Instead of a new statement, what we need as believers, especially those of us in confessional churches, is to teach the Scriptures and catechize our congregations so that we are well-equipped to answer the many challenges made to biblical orthodoxy. When society asks, “Did God really say?” we will be ready to respond.
When the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) released the Nashville Statement on biblical sexuality, there were immediate responses from almost every quarter. Reactions ranged from wholehearted endorsement to begrudging acceptance to outright rejection. Many of those who rejected the Nashville Statement have done so because they disagree with the content of the Nashville Statement–those who support or defend issues such as homosexual marriage, transgenderism, and homosexuality. It is not surprising that they would be strongly against the Nashville Statement.
Most who strongly supported and quickly signed the Nashville Statement are those who share CBMW’s concerns over the wholesale rejection of biblical sexual ethics. They recognize that there is a need to speak up regarding what the Bible teaches on sexuality. And given the strong push in our country, and even in our churches, to reject the Bible’s teachings on sexuality and to embrace the world’s approach of “anything goes,” I believe that there is a great need for strong, biblical teaching on sexuality.
There has also been a significant amount of pushback by some who share the concerns addressed in the Nashville Statement but who disagree with various aspects of the statement. Some are concerned about what CBMW means by “divinely ordained differences between male and female.” Considering what CBMW has taught since its inception regarding male and female roles of authority and submission and the connection they have made with authority and submission in the Trinity, it’s a reasonable concern to have.
After the Trinity debate last summer, the official answer from CBMW was that to be a complementarian one only needed to uphold the Danvers Statement and that it was not necessary to hold to the Nicene teaching on the Trinity. Such a position appears to make the Danvers Statement more essential for complementarianism than Nicene orthodoxy. That is a very rocky foundation and a legitimate concern for many who have not signed the Nashville Statement.
Another concern has been raised over the use of “procreative” describing marriage in the Nashville Statement. Again, because of the well-known teachings of CBMW and its authors on the topic of marriage and procreation, it’s reasonable to ask exactly what they meant.
Others have expressed concern over the timing and usefulness of the new statement. They are concerned about the pastoral implications of such a statement. Will the Nashville Statement help or hinder efforts to reach and share the gospel with those in the LGBT+ community? Certainly it’s true that the Bible’s teachings on sexuality will be challenging and even offensive to many, but does the Nashville Statement add clarity or generate more heat than light? These are valid questions.
There have been a number of other concerns raised. Even some of those who signed the statement have addressed the reservations they have with the Nashville Statement. But in the push to defend the statement and to encourage others to sign it, there have been a number of articles that appear to make support of the Nashville Statement a test of orthodoxy.
In one article, an individual who supported the Nashville Statement comparea the Nashville Statement to separating the sheep from the goats. Another claims that to reject the statement is to reject the Bible. Yet another author stated that he had not seen anyone who supports historic Christianity that was opposed to the Nashville Statement. One defender wrote questioning the faith of those who disagree. These are serious claims to make and dangerous ones too.