Thread: The "Nashville Statement" Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020277
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
So, yesterday, a group of US evangelical leaders released something called the Nashville Statement. It's presented as a set of 14 articles, presenting a "traditional orthodox and biblical" set of positions on sexuality. Among the usual anti-LGBT wording is a statement essentially saying that their position is not something that should be up for debate among true Christians.
Has anyone with a bit more knowledge of the group behind it any insight into the origins of this?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Fred Clark is where I usually turn for an insider's view of white American evangelicals. Once again, he doesn't disappoint:

quote:
The group that voluntarily chose to call itself the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” released a manifesto/declaration reiterating their belief that we must all listen to them and defer to them and bend the knee to them as the sole right and true arbiters of morality.

They would also like to remind everyone that they are inerrant and infallible and directly inspired by God as authoritative. This is what they refer to as a “high view.” They also claim to have a “high view of scripture,” but it’s not nearly as high a view as they have of themselves as it’s exclusive and authoritative interpreters.

Those are always the major themes of everything these folks declare or pronounce or manifest in their pompous public “statements.” The minor, subordinate matters addressed in such statements varies. In today’s case — something they call the “Nashville Statement,” Google it yourself — that lesser theme is that these anti-gay self-appointed arbiters of morality and biblical interpretation are, in case anyone was wondering, anti-gay.

Stop the presses.
Also included is a picture of unindicted Jack Abramoff co-conspirator Tony Perkins holding forth to a bunch of white supremacists in the 1980s, who is apparently one of the moral luminaries to sign the Nashville Statement.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
'Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.'

Proverbs 16 v18, from the King James Version (of course).

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Fuck them. Name it after someplace else.

My message to them is: Don't drag my family,my friends and me into your horseshit you clowns.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Also included is a picture of unindicted Jack Abramoff co-conspirator Tony Perkins holding forth to a bunch of white supremacists in the 1980s, who is apparently one of the moral luminaries to sign the Nashville Statement.
I'm glad that my immediate suspicion that the use of the number 14 was a dog-whistle for "14 words" wasn't entirely without foundation.

This piece of Nazi-cryptology was brought to you by the letters A and H and the numbers 14 and 88.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
No discussion here then.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Several discussion points spring to mind:
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Fuck them. Name it after someplace else.

My message to them is: Don't drag my family,my friends and me into your horseshit you clowns.
The mayor of Nashville apparently agrees with you, though in much less colorful language.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I have read a little of this. I suppose it helps to identify those who have sat on the fence. Those who sign up to it are on one side.

I am on the other.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There is at least one alternative statement, the signing of which marks a position on the other side of the fence.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Several discussion points spring to mind:

The first amendment of the United States Constitution.

More seriously, the PDF version lists a series of "Initial Signatories" with various affiliations after their names, but is careful to specify "Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only". Translation: these signatories have status within these listed organizations, but did not represent their organizations in any official capacity when they signed this document.

An interesting side note is that The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Coalition for Biblical Sexuality lists their council members (along with similar affiliation listings) and it seems that eight of the twenty-four Councilors are not included among the initial signatories, including three of the six Councilors with traditionally female names.

(It's not hard to verify the gender of these individuals. Regardless of any other qualifications or accomplishments the first descriptor of every female Councilor is "Homemaker", with the exception of Susan Hunt who is listed as a "Pastor’s Wife".)

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Yes, but don't use those terms. A lot of the signatories have previous intellectual commitments against the idea of infallibly proclaimed dogma.

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Eye rolling? Ignoring? The idea that no one realized American evangelicals have issues with gay people or uppity women until this statement clarified things seems far fetched.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
The group met last week at the Gaylord Opryland Resort
So why isn't this the Gaylord Statement?

They also deny polygamy is approved by God. Wonder what the patriarchs would have made of that?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
The group met last week at the Gaylord Opryland Resort
So why isn't this the Gaylord Statement?
It's never a good idea to use a name that's a registered trademark of a wealthy and potentially litigious corporation.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Thank you for such a speedy reply Croesus. All I can say is that my proposed namechange would highlight the absurdity of this statement.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thank you for such a speedy reply Croesus. All I can say is that my proposed namechange would highlight the absurdity of this statement.
I found it amusing at least.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
OK, I read through it because I'm avoiding some meaningful work.

They seem to be expending a great deal of energy on issues which Jesus ignored with a deafening silence. (Thanks a lot, Paul.) The one notable exception is Article #1 on marriage being a "life long union". But Protestant churches mostly accept divorce, red states have higher divorce rates than blue ones, and I would be genuinely surprised if none of the signatories has had a divorce, dalliance, etc. Perhaps it's a case of, "I was a sinner, but I'm all better now."

More seriously, in this emphasis on Adam and Eve being in God's image, and trying to include the intersex (Article #6) as also in God's image, is there not in this fetishising of gender and gender differences something approaching idolatry of the body?

As an editorial note, Article #9's denial clause's use of "immorality" and "immoral" is a lovely petitio principii.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No discussion here then.
Really? What would you like to discuss?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

More seriously, in this emphasis on Adam and Eve being in God's image, and trying to include the intersex (Article #6) as also in God's image, is there not in this fetishising of gender and gender differences something approaching idolatry of the body?
I assume this goes along with the CBMWs support for the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son and their application of that doctrine to male/female relatonships.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here is another alternative statement, which rebuts the Nashville statement point by point. It was written by Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit who is tight with the Vatican.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
There's some seriously eye-watering hypocrisy going on, from Article 1 onwards, with absolutely zero acknowledgement of the domestic arrangements of the patriarchs, nor the 'men and woman are equal but the lasses get all the crap jobs' nonsense they've previously spouted.

(Aside - I have no intention of going through the signatories to see who's had a divorce. I can object to this on its own terms.)

Perhaps they feel the need to rescue me from my heresy, but actually, I'm quite comfortable with it. Given that Paul suggests (strongly) that people don't get married, I'm not sure of the emphasis of this document at all. Surely, a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be urging a life of singleness and celibacy on all? Only those who can't control their passions get married, and it's clearly second-best for the Kingdom's work.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Two more responses: Nadia Boltz-Weber's House for all Sinners & Saints provide The Denver Statement

Meanwhile, for those who aren't fluent in evangel-blovaiting, John Pavlovitz provides this helpful Plain Language Translation. It has been suggested that one might be able to summarize it even more succinctly with a single finger.

The most egregious of all the over-the-top hateful rhetoric is the bit about transgendered individuals. Apparently, the silence of Scripture on the matter is to be taken as their full authorization to pretty much discount the entire experience and a boat load of other similarly unfounded assumptions, rumors, and innuendo.

I'm going to have to revive the "what do I call myself now" thread that I started shortly after the election, because I sure as h*** am not gonna call myself an evangelical if this is what "evangelical" has come to mean these days.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No discussion here then.
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Several discussion points spring to mind:

But the 'major denominations' issue is neither here nor there, ISTM. The major denominations are pluralistic, and if you find one scholar who says one thing, you can find another who says the opposite. The document is indifferent to 'major denominations', and the feeling is probably mutual.

Moreover, this text is preaching to the choir. It's not going to have any impact on anyone who isn't already under the (American) con-evo umbrella. And it doesn't cover any issue that hasn't already been well-aired, does it?

So no, there isn't a great deal to discuss, ISTM. Maybe the power of the Religious Right is what makes it newsworthy - but that's a political problem, not a theological one.

[ 31. August 2017, 01:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
It's always amusing when people whose traditions take great pride in rejecting a Magisterium, or even a rigiriusly educated clergy, in favoro of me- and- the- Bible- under- a- blalnket-with- a- flashlight start issuing what they fancy to be authoritative pronouncements on Christian doctrine, anathemas, etc.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

So no, there isn't a great deal to discuss, ISTM. Maybe the power of the Religious Right is what makes it newsworthy - but that's a political problem, not a theological one.
And this makes it less dangerous how?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the thing which sums it all up is that the invitation (on the site linked to in the OP) to sign the Statement is more prominent than the invitation to read it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Moreover, this text is preaching to the choir. It's not going to have any impact on anyone who isn't already under the (American) con-evo umbrella. And it doesn't cover any issue that hasn't already been well-aired, does it?
It serves the same purpose as one of Trump's rallies: whip up the base.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No discussion here then.
Well, if you mean "does everyone here disagree with the NS?" well yes, so far. We're not going to randomly generate someone to agree just to stimulate a debate. I think most people here are more thinking how to respond to this outpouring of hatred, intolerance and "anyone a bit different"-phobia, which I find encouraging.

[ 31. August 2017, 06:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think most people here are more thinking how to respond to this outpouring of hatred, intolerance and "anyone a bit different"-phobia, which I find encouraging.
Here's one idea, hot off the press: ban all straight people from Hell.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
“They caught me way up in Nashville / They locked me up and threw away the key” Stonewall Jackson “I Washed My Hands in Muddy Water” ('bout Elvis o'course) - if only they would.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Croesus:
quote:
A lot of the signatories have previous intellectual commitments against the idea of infallibly proclaimed dogma.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Croesus:
quote:
A lot of the signatories have previous intellectual commitments against the idea of infallibly proclaimed dogma.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
...it should become a Catholic duck?

I'm not sure I want to wish them on the RCC. And they'd probably want to be some sort of collective/hive pope.
[Paranoid]
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Shouldn't this thread be in Hell? [Mad] Sex-obsessed idiots!
 
Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :
 
Looking at the signatories, I know nothing of most of the names except for Dobson, whose history with such anti-Christian nonsense like this is well known and Robison, some huckster televangelist that doesn't totally subscribe to send me your money to save your soul type BS but isn't that far off.

My two cents, the signatories seem to me to be kids crying to teacher about so and so being bad while they are pulling on the braid of the girl sitting in front of them.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
They're the dead-enders of American Evangelicalism, trying to go down swinging. Which doesn't mean that They're not dangerous insofar as they provide comfort and cover for non- faith- based bigots. But fewer and fewer Americans identify as Evangelical, and the ones who do are less likely to have such views. So to me the political import of the statement is more the issue than the theological import, which to me falls under the category of " Grampa is yelling again."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
They're the dead-enders of American Evangelicalism, trying to go down swinging.
Well, pretending to go down swinging while subtly changing their position. One of the most interesting things is what's not in the Nashville Statement. Check out Article 8, particularly the Affirmative half:

quote:
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.
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
What's missing is the idea that you can 'pray the gay away' and strong enough religious belief can 'straighten out' any homosexual. Given how fairly recently there was a whole thriving industry based on turning gay people straight (or, more usually, selling parents the idea that they could turn their gay kids straight) the fact that this particular bit of theological truth has fallen down the memory hole seems pretty big.
 
Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:


quote:
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.
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
What's missing is the idea that you can 'pray the gay away' and strong enough religious belief can 'straighten out' any homosexual. Given how fairly recently there was a whole thriving industry based on turning gay people straight (or, more usually, selling parents the idea that they could turn their gay kids straight) the fact that this particular bit of theological truth has fallen down the memory hole seems pretty big. [/QB]
Maybe cause their finally starting to understand, it doesn't work? But that's a bit too convenient. It'll show up again in some other form. Maybe Benny Hinn will say that all the money blinded followers give him will suddenly allow him to heal LGBTQ's of their "affliction"?

[ 31. August 2017, 14:25: Message edited by: Clutch ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

What's missing is the idea that you can 'pray the gay away' and strong enough religious belief can 'straighten out' any homosexual. Given how fairly recently there was a whole thriving industry based on turning gay people straight
This was mainly a thing on the more conservative end of US Christianity and the more conservative + charismatic end of UK Christianity. In this context it's probably reasonably significant that at least two of the signatories have spoken of their particular experience of same sex attraction.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
What Clutch and LutheranChik said. This is a bunch of Old White Guys desperately trying to be relevant in a movement that has very much moved on. Attempting to be relevant by taking the movement backwards a couple of decades or so seems like a bad idea. Doubling down on it by rhetorically yelling "We're right! God says so! If you disagree you're of the devil" isn't exactly winsome argumentation either, especially as noted above, from folks who ordinarily are piously denouncing papal authority.

NT scholar Scot McKnight makes some interesting connections between the signers (most notable among them are Piper and Packer, leaders of the "neoCalvinist" wing of evangelicalism). McKnight draws a connection between what he calls their unorthodox (hey, one cry of "heresy" deserves another!) Christology (over-emphasis on the eternal subordination of the Son) to the statement. The connecting theme is authoritarianim. These are people who read the gospel and life primarily thru the lens of authoritarianism-- who's in charge? Listen to the leader, do what he says. They view the gospel that way-- the Father is in charge, he tells the Son what to do, the Son follows orders, we as believers are to do the same-- follow orders. Thus the most striking thing about the statement is not so much it's ultra-conservative sexual ethics (not uncommon in evangelical circles) but the way it is presented in such strong-arm, rhetorically bullying terms (sign this or burn in hell for all eternity!). Each of their positions seems to further that sort of authoritarian hierarchy-- wives obey husbands, gays obey your (straight) Bible preachers, transgender folks, obey God and stop trying to mess with what God created. Look up the chain of command and just Do What You're Told then Shut the Heck Up.

In this hyper-authoritarian view of the gospel, God is defined by the "omnis"-- all powerful, all-knowing, all-present. God is the biggest, baddest dog on the block and He is always In Control. He's got it all locked down, and whatever happens, however horrific it may seem, has got to be His Will because God is Big and In Charge. As an Open Theist, we see God's nature very differently. We draw from Phil. 2 to understand the "omnis" as attributes that God has but not defining attributes-- they are things that God can set aside in the incarnation without ceasing to be God. Rather, the defining characteristic of God-- the thing that cannot be set aside-- is God's self-giving, sacrificial love. That's the meaning of the incarnation and what Jesus demonstrated on earth-- the clearest picture we have of God.

Interestingly, some recent analyses of the horrible events of past November suggest that the most predictable characteristic of a Trump voter is not evangelical membership, but rather a high score on "authoritarian" scale. Trump appeals to them and continue to appeal to them because he sounds precisely like Piper and Packer and the other Nashville signers-- making strong, decisive statements and sticking to them doggedly, even when they are confounded by reality. (Nashville statement is full of unfounded and even disproved theories of sexuality, just as Trump constantly espouses "alternative facts" contrary to any scientific evidence). The more Trump makes really horrifyingly bombastic statements threatening nuclear war, sharing the s**t out of the rest of us, the more Trump voters like it because again, he sounds god-like-- strong and In Charge. Don't mess with me. And so they whip out Rom. 13 to assert that Trump is God's divinely appointed leader (funny we never heard Rom. 13 when Obama was president).

I'm with McKnight that this is not only wrong, it is blasphemous heresy.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

NT scholar Scot McKnight makes some interesting connections between the signers (most notable among them are Piper and Packer, leaders of the "neoCalvinist" wing of evangelicalism). McKnight draws a connection between what he calls their unorthodox (hey, one cry of "heresy" deserves another!) Christology (over-emphasis on the eternal subordination of the Son) to the statement.
The ESS is definitely something associated with and pushed by the CBMW and there are some parallels to in the statements. I doubt if the majority of the signers subscribe to it though, and a number of them have actively criticised it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What Clutch and LutheranChik said. This is a bunch of Old White Guys desperately trying to be relevant in a movement that has very much moved on.
These are the bastards who helped elect the blonde merkin on an orange ballsac. He just issued and executive order against transsexuals in the military. They are likely trying to build on that.
 
Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What Clutch and LutheranChik said. This is a bunch of Old White Guys desperately trying to be relevant in a movement that has very much moved on.
These are the bastards who helped elect the blonde merkin on an orange ballsac. He just issued and executive order against transsexuals in the military. They are likely trying to build on that.
That's just Trump. Pence is just as backward, supporting "conversion therapy",signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act while in Indiana, calling gay couples a "societal collapse", voting against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and so on.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here is another charming and similar case, writ somewhat smaller. This is a free click.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Breaking News...
 
Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :
 
At least the first link was an actual satirist.

I'm not sure about the second link.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Breaking News...
Progressives appalled that some conservative Christians refuse to obey their Lord's command to love their neighbour.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Breaking News...
It's not an affirmation of doctrine held unanimously, or anywhere near so, for 2000 years. It's something dressed up to look like such an affirmation with more weasel words than a sack full of ferrets.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Breaking News...
Breaking news: satirical site run by conservative evangelical not keen on progressives, approves conservative evangelical statement.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Breaking News...
As I pointed out above, Paul's teaching on marriage has been systematically ignored for almost as long. Calling what we have 'now' as 'held unanimously for 2000 years' is simply a declaration of ignorance, wilful or otherwise.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

So no, there isn't a great deal to discuss, ISTM. Maybe the power of the Religious Right is what makes it newsworthy - but that's a political problem, not a theological one.
And this makes it less dangerous how?
But if you already think the Religious Right is dangerous then what difference does this document make? I should think Donald Trump already knows what these people think about SSM, abortion and all the rest. Who else are they hoping to influence if they haven't had managed it by now?

I see that 26% of the American population identify as evangelical. Some of that number won't agree the contents of the document. Those who don't probably need to join forces with other Christians (and other faith groups) to act as a religious counterweight to the kinds of people who approve of this Statement.

People who claim to be well-informed, ecumenical and progressive shouldn't be leaving it to their theological inferiors, so to speak, to set the agenda and to court the powers that be. Although that appears to be a particular problem of American Christianity....
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is another charming and similar case, writ somewhat smaller. This is a free click.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But if you already think the Religious Right is dangerous then what difference does this document make?
It is the same dynamic mentioned by Crœsos in this post. Especially the Vanishing Nazi. This kind of shite draws people in, especially if they are borderline already and it strengthens the believers.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Exactly. Especially since this statement goes far beyond the usual evangelical denunciations of gay sex as sin to suggest in sections 5, 7 and 8, that any homosexual or transgender "self-conception" or "same-sex attraction" is sin. So it has doubled down on the odious "hate the sin, love the sinner" and just jumped to the finish line of "let's just hate the sinner".

Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".

This is actually rather Trump-like in it's authoritarian, raw meat brutality. Coming as it does just mere weeks after Charlottesville, it's at best tone-deaf and at worst chilling.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Well, I suppose believers like to have something to rally around. But they would needn't to create new 'statements' to rally around if their values weren't already under attack from the wider culture.

The USA is secularising. It may look as if the conservative evangelicals are ruining everything for everyone else, but in truth, they're on the back foot. And I doubt that the angry young white men with the neo-Nazi tendencies are going to be the most devoted signatories of the 'Nashville Statement'!

We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
And they both voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
As often as they have been declared near dead, they still are around. Trump and Brexit show that hate is a little healthier than some would proclaim.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Her I hope they're losers in the long term, not all, or even most, of them are society's losers now.The most ardent Trumpets I know are successful small- town businesspeople and eell- pensioned retirees. The trope that poor, despairing un-/ underemployed blue- collar white people make up the bulk of his fan base just isn't true in .y experience, and I live in solidly GOP rural America.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Her I hope they're losers in the long term, not all, or even most, of them are society's losers now.The most ardent Trumpets I know are successful small- town businesspeople and eell- pensioned retirees. The trope that poor, despairing un-/ underemployed blue- collar white people make up the bulk of his fan base just isn't true in .y experience, and I live in solidly GOP rural America.
I think what fueled the media narrative about workers-for-Trump was the blue-collar demographic in the Rust Belt who went over to Trump, because he was against NAFTA and the TPP, and promised to keep factories open.

Now, the GOP these days is considered economically laissez-faire, so voting for the party in pursuit of economic interventionism had a man-bites-dog quality about it, and that's the kind of thing the media likes to play up, ie. more exciting than "Typical Republicans voters vote Republican again".

But I would tend to agree with LutheranChik, that the vast majority of votes that Trump got were from the sort of people who always vote Republican, with the economically marginalized blue-collar crowd being just enough to push them over the top in a few Rust Belt states, and, following that, the Electoral College.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Last night Nashville's air was filled with the sound of tornado sirens. I won't say for sure it is because of those assholes - but it sure is coincidental.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
To me, that is the clause that is the most disturbing as it essentially closes off any further discussion on the matter, claiming for themselves some sort of quasi-papal-inerrancy.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

We'll see. But the American red-neck neo-Nazis and white conservative evangelicals are probably alike in at least one way: both groups are losers in the long term.
As often as they have been declared near dead, they still are around. Trump and Brexit show that hate is a little healthier than some would proclaim.
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!

And Trump's reign will soon be over. AFAIK he was voted in fairly according to the rules of his country, and will be voted out again soon enough - that's if he doesn't leave first, willingly or unwillingly. I understand that some of his voters are unhappy at how things are going.

But with regard to Trump and the evangelicals, I've found an interesting article which claims that there's little likelihood that Trump will reverse the changes taking place in American society, and that he represents the 'death rattle of White Christian America' rather than its 'resuscitation'.

I don't think either white evangelicalism or rednecks will die out. It's more about a loss of power and influence. American evangelicalism will also become much more Latino over time, and white evangelicals will eventually realise that people of colour are helping to keep their churches open. In Britain I think this reality has helped to reduce the amount of blatant racism in the churches.

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Her I hope they're losers in the long term, not all, or even most, of them are society's losers now.The most ardent Trumpets I know are successful small- town businesspeople and eell- pensioned retirees. The trope that poor, despairing un-/ underemployed blue- collar white people make up the bulk of his fan base just isn't true in .y experience, and I live in solidly GOP rural America.
My comment was about neo-Nazis, not about Trump voters. The two groups will overlap, but even if you hate the ground that Trump walks on you have to keep a sense of proportion. A vote for Trump might have been stupid, but I'm sure it wasn't fascistic in every case.

And I didn't say that all of Trump's voters were poor. He wouldn't have won the election if only the poor had voted for him.

[ 01. September 2017, 22:19: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!
You did have a fair amount of "I believe God has a plan" type comments (which didn't go into considering what that plan was).
There was also a slightly better one that had a bit more thought (broadly in terms of relying on human institutions, though again that didn't consider our institutions).

But while they might have been neccessary/sufficient to swing it Brexit/Remainwards they weren't a core constituency.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!
I think you are right insofar as conservative Christians in the UK are fairly few in number. So in that sense Brexit in itself didn't have anything to do with them.

That said, a disproportionate number of conservative Christians seemed to support it. I saw plenty of material from the charismatic/pentecostal end of conservative Christianity pushing the usual 'EU as Beast of Revelation' schtick - along with numerous 'prophecies' and the like.

The con-evo end tended towards the Tory-skeptic-at-prayer and tended to shoot for economic arguments. The shameful exception to this was the number of them who seemed to land on the 'Turks are coming!' issue in the days leading up to the referendum itself.

I do think there is a lot of truth in this article

"It is a matter of record that, for the last 4-6 weeks of the campaign, this (entirely imaginary) threat of Turkish immigration was, essentially, the sole message of the ‘Leave’ campaign. Michael Gove gave an, astonishing, 90 minute TV interview, where he responded to every question the audience asked him with ‘Turkish immigration’; the infamous final leaflet of the campaign, delivered to every home in the UK, pressed this message, extraordinarily crudely."
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think Brexit has anything to do with conservative evangelicals, as much as you'd like to blame them for everything!
You did have a fair amount of "I believe God has a plan" type comments (which didn't go into considering what that plan was).
There was also a slightly better one that had a bit more thought (broadly in terms of relying on human institutions, though again that didn't consider our institutions).

But while they might have been neccessary/sufficient to swing it Brexit/Remainwards they weren't a core constituency.
Come again? I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just a MOTR Methodist, so I certainly don't know what God's plans are!

My comments about the future of Christianity and/or Neo-Nazis are based on what I've read and (regarding Britain) what I might have experienced or heard about. It's more sociological than theological. I'll try to post some refs if you can explain what exactly you disagree with.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
To me, that is the clause that is the most disturbing as it essentially closes off any further discussion on the matter, claiming for themselves some sort of quasi-papal-inerrancy.
m


Yes. Rather odd coming from the branch of the Church that had a major tantrum 500 years ago re papal infallibility
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

That said, a disproportionate number of conservative Christians seemed to support [Brexit]. I saw plenty of material from the charismatic/pentecostal end of conservative Christianity pushing the usual 'EU as Beast of Revelation' schtick - along with numerous 'prophecies' and the like.
Well, at least this has nothing to do with Nazism, which seems to be the main concern mentioned above.

The anti-Turkish thing is perhaps more relevant. Islamophobia? Probably. Small town Christians in fairly homogeneous areas may worry about the increasing number of Muslims in neighbouring districts. Churchgoers are also on average older than the general population, and age was a factor in people voting for Brexit.

There are some commentators who suggest practising Muslims will outnumber practising Christians in the UK in the next 20 years. But this isn't about the arrival of 1000s of EU-friendly Turks, or a Muslim takeover. It's actually a sign of secularisation; fewer people identify as Christians, and fewer or those who do practise their faith. Islam simply benefits by default. (Of course, one could argue about what constitutes 'practising' any particular religion.)

FWIW, most of the evangelicals I know about live in cities, and there's really no point in them bemoaning the growth of Muslim communities. That ship sailed long ago. And it didn't have much to do with the EU.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Small town Christians in fairly homogeneous areas may worry about the increasing number of Muslims in neighbouring districts. Churchgoers are also on average older than the general population, and age was a factor in people voting for Brexit.
I should add that googling didn't come up with a clear 'Christian' response to Brexit, but it seems inaccurate to equate Christian conservatism with anti-Europeanism. For example, Anglicans seem to have been more likely to vote for Brexit than RCs, even though the RCC is obviously a more conservative institution than the CofE. There are obviously several reasons for that.

Similarly, non-white conservative Christians in the USA aren't especially focused on the issues that the white Religious Right proritises, which suggests that anything like the Nashville Statement is unlikely to go out of its way to include or engage them. IOW, theological conservatism can't be defined simply by reference to the agenda of one group, no matter how visible that group is.

It would be instructive to know how many named non-white church leaders and thinkers helped to create the document, and whether it's being publicised by any non-white or heavily multiracial congregations.

[ 02. September 2017, 01:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For example, Anglicans seem to have been more likely to vote for Brexit than RCs, even though the RCC is obviously a more conservative institution than the CofE. There are obviously several reasons for that.
I imagine a large part of that is down to Anglicans containing the largest percentage of non-big city dwellers of the groups studied, and generally less ethnic.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
This is misleading, you put a phrase in quotes which appears nowhere in the document. What the DENY part of article 10 says is:

quote:
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.
Saying this is not an issue Christians should agree to disagree on, is not the same as saying anyone who disagrees "sets one outside of the gospel" especially given that in article 8 they state:

quote:
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
I don't agree with the Statement but I don't think it helps to mis-characterise it.

Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it. So far from being an irony it's exactly in line with the way protestants have always acted.

I also don't believe it's intended as an explanation or a defence of a position, it's a declaration of that position. I think it's purpose is to clarify where certain groups stand, a rallying point if you like. It's not aimed at convincing anyone who doesn't already believe it, merely so people can identify each other. And separate from if necessary - again classic protestant behaviour.

I think what it really is is an attempt to counter the evangelical blogging problem. They're not really trying to declare (and argue) to the whole world that these things are true, that happens but it's a side-effect, they're trying to remind their own constituents who may have been influenced by some popular evangelical/post-evangelical blogs what their own leaders believe.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Further, all this is presented without defense or argument, even without the normal clobber verses. We're just supposed to take their word for it, since sec 10 states that disagreement "sets one outside of the gospel".
This is misleading, you put a phrase in quotes which appears nowhere in the document. What the DENY part of article 10 says is:

quote:
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.
Saying this is not an issue Christians should agree to disagree on, is not the same as saying anyone who disagrees "sets one outside of the gospel" especially given that in article 8 they state:

quote:
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
I don't agree with the Statement but I don't think it helps to mis-characterise it.
Agreed. I was quoting from memory-- had trouble finding the statement in a form where one could copy-and-paste, clearly I was conflating those two articles in a problematic way. I should have been more careful.

In partial defense, though, I would say I was not objecting to the "we deny" part of article 10 as much as the earlier part-- you need both together to parse the meaning. The "we deny" part you quoted out of context could indeed mean some version of "this is a serious issue and not one to be dismissed"-- if not for what comes before:

quote:
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.
That's problematic.

While not saying "outside of the gospel" (which would be more problematic-- I should have been more careful) it is still saying outside of "Christian faithfulness and witness". I would interpret that to mean "you can't be a Christian and believe differently than us on this".

This makes it a lot harder to interpret the "we deny" as simply "this is important" and more like some sort of quasi-papal statement of "believe this or turn in your Christian Club card".
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This makes it a lot harder to interpret the "we deny" as simply "this is important" and more like some sort of quasi-papal statement of "believe this or turn in your Christian Club card".
The way I'd put it is they are saying "if you don't believe this then you really don't belong in our Christian Club, which as you know is the best and closest to what God intended".

Which, BTW, many of the signatories of this statement would do with one another on other issues.

If we divide things Christians can disagree on into:

1) Things that make you no longer a Christian or at best make you a heretic

2) Things that are not an issue of being in or out but are nonetheless very important

3) Things on which people may disagree with a clear conscience.

In my experience of evangelicals there's a very clear, small set of beliefs* that make up 1), 3) consists things like how to arrange the flowers and what time is best for Bible Study group to start and almost everything else is in 2).

(*not necessarily the same set for all groups however)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:

Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it.
Rubbish. If there were no de-facto magisteriums, you would not have synods and equivalent or so bloody many divisions and intra-sectual strife. Call it a biscuit or a cookie, it still tastes the same.


quote:

I also don't believe it's intended as an explanation or a defence of a position, it's a declaration of that position. I think it's purpose is to clarify where certain groups stand, a rallying point if you like.
Agree
quote:

It's not aimed at convincing anyone who doesn't already believe it, merely so people can identify each other.
Disagree. It is aimed at the tentative, those they feel might potentially agree but are to cowed/infulenced by "librul" society.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This makes it a lot harder to interpret the "we deny" as simply "this is important" and more like some sort of quasi-papal statement of "believe this or turn in your Christian Club card".
The way I'd put it is they are saying "if you don't believe this then you really don't belong in our Christian Club, which as you know is the best and closest to what God intended".

Which, BTW, many of the signatories of this statement would do with one another on other issues.

If we divide things Christians can disagree on into:

1) Things that make you no longer a Christian or at best make you a heretic

2) Things that are not an issue of being in or out but are nonetheless very important

3) Things on which people may disagree with a clear conscience.

In my experience of evangelicals there's a very clear, small set of beliefs* that make up 1), 3) consists things like how to arrange the flowers and what time is best for Bible Study group to start and almost everything else is in 2).

(*not necessarily the same set for all groups however)
Agreed. Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
Not just preemptory but nigh-blasphemously absurd. The evilness of being gay is just as important as the Incarnation and the Trinity? It shows a severe misunderstanding of the Gospel and historical theology, I'd say.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
Not just preemptory but nigh-blasphemously absurd. The evilness of being gay is just as important as the Incarnation and the Trinity? It shows a severe misunderstanding of the Gospel and historical theology, I'd say.
And by tying their neuvo-apostolic statement not just to gay marriage or sex, but to homosexual or transgender "self-conception" they are not just throwing those nasty Catholics and Piskies off the Christian bus. They're even throwing the vast majority of conservative evangelicals off as well. It's going to be a very, very small group gathering for their Kristian Klub meetings.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
....
Come again? I don't know what you're talking about. I'm just a MOTR Methodist, so I certainly don't know what God's plans are!
...
[/QB]
It may be a rural thing perhaps. MoTR methodism isn't exactly peak Trump territory either. In any case it was a long-long way from the happening in America.

It's definitely something I heard a few times around then (not enough to really respond too).
Most were from the more consistently tory/ukip (though it was the odd ones I remember in more detail, below). It was rather odd because I don't think they were claiming to know God's plans either:

Visiting a church that would probably strongly identify as Con-Evo one of those weeks, I distinctly remember noticing the prayers or sermon having slightly more brexity language than the less Con-Evo one I attended in the same town.


The one that stuck out as bizarre was someone who'd left unsure, and come back posting about.their leave vote with that (it would have made sense to justify voting with their gut and hence, as it happened, leave)
The final one (which again helped lock the memory in place) was in the aftermath from a remainer, looking on the bright side (where I fully agree with them, but it was odd to see the same phrase).
Another (from the one time CU leader) stood out because it drew on biblical narratives (and while in my opinion, far from watertight) appeared to show some thought.


[ 02. September 2017, 17:26: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But isn't that the point of these 'groups'? The smaller they are, the More Right (as in Correct) they are.

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But isn't that the point of these 'groups'? The smaller they are, the More Right (as in Correct) they are.

IJ
And then one also gets the emotional satisfaction of going all Elijah & crying "oppression!" "the whole world is against us!" and being the persecuted minority-- without the inconvenience of having to, you know, endure actual persecution.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Visiting a church that would probably strongly identify as Con-Evo one of those weeks, I distinctly remember noticing the prayers or sermon having slightly more brexity language than the less Con-Evo one I attended in the same town.


The one that stuck out as bizarre was someone who'd left unsure, and come back posting about.their leave vote with that (it would have made sense to justify voting with their gut and hence, as it happened, leave)
The final one (which again helped lock the memory in place) was in the aftermath from a remainer, looking on the bright side (where I fully agree with them, but it was odd to see the same phrase).
Another (from the one time CU leader) stood out because it drew on biblical narratives (and while in my opinion, far from watertight) appeared to show some thought.


Ah, you're clearly hanging out at too many con-evo churches. Try the Methodists - they keep politics out of the prayers and the sermons! (Only joking!)
[Biased]

But yes, I should think there was a rural/urban divide that included evangelical Christians as much as anyone else. I doubt that all those HTB-type evangelical churches in London and the South East, with their multicultural congregations and young professionals employed by international companies, were especially keen to scour the Book of Revelation for anti-EU messages.

[ 02. September 2017, 20:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:

Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it.
Rubbish. If there were no de-facto magisteriums, you would not have synods and equivalent or so bloody many divisions and intra-sectual strife. Call it a biscuit or a cookie, it still tastes the same.
The difference is that a magisterial pronouncement derives its authority precisely from who is doing the pronouncing and that they recognise the fact. That's not the case here. The fact that pastor X, leader Y and theologian Z signed it does not in itself make it authoritative. Nor would those people appeal to their own position as supplying that authority.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
What I was trying to say was that I think that they put it in 2) but that it feels like it's in 1) because it's couched in such harsh terms, but that actually nearly everything in 2) would be couched in such a way.

BTW it's interesting (or not) that I recently read a series of blog posts arguing back and forth over whether the idea that the creeds alone are sufficient for what I've called 1). Or that the Church historically viewed them in this way.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Paul wrote:

quote:
The difference is that a magisterial pronouncement derives its authority precisely from who is doing the pronouncing and that they recognise the fact. That's not the case here. The fact that pastor X, leader Y and theologian Z signed it does not in itself make it authoritative. Nor would those people appeal to their own position as supplying that authority.
So, then why don't they just go out onto the street and get random passersby to sign the statement? After all, if it's not the signatories who give the statement its authority, what does it matter who signs it?

[ 03. September 2017, 00:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:

Also, and this is more speculative, but I don't think this is an attempt to speak in some magisterium like way. It is claiming a kind of authority, but it's the same kind of authority that protestants has always claimed, here's Truth as we understand it.
Rubbish. If there were no de-facto magisteriums, you would not have synods and equivalent or so bloody many divisions and intra-sectual strife. Call it a biscuit or a cookie, it still tastes the same.
The difference is that a magisterial pronouncement derives its authority precisely from who is doing the pronouncing and that they recognise the fact. That's not the case here. The fact that pastor X, leader Y and theologian Z signed it does not in itself make it authoritative. Nor would those people appeal to their own position as supplying that authority.
Maybe. But then what is the authority behind this statement? They don't even offer the clobber verses to back up their statements, they don't cite any studies or give any logical or ethical argument for their position. They just make these statements as if they were self-evident, rather than so extreme they aren't held by even the most conservative evangelical groups.


quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:


quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Historically, Christians have seen #1 as limited to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. I would say that our understanding of LGBTQ issues lies in #2. But my parsing of article 10 seems to be that the authors are placing that in #1, in a rather preemptory, assuming consensus, papal fiat sort of way.
What I was trying to say was that I think that they put it in 2) but that it feels like it's in 1) because it's couched in such harsh terms, but that actually nearly everything in 2) would be couched in such a way.

BTW it's interesting (or not) that I recently read a series of blog posts arguing back and forth over whether the idea that the creeds alone are sufficient for what I've called 1). Or that the Church historically viewed them in this way.
The language of article 10 puts it in #1. They are saying disagreement puts you "outside of Christian faithfulness and witness." That's not #2 language. You wouldn't say that about baptism, or communion, or 1000 other things that we think are pretty darn important and yet we accept that people who disagree with us are still part of historic Christian witness. Article 10 is very much "option #1" language. I can't think of any "#2 issue" that I would couch in such divisive language.

[ 03. September 2017, 02:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Many years ago I heard Grudem preach on complementarianism and invoke the "nuclear argument" that to challenge it was to challenge the essential Trinitarian nature of the Godhead.

This was not the first time I had heard a secondary belief or practice challenged on the basis that it compromised the Trinity.

Doing so is a device to make such secondary beliefs or practices appear to be creedal ones, by association with actual creedal beliefs. The not-so-implicit assumption is that to hold such beliefs is anathema.

The Nashville Statement is absolutely true to form for Grudem, Piper et al in the way it seeks to achieve this.

[ 03. September 2017, 06:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What interests me is the hubris of it all. How do people get up in the morning and decide they can or should write this kind of thing? Does no one among them have any self-awareness? Did none of the above-mentioned considerations occur to anybody?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Many years ago I heard Grudem preach on complementarianism and invoke the "nuclear argument" that to challenge it was to challenge the essential Trinitarian nature of the Godhead.

This was not the first time I had heard a secondary belief or practice challenged on the basis that it compromised the Trinity.
and in Grudem's case at least - a fairly heterodox doctrine of the Trinity at best.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Many years ago I heard Grudem preach on complementarianism and invoke the "nuclear argument" that to challenge it was to challenge the essential Trinitarian nature of the Godhead.

This was not the first time I had heard a secondary belief or practice challenged on the basis that it compromised the Trinity.

Doing so is a device to make such secondary beliefs or practices appear to be creedal ones, by association with actual creedal beliefs. The not-so-implicit assumption is that to hold such beliefs is anathema.

The Nashville Statement is absolutely true to form for Grudem, Piper et al in the way it seeks to achieve this.
Yes. Piper has gone after my beloved Open Theists in a similar way, attempting to get Greg Boyd fired from Bethel Univ. (Boyd eventually resigned) and making a strong-arm late-night play to get Open Theism declared "heresy"-- not wrong, not misguided, not heterodox, but heresy-- at a NAE meeting.

So yeah, we shouldn't be surprised that the statement includes article 10 with it's implicit strong-arm tactic. It's really part & parcel of their whole hierarchical complementarian position, that is all about militaristic control: kids obey mom, mom obeys dad, dad obeys (male) pastor, pastor obeys Jesus, Jesus obeys the Father. It is a system based on power and control, not love and mutual submission. Very, very Alpha Male.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware. But I suppose the argument would be, God designed male and female, with corresponding accoutrements, such as genitals, brains, etc., and nobody should be messing with that. Or in fancy language, psychology doesn't change ontology.

This raises many interesting questions, captured partly by the idea of becoming a woman, rather than being one (de Beauvoir). I guess God doesn't like that.

And then intersex? I guess you are supposed to opt for male or female and stick with it, cos ambiguity is messing with God's plan.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

And then intersex? I guess you are supposed to opt for male or female and stick with it, cos ambiguity is messing with God's plan.
I think it would be more that they should quietly suffer and reflect upon the sin that caused it.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware.
There is one on clothing from Leviticus (actually Deut 22).

Practically you can see a practical rational behind that in a segregated, patriarchal, veiled society (basically the same as gets applied to toilets today). But if that's the case then that wouldn't have ever applied to trans-sexuality, anyway. (even before any of the other questions that would follow*)

Other than that I think it's got to be over-reading the 'male and female' verses. So it becomes 'males and females, and only male and female and with each individual being exclusively male or exclusively female' (which is of course consistent with the text).

*In my bible the opposite page has specific instructions for Reuben to inherit in a Jacob/Rachel/Leah situation.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What interests me is the hubris of it all. How do people get up in the morning and decide they can or should write this kind of thing? Does no one among them have any self-awareness? Did none of the above-mentioned considerations occur to anybody?
The North American evangelical approach to Sunday morning/Saturday evening worship is behind all this. Being an evangelical preacher or teacher does not require one to listen, nor does it require you to have a systemic theology. The "topic of the week" approach allows you to focus on public speaking ability with an emphasis on "a firm belief".

Not enough reading of the book either.
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
Brian McLaren's reaction is found here:

http://auburnseminary.org/applaud-fervently-deny-nashville-statement/

As far as I'm concerned, it says it all.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware.
There is one on clothing from Leviticus (actually Deut 22).

Practically you can see a practical rational behind that in a segregated, patriarchal, veiled society (basically the same as gets applied to toilets today). But if that's the case then that wouldn't have ever applied to trans-sexuality, anyway. (even before any of the other questions that would follow*)

Other than that I think it's got to be over-reading the 'male and female' verses. So it becomes 'males and females, and only male and female and with each individual being exclusively male or exclusively female' (which is of course consistent with the text).

*In my bible the opposite page has specific instructions for Reuben to inherit in a Jacob/Rachel/Leah situation.
Yes, your points about patriarchal society are interesting, since via that one can explain the oppression of women, since they were required as breeders, the ban on gays, since men were also supposed to breed, and prohibitions on other detours from sexual/gender orthodoxy, (although no doubt plenty of subversive activity went on, e.g. same sex sex in the armed services).

An interesting corollary is that patriarchy has been breaking down since the 19th century, hence the partial liberation of women and gays.

The idea of 'exclusively male' begs quite a few questions. One of the interesting ideas in psychoanalysis is that sex identity and gender identity are often failures, but hitherto this has been shrouded in shame and secrecy. I am just about to buy an interesting book, 'How not to be a boy'. People are becoming less afraid of their shame, but the Nashville crowd trade in it.

[ 04. September 2017, 11:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware. But I suppose the argument would be, God designed male and female, with corresponding accoutrements, such as genitals, brains,
Well, in article V of the statement, they seem to be adopting a kind of genital essentialism [which in itself is problematic from a medical perspective].
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was puzzling over how they attack trans people, since there are no proof texts for that, as far as I'm aware. But I suppose the argument would be, God designed male and female, with corresponding accoutrements, such as genitals, brains,
Well, in article V of the statement, they seem to be adopting a kind of genital essentialism [which in itself is problematic from a medical perspective].
Yes, I grabbed the phrase 'psychology doesn't change ontology' from an evangelical discussion, link below.

I find it interesting in terms of the historical changes in relation to sex/gender, since de Beauvoir's famous comments, 'one isn't born a woman, one becomes one', destroys genital essentialism really, and was part of the shift towards 'constructionism', i.e. that sex/gender identities are constructed.

Actually, this seems to be contradicted by many trans kids, who seems to just experience being the other sex from an early age. I don't know whether this is psychology, or not, but maybe it doesn't matter, except to the Nashville massive crew.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-christian-response-to-gender-dysphoria
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
Brian McLaren has just written what I think is a perceptive and well-said response to the Statement:

http://auburnseminary.org/applaud-fervently-deny-nashville-statement/
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One thing that really gets on my pip in the evangelical literature is the common idea that of course, we treat trans people with love and compassion, but also point out to them (with grace of course), that we all have broken bodies, broken by sin, therefore trans gender feelings are part of this, therefore they should shut the fuck up and stop whining. What a miserable sadistic collection of passive aggressive shit statements that is.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Yes, I grabbed the phrase 'psychology doesn't change ontology' from an evangelical discussion, link below.
I think it's more 'confused' than that. The way article V seems to read; external appearance trumps genetics not just psychology.

This seems to be confirmed by discussions I've seen elsewhere.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Yes, I grabbed the phrase 'psychology doesn't change ontology' from an evangelical discussion, link below.
I think it's more 'confused' than that. The way article V seems to read; external appearance trumps genetics not just psychology.

This seems to be confirmed by discussions I've seen elsewhere.
It sounds as if they are in headlong flight from possible scientific discoveries, which may show that sex/gender identities are not monolithic nor particularly coherent. The idea of gender fluidity and the non-binary demonstrates this idea, not in a scientific manner, but just a personal one. I suppose Adam and Eve were just straight mom and pop types, and he never tried on her dresses or her mascara, and she never wore his shirts, and they always had sex missionary-style.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
To be fair, most people fit, or near enough, the traditional understanding of binary gender. Which is one reason that understanding is predominant in most cultures.
And we are talking about a group that rejects science when it conflicts with their beliefs already.
Not saying this excuses their belief either in maintaining it or publishing this rubbish.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To be fair, most people fit, or near enough, the traditional understanding of binary gender. Which is one reason that understanding is predominant in most cultures.
And we are talking about a group that rejects science when it conflicts with their beliefs already.
Not saying this excuses their belief either in maintaining it or publishing this rubbish.
That begs some interesting questions about gender and the 'fit'. Javid Abdelmoneim recently showed some films on BBC about gender in kids, and raised the interesting question: which comes first? I mean, do kids naturally fall into gender roles, e.g. girls cry, and boys push tractors round, or are they meeting expectations? He kept changing various parameters, and ended up showing how strong girls are, and how sensitive boys are. Well, so far so superficial. But it did arouse suspicion among Tories! Don't mess with our kids. One thing that Javid showed is how lacking in confidence girls are, but this also changed.

*No More Boys and Girls. Still on iplayer I think.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Gender roles =\= gender
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gender roles =\= gender
Ah well, I have been screaming about the misuse of 'gender' for about 30 years, since it began to assume the meaning of sex identity. In fact, I don't really know what anybody means by it now, and I tend to use sex/gender, so as to make the confusion explicit. But I think it's also happened because sex/gender and sexuality are so complicated and fuzzy, and kind of bleed into each other.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gender roles =\= gender
Ah well, I have been screaming about the misuse of 'gender' for about 30 years, since it began to assume the meaning of sex identity. In fact, I don't really know what anybody means by it now, and I tend to use sex/gender, so as to make the confusion explicit. But I think it's also happened because sex/gender and sexuality are so complicated and fuzzy, and kind of bleed into each other.
Well, yes. For one, people assume the cultural expectations are natural outgrowth of biological sex. And most people tend to be blind to the more subtle pressures and influences.
There is also the interchangeable and inconsistent use within the professional communities as well as general ignorance.

[ 04. September 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For one, people assume the cultural expectations are natural outgrowth of biological sex. And most people tend to be blind to the more subtle pressures and influences.
Clearly they are not a natural outgrowth, or one would expect less variation between cultures. Although some of them certainly don't seem too arbitrary, such as women taking care of infants, since they birth and nurse them. From this, males doing hunting (while the women stay home with the infants), or other things difficult to do when slung about with an infant, is at least not too disobvious. So I think there's an interplay.

Trouble comes when these are cast in stone as the way God intended it to always be. Clearly a woman who is not currently nursing could be out hunting with the boys while others take care of the weaned ones, and so on, and so on.

Transferring this whole (in part imaginary) scenario to modern times (women can't be firefighters, soldiers, etc.) is clearly a mistake (especially in these latter days when babies can be nursed, even with their mothers' own milk, when their biological mothers are not present) (yes I know there have always been wet-nurses).

TL/DR: there is great misuse of imagined traditional gender roles, but they are not completely arbitrary in origin.
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To be fair, most people fit, or near enough, the traditional understanding of binary gender. Which is one reason that understanding is predominant in most cultures.
And we are talking about a group that rejects science when it conflicts with their beliefs already.
Not saying this excuses their belief either in maintaining it or publishing this rubbish.
So you call all that rubbish social science gender "studies" SCIENCE??? [Killing me] What can you expect at this day and age when "science" says its perfectly normal to remove a person´s completely healthy and functional organ just because that person feels she was "born in the wrong body"? How can you be so blind to confuse this stupid ideology with "science", specially when there isn´t even a consensus in the scientific community.
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For one, people assume the cultural expectations are natural outgrowth of biological sex. And most people tend to be blind to the more subtle pressures and influences.
Clearly they are not a natural outgrowth, or one would expect less variation between cultures. Although some of them certainly don't seem too arbitrary, such as women taking care of infants, since they birth and nurse them. From this, males doing hunting (while the women stay home with the infants), or other things difficult to do when slung about with an infant, is at least not too disobvious. So I think there's an interplay.

Trouble comes when these are cast in stone as the way God intended it to always be. Clearly a woman who is not currently nursing could be out hunting with the boys while others take care of the weaned ones, and so on, and so on.

Transferring this whole (in part imaginary) scenario to modern times (women can't be firefighters, soldiers, etc.) is clearly a mistake (especially in these latter days when babies can be nursed, even with their mothers' own milk, when their biological mothers are not present) (yes I know there have always been wet-nurses).

TL/DR: there is great misuse of imagined traditional gender roles, but they are not completely arbitrary in origin.
I don´t think anyone seriously thinks women are incapable or should be forbidden of hunting, or men are incapable or should be forbidden of taking care of kids. But the belief that the number of women and men in each function should be 50%/50% is clearly dellusional and ridiculous.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t think anyone seriously thinks women are incapable or should be forbidden of hunting, or men are incapable or should be forbidden of taking care of kids. But the belief that the number of women and men in each function should be 50%/50% is clearly dellusional and ridiculous.
This is believed by whom, exactly?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I no longer know who believes what, nor -- except when it gets in my own personal way -- do I much care. It's been decades since I was myself profoundly convinced that there was a "female nature" and a "male nature." What dissuaded me? A little life experience and a wide acquaintance.

I had keenly hoped to outlive several tiresome (to me) phenomena:
1. memorials and tributes to Michael Jackson; 2. (apologies to British fans, but . . . ) memorials and tributes to Princess Diana;
3. declamations and controversies about who does what to whom with consent in the privacy of bedrooms;
4. declamations and controversies over the "authentic" roles and "true" natures of women and men as groups.

It appears that I may have succeeded in outliving # 1.

As I stare into a final event horizon which edges slowly closer, it also appears I shall have to take much better care of myself to have any hope whatever of outliving #s 2, 3, and 4.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I know it may be hard to discern from my earlier posts what my position might actually be on the - Heaven help me - Nashville Statement. In case you missed the point; my town has enough BSC types without inviting in outside loonies to add to the drivel. Naming it after a wonderful community is just the kind of arrogant zeitgeist I have come to expect from people who not only Know Everything, they know how everyone else should act as well.

Where does that come from is a question that I would love to see answered. My guess is based upon the conservative services I have attended. Don't know if they were evangelical. I am certain they thought they were charismatic. After all, if you are going to wear all black in the same town where Johnny Cash worked, you must think you are something.

I think they view God as this giant judgment machine who thinks exactly the way they do. God judges them good and makes them powerful and well to do. God hates "those people" and should be making them suffer.

How do they know this? Why, they are good and they can answer trivia quizzes about the Bible, so they must have enough knowledge of God to be able to carry on for him when he obviously is dropping the ball. I mean really now, letting society look different than they want it to look.

So, somebody has to keep up standards if God is just going to go on letting those people have weddings, elect "one of them" to high political office and leave good church goers floundering financially while transsexy people swarm out of New Orleans to invade wrong sex bathrooms.

OK, maybe a little less judgemental later.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
@gorpo:

When there is a mismatch between the brain and the rest of the body which do you try to change to match the other? There is, while not complete consensus (is there ever?), considerable agreement that denying trans people the right to transition does considerable psychological harm, particularly forcing them to live as their assigned gender. For many trans folk hormone treatment is sufficient, and they don't consider the benefits worth the risks of surgery (I have a trans-male friend in that position) but for others surgery is what it takes for them to feel truly themselves. Who are you to deny them that?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Gorpo - do you have anything to add to this conversation beyond your sneering superiority?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t think anyone seriously thinks women are incapable or should be forbidden of hunting, or men are incapable or should be forbidden of taking care of kids. But the belief that the number of women and men in each function should be 50%/50% is clearly dellusional and ridiculous.
I perceive you would have been one of those people who looked down on me for being a stay-at-home dad and raising my kids from 6 months to adulthood.

And as a result of people like you, the number of fathers taking the primary caring role will barely reach 1%, let alone 50%.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting point about gorpo's post about rubbish social science, is that it seems to put forward a hardline materialist and reductionist view. Thus, surgery is OK for physical conditions, but not psychological ones.

I still find it weird that people who are presumably religious (and spiritually minded), are so materialist. Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point about gorpo's post about rubbish social science, is that it seems to put forward a hardline materialist and reductionist view. Thus, surgery is OK for physical conditions, but not psychological ones.

I still find it weird that people who are presumably religious (and spiritually minded), are so materialist. Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
I think it's "I've got my tiny worldview all sorted out so don't go and upset it you bastard!" with a side order of "I'm so much cleverer than you because you must be really stupid or perhaps just evil not to accept that I'm right".

It stinks.

[ 05. September 2017, 11:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
Just to re-iterate my last point, this indeed seems to be the conclusion if you read article V.

If you take this from one of the signers of the statement, it appears the exterior genitalia trumps chromosomes (which is all sorts of problematic medically/historically).

So yes, genital essentialism.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
Just to re-iterate my last point, this indeed seems to be the conclusion if you read article V.

If you take this from one of the signers of the statement, it appears the exterior genitalia trumps chromosomes (which is all sorts of problematic medically/historically).

So yes, genital essentialism.
I immediately noticed in your link the weasel word 'natural' and 'naturally'. This can be taken either as a kind of gross out feeling (penises up bums is so unnatural), or some tortured appeal to 'final cause' and all the Aristotelian baggage that accompanies it.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

What's missing is the idea that you can 'pray the gay away' and strong enough religious belief can 'straighten out' any homosexual. Given how fairly recently there was a whole thriving industry based on turning gay people straight
This was mainly a thing on the more conservative end of US Christianity and the more conservative + charismatic end of UK Christianity. In this context it's probably reasonably significant that at least two of the signatories have spoken of their particular experience of same sex attraction.
also satirised in Genesis's track Jesus He Knows Me.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I'm waiting to hear more about that troublesome psychodemographic militating for 50/ 50 female/ male participafion in all human activities. Who are these elusive persons? Why don't I lnow any of them? Why have I never even encountered one on the Internet, where yiu can find just about anyone?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point about gorpo's post about rubbish social science, is that it seems to put forward a hardline materialist and reductionist view. Thus, surgery is OK for physical conditions, but not psychological ones.

I still find it weird that people who are presumably religious (and spiritually minded), are so materialist. Genital essentialism, indeed. Have penis, will travel.
This.

The Nashville statement is so full of wishful theology-- imposing a ideology on reality-- as if we could strong-arm the material world to match one's fundamentalist, literalist worldview. In particular the section on transgenderism-- which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.

I've mentioned my 7 month old granddaughter who was born with 6 severe heart defects, including a single ventricle. She had open-heart surgery on her 2nd day of life-- without it she would have died within days if not hours. I don't hear the Nashville folks objecting to her surgery, but logically, to be consistent with their 5 point theology they should-- God created her with that defective heart, just the same as he created transgender folks with a gender identity different from their anatomical identity.

IMHO the root problem with the Nashville Declaration isn't so much a faulty theology of sexuality (though of course there is that) as a faulty theology of sovereignty and an inadequate theology of suffering.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
an inadequate theology of suffering.
An inadequate methodology of thinking, more like.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One reason that I am interested in trans gender is because it has defined gender in terms of feelings, not in terms of physical attributes. Thus, I assume that a trans woman feels like a woman, and maybe as a kid, felt like a girl. I know these are rather vague statements, but they are good enough for now.

Historically, this goes against the physicalist definitions of sex identity and gender which have been common, thus that you are defined by your genitals, or your chromosomes, and so on. The Olympics seems to have got into a muddle over testosterone, as well, or rather, women with naturally high levels.

I suppose the Nashville people are saying that it's the body that is the crucial criterion. If you have a penis, you are male, and you should be masculine. In other words, as chris stiles has shown, in these terms, your appearance defines who you are! Gulp.

But then who says? For this to work, you have to have some kind of executive decision. It might be your parents, or your school, or your pastor, and then if you are told that your feelings are invalid, (or even ungodly), the trans person is up against it, and feeling terrible, and possibly suicidal.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.
[Roll Eyes] This particular statement was written by a calvinist group who then got all their buddies to sign it (with a few outliers like James Robison). That said I don't see that the majority of conservative Christians wouldn't have signed it - and the 'True Reformed' are a minority of conservative Christians in spite of the noise they sometimes generate.

quote:

IMHO the root problem with the Nashville Declaration isn't so much a faulty theology of sexuality (though of course there is that) as a faulty theology of sovereignty and an inadequate theology of suffering.
No, it's a faulty theology of gender and sexuality - 'sovereignty' can make it go both ways, there are very few fatalists after all.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I'm not a theologian and won't speak to that, but I am a human being. This reveals a faulty understanding of human beings.

Not being a god, I can't readily speak to that either. But if the general Christian understanding of the divine is one of love, self-sacrifice and salvation, this statement is also a faulty understanding of that god. Whatever happened to "walking humbly with" as opposed to "proclaiming oneself to be the mouthpiece of?"
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Whatever happened to "walking humbly with" as opposed to "proclaiming oneself to be the mouthpiece of?"
This particular group of people, and those they represent and lead, appear to have left that path years ago.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
They thought they deserved a promotion?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.
[Roll Eyes] This particular statement was written by a calvinist group who then got all their buddies to sign it (with a few outliers like James Robison). That said I don't see that the majority of conservative Christians wouldn't have signed it - and the 'True Reformed' are a minority of conservative Christians in spite of the noise they sometimes generate.
.
Conservative American evangelicals are my peeps-- this doesn't represent us. Yes, the vast majority of conservative evangelicals and evangelical denoms/institutions believe gay sex is a sin. But they would not say that same-sex attraction is a sin, or that gay or trans "self-conception" is a sin. I've lost count of how many evangelical leaders and organizations (including a couple I'm affiliated with) have come out against the statement. While American evangelicalism has a very, very, very loooong way to go on this issue, they are not as far gone as the Nashville declaration would make one think. It's a regressive move from a group of silly men who are seeing their power and influence slipping away and are throwing a massive tantrum and nailing a big "No Girlz (or Gayz or Tranz) allowed" sign on their clubhouse that no one wanted to be in anyway.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I'm not a theologian and won't speak to that, but I am a human being. This reveals a faulty understanding of human beings.

Not being a god, I can't readily speak to that either. But if the general Christian understanding of the divine is one of love, self-sacrifice and salvation, this statement is also a faulty understanding of that god. Whatever happened to "walking humbly with" as opposed to "proclaiming oneself to be the mouthpiece of?"
This group is all about rigid lines of authority-- an almost militaristic view of life. Kids obey mom, mom obeys dad, dad obeys (male) pastor, pastor obeys God-- and so gets to speak for Him apparently. If you're gay or trans, then for God's sake just shut up about it and whatever you do don't tell anyone about your "self-conception".

[ 06. September 2017, 04:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
which more or less denies that it even exists-- seems to be written because the very existence of transgender folks threatens their 5-point Calvinist view that God is Sovereign so that everything that exists is precisely the way God intended it.
[Roll Eyes] This particular statement was written by a calvinist group who then got all their buddies to sign it (with a few outliers like James Robison). That said I don't see that the majority of conservative Christians wouldn't have signed it - and the 'True Reformed' are a minority of conservative Christians in spite of the noise they sometimes generate.
.
Conservative American evangelicals are my peeps-- this doesn't represent us. Yes, the vast majority of conservative evangelicals and evangelical denoms/institutions believe gay sex is a sin. But they would not say that same-sex attraction is a sin, or that gay or trans "self-conception" is a sin. I've lost count of how many evangelical leaders and organizations (including a couple I'm affiliated with) have come out against the statement. While American evangelicalism has a very, very, very loooong way to go on this issue, they are not as far gone as the Nashville declaration would make one think. It's a regressive move from a group of silly men who are seeing their power and influence slipping away and are throwing a massive tantrum and nailing a big "No Girlz (or Gayz or Tranz) allowed" sign on their clubhouse that no one wanted to be in anyway.
But 'I'm not homophobic but God is so I've got to go along with it and you're going to Hell but I won't labour the point" isn't much of an improvement over 'God is a massive queer bashe and quite right too". And that's what most of these 'I don't agree with the NS' statements from conevos amount to.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think the fellow traveller argument is hard to argue against. cliffdweller is hanging in, with difficulty I guess. So am I. Sometimes it really pisses me off to be inside the tent pissing out, rather than outside the tent pissing in.

Sometimes it also feels like a calling. A strange 'heretical' imperative, this willingness to challenge traditional status quos which you believe to be misconceived, wrong. It really isn't easy to hang in for the sake of the good you feel you might do that way. But crying Ichabod doesn't seem to be a part of my nature either.

YMMV
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's the only hope for the tent as the bus bears down upon it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thanks, Martin60, I appreciated that. Not that I'm saying I'm right all the time, you understand, just "this is how I see things." Sometimes it feels like the "bus" of unthinking majority will "run all over me"! But I'm still standing.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But 'I'm not homophobic but God is so I've got to go along with it and you're going to Hell but I won't labour the point" isn't much of an improvement over 'God is a massive queer bashe and quite right too". And that's what most of these 'I don't agree with the NS' statements from conevos amount to.
I would agree that both of the evangelical options are wrong and harmful-- my problem with the Nashville statement is that it is taking us in the wrong direction-- going from the odious "hate the sin, love the sinner" to the even more egregious (altho perhaps more honest) "no, we really just hate the sinner/gay". Which itself is significant-- the evangelical tribe is moving on this issue, albeit far too slowly, more and more evangelical leaders are having the courage to break with the pack, and that's freakin' the natives. Hence the doubling down by taking us 30 years backwards.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suppose somebody has to be punished. The gays have become a more difficult target, so the trans gets it. Why the urge to punish though? Err, that will cost you a lot of money, for an answer, say $3000?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But 'I'm not homophobic but God is so I've got to go along with it and you're going to Hell but I won't labour the point" isn't much of an improvement over 'God is a massive queer bashe and quite right too". And that's what most of these 'I don't agree with the NS' statements from conevos amount to.
I would agree that both of the evangelical options are wrong and harmful-- my problem with the Nashville statement is that it is taking us in the wrong direction-- going from the odious "hate the sin, love the sinner" to the even more egregious (altho perhaps more honest) "no, we really just hate the sinner/gay". Which itself is significant-- the evangelical tribe is moving on this issue, albeit far too slowly, more and more evangelical leaders are having the courage to break with the pack, and that's freakin' the natives. Hence the doubling down by taking us 30 years backwards.
There is a HECK of a lot of shunning in US evangelical circles of anybody or any organization that even comes close to affirming.

Eugene Peterson comes to mind as does Jen Hatmaker.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Absolutely. But there are more and more Jen Hatmakers and David Gushees, to say nothing of the more tentative Peterson. And more and more (mostly young) evangelicals are listening. It is far far too late but the movement is slowly changing. Which obviously pisses the old guard off. Hence this hateful statement-- the impotent thrashing about of a dying snake
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
For almost everyone under 30 - including Christians, including evangelicals - this is a non-issue. No one gives a monkeys which tab you stick near which slot, or whether you have a tab, a slot, both, or neither.

When these guys die, it'll be over.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yes, exactly. Which is why they're acting out in this way, making a lotta noise, threatening those who don't listen to them-- they're irrelevant old men and incompetent sons trying desperate to feel important. They're not
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
True, but the damage is done. The evangelicals will join us mainline Protestants on the sidelines of American culture, trying to act like what our spiritual leaders say matters, knowing in our hearts that it doesn't.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

When these guys die, it'll be over.
It's not all old guys who are the problem. Desmond gets it. He's only 85.

[ 10. September 2017, 13:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For almost everyone under 30 - including Christians, including evangelicals - this is a non-issue. No one gives a monkeys which tab you stick near which slot, or whether you have a tab, a slot, both, or neither.

When these guys die, it'll be over.
I wish you were correct, I really do - but I'm not seeing it, myself. The reactions against may have toned down, but they're still there. I'm still hearing young guys use 'fag' as one of their more withering insults, and express their general dissatisfaction with shit by labelling it 'gay'. I know it's not at the level of tarring and feathering, but it both shows the issue isn't entirely shrug-worthy to them, and also suggest that this is something they view as a perfectly acceptable target for mockery. Some way from the whole thing being a non-issue. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't. I suspect we thought the flat-earth thing had pretty much died out, as well, but no...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
True, but the damage is done. The evangelicals will join us mainline Protestants on the sidelines of American culture, trying to act like what our spiritual leaders say matters, knowing in our hearts that it doesn't.
Yes.

And as several progressive evangelicals like Eddie Gibbs and Greg Boyd have noted, that may be a good thing. We have had far too long a run at exploiting power in the "way of the world"-- being part of "the powers that be"-- exerting "power over" as Boyd says it. It will take some time to beat that instinct to exploit power over one's "enemies", to see the world as a battlefield with winners and losers. Sadly, we didn't retire from the boxing ring voluntarily-- few do-- but we are being forced to the sidelines. May the Spirit use this time in the wilderness to humble us, to "speak from the margins" as Gibbs puts it, speaking truth to power (rather than being the power) on behalf, not of our own self-preservation, but on behalf of the voiceless-- "power under" as Boyd puts it. That just might save the Church.

[ 10. September 2017, 14:57: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The evangelicals will join us mainline Protestants on the sidelines of American culture.
But that will at least put you on more or less the same footing.

Moreover, churches get on better with each other when it becomes obviously that they're facing similar problems.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0