Nashville Statement

[KingsGambit]

After hearing all the media coverage which has spilled outside the evangelical world (the mayor of Nashville has even stepped in to denounce it), I read through the Nashville Statement just now. I don't see anything I disagree with.

https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/

[NorrinRadd]

I have mixed views about it. The fact that it is a product of CBMW impels me to a bit of concern about what the wording says and does not say.

Still contemplating.

[KingsGambit]

I have mixed views about it. The fact that it is a product of CBMW impels me to a bit of concern about what the wording says and does not say.

Still contemplating.

One of the initial signatories, Robert Gagnon, is an egalitarian. He posted yesterday that he believes the wording is not intended to take a side on complementarianism/egalitarianism.

[KingsGambit]

Scot McKnight just criticized it because a lot of the CMBW crowd holds to an unorthodox view of the Trinity. To me, this is a cop-out. The statement should be considered on its own merits.

[Jedidiah]

I do not see anything I disagree with, unless I misread something it looks good to me.

[demi-conservative]

Intro says:

Talks about male and female, but nothing about hierarchy in marriage or church

Talks about marriage, but nothing about divorce

Pretty much a joke, because of what is not there, also what they don't want to talk about!! Wants to talk 'truth, whole truth, and nothing bout truth' about male and female, but is something that both complementarians and egalitarians can sign.

[Cerebrum123]

I do not see anything I disagree with, unless I misread something it looks good to me.

This.

[Bill the Cat]

Talks about marriage, but nothing about divorce

Article 1 says "lifelong union". That automatically eliminates divorce.

[Sparko]

I downloaded the text:

[Bill the Cat]

You missed the beginning of Article 1

[Adrift]

Never heard of the CBMW, so I have no idea what their views on the trinity are or why they're considered controversial. I think I mostly agree with the statement. The only point I'm just a bit iffy on is Article 8,

"WE AFFIRM that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life."

While I think it's probably true that one can hold non-normative attractions, and still live a life that demonstrates fruit and can be in many ways still pleasing to God, I question whether or not that it's all that God desires for us. If we were talking about, say, those who hold non-normative desires for children, could they too live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God as long as they walk in purity of life? Well, maybe yes, and maybe no. Is it purity of life to hold such a base attraction in the first place? I think a lot of Christians are now convinced that holding certain non-normative attractions are just the way of life for some people. That, like a physical deformity, they're just stuck with it like a curse, and I don't know if I agree with that, or that it's God's will and desire for that to be the case. We all struggle with sin, but as we mature as Christians it seems to me that we should desire to end certain of those struggles, if at all possible. That it is possible, and that we ought to seek transformation by the renewing of our minds, even it it takes divine intervention to get us there. I hurt for people who hurt, and the language I see in Article 8 is language I see among a lot of great Christian thinkers on the subject (William Lane Craig, for instance, would very much agree with this Article), but part of me feels like we give up on people who are struggling if we just tell them to (in so many words) "live with it". I don't know. I don't have all the answers, and maybe I'm wrong. I've discussed some of my thoughts on this subject here before, particularly here, where I feel I made the point better: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post345830

[Sparko]

You missed the beginning of Article 1

fixed.

I had to download the pdf file and then OCR it to get the text. I am attaching the PDF here

[One Bad Pig]

After hearing all the media coverage which has spilled outside the evangelical world (the mayor of Nashville has even stepped in to denounce it), I read through the Nashville Statement just now. I don't see anything I disagree with.

https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/

News flash for the mayor of Nashville: do people think that the Chicago Statement is reflective of the views of Chicagoans generally? Do people think that the Manhattan Declaration is reflective of the views of the denizens of Manhattan? Er, no.

[NorrinRadd]

Never heard of the CBMW, so I have no idea what their views on the trinity are or why they're considered controversial. ...

They are the "Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." They are, IMO, the primary advocates of "complementarianism" (which is essentially a way of putting lipstick on the pig of "patriarchialism"). At least some of them hold to "eternal subordination" of the Son, a view often considered heterodox. (There is some speculation they arrived at this view in the course of trying to find ways to justify their view of the relative authority-status of men and women.)

[demi-conservative]

Article 1 says "lifelong union". That automatically eliminates divorce.

It says God 'designed' it to be lifelong. I agree divorce is eliminated by text of article!

But many Christians will argue, also give excuse about how in this special special case design should be ignored??? They need stronger statement about divorce, since so many divorces happen!!!!