The Nashville Statement

"Anti-Gay Manifesto" the headline reads. Let's see if there is any truth to the claim.

The reference is to the Nashville Statement on Human Sexuality, a document from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood signed by 150 prominent Evangelical leaders. The document was drawn up in the city of Nashville, so, like the Nicene Creed in Nicaea or the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy from in Chicago, as a matter of tradition, they named it the "Nashville Statement". It is a statement on biblical sexuality.

What kind of "anti-gay" stuff is in there? Well, they 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." (Article 1) Culturally accepted? No. "Anti-gay"? That's what they say. But all it is is a statement of biblical marriage. Article 2 calls for chastity for all but the married. No surprise there. Is that "anti-gay"? They say it is. Article 3 affirms the straightforward biblical claim that God created humans as male and female (Gen 1:27). Nothing "anti-gay" there. Article 4 (a bit odd to me) claims that it's good that God made male and female. Article 5 says that one primary difference between male and female is reproductive structures as integral to God's design. Clearly these last few are "anti-transgender" in the sense that they deny the claim that a person can be "a female born in a male body" or something like it, but, seriously, it doesn't take a Bible to know this. Try science. So science is "anti-transgender"? Article 6 acknowledges that it is possible to be born with "a physical disorder of sex development". This article affirms their dignity and worth. Definitely not "anti-intersex". Article 7 affirms that "self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption." As such, they deny that "adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes." See, it's things like this that get labeled "anti-gay" or "anti-transgender". Article 8 affirms that people who experience same-sex attraction can live rich and fruitful lives as long as "they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life." Again, this will get labeled "anti-gay", but it is wrong to do so. It is anti-homosexual-behavior. Article 9 condemns both homosexual and heterosexual immorality and denies that "an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies sexually immoral behavior." Are we really going to claim that "an enduring pattern of desire" qualifies that behavior, whatever it is, as moral? Not "anti-gay"; anti-sexual immorality.

The one that has most people in a tizzy is 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.

The claim is clear. They are saying that approving of acting on homosexual desires or denying the God that made them male and female is sin and is a departure from Christian faithfulness. These are not morally indifferent. Writer Bonnie Fuller of Hollywood Life says it "makes our blood boil." (Hey, isn't that hate?) She says, "Well then so much for TOLERANCE which Jesus teaches in the Bible!" (And isn't that intolerance?) There you have it, folks. If you call a sin a sin, you're deviating from Christ. He never called sin sin. He embraced it. He didn't merely tolerate it (in the original use of the term) -- He approved it. Not the Jesus I read about, but, hey, what do I know?

There are more Articles. The Nashville Statement affirms that those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria are in just as much need of Christ as every other sinner on the planet ... which is all of us. They deserve to be loved and valued. That does not mean that these particular sins are worse than others. Nor does it mean that their particular sin is automatically justified. Articles 12 - 14 affirm the availability and effectiveness of Christ's death and resurrection for sinners, including those guilty of sexual sin ... of all types.

Well, you know where this is going. Nashville Mayor Megan Barry is outraged that they used "Nashville" in the name. It "does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of Nashville." Translation: "We will have none of this 'Christian values' or 'biblical Christianity' in our town." The rest of the loudest voices assure us that it's "Anti-LGBTQ". Multiple outlets assure us it's "hate". Is it? Well, that depends on your original premise. Start with Man and you'll get one answer. If you start with God you'll get another. So if God says, "Do this and don't do that" and you are concerned about yourself and others, you will want to encourage yourself and others to do what God says. That's not "anti-gay". Further, if "gay" is defined as "same-sex attraction", this document affirms the value of that "gay" person. It is the behavior that is the question. This document affirms the value of the person who struggles with sexual identity. These are not, therefore, "anti-gay", "anti-transgender", "anti-LGBTQ", or hate.

Does the document oppose sexual immorality? Yes ... yes it does. Does it opposed same-sex sex and gender transitioning? Yes ... yes it does. Does it oppose approving of these? Without a doubt. But consider:

1) The statement is on biblical views for Christians. Not a Christian? Move along. This isn't aimed at you.

2) The statement comes from Evangelicals, a group whose definition includes the principle of the inerrancy of Scripture. That they affirm Scripture, then, is not startling. That anyone would expect otherwise is. The headline should read, "News Flash! Christians Declare What They Have Declared From The Start!" The news flash would be that anyone claiming to be a Christian would disagree.

3) The belief that sin is not approved of and the hope that anyone -- everyone -- would come to Christ are not "anti"; they are biblical. Just like Christ -- "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11) It is not loving, kind, caring, or even wise to approve of sin. It is loving to warn others from it and offer them Christ as a solution to it.

But we have arrived at a place that says, "We will not tolerate a biblical worldview or any that hold it. We will classify them as 'intolerant' and 'hateful' and 'anti-Christ'." We have arrived at a place in Christendom that says, "We will no longer allow God's Word to determine what is or is not true. We will determine it. God will just have to get on board." It requires the end of rationality.

Addendum
One of the signers was Rosaria Butterfield, a woman and a former lesbian. She explains why she signed the document. Important point: "The issue is not primarily homosexuality; it’s Scripture."