Friends,
I have no doubt about the sincere conviction you feel about
the subjects covered in The Nashville Statement. But I have to point out the
fact that some of your premises simply don’t follow the examples given in
scripture.
Let’s start with Article 1
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.
WE DENY that God has designed
marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also
deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before
God
I’m going to focus on two areas here – polygamous/polyamorous
and the “mere human contract.”
- Abraham with Sarah and Hagar
- Jacob with Leah, Rachel, Zipah, and Bilah
- David with Ahinoan, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Michal, and Bathsheba
- Solomon with – well, a lot of wives.
The “mere human contract” line could certainly apply to
Jacob and Leah, definitely to David and Michal, probably to a few other of his
wives, and certainly to many of Solomon’s marriages.
On to Article 2
WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will
for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.
WE DENY that any affections,
desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside
marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality.
And yet, we have Judah and Tamar – and we have Rahab the prostitute – and we have the third chapter of Ruth – and the Song of Songs –
and Hosea – and the list goes on. Bottom line, there’s a lot more to scripture
than the limited statement you have crafted and/or signed.
Skipping ahead to Article 7 (again, my focus here is
scriptural consistency)
WE AFFIRM that self-conception as
male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and
redemption as revealed in Scripture.
WE DENY that adopting a homosexual
or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in
creation and redemption.
Just a question – why would the God of Scripture go out of
His way to use a trans-gender individual to convert the nation of Ethiopia?
Here’s the thing – your statement gives the impression that
the thrust of the Bible is making sure that everyone is straight and that they
only get it on after they are married – that somehow this is the primary
concern of the God of Scripture.
There are a couple of problems with that.
First, the God of Scripture seems to be more interested in
how we treat the widow, orphan, stranger, alien, and the “other” than He is in who
gets whose juices flowing.
Second, as much as you try to couch your language about how
anything outside of your narrowly defined area of acceptability doesn’t put
someone outside the reach of God’s love, well, the tone is very clear that
anyone who identifies as anything other than a straight man or straight woman
is, at best, a tolerated second-class citizen of the Kingdom and definitely
shouldn’t expect to be used by God to advance that Kingdom.
Yes, I realize I have pretty much just condemned myself by
Article 10 of your statement:
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.
So, just checking – the transgender individual from the
book of Acts – so does that mean that Philip departed from Christian
faithfulness and witness by talking with that individual, or was it Luke who
departed from Christian faithfulness and witness by writing about the
individual, or was it the Holy Spirit that departed from Christian faithfulness
and witness by telling Philip to go talk with the transgender individual – or
are all parties guilty?
Seriously, do you not grasp how you are perpetuating
Biblical ignorance by coming out with a statement that reflects more of your
own personal bias than anything that could be justified by scripture?
Hold whatever views you wish, but please do not take the
rich, complex, engaging, life-affirming, gritty, real, and awesome Word of God
and misrepresent it as a simplistic, small pamphlet on Victorian morals, then
expect all of Christianity to affirm it along with you.
With that, I honestly do invite a conversation, let's discuss.
10 comments:
Again, we keep going back to the idea that LGBT people wake up some morning and decide, well, I think I'm going to be LGBT. That this is a choice of some kind on their part, therefore a rejection of "God's plan." There's no evidence for this in the real world. These people are who they are -- in some cases, the knowledge and acceptance of who they are involves an arduous and painful search. Then there's the idea that no, they didn't choose LGBT, but it's a defect of some kind, a disability or deformity, "God's plan" can be mysterious, therefore let them resign themselves to solitary and loveless lives and sing in the choir or something. The other thing that always amazes me is the undercurrent of, well, ~fear~ I sense in all of this, that if we recognize LGBTs as full and complete human beings, as falling somewhere along the normal spectrum of human diversity, heterosexuality is thereby placed in jeopardy. Say, what? /m/
Article 1: you gave examples of multiple women in the Bible as a counter argument. The implication as I read it is that multiple partners was God's declared will for marriage. If that was your point it contidicts Genesis creation account where it was declared it was not good for man to be alone so a "helper" was made for him. Jesus also confirmed the original plan for marriage when answering about divorce in Matthew 19: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, u‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and vthe two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. wWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” So instead of concluding the examples of multiple women is the norm interpeting scripture with scripture it could be concluded these are exceptions and against God's design which is sin (missing the mark). Abraham was repremanded for not trusting Gods promise with Hagar. The covenant was not made with the descendants of Hagar, Ismael, but Issac, Abraham's recognized wife. If misrepresented your point please clarify.
Article 2: see my previous comment about God's declared and allowed will. There is a lot of sinful behavior in the Bible. It doesn't mean we should think it is the norm or good. The Bible has real stories about real people that need a real Savior to live lives that are really pleasing to God the way He designed us to live. The exceptions are not intended to be the norm.
The ethopian in Acts was an enunch. Some are born enunch (abnormal body parts) some made enunch for punishment. Others by choice to prevent sin or to join a religious sect. Even Jesus spoke about it in Matthew 19 and confirmed people that have tendency should volunteer to become a enunch. It could be debated that means physically or conceptually like His other statement if your eye offends you pluck it out. How did you come to the conclude the eunch was a transgender?
Regarding loving others, widows orphans: these are important and basic needs can be meet without words but if someone believes the Bible and doesnt discuss spiritual topics are they really loving? A non-christian / government could provide the same service.
My last comment is this topic, similar to evolution, get down to what do we put our faith in the Bible as a whole just the parts that make us feel good or match the current cultural acceptance? If we can pick and choose what does that do to salvation/etc?
My anonymous friend,
First, thanks for engaging - it is appreciated and it allows us to further the discussion.
My references to Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. was not to say that God's will was for polygamy - but rather that if there was a clear biblical prohibition about polygamy, then there's an awful lot of people that didn't get that memo - and I'm sorry, but where was the condemnation for any of them? Tamar is declared righteous for her actions. We wouldn't have the 12 tribes of Israel without Jacob's multiple partners. Both Rahab the prostitute and Ruth the seducer of Boaz are in the line of David (and Jesus) - sounds to me like those actions were necessary in some form. Show me where any of them are called sinful for those actions.
Which leads us to a bigger issue - show me what a reasonably healthy biblical family looks like - I cannot find even a hint of it in scripture.
Regarding the Ethiopian transgender individual - I think the point is that the people used by God throughout scripture are almost always the least expected. The story of Ruth is important not just for the steamy seduction in chapter 3, but because Ruth was a Moabite - this story really tells Israel that it's time to get over their issues with the Moabites. When asked, "but who is my neighbor?" Jesus could have simply said, "everybody" - instead he tells a story that makes the hero a Samaritan, the most hated group to those early listeners. That was Jesus telling Israel to get over the Samaritan thing. Arguably, the Holy Spirit was sending a message when Philip was told to talk with that specific person.
I come back to my original point - the Nashville Statement makes a lot of leaps and assumptions, I think there's quite a bit of room for discussion.
I posted this elsewhere a few days ago. It's relevant here.
On the practical level, though, the "in the pews" level, I have some questions for the Nashville brethren. Let's say you have a gay man who buys your theology and has committed to a celibate and presumably "chaste" life. He gets to discuss this publicly within the church family, right? Everybody knows, right? He gets fully included in the congregation's life, right? He can turn up at a church social event with a same-sex friend who may also be gay, and no one entertains dark suspicions about what's going on, right? His straight church brothers embrace him, befriend him, support him, right? The congregation has no problem letting him teach Sunday school and otherwise fully participate in lay ministries, right? You will ordain him, given the conditions you insist upon, right? Everybody's walking in the light, right? If there is any answer other than "yes" to these questions, then you're saying, Welcome to a church where your fate is silence and isolation. Now let's discuss that, shall we?
Um, you have to take people at face value. Otherwise, your assumption could do massive damage. I kinda think it's nosy to think it's your right to judge what another person does in their bed if they tell you it's empty. Myob.
Ken, I encourage you to study the passages and biblical accounts you quoted. It is quite clear that the people living outside of God's design in creation and spelled out in the ten commandments (Exodus 20 / also written on our hearts) had problems. Hagar and Sarah fought so much that Hagar the slave and her son Ismael were kicked out. Here is an article that list some quick summaries.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_718.cfm
I agree with you most of the people used in scripture are the most unexpected / least qualified / youngest / etc. Some situations are used
to teach a lesson like the descendants of Abraham and Hagar the slave being in bondage to sin representing non-jew/non-christian and descendants of Abraham and Sarah being of the covenant, faith and freedom. Similiar to storm God works in concurrent to man's nature to bring about His plan and glory. It shows it is of God not of man. Hence they are often exceptions not the norm of good behavior.
To say this behavior is like saying brothers should throw their younger siblings in a pit and sell them into slavery because God honored it for Joseph! :)
With Joseph the conclusion was: what you meant for evil God meant/turned into good.That is not always the case. Some sinful acts were judged harshly like the flood or Sodem and Gomorrah for our example. Please dont quote the "bible told me so" video nonsense that try to say that was punishment for not being hospitaliable. Not everyone has the gift of hospitality and though looking out for others is good and called it is not a sin in and of itself.
You ask for examples of healthy biblical family, how about Adam and Eve (not Steve). Granted they had sin issues like the fruit and Cain. The first family was one man and one woman. I could quote others like Noah, Isaac, etc but it goes back to my original point that you didn't acknowledge. Jesus reconfirmed in Matthew 19 what a biblical family was: man and woman, man leaves his family and clings to his wife.
You have not shown me so far how you have not done the very thing you are accusing the signers of the Nashville agreement of making leaps and assumption.
One thing I would like to know is why do people, not saying you, try to use the Bible to defend homosexual lifestyle when they dont agree with or respect other parts of the Bible?
OK, the Sodom thing first - Ezekiel 16:49 - 50 - Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.
Next, when I ask for an example, I mean show me what those marriages and relationships were really like. For example, if you say, "Show me what biblical leadership looks like" - we could easily point to the details of Moses' leadership style, Joshua's leadership, Samuel's, David's, Solomon's, Ezra's, Nehemiah's, Jesus, Peter, Paul - we can see how they related to those under their authority, how they responded to adversity, etc. If someone were to ask to see biblical examples of military strategy, we could point to specific examples of using spies, troop deployment, etc. So, when I ask for an example of a healthy biblical marriage, I am asking for more than the fact that two people produced children. Did the husband buy flowers for the wife? Did the wife laugh at his jokes? What do we have? The only recorded statements from Adam and Eve are "I have named you" and the first game of "pass the buck." Abraham and Sarah - Abraham asks Sarah to lie about their relationship and she laughs about the idea of the two of them getting it on in their later years. We could go on, but you get the idea - the concept of a good, loving marriage - where's the example in scripture?
So, back to your first paragraph - I never claimed that those individuals didn't have problems, what I said was that what they did was never identified as sin (Hagar is blessed, Tamar is declared righteous, Rahab and Ruth are both in the line of David, etc.).
Again, I say the bible is much more rich and real than the Nashville Statement would have us believe.
This is very good, I think ... I would like to hear the Nashville brethren respond to each and every one of these points, but I'm not holding my breath ...
http://religiondispatches.org/a-14-point-rebuttal-to-the-nashville-statement-from-a-straight-cis-christian-man/?utm_source=Religion+Dispatches+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6e61bdaa8c-RD_Daily_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_742d86f519-6e61bdaa8c-84570749
Post a Comment