‘procreation’ here because I think it’s relevant. If you get to an age where you cannot have kids, or you marry someone who has had, say, a vasectomy, are you no longer fulfilling whatever weird ideas they have for marriage according to this statement? Are they going to discourage 60 year old men from marrying someone their own age, cause kids? I know a woman who married for the first time in her 50’s and they’re obviously not having kids.

    Maybe this would get into the prescriptive/descriptive thing, except for people Like Denny Burk, everything seems proscriptive.

  326. Lydia wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    I can’t help but be puzzled why intelligent, rational women such as Aimee Byrd remain in the Comp. Camp when they are so easily dismissed.

    I have known a lot of women like that for years. Educated, professional,smart, accomplished and totally free to function within their marriage in any way they see fit. Comp doctrine is not limiting for them because they have no desire to pastor a church.

    In order to leave comp Doctrine they would usually have to change their entire Social Circle.

    This is how i see it too. There are no benefits to leaving and no penalties for staying.

    unless Aimee (and the rest) finally gets mad enough at the obvious misogyny of people on her ‘side’. I keep waiting for that day.

  327. Bridget wrote:

    There is a huge difference between two consulting adults having sex outside of marriage and adults raping children! But they don’t seem to care about abuse at all.

    Consent is hugely important, but goes unmentioned.

    I think this is all in icky territory for them. For starters, they want to pretend none of it happens. And if they really got into consent they might have to get into marital rape, which they would also like to pretend doesn’t happen or in the worst cases is allowed.

    Thinking of things they could have made statements about, how about that? Consent. Completely ignored and the only thing that is really important.

  328. ZechZav wrote:

    But if gay people are told that they must stay celibate under threat of ex-communication or church discipline whilst you are free to look for someone, it shows that it is not the same thing. And this alienation, exclusion and double standard has a very cruel and deep psychological impact.

    My church thinks I’m just an ordinary straight single 30 year old guy who simply hasn’t found the right woman yet. I can guarantee that I’d be treated in a vastly different manner if they knew that I’m a single gay guy – never mind the fact that I’ve “never known a man” (or a woman, but that goes without saying). To underscore that, in my church and in my community, I have personally seen the level of ignore-ance I’ve seen toward me (i.e. they tend to forget that I’m there), versus the constant scrutiny and fear they show toward people they know to not be straight.

  329. @ Lea:
    I totally understand their position even if I disagree with it. Not everyone is into Doctrine to that degree. For me, it’s not about wanting some leadership position because I don’t believe in leadership positions within the body of Christ. So that’s not it.

    I do think all truth is worth seeking. Not easy and many people have different understandings of what that means so I’m not trying to make a dividing category here.

    But when it comes down to one can’t discuss other views/interpretations depending on what church you are in, it’s ridiculous. That is what I find so divisive and stifling. Not the fact they disagree.

    My step sister goes to a flaming liberal CBF Church. It’s very liturgical and high brow. They actually advertise that they perform homosexual marriages.

    But a while back they hired a pedophile who had served his five minutes. He had a career in Ministry before he got caught. So every time she goes to church there’s this guy on stage.

    People were told it was unforgiving and hateful not to accept his apology. And he needed to make a living. Discussion cut off. Now any concerns about him being on staff are just “hateful”.

    It’s the same stuff!

  330. Lydia wrote:

    Funny, I thought he was just picking a fight, too.

    I thought it was funny. Doesn’t mean I agree with everything h he said.

  331. Lydia wrote:

    People were told it was unforgiving and hateful not to accept his apology. And he needed to make a living. Discussion cut off. Now any concerns about him being on staff are just “hateful”.

    Good to see that conservative churches do not have exclusive rights to hypocrisy.

  332. Lydia wrote:

    For me, it’s not about wanting some leadership position

    I never did either (although I sort of have one that I didn’t expect, which is interesting). But I am not interested in hearing anything that limits women in their lives and marriages. [And any emphasis on marriage and kid focus is lost on me anyways because I’m single.]

    On other doctrinal points, I do not want to be anywhere that tries to make me agree on everything. Just let us disagree and be friends. Unless you get to something that is too much, like letting pedophiles run free, or misogyny or hatefulness. There are places to live and let live and places to draw a line in the sand. I just think a lot of people are drawing the wrong lines.

  333. Lydia wrote:

    I do think all truth is worth seeking. Not easy and many people have different understandings of what that means so I’m not trying to make a dividing category here.
    But when it comes down to one can’t discuss other views/interpretations depending on what church you are in, it’s ridiculous. That is what I find so divisive and stifling. Not the fact they disagree.

    Yes it is. And along that line but only slightly different let me say this.

    I keep running to the idea that when I say something more middle of the road people rush to accuse me of one sort of radical idea or the other-based apparently on the current trend to think that everybody has to be a sold out fanatic willing to go to ridiculous extremes in one direction or the other.

    And there is the idea that one must adhere to some identifiable ideology as opposed to being one’s own person. There can be tremendous social pressure in this direction. If one refuses to be categorized then people will slap some category on you because apparently the very idea that someone might think their own ideas and do their own reasoning and worse yet refuse to pretend otherwise-that is unthinkable.

    On, well. Maybe we all need to be working on our black belt in self esteem so that the false security of running with the crowd will be less appealing.

  334. okrapod wrote:

    Maybe we all need to be working on our black belt in self esteem so that the false security of running with the crowd will be less appealing.

    Definitely.

  335. Not having read everything here, maybe this has already been addressed, what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

  336. Gram3 wrote:

    I’m a creature of conservative evangelicalism

    I keep waiting for a Statement from Nashville (SBC’s denominational headquarters) that real conservatives have routed the New Calvinists from the convention. But it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. The new reformers are firmly entrenched in leadership and are running the SBC show right now, speaking for true-blue conservative evangelicals whether or not we agree with their message.

  337. Joy wrote:

    … what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

    Certainly! None of which are gifts or fruit of the Holy Spirit. Whenever a bunch of religious leaders get together to draft and release a “Statement”, they are telling the rest of the church that individual believers cannot hear directly from God about such matters … so they have to intervene and tell us what to think and believe. Biblical truths about soul competency and priesthood of the individual believer are pushed aside by those who desire power through control and manipulation. New Calvinism and certain other “isms” operate this way, and prosper only when the blind follow the blind.

  338. Joy wrote:

    Not having read everything here, maybe this has already been addressed, what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

    I am not a radical feminist, though they would accuse me of being one because I believe in things like equal pay for doing the same work, but the impression I get is that this is another shot in the war over the domination of men/subjugation of women. IOW, keeping women “in their proper place” according to the definition of those who are pulling the strings and pushing the buttons.

  339. Bridget wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    Maybe we all need to be working on our black belt in self esteem so that the false security of running with the crowd will be less appealing.
    Definitely.

    ISTM that people like these manipulators and would-be religious rulers thrive in running-with-the-crowd situations, for all their boasting of being counter-cultural in sermons. And they actively discourage any sort of “working on…self esteem” because it would lessen their power and influence.

    Our self-esteem “is to be found in Jesus,” and they want to make sure they are the ones who define exactly who Jesus is and how we should live in the light of that.

  340. Joy wrote:

    Control, power, manipulation…

    Let me venture as delicately as possible on this subject.

    Yes, it is about power. And when you (generic) have control/ power over a lot of people you can leverage that to get for yourself even more power and more money and more influence. Sometimes people make alliances with things that ought not become allies based on the fact that what the bring to the bargaining table is the very power that they have over people.

    Example: As Nick has pointed out at 5:08 above one of the initial driving forces behind the reformation in Europe included the relationship between church and state, pope and emperor. Both groups had power over people and brought that to the table.

    Look at business mergers of huge corporations. Power aligns with power.

    And an example close to me right now, look at some mean girls gang in middle school which can get influence/ power and then try to control the whole class, and do this apparently for no reason than power itself.

    As in the opposite of Jesus who had power and did not hang on to it but emptied himself…for the purpose of our salvation. Only to in the end tell us that all power in heaven and earth had been given to him.

    So, yep, I think it about power. Power over people. I would not venture to say how big the dreams of these spiritual dwarfs might be, but so long as it is power then it is problematic.

  341. Joy wrote:

    what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

    + deflection, fame, wealth ……..

  342. ZechZav wrote:

    But I don’t want to be consigned to it. I do not want other Christians to expect it from me when they do not practice it themselves. I do not want other Christians to expect it from me unless they are prepared to help bear that burden and make some sacrifices themselves. Jesus said “treat others as you would expect them to treat you – this is the law and the prophets” and “bear one anothers burdens and fulfil the law of Christ”.

    Absolutely agree. IMO the reason for the outsized focus on these particular issues is that they are issues that the great majority of people in the church will not face, so they are easy deflections from our own issues and sins. You rightly feel the thick hypocrisy, and you need to keep showing us when that happens *because that is what love does.*

    I hope that one of the good things that will come out of the Nashville Statement is some good conversations among the younger and the over 55 groups about the implications of it. You may be surprised at how many grandparents talk to each other about gay grandkids who are loved, and they are not going to be happy about the SBC saying their kids are condemned for homosexual or trans feelings. In this case, I think the reasoning will go backward to the text, something I do not recommend, but something that these guys have brought upon us.

  343. Gram3 wrote:

    IMO the reason for the outsized focus on these particular issues is that they are issues that the great majority of people in the church will not face, so they are easy deflections

    I have felt this way for 20 years about LGBT issues and the (imo) outsized focus on them in churches.

  344. ZechZav wrote:

    Much suffering that single people endure is caused by the church with their idolatry of marriage.

    No question about it. I don’t think the intention is to idolize it, but practically speaking that is how it works out. I don’t know what the answer is to that, and I it is not because I have not tried to find one. It is something Gramp3 and I have had an interest in.

  345. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know what the answer is to that, and I it is not because I have not tried to find one.

    Hm. I can’t speak for anybody else, but I would start with no having a marriage sermon on Valentines Day….#I’mLookingAtYouGateway

  346. Bridget wrote:

    There is a huge difference between two consulting adults having sex outside of marriage and adults raping children! But they don’t seem to care about abuse at all.

    “SHOW ME SCRIPTURE!”
    — Raul Rees (Calvary Chapel), comeback to ANY and all dissent

  347. Gram3 wrote:

    Absolutely agree. IMO the reason for the outsized focus on these particular issues is that they are issues that the great majority of people in the church will not face, so they are easy deflections from our own issues and sins. You rightly feel the thick hypocrisy, and you need to keep showing us when that happens *because that is what love does.*

    Always look outside of the churches for “sins” to publically rant about. Never, ever look inside the churches.

  348. Daisy wrote:

    Uh, no. LOLOLOL. No. I am told I should be content in my singleness, Jesus is my husband, and wanting to be married is “idolatry.”

    Back when I was flushing $$$$$$$ down the crapper on dating services, I ran into the flip side of the “Jesus is my husband” dogma. If they’re already married to Jesus, why would they want to commit adultery with a mere mortal like me?

  349. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t entirely agree here. I can go look, and believe me, I used to try dating sites, but most men are weirdos or jerks, so I remain single.

    A lot of women are, too.
    Don’t know what the percentages are for M vs F.

  350. Lea wrote:

    Hm. I can’t speak for anybody else, but I would start with no having a marriage sermon on Valentines Day….#I’mLookingAtYouGateway

    And stop segregating into “couples’ groups” things that don’t need to be segregated (e.g. Bible studies, small groups, etc.).

    Earlier this year, my church had a series of home-based dinner/fellowship gatherings, for which they encouraged “all couples” to sign up. It made me slightly hopping mad, and when I voiced my concern in Sunday School, a married congregant patronizingly told me that they surely didn’t mean it that way. Well, I say, if they didn’t mean it that way, why in the [redacted] did they SAY it that way? So, yeah…

  351. Josh wrote:

    a married congregant patronizingly told me that they surely didn’t mean it that way.

    Wait, what?? LOL. What other way could it be meant?

  352. Shauna has a prayer request up – she and Billy aren’t very far from Houston.

  353. Daisy wrote:

    but not only do certain types of Christians not want people having opposite sex friendships, but one of these doofi actually wrote an editorial basically also condemning same- sex friendships, implying, there may be homosexual undertones, and that that close same sex friendships can turn into an idol.

    Which “one of the doofi” was this?
    And the first thing I noticed was whoever he was, he Played the Fag Card off the bottom of the deck.

    Then you have the awful “Billy Graham Rule” that tells married men that single woman are harlots and married Christian women to shun all single women because we’re supposedly all hussies who want to have affairs with their husbands.

    As I said when the BGR was thrashed about on these threads, it makes sense for a public figure (who may have enemies) in a “GOTCHA!” environment. And that BG adopted it after some sort of sex scandals involving travelling evangelists. In that context, it made sense. But not for everyone at all times in all situations.

    All of which makes me wonder, as a never-married middle aged lady, where am I to go for companionship and friendship?

    Simple. “JEEEESUS(TM)”. (actually pronounced in context in all caps with multiple “E”s…)

  354. Josh wrote:

    It made me slightly hopping mad, and when I voiced my concern in Sunday School, a married congregant patronizingly told me that they surely didn’t mean it that way.

    Sounds like a variant of the “Can’t You Take a Joke?” blame-shift Gaslighting counterattack defense.

  355. ZechZav wrote:

    Much suffering that single people endure is caused by the church with their idolatry of marriage.

    Some commenter at Internet Monk coined the term “Salvation by Marriage Alone”.

    It was at church that I felt most lonely, most alienated and excluded. Since I took a back seat and went less frequently I have become a lot more content in being single.

    With me, it was going “Done to None” for several years then surfacing in a liturgical church on the other bank of the Tiber. (Which has its own problems, but is still better than the Born Agains on the other bank.)

  356. @ Lea:
    I should have added some much-needed context by pointing out that this person happens to work in a profession (I would say which one, but it’s the one big thing we don’t talk about on here, if you know what I mean) where … well, I think they knew they were wrong, but were incapable of admitting it, so they needed to gaslight me into thinking that _I_ was at fault for being too sensitive. That is to say, it’s the world of “alternative facts.”

  357. Josh wrote:

    And stop segregating into “couples’ groups” things that don’t need to be segregated (e.g. Bible studies, small groups, etc.).

    Meh. Our church segregates men and women.

  358. Daisy wrote:

    I was bullied constantly too, and due to Dad’s job, we had to transfer to new states every 2 – 3 years.

    One of my former writing contacts (the one in Louisville) had a similar nomadic job; it was the main reason he went to Homeschooling.

  359. RE tried dating sites for a while, and met a few people, but pretty much nothing. However, she did find a lot-I mean a lot-of middle aged divorced men who really really wanted somebody to talk to on line and pour out their troubles. I even suggested that she could turn it into a business; have computer will talk.

    An awful lot a people have an awful lot of troubles.

  360. Daisy wrote:

    If it makes you feel any better, Protestants and Baptists treat HETERO celibate adults over 25 like weirdo loser freaks who have failed God because we aren’t married and don’t have a Family to Focus On.

    What if you’re 61, male, straight, never married, kinda InCel, and a big fan of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic?

    I’m glad I’m long out of those kinds of churches.

  361. Lea wrote:

    This is how i see it too. There are no benefits to leaving and no penalties for staying.

    Aimee is confessionally Reformed. It isn’t a social matter for her and the other women like Wendy Alsup and Rachel Miller. It will take some willingness to re-examine the confessional basis for male headship in the church and home which is primarily 1 Timothy 2:12-14 and a few others. That isn’t the same as CBMW subordination, thankfully.

  362. brian wrote:

    Most of the answers were “So” God said it that settles it move on. I mean they would quote a few verses and give you that “see I’m right look” then that was the discussion.

    Coup Counted.
    (See How Righteous *I* Am? And (more important) YOU’RE NOT!)

    Those who have never seen the elephant Righteously Scolding the veteran who has…

  363. Josh wrote:

    I should have added some much-needed context by pointing out that this person happens to work in a profession … well, I think they knew they were wrong, but were incapable of admitting it, so they needed to gaslight me into thinking that _I_ was at fault for being too sensitive. That is to say, it’s the world of “alternative facts.”

    I’m sure they came up with some terrific alternative facts.

  364. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    kinda InCel

    Sidenote, but there is apparently a pretty scary redit threat related to this topic.

    I feel a little like I should we’re about to start all sharing online dating stories. Which might make for a fun thread, come to think of it.

  365. Gram3 wrote:

    Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
    I’m pretty sure CBMW thought it’d be an in-house argument with progressive and liberal Christians, and didn’t expect it to go outside or get the traction it did. They made a mistake.

    When you issue a Manifesto with a lot of hoopla, somehow the Outsiders notics.

    I think they should have paid more attention to the Weather Channel or Accuweather. That is part of what I meant by stepping on a rake. It might as well have been signed by Wiley Coyote.

    That’s “WILE E COYOTE. SUPER. GENIUS.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns

  366. okrapod wrote:

    On, well. Maybe we all need to be working on our black belt in self esteem so that the false security of running with the crowd will be less appealing.

    Agreed.

  367. Gram3 wrote:

    Aimee is confessionally Reformed. It isn’t a social matter for her and the other women like Wendy Alsup and Rachel Miller.

    I don’t mean to be flippant. I’m sure they really do believe in ‘headship’ whatever that means. I just think it means different things to them than it does to some. And, as Lydia said, they don’t actually suffer under it.

    But if they change their minds and want to stay confessional reformed, they have other options.

  368. ZechZav wrote:

    And some churches ignore the “plain meaning” of 1 Corinthians 12 and reject speaking in tongues whilst insisting on head coverings from “the plain meaning” of 1 Corinthians 11.

    I got my education on what “the plain meaning of SCRIPTURE” can cover during the heyday of Hal Lindsay. Remember the Plague of Demon Locusts in Revelation?

  369. @ Lea:
    Yes, exactly. There ARE hills to die on. Pedophilia is one of them. Yet, the core group who wrote the Nashville statement played that down in real life.

  370. @ Gram3:

    I don’t even know what confessional reformed is, but the idea that male headship in the home is not the same as CBMW is refreshing. That used to be common in SBC and remains common in the general public, at least that portion of the general public that I am able to observe.

    I believe in male headship in the family. That does not make me a person who believes in bullying or repression or rape or child abuse. I just think that the older idea of who does/ does not wear the pants in the home has a wider application than the CBMW on the one hand or their antithesis on the other hand allow for. To me it means first that there is a man in the house if there are children and if possible. This is a huge sociological problem that the education people talk about also as one of the major causes for troubled adolescents-the absent father. And it means that he is sober and employed if possible and involved and is willing to step up to the plate and try to get stuff done, as opposed to expecting his wife to do it all. He needs to feel the responsibility of at least/ bottom line his share of the leadership.

    I really hate it that people like CBMW make a mockery of what for some is a very workable situation, and I hate it that each side of the argument tries to vilify the other people who disagree.

    Now for anyone who wants to accuse me of being a spawn of the evil one, I am about to launch into how to do two octave scales on the piano with both hands at the same time-up and down-11 year old student style. We will see how that goes. Decades ago when I was in the eight grade I actually had a beginning violin student. That was how I knew that I knew that I did not want to teach music-or anything else-for a living.

  371. Joy wrote:

    Not having read everything here, maybe this has already been addressed, what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

    When one (or a group) have worked hard strategically and deceptively to gain power they are not going to let go of it. What that means is that they have to use a lot of strategies in order to “maintain” control. I see this statement as a way to put people on the spot and I think they meant it to be like that. More dividing. If you don’t agree with all of it, it automatically means you want to perform homosexual marriages in your church. That sort of thing.

    (This is why I don’t do Creed’s or belief statements or anything like that)

    They create divisions/deflections and then Gaslight anyone who says that they are creating divisions.

    It’s really quite simple. they are totalitarians who will use/do anything to keep control.

    The entire Neo Calvinist movement was a divide and conquer strategy. It worked.

  372. Joy wrote:

    Not having read everything here, maybe this has already been addressed, what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

    When one (or a group) have worked hard strategically and deceptively to gain power they are not going to let go of it. What that means is that they have to use a lot of strategies in order to “maintain” control. I see this statement as a way to put people on the spot and I think they meant it to be like that. More dividing. If you don’t agree with all of it, it automatically means you want to perform homosexual marriages in your church. That sort of thing.

    (This is why I don’t do Creed’s or belief statements or anything like that)

    They create divisions/deflections and then Gaslight anyone who says that they are creating divisions.

    It’s really quite simple. they are totalitarians who will use/do anything to keep control.

    The entire Neo Calvinist movement was a divide and conquer strategy. It worked. okrapod wrote:

    I really hate it that people like CBMW make a mockery of what for some is a very workable situation, and I hate it that each side of the argument tries to vilify the other people who disagree.

    Me too. I just think that the church’s approach to the problem is self-defeating and one sided.

    But then I never thought I’d see feminists wearing hijabs, so what do I know? 🙂

  373. Pingback: Discuss Among Yourselves | 1st Feline Battalion

  374. @ ZechZav:

    Well put, and I concur. Scripture is a great and wonderful thing; and as far as holy writings go, it has no equal on the planet. It’s also prone to extremes, not giving it the credence it deserves on one extreme, and making far too much of it at the other.

  375. The Nashville Statement is obviously ultimately an ‘exclusionary tactic’ giving supporting justification to the leaders of the local church body of Christ believers who scribe to said statement in keeping LGBTQ+ permanence effectively & effectually out of subscribing local 501(c)3 church congregations.

  376. Daisy wrote:

    @ ZechZav:

    I don’t believe any sex outside of marriage is approved in the Bible. Anyone who is single is supposed to abstain.

    Daisy, I’m gonna have to agree with you on this one. The key word there is “approved“. If a person wants to be a faithful Christian – that is, to be obedient to our Lord’s expectations – I can see no other way around it. Now, if people choose to have sexual relations outside of marriage, that is their prerogative. But then don’t slap a Christian Seal of Approval on it.

  377. okrapod wrote:

    So, yep, I think it about power. Power over people. I would not venture to say how big the dreams of these spiritual dwarfs might be, but so long as it is power then it is problematic.

    I bet a lot of these guys were introverts, victims of bullying, ignored, dateless, etc. when they were younger. As New Calvinist king-pens who push for elder-rule, subordination of women, etc., they can exercise the power they dreamed of in every compartment of their life: church, home, respect of peers.

  378. @ Rebecca Prewett:

    “until there is a cogent, evangelical articulation of what it means to be human, to be created in the image of God, how can issues like what it means to be male or female even be addressed?”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    a cogent, evangelical articulation of what it means to be human… a small group of people deciding that for everyone else?

    i can’t think of a scarier prospect.

  379. An Attorney wrote:

    Another view of the “Nashville Statement”:
    https://www.nurturingfaith.net/john-pierce-blog/what-the-nashville-statement-clarifies-and-why-we-should-be-grateful/

    As the writer of the linked statement observes, I and others like me have nothing meaningful in common with the authors of the GnashedTeeth Statement.

    I decided a few years back that, just as those who claim to believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture (nobody actually does believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture) dismiss me as a heretic and an enemy of their faith, I must similarly separate myself from them. I don’t need them to go to hell so that I can go to heaven; my God is much, much greater than the pitiful sock-puppet they worship, having first created in their own image. But they are of a completely different faith.

    I have, if anything, less in common with them than with reiki healers and other new-age religionists, because although the latter believe they have uncovered truths, at least they aren’t deceived into thinking they have created God.

  380. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    GMFS

    Point 1 of 1: “Reformation”

    Lowlandseer quoted young Mr Strachan upthread on how CBMW and it’s ilk are (in Mr Strachan’s mind) carrying the mighty torch of The Reformation.

    I think he, and others, have got it completely wrong.

    “The Reformation” began, not over doctrine – certainly not the sacred truth that women are babies – but over the selling of indulgences. Luther was not questioning “The Roman Catholic Church”; he was questioning “The Church” as it was then. Throughout the whole of western Europe, there was no other visible or accessible manifestation of the Body of Christ anywhere in existence.

    I realise things were very different further east, but I’m talking specifically about “The Reformation” here. And it seemed to Luther that The Church had become worldly and corrupt; its leaders were in bed with kings, emperors and political power in general, and they were unashamedly greedy for money. The church, IOW, had become just another kingdom of this world, and its love had grown cold. Meanwhile, because of its title and the trappings that came with it, The Church nevertheless claimed – to all intents and purposes – complete ownership of God. Of course, “God” was often something of a sock-puppet.

    The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.

    Wind forward a few centuries. The various “Protestant” sects and splinter groups demanding that God is imprisoned within the houses (doctrinal or otherwise) their hands have made are rather like The Church was back in the day.

    The “C” for “BMW” does not carry the reformation. It is a dead, religious system of this world that itself is part of the very system that shuts the door of the kingdom in people’s faces. We need ongoing reformation, precisely to set people free from it.

  381. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    … nobody actually does believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture…

    Well, on reflection, that’s a good approximation; but it may not be entirely true. No preacher, by definition, believes in the sufficiency of scripture (otherwise he would never dare to preach, thereby adding his own fallible insights and opinions to the Sufficient Scriptures). But there may be people who do, at least for a few minutes before they suffocate.

  382. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I and others like me have nothing meaningful in common with the authors of the GnashedTeeth Statement.

    I already knew I was on the opposite side from these guys. I’m only concerned about how it might affect others…(and I guess myself when I happen to run into people who believe women are less than equal)

  383. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    No preacher, by definition, believes in the sufficiency of scripture (otherwise he would never dare to preach, thereby adding his own fallible insights and opinions to the Sufficient Scriptures).

    Well said! 🙂

  384. Max wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    So, yep, I think it about power. Power over people. I would not venture to say how big the dreams of these spiritual dwarfs might be, but so long as it is power then it is problematic.
    I bet a lot of these guys were introverts, victims of bullying, ignored, dateless, etc. when they were younger. As New Calvinist king-pens who push for elder-rule, subordination of women, etc., they can exercise the power they dreamed of in every compartment of their life: church, home, respect of peers.

    That’s my pet theory also, sure would seem to explain a lot of the John Piper/Owen Strachan-type nonsense. A lot of the neocals I’ve known (as as a former elder in a neocal, have known a few) were very nerdy, nebbish types. Even Mark Driscoll, for all his alpha male posturing and relative big-man-on-campus history in high school, seems more like the sort of guy who was shoved around way back when rather than someone likely to do much shoving around. His martial arts, break-the-recalcitrant-elders’-noses talk sound tinny, like it’s just talk and overcompensation from one who dealt with a lot of bullying in his day. Think you’re right, Neocalvinism and the woman-subjugation is for the most part carried out by a group of guys who are deeply wounded, disturbed, insecure, and emotionally infantile.

  385. Daisy wrote:

    Are we talking celibates here? If not, I cannot agree. If you’re saying sex outside of marriage is oakley doakley, it’s making a mockery out of my virginity at 40-something, which I don’t appreciate.

    Although ZechZav can speak for himself, I sincerely doubt that he’s mocking your belief system. To disagree is not the same thing as mockery. Here at TWW we have a broad range of denizens with widely disparate beliefs and non-beliefs, who for the most part have learned to coexist peacefully.

  386. Law Prof wrote:

    very nerdy, nebbish types … deeply wounded, disturbed, insecure, and emotionally infantile

    Whew! And they are now pastoring churches!!

  387. Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    <blockquote

    Wind forward a few centuries. The various “Protestant” sects and splinter groups demanding that God is imprisoned within the houses (doctrinal or otherwise) their hands have made are rather like The Church was back in the day.

    And this is what makes the state of Christianity today so mind-numbing and crazy. Which splinter group is right – they all claim to be. “Well,” they will say, “WE follow the Bible.”. Nevermind that they disagree on this issue and that issue. The real nasty problem is when these various splinter groups start calling each other HERETICS. A person looking at this from the outside can be quite perplexed. And when you are on the inside, it becomes imperative that you take a stand and oppose all those other HERETICS. *Let me add here that I recognize there might be exceptions, but I would say that they are in the minority.

    I’m thankful we don’t have a theocracy in the U.S. Can you even imagine what would happen? All these religious groups would be vying for power. Which brings me to the New Calvinists. I think if they had their way, they would be the ONLY option – like the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe before the Reformation. Just think what these New Reformers would do to dissenters if they were the only church around. They’re caustic and belligerent now as it is, without being the only kids on the block.
    I shudder to think.

  388. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Darlene:

    You took the words right out of my mouth!

    LoL! And I don’t even know how that happened. But I’m on my phone and nutty things happen sometimes. You could charge me with plagiarism. 🙂

  389. Max wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:

    very nerdy, nebbish types … deeply wounded, disturbed, insecure, and emotionally infantile

    Whew! And they are now pastoring churches!!

    I can vouch for insecure and emotionally arrested. I have had enough interaction to believe it’s part of what attracted them to the movement.

    As to nerdy, that seems to be in the eye of the beholder. 🙂

  390. Lydia wrote:

    Sorry for duplicate.

    Lydia, are you on your phone too? I swear I’m all thumbs on this phone. It’s surprising anything comes out right at all.

  391. Lydia wrote:

    As to nerdy, that seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

    there is good, secure nerdy, where you like stuff that is simply ‘uncool’, and there is insecure, hates the world nerdy. I think I know which kind these guys are.

  392. Lydia wrote:

    Max wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    very nerdy, nebbish types … deeply wounded, disturbed, insecure, and emotionally infantile
    Whew! And they are now pastoring churches!!
    I can vouch for insecure and emotionally arrested. I have had enough interaction to believe it’s part of what attracted them to the movement.
    As to nerdy, that seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

    I teach law and accounting and it doesn’t get much nerdier than that, at least according to popular stereotype, but in my opinion, a large percentage in the movement are nerds writ large, and not the kind of lovable, clever way like those in Revenge of the Nerds (movie from way back in my day), but leaning more towards the malevolent, like Mark David Chapman (who was son of an allegedly abusive father, bullied in school, and was something of a religious zealot who attended a church that came out of the reformed tradition and attended an evangelical college in the Deep South–wow does he not sound like the prototype for a neocalvinist!), and while most never physically assault another or kill like Chapman did, one has to wonder if being emotionally assaulted and spiritually killed by a tyrant behind a pulpit or on a board of elders is any real day at the beach by comparison.

  393. Darlene wrote:

    If a person wants to be a faithful Christian – that is, to be obedient to our Lord’s expectations – I can see no other way around it. Now, if people choose to have sexual relations outside of marriage, that is their prerogative. But then don’t slap a Christian Seal of Approval on it.

    It does beg the question though, and I think it’s a fair one.
    Does everything have to bear a Christian Seal of Approval?
    Or can reason, common sense, and a sparing dose of utilitarianism do the trick too?

  394. Lydia wrote:

    emotionally arrested. I have had enough interaction to believe it’s part of what attracted them to the movement.

    Ah, a godly miracle cure (excuse, really) for Little Man Syndrome!

  395. Darlene wrote:

    I’m thankful we don’t have a theocracy in the U.S. Can you even imagine what would happen? All these religious groups would be vying for power.

    “Just like the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”

  396. Law Prof wrote:

    That’s my pet theory also, sure would seem to explain a lot of the John Piper/Owen Strachan-type nonsense. A lot of the neocals I’ve known (as as a former elder in a neocal, have known a few) were very nerdy, nebbish types. Even Mark Driscoll, for all his alpha male posturing and relative big-man-on-campus history in high school, seems more like the sort of guy who was shoved around way back when rather than someone likely to do much shoving around. His martial arts, break-the-recalcitrant-elders’-noses talk sound tinny, like it’s just talk and overcompensation from one who dealt with a lot of bullying in his day.

    Which is the exact same impression I get from “Womb Tomb” Swanson:
    Geeky Nebbish Omega Male who’s managed to climb to Alpha by Divine Right and is throwing his weight around HARD.

  397. Max wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    So, yep, I think it about power. Power over people. I would not venture to say how big the dreams of these spiritual dwarfs might be, but so long as it is power then it is problematic.
    I bet a lot of these guys were introverts, victims of bullying, ignored, dateless, etc. when they were younger. As New Calvinist king-pens who push for elder-rule, subordination of women, etc., they can exercise the power they dreamed of in every compartment of their life: church, home, respect of peers.

    To me, they are still, nerds…the ugly/smug kind.
    Anyway, it’s up to every believer to put some of these issues up for study, and decide how such decrees line up with scripture.
    I really don’t need someone policing me with what pronouns I might choose to use.

  398. Max wrote:

    I bet a lot of these guys were introverts, victims of bullying, ignored, dateless, etc. when they were younger. As New Calvinist king-pens who push for elder-rule, subordination of women, etc., they can exercise the power they dreamed of in every compartment of their life: church, home, respect of peers.

    Remember the Santa Barbara Shooter from a couple years back?
    Gunning down coed after coed in revenge for being dateless before turning the gun on himself?
    After leaving an online self-justifying Manifesto amid thousands of Selfies?

    I bet a lot of these guys were introverts, victims of bullying, ignored, dateless, etc. when they were younger.

    My reply to these Big Dog MOGs is the same as to the Santa Barbara Shooter:
    Introvert? Check.
    Victim of Bullying? Check.
    Ignored? Check.
    Dateless? Check, Check, and Check.
    YOU KNOW WHAT I DID? I GOT MYSELF A LIFE THAT DIDN’T DEPEND ON WOMEN THROWING THEMSELVES ALL OVER ME!

  399. Darlene wrote:

    If a person wants to be a faithful Christian – that is, to be obedient to our Lord’s expectations – I can see no other way around it. Now, if people choose to have sexual relations outside of marriage, that is their prerogative. But then don’t slap a Christian Seal of Approval on it.

    In my original point I said nothing about approval. I said I refuse to condemn unless it harmed a neighbour (Romans 13:8) and therefore equating adultery with non-harmful activities is fallacious. I don’t agree with your view but to go into that would be a digressed prolonged discussion on various Bible verses. What two consenting adults do in their bedrooms in nobody elses business. However if I had reason to suspect child abuse, rape or violence then I would condemn it and have a duty to report it.

    If you believe sex outside of marriage is wrong then you must live by it and I respect that. I actually think it is the ideal and I certainly reject “anything goes”. However I just don’t think it is as black and white as the church makes it. Therefore I do not shackle people with rules and heavy burdens. As Paul says, if you love your neighbour as yourself, you fulfil the law automatically. I think we need to agree to disagree on this point.

  400. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    No preacher, by definition, believes in the sufficiency of scripture (otherwise he would never dare to preach, thereby adding his own fallible insights and opinions to the Sufficient Scriptures).

    Yep, it’s those fallible insights which have got us in trouble!

    The early church stuck with the Gospel (little of that actually being preached today). Your comment reminded me of something Paul said in this regard:

    “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I decided to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith would not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

  401. ZechZav wrote:

    What two consenting adults do in their bedrooms in nobody elses business.

    When people get to preaching how much right they have to do whatever in their own bedrooms, then it is no longer in their own bedrooms but out in the public sphere. When they no longer just do whatever in private but also teach others to do whatever, then it is a different matter. Somewhere there is chapter and verse on that. When something goes public then the public has a right to comment. That is what going public means.

  402. @ Law Prof:
    As a reader of history and looking at certain movements across the years, teens/young men are attracted to movements where they think they can be important in some kind of pecking order caste. They look to leaders almost as father figures who inspire their loyalty. These young men often come from situations where they were not guided to productive pursuits or to think as individuals. Sometimes they just went to college or youth group and got caught up in a movement.

    But I also blame the culture a bit. I think there has been a bit of an over correction and now many young men feel marginalized and blamed for all societies ills. So they join groups. And the church, of course, tries to over correct that problem and make it the Gospel. Females are outpacing males in admittance to graduate school, standardized tests, etc. One dean of admissions at a stem school told me they added a football team trying to attract males!

    As I recently told a young Neo Cal, I do not consider him the enemy but a casualty. A casualty of wrong thinking, wrong decisions. And I can say that because they (or their gurus) have absolutely no influence over me whatsoever. And I”m old. 🙂

  403. @ Lea:
    I had to qualify because I tell my teen and her friends not to discount the nerdy guys in STEM magnet at their school! In my day it was the pocket protector guys and they all went on to do great things. As my brother once said, now they are all running the world because without them we can’t get through one day of business. 🙂

  404. @ Muff Potter:
    Reason is out the window. Now your heart is deceitful and you can’t trust it. But we are supposed to trust the gurus hearts. (You can’t make this stuff up. Cognitive dissonance on steroids)

  405. okrapod wrote:

    When something goes public then the public has a right to comment. That is what going public means.

    And the church has been exercising their right to do that since forever. Beyond that, there were vociferous complaints after the US Supreme Court struck down their legislation of consenting adults’ private bedroom activities … in 2003.

    It is a matter of historical record that the LGBT rights movement was born out of government’s oppression – with the encouragement and full support of the church – of private individuals doing private things in private. The movement ultimately found success only by going public. So if LGBT people talking about our existence in public is the issue that the church has, then the church only has itself to blame.

    I’m not going to tell anyone to shut up. All I will say is that if the conservative evangelical church is going to keep saying what the church has been saying, don’t expect me to start paying heed to what is being said.

  406. Muff Potter wrote:

    Although ZechZav can speak for himself, I sincerely doubt that he’s mocking your belief system. To disagree is not the same thing as mockery. Here at TWW we have a broad range of denizens with widely disparate beliefs and non-beliefs, who for the most part have learned to coexist peacefully.

    This logic reminds me of the straight Christians who were babbling on about how the ability of same-sex couples to get civil recognition of their relationships (i.e. civil marriage) would “devalue” so-called traditional marriage. It’s as if no straight people are going to want to get married now that same-sex couples can do so… riiiight.

  407. Darlene wrote:

    You could charge me with plagiarism.

    LOL!

    You could subsequently claim that “mistakes were made” and carry on regardless.

  408. @ Josh:

    If I understand it correctly the original comment to which I responded had to do with any and all sex outside of marriage, not just LGBTQ sex.

    I can understand what you are saying, but the issue is much larger than just homosexual sex.

  409. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    15 more comments and we’re up to 500…

    It may be time for you to call into action your alter egos.

    I am waiting for another one to pop up, one that spouts irrelevant platitudes at weird times.

  410. okrapod wrote:

    I don’t even know what confessional reformed is, but the idea that male headship in the home is not the same as CBMW is refreshing.

    Their view of headship is more of a prescriptive office rather than a descriptive function. Certainly they view elders and deacons as offices and those offices are reserved for males. Presbyterians are bound by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms which are ultimately bound by the Bible. The WCF has been modified to separate church from state in the past, so it is possible that it may be modified in the future.

  411. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Gunning down coed after coed in revenge for being dateless before turning the gun on himself?

    i can’t help but think that women stayed away from him precisely because he was ‘off’ and they sensed danger. (Not saying that true for everyone)

  412. Gram3 wrote:

    Presbyterians are bound by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms which are ultimately bound by the Bible.

    Interestingly, my (presby) minister said we are to be ‘guided’ by the confessions not bound. Or something.

  413. okrapod wrote:

    I am waiting for another [alter ego] to pop up, one that spouts irrelevant platitudes at weird times.

    No, that would be me.

  414. @ okrapod:
    Yes, and they very much want legislative and constitutional changes that would create Jim Crow conditions for anyone who so much as admits they aren’t strsight. I bet some of these people would happily implement the policies of a Certain Nation in Eurasia, up to and including things modeled on the concentration camps for GBTQ men in a nation -state that begins with the letter C and is a client state of said Certain Nation.

    I think this is WAY bigger than most of you are suggesting, but I really cannot state why if I choose to comply with the sites rules and policies. (Which I’ve already broken in my 1st ‘graph here.)

    We really MUST not go there if we wish to retain the best things about our place of residence and, for most of us, our births as well.

    The dam will indeed break if we don’t fix it, and soon. ASAP. Hoping some people pick up the ball and run with it this coming Tuesday.

    The UN has, after all, issued warnings over the last 2 werks – not one, but several.

  415. Lea wrote:

    Interestingly, my (presby) minister said we are to be ‘guided’ by the confessions not bound. Or something.

    This makes abundant sense.

    I love the Wikipedia rule “Break all rules” – this is something a fundagelical would probably not be able to understand, but it explicitly does not mean do whatever the **** you want. It means that any rule may be broken in letter if that’s the best way of preserving the spirit of the rules.

    In truth, no set of rules can ever be written that doesn’t throw up anomalies, injustices or absurdities in real life. That’s one reason behind Paul’s statement that “righteousness cannot be achieved by law”. Much more could be said, but it’s bedtime in Blighty (early start tomorrow as we’re off up Ben Nevis, which we haven’t done together since before the weans were born).

  416. Lea wrote:

    my (presby) minister said we are to be ‘guided’ by the confessions not bound.

    My mistake. I should have specified the PCA instead of “Presbyterians.”

  417. @ okrapod:
    I will just add that the irony and hypocrisy of churches choosing to implement a new (but same old same old) kind of Jim Crow = (for me) those congregations do not fit into the actual body of Christ. They are espousing a “gospel” of hate; one that has been freely used as a license/permission to eliminate those who are “different.”

    I grew up with kids who had Holocaust survivors in their immediate families, so all i can say is: Never Again.

  418. Gram3 wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    my (presby) minister said we are to be ‘guided’ by the confessions not bound.

    My mistake. I should have specified the PCA instead of “Presbyterians.”

    I wasn’t trying to call you wrong, just adding that note as I liked it. Obviously I’m not pca, and I’m a rather new Presbyterian in general, so don’t quote me on everything.

  419. Lydia wrote:

    As a reader of history and looking at certain movements across the years, teens/young men are attracted to movements where they think they can be important in some kind of pecking order caste. They look to leaders almost as father figures who inspire their loyalty.

    Homeless Unicorn Guy often refers to the similarities between New Calvinism and the Hitler Youth movement. Both are characterized by blind allegiance to leaders and undermining existing structures. When you are told that you have come into the world for such a time as this, you certainly think you are pretty important.

  420. @ NJ:
    There are, however, plenty of people who believe just that + anything other than straight and cisgender is inherently sinful.

    I used to know peopld in ex-gay ministries who could make up long lists of both if they so chose.