Opinion: thoughts on Nashville
As two students preparing to be ministers, we feel concern regarding the recent criticism of the Nashville Statement offered by sexuality series director Julia Smith and Chaplain Mary Hulst in the previous issue of Chimes and would like to offer our humble thoughts on this matter. We share with Smith and Hulst a care for the wellbeing of our LGBT+ brothers and sisters, as well as the church of God as a whole. We would posit that the Nashville Statement is for the edification of the church and its members who struggle with same-sex attractions and transgender proclivities. The Nashville Statement is not an infallible document, but it is consistent with biblical teaching on matters of sexuality.
We argue that Christian orthodoxy is not merely an external entity, but seeks the wellbeing of the individual as far as the individual pursues and follows the truths which orthodoxy defines. Orthodoxy doesn’t just touch on the truths of God’s being; in the creation account, God gives us a poetic description of his design for human relationships:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27 ESV).
From the outset of the biblical narrative, God reveals himself as a relational God who designs humans to reflect his relational nature. Because human nature is fallen, that design can be marred in human relationships. However, in stating this, we do not intend to alienate or “other-ize” those impacted by the fallenness of human sexuality who want to follow Christ. We would also not be so audacious as to claim that those who live lives as “eunuchs for the kingdom” cannot be whole in their service to the Lord. They, like anyone else redeemed by the blood of Christ, look to the wholeness that only the new heaven and earth can bring as they live out our callings in the here and now.
In defining a biblical response to issues of sexuality and gender in our increasingly post-Christian culture, the Nashville Statement does not condemn our brothers and sisters who are wrestling with these issues but instead offers a set of pastoral guidelines for their benefit. Although it may seem that these guidelines are intended for harm, we assert that the truths about gender and sexuality as presented in the statement are intended to give loving clarity while avoiding giving license to sinful actions. Often, the church’s desire to love their neighbors with regard to these issues has led to a misguided permissiveness that would propel those who would serve the Lord to a false sense of security in licentiousness.
In this way, we would see the statement not as some statement “made at 20,000 feet” above the issue, but as a practical guide for those seeking sound, biblical advice for what the Lord would have them do. Therefore, the statement is immeasurably valuable as a tool lending clarity to pastoral guidance and encouragement for those burdened by this additional assault from the world, the devil and their own flesh. Definitions are important, not as lines in the sand, but as premises foundational to godly living.
God forbid that as followers of Christ we would pretend to take his place on the throne of judgment. However, according to Romans 13:8, our debt is only to love one another, and that love involves speaking the truth even when it causes offense. The church is called to be set apart from the world by Jesus Christ, and this separation is defined by statements of orthodoxy like the Nashville Statement.
Jeffrey Karel • Sep 29, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Brothers, thank you for your responses. Our desire and prayer was that this op-ed would spark more discussion on this issue.
With regard to Brother Peterson’s response, we would like to say that we absolutely agree with his assertion that 100% of those in the church are sinful. However, as those redeemed by Christ are called (as the adulteress forgiven by Christ) to “go and sin no more.” This would indicate that the Christian life is characterized by a striving toward holiness according to biblical principles. Our caution would be not to confuse grace with permissiveness. Our LGBT+ brothers and sisters are more than welcome within the church of God, but not if they persist in willful sin.
As for why the statement was issued, it has nothing to do with a desire to single out those plagued by certain temptations, but rather a desire to engage a topic of hot debate within the culture and clearly define a biblical response.
With regard to the other, we thank you for your nuanced concern with this statement, and we would even go so far as to share that concern. However, we would assert that our assumptions are in agreement with a straightforward reading of the texts.
In Christ,
Jeffrey and Jonah
Jeffrey Peterson • Oct 1, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Again, regardless of your intent or desire, you have to be aware of the resonance that an article you write is going to have. I would encourage you to think about why, when large parts of both religious and secular society continue to oppress LGBT+ people, you see it as your duty to affirm these already thriving attitudes. The Bible also says in no uncertain terms with far greater frequency than it (often allegorically) addresses homosexuality to love your neighbor and not to judge. As Professor Kuilema points out, the Nashville Statement does seem to caution against even loving these groups as neighbors. Of course, I’m not interested in an exegetical battle because I’m sure you’ve prepared many more verses than I have, but I would hope that, especially before studying at Seminary, you will approach Scripture with humility in your readings.
Jeffrey Peterson • Oct 1, 2017 at 6:27 pm
A few more things: Both your and the authors of the Nashville Statement’s condemnation of transgenderism as sin is a stretch. Don’t forget that, in the end, we will be neither male nor female, and don’t forget that many people are born biologically neither male nor female. Surely, this cannot be classified as sin, and surely neither can experiencing gender dysphoria, which, by the way, is not willful. I think you’ll find, not that I would encourage you to look too hard, that the Bible doesn’t say much about transgenderism.
That points to another problem. Many people have a dangerous, reductive tendency to lump transgender people into a category with homosexual people. This results in a segregation of “normal” (cisgender, heterosexual) and “other,” while homosexuality and transgenderism are different from each other: one is a sexual tendency, and the other is a gender identity. Let’s also not forget that asexual people who do not express homosexual desires are breaking no rules under your definition, but they too suffer under the Nashville Statement’s blanket condemnation of the LGBT+.
Finally, on this note of LGBT+ taxonomy, the phrase “transgender proclivities” is a little dehumanizing. Sure, the academic diction seems to pad your argument, but these are transgender identities and experiences. To reduce identities and experience down to a sciencey-sounding tendency is to strip away the humanity.
Joseph Kuilema • Sep 29, 2017 at 11:47 am
The authors write that “In defining a biblical response to issues of sexuality and gender in our increasingly post-Christian culture, the Nashville Statement does not condemn our brothers and sisters who are wrestling with these issues but instead offers a set of pastoral guidelines for their benefit.” That’s potentially true, but only if you already assume that same sex attraction and same sex marriage are clear sins, and that those who are “wrestling with these issues” will repent. The statement clearly condemns those who enter into same-sex marriages believing that God can sanctify such a union and use it as a blessing in the world.
In addition, I think an honest reading of the Nashville Statement is that it not only condemns LGBTQ people, but those that support the view that God loves LGBTQ people just as they are. Article 10 states that “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.” That’s a fairly expansive statement, and in my mind a dangerous widening of what orthodox Christianity truly is.
Jeffrey Peterson • Sep 29, 2017 at 8:41 am
It’s really not up to you to decide what is or is not harmful to LGBT+ members of the church. That’s just called oppression, and these people have already dealt with a lot of it. Also whether you intend to “other-ize” and alienate these people or not, writing a piece like this as a reaction to a small amount of grace that is finally, after all kinds of historical oppression, being extended to these people through people like Pastor Mary, you are continuing to “other-ize” and alienate LGBT+ people. You are perpetuating the Church’s notions that these people don’t quite fit in the body of Christ, which you should know as students of the Bible is not how the body of Christ works: you do not get to decide who doesn’t belong, or even suggest that someone might not belong.
Even if we view homosexuality or transgendered identities or any “proclivities” that you sweepingly generalize as sinful, that doesn’t mean anything for the fittingness of LGBT+ people in the Church. Even if you label these people as sinners for being the way they are, remember that the body of Christ is full of sinners. And I don’t mean that figuratively: 100% of members of the Church are sinful, and yet you choose to write about the brokenness of people’s sexualities and gender identities, things that many of these people don’t wish for themselves and things that harm no one else, rather than condemning the evils of racism or greed or, God forbid, hypocrisy, things that have always plagued the body of Christ.
The Nashville Statement doesn’t need your support—many, many people already affirm it—members of the Church who have been oppressed not only by society but by the Church itself, however, do need support. But rather than finding the support that some influential members of the CRC, as well as loving people in the Calvin community, have tried to push their entire institution to offer, LGBT+ people at Calvin will wake up to find a reminder that they’re not welcome.