firstFAMILY Podcast 028: Toronto Church Planting - Annette Teague
Revered and Reviled - the Life, Death, and Impact of Hugh Hefner

Why We Need the Nashville Statement & Why I Signed It

There's really nothing new in the Nashville Statement, but there is need for it.

On Tuesday morning, August 29, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) released a statement, signed initially by over 150 evangelical Christian leaders. Once the statement went public, it was expectedly met with both praise for its clarity and denouncements for ... well, it's clarity.

Nashville statement

I received a text last night from my friend Christopher Yuan who served as part of the team of leaders who put the statement together. Others such as Albert Mohler, John Piper, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, James Merritt, J.D. Greear, Mac Brunson, Jackie Hill Perry, H.B. Charles, Jr., Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, Sam Allberry, Rosaria Butterfield, Robert Gagnon, and many others also served on the team. For many, these names may not be familiar, but for Christian leaders and pastors, most names listed here and on the website's "Signers" page, are known as men and women who risk much for the sake the Gospel, especially when confronted with changing cultural norms. 

Christopher asked if I had seen the statement and if I would sign it. I responded that I read it soon after release and while I was attempting to sign it, the website was having issues at the time. Fortunately, I was able to complete the signature last night as many others have. I'm sure the site will be updated with more names as the days go by. It seems the servers may have been a bit bogged down with the heavy viewership and attempted registrations.

The Need for Clarity

Why is there a need for this statement? Is there anything in the articles that differs from historical, biblical Christianity? The simple answer is NO, there's nothing new in the statement regarding biblical truth. Yet, as the Preamble to the statement makes clear...

Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being.

Cultural shifts in what is good, bad, fair, unfair, right, and wrong have led to a need for clarity among Christian leaders. This is not new for Christ's church. In all cultural settings throughout history, the church has been mandated by God to declare His truth clearly, concisely, lovingly, graciously, and without apology.

The CBMW was founded three decades ago and rightly affirmed the biblical narrative that God created man and woman in His image. The CBMW stated clearly that God designed men and women, as image-bearers of himself, to equal in personhood and human dignity, yet different from and complementary to one another. Christian husbands, as delineated in Scripture, are called to lead their homes through self-denial and sacrificial love. In addition to the home, within the church, men are called by God to be pastors in leading the church. In 1987, the CBMW released the Danvers Statement declaring belief in complementarianism.

As Ligon Duncan put so clearly...

The Nashville Statement is a complement to Danvers, but it speaks into issues of human sexuality. Danvers addresses the respective roles of men and women in the home and church. Nashville articulates the Bible’s teaching on important and disputed aspects of human sexuality. 

Clarity from the church is needed now more than ever. There are many voices in our culture (even within the church) speaking contrary "truths" or "truthisms." In such a world (as has always been the case) the church must speak Truth in love, as God's Word declares.

Albert Mohler states...

In a time of confusion, one of the greatest gifts that can be given to and by Christ’s church is clarity, and clarity requires at times that matters of truth, matters of truth in particular times of trial, should to be put into words in order to bear the testimony of that clarity. 

The Nashville Statement includes fourteen statements of belief, or articles. As with other manifesto statements such as this, there are delineated affirmations and denials. 

The statements declare God's order of creation, his intention, his unmistakable design, and order as he desires. Affirmations and denials are based on Scriptural foundations, albeit from the perspective of inerrantists (of which I am included.)

As churches seek to show the love of God clearly in grace and love to others, the clear statements of who we are in Christ and the foundational truths of Scripture provide guidelines and guardrails as others seek to bend truth or change it completely to fit better in a culture opposed to Christ.

The Push Back

Those opposed to the Nashville Statement are not declaring lack of clarity on the part of the writers. In fact, they're decrying the clarity expressed. The push back was expected. Social media, as if often the case nowadays, has become the venue for statements of disgust, disagreement, and in some cases, attacks and hateful and grotesque speech focused upon signers and the CBMW. In some cases, the comments end up devolving into statements about politics, politicians, and pastors. That's a conversation for another day, as the Nashville Statement actually does not steer into that realm.

Yet, there are esteemed individuals in our nation and in churches who are opposed to the statement. Many op-eds are appearing across news feeds this week revealing this. 

The mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry is opposed to the statement and takes umbrage at the document and the use of the name of her city. She tweeted that the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee had created a Nashville Unites resolution in response (and opposition) to the Nashville Statement.

Denny Burk, President of the CBMW was asked why Nashville was in the name. His response here...

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

Reverend James Martin, SJ, has written a perspective piece in The Washington Post in opposition to the Nashville Statement

Stories on Fox News, CNN, The Huffington Post, NBC News, and other news agencies have revealed opposition to the Nashville Statement and even declared "Woe to you" to the signers.

Mark Silk, writing for Religion News Service, disagrees with the Statements biblical assertions and declares...

But as a devotee of the Free Exercise Clause I say: Go for it, guys. If that old-time heteronormativity is the hill you want evangelical Christianity to die on, be my guest.

Clearly the culture and the church-at-large is divided on the issue of human sexuality - more now than ever. I share these statements as a point of clarity. While I disagree with those who disagree with the statement, it behooves us to at least read their reasoning. My convictions and affirmation of the Nashville Statement remains.

Why I Signed

I signed the Nashville Statement for the same reasons others have. I do believe the church has the responsibility of clarity regarding biblical teaching in all areas and that includes human identity and gender/sexuality issues. 

Of all the articles, it is number 10 that seems to be getting the most opposition through social media postings.

Article 10

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.

At first, the statements seem as reactionary to the shifts in cultural and legal acceptance of same-sex marriage. As days go by and the continued shifts in the moral revolution are revealed, it becomes clear (again that clarity) that same-sex marriage is not the ultimate issue. There's a deeper discussion regarding identity at stake. 

As a Christian, pastor, husband, and father, the reality of all that led to the declarations of the Nashville Statement is more than just some story about people "out there." This is about family. This is about the church family. This is about our community. This is ultimately about the Gospel.

Some who agree with the verbiage of the statement may actually not sign, believing that as Christians they should not take a stand on these issues. I fear the reality that many grew up with in our culture that allowed personal conviction to remain hidden will soon be stripped away. No pastor, no Christian leader, in fact, no Christian will be able to stay silent (one way or the other) regarding personal stance on the issues of marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and humanity as image-bearers. 

These questions are present within each church's congregation. If your church has any number of people (I'd say over five) in the congregation, you have someone either related, friends with, co-worker of, or in the sanctuary struggling with these issues. The church cannot be silent.

Culture may declare that "Love is love" but biblically, we must remember that God is love and that has never changed. He defines and reveals the agape love that redeems through Christ. 

comments powered by Disqus