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

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.

Correction: to = tv.

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

@ elastigirl:

said with affection.

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.

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?

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”.

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.

@ 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!

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.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Naturally, this comment was intended ironically.

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.

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/

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.

@ 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.’”

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.

Lowlandseer wrote:

3 Stand and walk like a man not a woman

Uh, what?

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…

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.

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.”

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!

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.

@ Philmonomer:
That IS odd.

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.

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

@ NJ:
Wow. Great point.

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.

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)

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.

@ 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?

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…..

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.

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.)

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

So, the Sufficiency of Scripture doesn’t actually mean the bible is enough on its own; only that it is Sufficient.

Hee.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

@ 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…

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.”

@ okrapod:
Which one? They were pretty broad putting several issues under one umbrella.

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

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”?

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.

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.

@ Refugee:
I cannot emphasize the horror enough. “in order to” = “for the express purpose of”

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!”

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.

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?

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).

@ 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.

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?

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.

@ okrapod:
Naive, at best.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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?

@ okrapod:
It was an analogy. Never mind. Grace.

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’?

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.

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/

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.

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.

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!”

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

Josh wrote:

@ Lea:
Is this what you saw?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

Yes! that’s it.

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?

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.

@ Arnold Smartarse:

One cup is half-full and the other is full.
So shut-the-full-cup-up.

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.

Among other issues, the Nashville Statement perpetuates subordination of women. CBMW claims it’s eternal subordination, too. Here’s what’s wrong with the Nashville Statement’s Article 4: http://wp.me/p2EmLc-47R

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.

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

@ 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.

Dadgummit. Eating ice cream while typing. Comment starts with “Note that this is…

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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….”

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.

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.

okrapod wrote:

I am new at this. We will overcome.

Bless you both.

@ 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.

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…

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.

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…

@ 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!

@ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:

So, big salary, big house, golf at the club, and perhaps influence to be dispensed on behalf of favorites. I got the picture.

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.

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?

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…)

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.

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”.

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.

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

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”?

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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? 🙂

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?

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.

@ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):
I think you nailed that interpretation, Nancy2.

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?

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.

@ Lea:
This is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmV8uu-5xaU

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.

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’.

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.

@ Jamie Carter:

hey, my favorite verse! 🙂

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.

@ 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…

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?

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.

Cobber wrote:

@ Lowlandseer:

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

I thought that as well when so read it.

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.

*@ 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.

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.

okrapod wrote:

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

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.

okrapod wrote:

home school

(If you’d like me to send you Saxon Math, let me know here, and the Deebs can help us connect.)

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.

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.

Gram3 wrote:

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?

Mayhap this’ll help…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qNeGSJaQ9Q

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.

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!

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.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

They made a mistake.

Uhm, business as usual?

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.

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. 🙂

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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”

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
+1! Re: the need for ongoing reformation. Just don’t put those guys (CBMW) in charge of it.

I enjoyed this approach to this matter:

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/08/30/nashville-statement-plain-language-translation/

He seems to have nailed it.

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.

An Attorney wrote:

I enjoyed this approach to this matter:
https://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/08/30/nashville-statement-plain-language-translation/
He seems to have nailed it.

I enjoyed that as well.

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.

Bridget wrote:

consulting

Spellchecker wizardry again !!

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.

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.

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.

Lydia wrote:

Funny, I thought he was just picking a fight, too.

To me, Mr. Pavlovitz is as nutty as the CBMW.

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.

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.

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.

Not having read everything here, maybe this has already been addressed, what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

Joy wrote:

Control, power, manipulation…

All of the above . . .

400

@ drstevej:
Sorry Dr. Steve, my post came up as “400” … you can try again at the “500” mark. 🙂

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.

Joy wrote:

what is the real goal of all this? Control, power, manipulation…

+ deflection, fame, wealth ……..

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.

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

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

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?

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…

Shauna has a prayer request up – she and Billy aren’t very far from Houston.

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.

@ 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.”

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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?

@ 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.

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? 🙂

@ 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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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)

@ Darlene:

You took the words right out of my mouth!

😉

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.

Law Prof wrote:

very nerdy, nebbish types … deeply wounded, disturbed, insecure, and emotionally infantile

Whew! And they are now pastoring churches!!

@ Darlene:
Whoops…that didn’t turn out right there. The first paragraph is Nick’s. Mine are the following two.

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. 🙂

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.

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.

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!

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

Ah, a godly miracle cure (excuse, really) for Little Man Syndrome!

There do seem to be several of the ‘leaders’ who are quite small.

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.

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!

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)

@ 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. 🙂

@ 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. 🙂

@ 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)

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.

Darlene wrote:

You could charge me with plagiarism.

LOL!

You could subsequently claim that “mistakes were made” and carry on regardless.

15 more comments and we’re up to 500…

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.

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.

@ 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.

@ numo:
Absurd!

@ 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.

@ Lydia:
As you wish.

500

Max wrote:

@ drstevej:
Sorry Dr. Steve, my post came up as “400” … you can try again at the “500” mark.

And I did and nailed it.

@ okrapod:
But… these people focus on controlling what thry perceive to be “issues” in the lives of others and don’t deal with their own problems. If they actually cared *and* did something in their own lives, there wouldn’t be a need for blogs like this one.

Max wrote:

drstevej wrote:

And I did and nailed it.

I bet you drank coffee all day long, with your fingers standing ready at the keyboard!

Actually, I had not been watching but on a whim I checked and was surprised. It’s what neo-Cals call sovereign luck.

@ drstevej:
Oh, I see … it was predestined!

Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

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.

Some other missing big names: David Platt, Carl Trueman, Joshua Harris, Mark Driscoll, Thabiti Anyabwile, Doug Wilson, Voddie Baucham, anyone from Founders.

roebuck wrote:

arrogant popinjays

Marvelous.

Lea wrote:

I wasn’t trying to call you wrong

Nothing wrong with that! 🙂

Max wrote:

Homeless Unicorn Guy

Autocorrect…?

@ linda:

“Live and let live seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird.”
++++++++++++++++++++++

yes, whatever happened to live and let live?

it seems Denny Burke and Co. aren’t willing to let live. they presume to right to declare who is a christian and who is not, who is saved and who is not, whose name is in the lamb’s book of life and whose is not…. based on whether or not they agree with their narrow interpretation / conjectures of scripture.

it is not as simple as “live and let live”. if it only it were.

CBMW and co. have influence. maybe enough to generate a movement of leaders and followers who likewise will declare masses of faithful God/Jesus/Holy Spirit-seekers as illegitimate persons of faith. As non-christians.

Their place in their faith community would never be the same. Long-cultivated relationships, the investment of their talents and time, the strength they derive from their faith community….. i don’t imagine any of it would survive.

Were i still in my church, it could be me and my family. As soon as those in power tweak their interpretation and conjectures, it could be you.

@ Josh:
And a new appointee to Ag, Sam Clovis, who has been adamant that being gay leads inevitably to pedophilia.

There’s no way to keep current events out of this, as it’s part of a wave of things + crew in high positions who are VERY anti-LGBTQI, as you know. Besides, the people chanting “blood and soil” also despise LGBTQ folks. (And every person of colot, and Muslims, Jewish prople, Sikhs, Hindus ad infinitum ad nauseam). I never thought I’d see the very worst parts of the 60s (Klan, etc.) surging back to life, but….

Thsnks for your comments here. I really like the way you’re handling this discussion. If I felt ok about leaving contact info. here, I’d do it, but…

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Some other missing big names: David Platt, Carl Trueman, Joshua Harris, Mark Driscoll, Thabiti Anyabwile, Doug Wilson, Voddie Baucham, anyone from Founders.

Platt’s and Anyabwile’s absence surprises me. Carl Trueman was part of the ESS debunking, so probably he was not invited. I don’t know about Founders. Joshua Harris has moved on, I think. Voddie Baucham and Doug Wilson are on their own planet. 🙂 Mark Driscoll? Who???

Gram3 wrote:

Platt’s and Anyabwile’s absence surprises me.

It’s an odd feeling, knowing that my mere existence is enough to make Thabiti Anyabwile vomit. I mean, I try to use my limited powers responsibly, but that one’s weird enough that I don’t know what to do with it… 😉

Seriously, though, I am surprised about the absence of those two from the list. The Dougs, on the other hand, if I were to speculate, which I gladly will, I would say may not have signed it because it doesn’t go far enough. As far as I remember, they are, along with Kevin Swanson, dominionists, so they’re probably livid that it doesn’t have a line affirming the death penalty for yours truly et. al. That could be what kept them from signing it.

Josh wrote:

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.

Conservative Evangelical Church is a big category, and there really are diverse views (within an admittedly narrow range in the pulpit) so let’s think about this for a minute. If we assume the restrictive case of celibacy while also affirming that your orientation is not sinful in itself, what else are barriers to fellowship from your perspective? In other words, what are the essentials which make you feel accepted as one with the rest of the congregation? Identity language is tripping me up, for example. I think of my identity as being mainly my new identity in Christ, and I don’t understand the focus on the narrow aspect of sexual identity. I don’t mean that as a challenge but as a request for information.

@ Gram3:

“I think of my identity as being mainly my new identity in Christ, and I don’t understand the focus on the narrow aspect of sexual identity.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++

speaking only on my own behalf (pardon me, Josh, for stepping in)–

i think this is a luxury not afforded to people with minority sexuality (trying to find a succinct term). they might say, “if we all could be so lucky.”

their new identity in christ (perhaps their humanity, as well) is subsumed by wholesale rejection from a good chunk of christ’s followers. (i don’t think rejection is experienced in gradations)

i don’t think any aspect of sexuality is narrow — it is a potentially huge drive in daily life from within, as well as the most charged of all issues from without.

i think the primary cause for the focus on the [narrow] aspect of sexual identity is due to those in the majority.

i imagine those in the minority would love the freedom to simply be a human being with a new identity in Christ. but like a WWII yellow badge, their sexuality is what they are identified with. that is how they are seen. that is all that is seen. and that is all that matters.

And (ever the metaphor mixer here) just like the Who’s in Who-ville had to band together to say “We are here… We are here…We are here…” in order to be heard, in order to exist safely & freely like everyone else, so those in the sexual minority have no choice but to respond to the majority (some of whom are dangling their welfare over the hot steaming kettle of beezle nut oil.)

as i see it, where the focus on sexual identity is concerned, the minority has their hand forced by the majority.

Josh wrote:

The other side is that sometimes, because conservative evangelicalism still broadly sees me as “more broken than the rest,” people who recognize the failures of the bombastic culture warring old guard of leadership, and who want to be more compassionate, can end up treating the discovery of someone’s sexuality like they just found out that they had Stave IV cancer.

Very helpful. I think that homosexuals are broken and I think that heterosexuals are broken. The difference, I believe, is that we are broken in different ways, and any particular in either group *may* be behaving (or thinking) more or less sinfully than any particular individual in the other group. I think all of us are in need of lifelong prayer and repair.

I’m going out on a limb here, but a lot of people my age can remember a time when there was a private sphere and there were things we didn’t ask about and things we did talk about. That was not an altogether bad thing, believe it or not!

I don’t know what the debate is about what you are allowed to call yourself. Who makes that decision? I will say that “gay” has a connotation in the CEC that is not neutral. Just being honest, but maybe that is something that more conversation could overcome.

In all candor, the biggest issue for the Conservative Evangelical Church is preserving the ideals of Genesis 1-2 as the Creation that was lost and that we are groaning to be redeemed and healed in the New Creation. As a practical matter, in a sense, it is preserving the idea of ideals in our culture which seems to be centered in the eternal present of pleasures. Genesis 1-2 reveals a man and a woman who are partners who complete one another in every way and and together worship and image God, their Creator. They are commanded to fill the earth, and that is a strong indication of God’s intention. That ideal has been corrupted in innumerable ways, but I don’t see a way around God’s intent from the Conservative perspective. Again, the celibacy would be assumed for all who were not married (and that is a discussion of its own.)

Please tell me what I’m still missing.

@ elastigirl:
Exactly. (You also just described white privilege…)

Brav!

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Between August 15 and September 2, 2016, the home page shows the logo is still the black circle, white M-W capital letters, plus the tagline has changed to: CBMW.ORG A COALITION FOR BIBLICAL SEXUALITY.

Thanks, Brad! Where have you been?!?

@ numo:
Err… brava!

@ Gram3:

I have had to focus my efforts so I could finish the first of four 90,000+ word manuscripts. So, I’ve reduced most blogging and commenting so I could concentrate on that. Hope to finish writing/editing the other three volumes within two more years. Will drop in occasionally …

numo wrote:

Let’s experiment with turning the tables

I don’t think that would work because I could not do that. I could try to do it, but I really would not be able to. I prefer to hear from people who have walked the road and hear their story. I learn a lot that way. This thread is about men from “my team” or at least posing as “my team” and I would really like to use this opportunity to learn something that I can pass along to “my team” to help “my team” understand some things. Maybe there are some people from “my team” who are reading here who can learn something new, too. They won’t learn anything if people just scream at them. They might learn something if they are confronted with the truth of what the text actually says and what it does not say.

Gram3 wrote:

I don’t know what the debate is about what you are allowed to call yourself. Who makes that decision? I will say that “gay” has a connotation in the CEC that is not neutral. Just being honest, but maybe that is something that more conversation could overcome.

Sorry, I’m tired, and @elastigirl and @numo are covering this more eloquently than I could, but in this regard, there are two comments I’d like to make before I fall asleep at the keyboard. Firstly, being protestant, no one has the authority to make the decision. Denny Burk would like to, I’m sure, but nothing says I have to listen to him. This “don’t say gay” consensus seems to be fairly widespread in conservative evangelicalism, although definitely not 100% agreed upon. Secondly, “gay” just means “experiencing same-sex attraction” to most people my age and younger (with the exception of a few of my straight peers who’ve been indoctrinated by CBMW etc.). I know depending on generation and denominational culture it can get overloaded with other meanings, which is fine, as long as we’re all aware of what we each mean (and what we don’t mean) by the terms we use when conversing together.

And on the idea of private spheres, yes, I am absolutely going to overshare with my closest friends. But I find difficult the idea that “transparency” is to be so expected in a randomly assembled group of church people that I don’t know well and often have reasons not to trust with intimate details of my life. So when I keep private things private, it can be interpreted like I have something to hide. Which, I guess, is not entirely untrue.

Gram3 wrote:

This thread is about men from “my team” or at least posing as “my team” and I would really like to use this opportunity to learn something that I can pass along to “my team” to help “my team” understand some things.

To be clear, they claim to hold to inerrancy and a conservative hermeneutic. That is “my team.” I do not agree with the Nashville Statement as it is written or that it was written.

@ Gram3:
How about beung told you can’t date or marry, being told you have to be a lifelong celibate or else marry someone you cannot feel attracted to because you’re not made that way? Being referred to – always – as “broken,” “struggler,” etc.?

This is a reality for LGBTQ people in evangelical churches (and many other places). I spent a LOT of time around people in “ex-gay” ministries back in the 90s, though I’m straight. I’ve talked a good deal with womrn especially re. how they have bern treated.

One woman was told she had to disclose her orientation and take a vow of celibacy in front of the *entire* congregation.

Another was staying with her daughter and son in law, having recently moved from another state. She had very little money. When she told them she’s a lesbian, he ordered her to leave their house immediately and never come back. She literally ended up on the side of the road with her suitcase – he forced her to leave immediately, and her daughter had no say. That’s b/c he’s not only head if the house, butmis a clergy member. She was *homeless* and didn’t know a soul in that state, let alone the area. She was in her early 60s at the time. She can’t see her daughter or grandchildren.

I know more stories like these, although admittedly, they’re two of the most nightmarish.

As i said, I’m straight. These women were treated like trash – not even human – by others, simply because they’re gay. Both are very religious and had been devoted to their churches. Their stoties are by no means uncommon or unusual.

Does that help?

Muff Potter wrote:

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?

No, Muff. Everything doesn’t have to bear a Christian Seal of Approval. Hence, the reason I said that if folks want to have sex outside of marriage, it is their prerogative. However, if person *claims* to be a Christian, and *claims* to care about what is pleasing to God, then they need to actually find out if what they are doing is pleasing to God.

And so I go back to Daisy’s original comment in which she stated that sex outside of marriage is not approved of in the Bible. I agree with her statement. I cannot find anywhere in Scripture where it is acceptable for unmarried Christians to have sexual relations. And I don’t understand how anyone can arrive at a contrary position.

Ok, i have another reply in mod. The filter is being triggered by words that are not “bad.” But it thinks they are.

Kinda frustrating, really. 🙁

numo wrote:

i highly recommend the movie “Pariah.” Some of it will be shocking to you, but you can fast forward if you want. Two characters are basically disowned by their respective religious moms – based on real stories. The church people are black evangelicals.

I will check it out. No doubt I will fast-forward.

@ Gram3:
I’m sure you will, but that’s fine; i think the msin point, for you, is what happens to these young women when their families reject them.

You might also check out a documentary called “Trembling Before G-d,” about the experiences of gay folks raised in highly restrictive Orthodox Jewish sects. Not sure if it’s on any streaming services at the moment, but it’s definitely worth hunting down.

@ Gram3:

“The other things can be overcome by mutual goodwill and the desire to love one another. If we can talk and stop screaming and accusing and issuing manifestos.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and by openness to shaking hands?

my son’s 3rd grade teacher was gay. super teacher, the students all loved him. every year he puts on a play — he had years of costumes and props, stage lights, etc. it was great.

i remember the night of the play, he was dressed in a tux. looked very nice. as he was greeting people, his hands were behind his back. it felt very natural to shake his hand in greeting at this special event. but his hands were not available. it was unusual for him to be stand-offish like this.

it occurred to me that there was great pain in this moment for him. perhaps too many times of extending his hand in welcome and hello — to have it rejected. or shaken with great reluctance. a person can feel a lot communicated in a handshake…. and certainly in the rejected offer of a handshake.

@ numo:

“re. the state viewing the relationship as legally valid. A whole lot of legal rights and privileges come along with the license that are impossible to obtain otherwise, from tax return filing to the disposition of an inheritance to…. gosh, I’ve seen lists, and they were long and complex.”
+++++++++++++++++++

this alone is relevant to the greater topic.

(it’s nice to see you, numo!)

@ Josh:

josh, i can imagine it can feel patronizing, being the object of these discussions others are having. thank you for your graciousness.

@ elastigirl:
I’ll add my sentiments to elastigirl’s. Thank you.

(Fwiw, black people are constantly called on by white people to “explain” racial issues in the way Josh is trying to answer many of you about sexual orientation. The “-explainers” get awfully worn down, in all cases – which is why it’s really helpful to do some searching for FAQs and related material for allies, and to then get reading. Josh shouldn’t have to carry this load; he can’t possibly speak for every gsy person,or every gay evangelical, for that matter.)

In terms of historic Christianity, I don’t see what’s wrong with the statement. It seems like even Aimee Byrd’s problem is not so much with the statement but that CBMW were the initiators of it. Am I missing something?

Gram3 wrote:

If we can talk and stop screaming and accusing and issuing manifestos.

This is a superb idea. Sadly, many Christian leaders think the way to communicate with people who hold different beliefs than them is to PREACH at them. And that would actually mean YELLING at them with fingers pointed, and veins popping out.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Darlene:
i think & wonder about this:
–a couple is in love.
–they have decided to commit their lives to each other because of love.
–they decide to get married.
–the night before the wedding they make love. maybe it’s 2 nights before the wedding.
maybe it’s all night long every night for 3 nights before the wedding.
–is this unacceptable? is this sin?
–countable hours before a man in a dark suit does his incantations, and concludes with ‘i now pronounce you husband and wife’. (plus chicken floating in a chafing dish and minus $30,000)
What does married mean? I know it’s not necessarily about God because Christians recognize marriages performed by judges, ship captains, & they recognize marriages performed in ceremonies of all religions.
what is the difference in significance between a couple married by someone licensed to do so, and a common law marriage?
does the answer change when the couple married by someone is not faithful to each other, but the common law marriage is 100% faithful to each other?
i have friends who married each other on top of Half Dome in Yosemite many years ago. They were the only ones present. They have a very successful marriage — it is a marriage. Two people joined together in commitment. They are faithful, they treat each other with kindness. are they in sin?

Elastigirl: Lots of questions there. It’s interesting because I was only agreeing with a statement that Daisy made. And I was, and am, looking at it quite objectively without trying to inject my emotions into the issue.

I agreed with Daisy that I cannot see in anyway that the Bible approves of Christians having sexual relations before they are married. Now, from that statement it seems folks are interpreting and assuming ALL SORTS OF THINGS.

Let me put this as clearly as I can. Just because I think the Bible is clear on this issue does not mean I think I am called to tell people when they are in sin, or sinning, or behaving badly or fill-in-the-blank. It does not mean that I think I have the authority to proclaim from the roof tops the infallible definition of marriage. It does not mean that I am not very aware of all kinds of extenuating circumstances that go outside the lines of what is deemed conventional or traditional. I have absolutely no desire or inclination to point the finger at anyone or be their Judge. There is only One who judges. I am quite thankful for that because I would make a lousy judge.

Now, with that said, let me posit a scenario. If I said that the Bible does not approve of Christians stealing, who would argue with that? Well, maybe someone would. But MOST people would not. But here’s the thing. There are always anomalies to hard and fast rules. Case in point:

Stealing is wrong.
Is stealing always wrong all the time no matter the situation?
I would say it depends upon the situation.

Richard Wurmbrand spoke about the hard times that fell upon Christians when Romania was occupied by the Communists. If one was known to be a Christian, they could lose their job, be imprisoned, even be tortured and killed. It just so happened that many of these Christian families fell upon hard times. And, when push came to shove, they stole food in order that their children wouldn’t die. What Christian with an ounce of compassion would criticize or condemn such actions? To do so would mean they have no idea what it is to “love their neighbor as themselves.”

But, my story above does not negate the fact that the Bible teaches that we as Christians should not steal.

Now, let the Reader understand.

ZechZav wrote:

@ Darlene:
That is very compassionate and respectable position. You are considering the situation of your fellow human being and aiming to be pleasing to God. I believe very strongly in situational ethics, that in cases of conflict the “love the neighbour” command takes precedence over technical obedience to the letter. We see this with the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1 who were not exactly with Pharaoh and refused to slaughter the children, and Rahab for protecting the spies. Although technically lying, their actions fulfilled the purpose of the law.

I agree, ZechZav. Lying in my scenario would work as well. There are times when Christians have had no other option but to lie. And their lying saved lives.

@ Darlene:
Well, I’m not elastigirl, but i have to say, people who comment here come from a wide variety of backgrounds, and it’s sort of unrealistic to expect that everyone’s opinion – and interpretation of scripture – is going to be the same.

Fwiw, I’m Lutheran, and not an inerrantist.

Arnold Smartarse wrote:

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

And here is how to find one: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/marks-healthy-church/. Only $2.00 per lecture.

ZechZav wrote:

Looks like the Go$$$pel Corporation have a bargain basement!

Yes, where they are trying to get rid of the stuff no one else wanted.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Between August 4 and September 15, 2015, this tagline was added: GOSPEL * GENDER * FLOURISHING.

Bleck!

brad/futuristguy wrote:

So, there’s some details that you were looking for. Hope that’s of help.

Very interesting. Thanks for looking this up.

Josh wrote:

So when I keep private things private, it can be interpreted like I have something to hide.

I have myself been accused of keeping things private because I do not always share details and bring boyfriends around. Sometimes it was because nothing was going on, other times not.

But it sort of adds an extra layer in your situation, I think. Zach mentioned above turning well meaning matchmakers down, for instance. I had a friend in college and a girl in class was asking about him (I can’t remember if she was interested?) and I told her he was gay and she basically refused to believe me. Another thought the same guy had asked her out freshman year. I said, no, pretty sure that wasn’t what you thought it was. *sigh*

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

And here is how to find one: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/marks-healthy-church/. Only $2.00 per lecture.

Didn’t Jesus charge more than that for the Sermon on the Mount? ……..and I’m sure He made a fortune from His parables!

elastigirl wrote:

i have friends who married each other on top of Half Dome in Yosemite many years ago. They were the only ones present. They have a very successful marriage — it is a marriage. Two people joined together in commitment. They are faithful, they treat each other with kindness. are they in sin?

My parents weren’t legally married until they moved to Texas and held out as married when I was 12 years old. (They actually had a white wedding in California the year before I was born, but their marriage license wasn’t filed by the minister; he died the week after the wedding.) Their marriage lasted almost 55 years, until my dad died in 2014. And my mother still misses my dad terribly; she dreams about him and tells me about it. I think they were married but some legalistic preacher might not think so.

Josh wrote:

@ John:
Well, it says that you cannot be a Christian if you do such things as:
(a) not agree with each and every affirmation and denial in the statement (Art. 10)
(b) use the pronouns that match the gender a transgender person presents as (Art. 11)
(c) think of yourself as homosexual / same-sex attracted / gay, even if you’re totally celibate (Art. 7)

So even for some who maintain traditional views, this takes a stricter position than what they consider to be traditional sexual ethics.

IMO these writers of this extremely narrow statement have attempted to speak for God.

Lowlandseer wrote:

Reformation21 has just gone down in my estimation with the publication of this article by Adam Parker. Don’t know anything about him except that his Twitter photo shows him with a new-Cal beard and rather large glasses. With spectacles that size I’m surprised he didn’t see some of the more obvious errors in the Nashville Statement.

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2017/09/when-calling-yourself-a-christ.php

It does not appear to me he takes comments at this Blog.

Gram3 wrote:

stop screaming and accusing and issuing manifestos

I think these guys want “to stand with old dead people” as Al Mohler says. New Calvinism is all about issuing creeds and confessions to demonstrate to the rest of Christendom that they, alone, represent orthodox faith in the 21st century. They alone have returned to the ancient paths of wisdom and understanding. They alone have come into the world for such a time as this. So, they occasionally come forth with a “Thus saith the Lord” in the form of statements and manifestos to prove they have a corner on truth. Who else does that?! While there were some non-Calvinist leaders and a sprinkling of women who signed the Nashville Statement, it is primarily a document advanced and written by New Calvinists. I admire the passion of these new reformers, but it is a misplaced passion.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

Yeah, I’d get fired from my job if I persisted in using a transgender person’s deadname or inappropriate pronouns. (See Article 11.) It’s completely unacceptable at the too big to fail bank that employs me. It’d be just like what happened to the guy who kept harassing his Jehovah’s Witness coworkers when I worked at the help desk. He got counseled, he got written up, he finally got canned. (They really gave him a lot of rope.) It’s not a crime to be transgender or a Jehovah’s Witness and it’s not conducive to a good work environment to have that kind of friction under the surface.

I think it is really good that employers have this kind of policy. I work in a large financial institution with a strong diversity policy that prohibits discrimination or ill-treatment on the grounds of race, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, disability and many other things. It shows that they value the dignity and personhood of every single human being.

@ Lowlandseer:

“Those who belong to the cult of Evangelical Libertinism are howling in pain right now, but they should be recognized for what they are: a fringe cult masquerading as Christians, just like the Mormons and Watchtower folks.”

WOW!!

As to whether or not the Nashville statement says anything other than what ‘the church’ has always said from the beginning, yes it certainly does. The issue of trans is a new concept on which there is no long standing church teaching or tradition and no current unanimity of thinking The psych people do not even have a fixed and long standing position, much less ‘the church’. Not only that, the official position of the RCC concerning the condition of SSA differs from the position that the Nashville statement takes.

Everybody may be entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to his own evidence.

One more statement and I will go do something productive around the house. Here is why I am so angry with these Nashville statement people. The people of my denom/ parish are not of one mind on this, and now these yo-yos come along and try to stir things up. At my house we discuss what we are going to do if and when it becomes decision time at the church house. We are agreed on what we will not do-go back to anything that even resembles Baptist/ evangelical/ calvinoid. Dang them anyhow; they are not the boss of us, but they can certainly pour fuel on fires.