So, now there is an alternative statement in response to the Nashville Statement. It is simply called "The Statement". It is, for reasons I don't fully understand, put out by something called "Christians United". I say that I don't fully understand because 1) it certainly does not include a large bulk of Christians -- those who currently still believe and trust their Bibles as well as all others before the last 10 years or so. The idea is "Christians who are united in agreement with our position for the last 10 years in complete opposition to all other Christians for all time." And 2) it certainly does nothing to unite Christians. But, hey, who am I to quibble over names?
Looking at the signatories, the first three are a bishop and two reverends ... who are female. That's good to know. The essence here is "No, we do not accept the biblical understanding of things. We are 'progressive' and understand that God changes His mind over time to keep up with culture." Got it. That's a good thing to keep in mind.
The Statement begins its preamble with "As followers of Jesus Christ" (so, I suppose, that's where they get the idea of "Christians United" ... "Hey, we said, 'Jesus'. That makes us Christians, right?") and go on to explain how things change. Basically, the Spirit leads. He leads wherever He will. Maybe it's biblical; maybe it's not. Who knows? Our job is just to follow. Right now it is "a renewed understanding of Christian teaching on sexuality and gender identity that includes, affirms, and embraces the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and non-binary, queer community as created and fully blessed by God and welcomed in to the life of the Church and society just as they are, without a need to conform to the heteronormative, patriarchal, binary sexuality and gender paradigm that Christianity has come to promote and embrace." Where did they get that? Nowhere. They're just speaking for God -- for the Spirit who is leading them. They're boldly moving away from "dogmas and traditions", from 2,000 years of history and common understanding of the texts to a new and improved version. Yeah, yeah, it took the Spirit 2,000 years to get to this point, but now we've arrived. Finally. (I think it took 2,000 years to come up with the terms the Spirit would need to use, like "heteronormative" and "binary sexuality".)
There are 10 Articles, affirming "unique sexualities and gender identities", "self-realization", and the entire concept of "LGBT+ Christians". (I suppose the "+" is the acknowledgment that "We don't actually know where this will end, so we're adding an indefinite factor there.") and denying "one man and one woman" definition of marriage, limitation of romantic relationships to one man and one woman, the reasonableness of forcing gender to match biology, and any validity to the attempt to either call homosexual behavior or gender fluidity sin or to offer treatment for it. (Obviously that's a brief list. I mean, that's 10 articles, each with an affirmation and a denial.)
Reading through it, a few things struck me.
There was no suggestion that any of this is based on Scripture, but, rather, a new interpretation based on some new movement of the Spirit. There is no reason given for the complete absence of the Spirit in times past on this subject nor any validation of this new "moving of the Spirit".
As in so many of these things, there seems to be the need to counteract an attack that was never launched. The Nashville Statement affirmed the "intersex individuals" as having "dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers" (Article 6). The Nashville Statement denies that "ambiguities related to a person's biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ." That is, those who have a physical gender ambiguity are not sinning in it. The "ChristiansUnited" statement still felt the need to disagree ... by agreeing.
I was also amazed at their "WE DENY that God intended human romantic relationships to be limited to one man and one woman" statement. (That was a quote, copied and pasted from their page, expressly on the topic of the definition of marriage.) Based on this denial, there is no room for united Christians to deny polygamy, polyamory, or the like. In fact, since we're (consciously, "by the leading of the Spirit") redefining marriage, gender, and sexual relations, the whole "heteronormative sexual paradigm" including what the Bible terms "sexual immorality" is out the window.
Bottom line. The Statement is a statement standing firmly in midair. It is based on the "leading of the Spirit" without Scripture, without history, without tradition. It is a denial of the power of God to properly express His original intent and the power of the Spirit to properly guide His own into the truth. At stake here is not "homosexuality" or "transgender" or even marriage. What is at stake is whether or not any one of us can have any confidence whatsoever that God and His Word can be trusted. The answer appears to be, firmly, "No!" From "Christians United".
3 comments:
Ignore that last one . . missed a couple words.
Good analysis of the "Christian" Left responses to the well-done Nashville Statement on human sexuality.
It was amusing how the Leftists used the term "LGBT+." I've been using "LGBTQX" for about a decade as a catch-all for whatever perversion they add next. I added the "X" as a mocking pejorative but once again the Left -- including the "Christian" Left -- is beyond parody and added the "+" sign themselves.
And their "leading" by the spirit is true in the sense that they're led by the spirit of Satan. They mock everything God says in his word and are indistinguishable from the world, but they think the real Holy Spirit is just communicating new ideas with them?! Uh, sure.
For over 20 years I've contended that this whole argument is about the authority and value of scripture. If you place a high value on scripture and its authority, then none of these specific issues is worth considering.
If ever there was an example of people "speaking for God" or "conflating opinion with God's word" it is this. We can't possibly be certain with regard to the clear prohibition of homosexual behavior as presented in Lev 18, but they're quite certain that God did NOT intend that male should unite with female in order for a relationship to be a marriage. What was that you said, Craig? "Hubris"?
Post a Comment