Navigating Nashville, And More

There were two hurricanes last week:  Harvey and Nashville.

Everyone knows about Harvey -- a physical storm of catastrophic proportions -- which, USA Today reports "...could be the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history with a potential price tag of $190 billion..." https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/30/harvey-costliest-natural-disaster-u-s-history-estimated-cost-160-billion/615708001/  But many are not aware of Nashville -- a spiritual storm, also of catastrophic proportions -- centered around the Nashville Statement a 14 point treatise, which USA Today reports  "...[lays out] beliefs on human sexuality, including opposition to same-sex marriage and fluid gender identity..."  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/30/what-nashville-statement-and-why-people-talking-it/619009001/

  

You can read the whole statement at the following link https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/, but as USA Today infers, Article 10 is a succinct summary of the Nashville Statement's conviction and flavor.

"...'WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.  WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.'"https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/30/what-nashville-statement-and-why-people-talking-it/619009001/ 

Given this rhetoric, the Nashville Statement is creating a quandary for many believers. Progressive believers, are more than outraged, they are livid.  For them, the Nashville Statement is just another indication of insensitivity, disrespect, even hatred, toward the LBGT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community.  Evangelical/Orthodox believers are conflicted, with some declaring:  it's about time we had an unapologetic, blunt assertion of traditional understandings of human sexuality and praxis -- with others lamenting the statement's blunt approach, while sympathetic to it's intent.

I can assure you:  I will not 'settle' this quandary in this posting.  For this topic is more than volatile and stormy -- it is a spiritual/biblical/philosophical hurricane of Harvey proportions. What I do want to do, is to offer some guideposts to help direct us in moving through what has become a hurricane of damaging words.  In doing so I will 'land somewhere' in the storm, but I pray, with respect, for all moving through this upheaval.

Guidepost #1 -- Convey Strong Convictions, But 'Watch' The Tone And 'Feel' Of Your Convictions.  The Nashville Statement includes both statements of affirmation and denial, yes, and no (see Article 10, above).  In spite of this rhythm, many believe the dominant tone of the Nashville Statement is, nevertheless, 'no,'  even judgment, even hate.

Note the emphasis on tone.  That's crucial:  for a sense of 'no' often does not arise from our actual content,  but the tone of our content.  By tone, I mean the 'feel' of a document or statement, shaped by word choice, sentence structure, accent and attitude.  It varies greatly, depending on our writing style, which is largely shaped by the latitude and boundaries of our heart.

It's striking to see two evangelical leaders, in Nashville, no less, express reservations about the tone of the Nashville Statement.  

"...Scott Sauls, lead pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville, agrees with...[the statement's]...conclusions about same-sex marriage but says the statement’s “matter-of-fact tone” might alienate people who are LGBT or the pastors who lead them. Likewise, Pieter Valk [of EQUIP concluded]...the statement “left a bad taste in my mouth” [for it] focuses on the “no” of Christian teaching without offering LGBT people any sort of “yes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/31/why-even-conservative-evangelicals-are-unhappy-with-the-anti-lgbt-nashville-statement/?utm_term=.323d14917b17

Valk's conclusion is debatable.  But what is not debatable is the difficulty of speaking Truth in a tone that is not self-righteous, punitive, parental and 'holier than thou.'  Frankly, many faith-statements, including the Nashville Statement, struggle in this category.  Thus, there is 'room for improvement,' in most religious pronouncements, in regards to the tone and 'feel' of their content.

Guidepost #2 -- Share Stretching Truth, But Avoid Anything That Breaks, Wounds, and Condemns.  A loud, boisterous criticism of an orthodox view of sexual expression is its apparent rejection of persons who self-identify as either homosexual or transgender.

This is far from surprising.  I mean, think about it:  if someone inferred that your sexual identity could not be lived out in line with God's design (beyond celibacy), your initial reaction would be far from delight and inclusion.  You'd feel excluded, wounded, even condemned.

For me, key to tempering condemnation is confession.  For if we're honest: we're all alienated from God's best, in some category of Christian praxis, thus candidates for condemnation; we need to confess this. As one anonymous source muses:  "Do not.  I repeat:  do not -- allow anyone to sit high and look low to judge you.  Everyone has a chapter in their life they do not read out loud." Thus, we all need to face our God-break, seeking reunion with the Divine, through the Savior.

I remember expressing an orthodox view of sexual praxis through the Frederick News Post. Members of a Sunday School class congratulated me for '...putting the Gays in their place..."  I was appalled.  "You missed the whole point," I commented.  "My intent was to put all of us in our place.  For we all struggle with some lack of conformity to the full stature of Christ.  For some, yes, it's lack of alignment with Christ in sexual praxis, but for others, it's lack of alignment in other areas, such as in speech (e.g. gossip) or eating patterns (e.g. gluttony).  So, the best thing for us to do, is for all of us to go to the foot of the cross in our sanctuary and all confess our need for the Savior."   For the 'heart and soul' of Christian proclamation, is not dogma, but humility, as we adopt D.T. Nile's slant on conveying Jesus-Truth: "...one beggar helping another beggar find bread..." 

Guidepost #3 --  Renovate Faith-Understandings, But 'Count Well The Cost' Of Altering Foundations.  The tone (e.g. 'feel' and word-choice) of the Nashville Statement is questionable.  But the intent of the Nashville Statement is understandable:  to reaffirm classic, orthodox understandings of sexual praxis in a culture rapidly moving away from such understandings.

In the midst of hurricane-like issues, I look for centering, rooted perspectives.  For me, N.T (Tom) Wright, the former Bishop of Durham, now a professor of New Testament at St. Andrews in Scotland, is such a voice.  Decisively, but wisely, Wright reminds us that classic, orthodox understandings of sexual praxis are bedrock to biblical revelation.

"...There are no surprises on this in the Bible. For Jews, homosexual behavior wasn’t an issue...For non-Jews, such as those addressed by Paul, it was an obvious issue, since every possible kind of sexual expression was well known in cities like Corinth and Rome...[In sum]...for the Jew, it was a matter of living in accordance with the covenant...For Paul, it was a matter of living in accordance with the covenant that had been renewed in and through the death and resurrection of Jesus, through which God had launched his project of new creation. People often suggest that since Paul believed in grace, not law, all the old rules were swept away in a new era of ‘tolerance,’ but this is a shallow and trivial view. Paul (and all early Christians known to us, right through the centuries) stuck with the Jewish view: no worship of idols, no sex outside marriage. And marriage of course meant man/woman..." http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/tom_wright_on_homosexuality

And so it's a 'big deal' to move away from a classic/orthodox view of sexuality and sexual practice.

Please hear me: we need periodically to renovate and update understandings of Christian praxis; the church's move beyond slavery-tolerance is a prime example.  But when it comes to altering biblical understandings related to human sexuality we're doing more than updating the infrastructure of Christian praxis, we're altering the very foundation stones laid 'in the beginning' (e.g. Genesis 1 and 2): no sex outside of marriage -- and -- that marriage means a covenant between a man and woman.

A sincere, growing, vocal consensus, believes it's time to release such classic understandings. http://www.postost.net/2015/11/summary-james-brownson-s-argument-bible-gender-sexuality But the question looms:  what then do we grasp?  Is scriptural truth now reduced to just love and inclusion of all human praxis?  Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School, another centered, rooted voice expresses caution.

“The biblical story teaches us that God’s love cannot be reduced to ‘inclusiveness': authentic love calls us to repentance, discipline, sacrifice, and transformation” Richards Hays.  The Moral Vision of the New Testament Community.  New York, Harper One, 1996, p. 202).

I believe, part of repentance, discipline, sacrifice, transformation is alignment with scripture's sense of sexual practice, which N.T. Wright purports is a classic understanding (e.g. no sex outside of marriage; marriage as a covenant between man/woman).  This is bedrock and foundational.

But equally important is alignment with other aspects of repentance, discipline, sacrifice, transformation.  Paramount is the humility and confession, advocated previously.  As I noted in an earlier written piece:

"Though we must articulate with bold conviction our discernment of God's truth, we must never try to 'be God.'  Conviction must be coupled with tears and humility:  All have fallen short of the glory of God. "(Romans 3:23)   Paul Mundey.  'Is Homosexuality Really The Issue?'  Messenger.  April, 2011, pp; 16-17)

And so yes. We must 'count well the cost' of altering foundational understandings.  But once newly valued, foundational understandings must be expressed with humility and tears. For again, to cite D.T. Niles, we are but beggars, helping other beggars, find bread.

In all candor: I don't find enough tears and humility in the Nashville Statement.  But, frankly, I don't find enough tears and humility in any human sexuality statement (to date), including statements issued by so called progressive or liberal believers.  All I find is more 'Harvey' -- more storm, fury and hurricane.

And so I call us to tears and humility.  Same-sex, transgender sexual behavior is not God's intent.  This must be named clearly.  But it must also be named compassionately, for we're all 'guilty' of some gap between our praxis and God's best.

Thus, we journey together -- with humility -- seeking to fill the gaps of life with God -- yearning to conform more fully to His counter-cultural, disturbing -- but ever wise -- best.