Why I Changed My Mind on the Nashville Statement
There is a need for well-crafted and clear statements summarizing the Bible’s teaching about sexuality, gender, and what it means to be human. They are needful as means to catechize our children so that they may better resist the spirit of the age and avoid errors that will make shipwreck of their faith. But as the ongoing influence of Revoice makes clear, resources like the Nashville Statement are needful for the instruction of even our own pastors.
I did not originate the title of this article. The Eikon editors initially asked if I would be willing to write about how and why my thinking had changed about the Nashville Statement. But in service to greater accuracy, it would be better for me to pursue the question, “Why I finally decided to publicly endorse the Nashville Statement.” I have never questioned the biblical fidelity of the Nashville Statement. My initial reluctance to publicly endorse it was due to other factors that were at play at the time, primarily the debate over the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), of which I was a rather vocal participant. As many readers will know, that created an uneasy tension among those who were otherwise committed to complementarianism. Plus, as naïve as this sounds today, I believed the Nashville Statement was entirely unnecessary.
Nevertheless, my reticence to publicly endorse the Nashville Statement was banished decisively by three developments. First, I was encouraged by certain things happening within the CBMW. Second, it was clear that the moral revolutionaries who were driving the culture war had gained enormous ground, even among professing Christians. But the most decisive factor in my support for the Nashville Statement had to do with certain events in the denomination which I serve as a pastor, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
In the summer of 2018, the first Revoice conference was held at a PCA church in St. Louis, MO. It is true that Revoice upholds the Christian ethic that sexual intimacy is exclusively for a man and woman within the bonds of marriage. On that much we agree. But it is also true that Revoice holds to so-called Side B “Gay Christianity”. It is not my purpose here to go into detail about the deeply flawed doctrines attached to the “gay but celibate” movement which Revoice represents. I will only say that it distorts the doctrine of humanity — the telos of the body and sexuality — undermines sanctification, and strips the gospel of its power to transform our desires. And so, like so many within the PCA, I was dismayed that one of our own churches would play host to an event propagating such grievous errors.
This conflict in the PCA intersected with the Nashville Statement in the summer of 2019. That year, an overture reached the floor of our General Assembly which called for the PCA to declare that the Nashville Statement was biblically faithful. This overture (Overture 4) stated:
Therefore be it resolved that the Calvary Presbytery hereby overture the 47th General Assembly and asks it to declare the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’s “Nashville Statement” on biblical sexuality as a biblically faithful declaration and refer the “Nashville Statement” to the Committee on Discipleship Ministries for inclusion and promotion among its denominational teaching materials.
-
A Not So Secret Ingredient for Marriage
Pride has been called the origin of all sins. If that is so, humility is the answer for all sins. It begins with humility before God and leads to humility before others in our relationships. And the surprising fruit is the grace He gives as He blesses a marriage.
Anniversary While in Quarantine
Jennifer and I are three days away from finishing our 14-day quarantine in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. We have returned to the field amidst the COVID-19 epidemic. Today marks our 25th wedding anniversary, so we celebrate stuck in a hotel under heavy restrictions. Don’t worry—we often celebrate at a later time when circumstances crunch The Day. But being stuck has allowed time for musing, reflecting on what grace has brought us through twenty-five years, still so grateful to be sharing life together.
I have been married to Jennifer for more than half of my life now, two years more to be exact. It is hard to imagine life without her. If the Lord were to take her home before me, it would be extremely difficult. We have learned so much about helping each other in daily joys and trials that our lives are now interconnected in a thousand ways.
But no marriage is perfect. That is impossible because each of us are sinners. Being in Christ and having God’s Word, His Spirit, and His Church should make a tremendous difference in our lives and marriages. But even if both husband and wife are godly believers growing and changing, there will still be conflict and difficulties at times. We may be saved sinners being sanctified, but we are sinners still.
Why the Conflict?
Why is it that some Christian homes with both husband and wife genuinely born-again believers still have poor marriages? Why does conflict and strife still dominate many Christian homes? How could it possibly be that Christians could defy God’s will for marriage and get divorced?
If we were to try to explain the difference between a godly Christian marriage and a failing or failed Christian marriage, what would that difference be? If we tried to “boil it down” to the most basic difference between them, what would that basic difference be?
What Saith the Scriptures?
The Scriptures don’t give us a statement that says, “The golden key to success in marriage is this one word or principle”. We do have lots of statements about marriage to draw on, however:Believers are to leave their parents and cleave to one another as the most important person in life, to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
We are to view our marriage commitment as a covenant made in the eyes of God, one that He takes very seriously. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:13-16)!Read More
-
America’s LGBTQ Establishment
Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Pride Month is not about civil rights, it is about ownership of space and time. It is a demonstration of cultural and political power and an opportunity to erase from public view those who refuse to acknowledge that power.How do you take over an empire? That is a question that I used as a title for a lecture I gave each year in my Ancient Christianity class. The answer is simple to state but somewhat more difficult to achieve in practice: You simply need to control time and space.
Christianity achieved this in the Roman empire during the fourth century, a century that opened with the last great imperial persecution of the church and ended with Christians firmly established as the dominant religion officially sanctioned by the state and privileged above all pagan rivals. By no coincidence, it was also the century that saw struggles where the deployment of martyr relics was used as a means of claiming ownership of land for sacred purposes and the development of liturgical calendars for marking the rhythm of the year in distinctly Christian terms.
In our modern days, the same principles are deployed by those who seek to control our world. And Pride Month is surely the most ostentatious, annoying, and egregious of them all. June has been taken over by the avant-garde of the sexual revolution. It is the high feast of the progressive liturgical calendar and almost as long as Lent—though committed of course to self-indulgence, not self-denial. Pride parades pass through the streets, flaunting ever more exotic forms of explicit sexuality, often cheered on by parents with small children.
Read More
Related Posts: -
WA Schools Adopt Race-Based Discipline, White Students to get Harsher Punishment
Democrats passed a law implementing cultural competency standards and training for schools and school boards. The intent was to provide tools that will lead to “dismantling institutional racism in public schools.” If this sounds like language that would come from CRT evangelists, you’d be correct.
A Washington school board butted heads over a new student discipline policy that considers a student’s race before deciding on a punishment.
The Clover Park School District debated its new “culturally responsive” student discipline policy. It means student discipline would not be consistent based on conduct. Instead, a school considers a student’s race and background. It would likely offer harsher punishments to white students, even if the conduct is identical to that of a Black or Hispanic student.The disparate treatment is championed in the name of inclusion. But it’s not just a Clover Park School District controversy.
The culturally responsive policy impacts every Washington school district after Democrats passed a law institutionalizing critical race theory in student discipline.
Culturally Responsive Discipline gets Support
The Clover Park School Board adopted a revised student discipline policy at its March 14 meeting by a vote of 3-2. At times, the meeting was contentious as two board members argued it’s wrong to use race to determine punishment. The district is majority-minority, with 28% white students.According to the policy, disruptive students may face “exclusionary as well as positive and supportive forms of discipline.” But the focus, the policy maintains, is to keep students in the classroom and provide “equitable educational opportunities.”
To make student discipline outcomes more “equitable,” the policy must meet “individual student needs in a culturally responsive manner” via “culturally responsive discipline.”
The state officially defines “culturally responsive” as “knowledge of student cultural histories and contexts, as well as family norms and values in different cultures; knowledge and skills in accessing community resources and community and parent outreach; and skills in adapting instruction to students’ experiences and identifying cultural contexts for individual students.”
In practice, it means favorable treatment of racial minorities.Race-Based Discipline
The two conservative members of the Clover Park School Board asked what is meant by the term “culturally responsive discipline.” Deputy Superintendent Brian Laubach attempted to explain.
“Essentially they’re referring there, that you look at ‘are you dispersing discipline across the ethnicities, the racial groups equitably,’ right?,” Laubach said. “So, are you disciplining African-American boys more than you’re disciplining white boys, right? So, are you paying attention to all of that in your data?”
He continued by listing some specific data schools would need to compile on student discipline.
“What are their backgrounds? Ethnicity? That sort of thing can be commented in that way about it. Then, asking classroom teachers, asking administrators who dispense that discipline, you know, what brought that about over the other forms of discipline you used in your classroom to make a change happen before sending a kid out, perhaps, for a behavior violation,” Laubach said.Conservative board member pushes back
Read More
