Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

To Give a Defense

Home
Catholic
About That Nashville Statement? Let Me Nitpick.

About That Nashville Statement? Let Me Nitpick.

Last updated on: March 4, 2018 at 6:20 pm by Scott Eric Alt

About That Nashville Statement? Let Me Nitpick. 2018-03-04T18:20:19-04:00 Scott Eric Alt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Nashville statement

Lorenzo Maitani, “Creation of Eve” (Creative Commons)

So some Evangelical leaders (from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) gathered in Nashville and hammered out a statement (NS) on Christianity and human sexuality, and not even conservative Evangelicals are altogether happy with it. Part of the problem, according to the Washington Post, was the feeling that Evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump lost their standing to speak on sexual morality.

Well, that’s a fair point. If you’re going to vote for a man who boasts about where he’s grabbing them, you’re in no position to be rebuking gay people about their sexual activities.

The Post goes into some other detail, not entirely interesting for my purposes. I want to go through a couple of the articles in the NS and pick apart a few of the theological errors I find. This is not just academic.

• Article I describes marriage as “covenantal”; which is true, but you are not going far enough unless you also say that marriage (for the baptized, at any rate) is sacramental.

Marriage is not merely a sign of Christ’s love for the Church, but it is meant to help save us. It gives saving grace. (Christ alone saves, but he acts through the sacrament.) Husband and wife “help one another to attain holiness,” as the Catechism puts it (1641)

• Article II says that God’s purpose is “chastity outside marriage and fidelity within marriage.”

Okay, I know what they mean. But God’s purpose is chastity outside and inside marriage. “Chastity” does not mean “having no sex.” The word NS is looking for is “celibacy.” A man who has sex with his wife, and his wife only, is practicing chastity. Fidelity to one’s spouse is not some different thing from chastity.

• Article VII “den[ies] that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.”

The problem here is with the word “adopting.” It is as though the authors of NS believe that a “homosexual or transgender self-conception” is chosen. That’s disputable, to be nice about it. It is gravely disordered, yes. But to imply that is chosen in anyone’s case, and not instead the result of concupiscence, or a psychological condition, is unjust. It lacks compassion. It implies a culpability that may not be present. No one can judge such things except God.

Perhaps I suffer from a gluttonous desire for candy. I didn’t choose this; I have it. It’s disordered, yes. But I did not “adopt a gluttonous self-conception.” No more does someone with same-sex attraction “adopt a homosexual self-conception.” That kind of talk needs to be abolished.

• Article VIII denies that individuals with SSA are “outside the hope of the gospel.”

And we can all be glad it says this. Good for the NS.

• Article IX says that “sin distorts sexual desires.”

Okay, sure. That is true–if you mean original sin, or concupiscence. And yes, this does include heterosexual sins as well as homosexual ones, so I am glad NS clarifies that.

• Article X says that to approve of “transgenderism” is a “departure from Christian witness.”

Here, the NS suffers from a failure to define terms. What does it mean by “transgenderism”? Does it mean a biological male who identifies as female? Or does it mean something else? If the former, then there is no question of “approving” or “disapproving” of this; it is a phenomenon that just is in the case of some biological males. Reasonable people, and reasonable Christians, can surely disagree with each other about what to do about such things, even while admiting that it was not part of God’s original design. The world we live in is not God’s original design. It’s just not. We can disagree about where to go from there.

• Article XI “den[ies] any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his image-bearers as male and female.”

Well, again, some examples of what NS would consider “dishonoring God’s design” would be helpful here. Does NS mean, “I’m going to call you he even if you believe you are she, because to do otherwise dishonors God”? Does NS mean, “There are no transgendered people; phoo, why, the very notion is dishonoring to God”?

Look, my compassion toward people who suffer brokenness is not dishonoring to God; my affirmation that their brokenness is part of who they are is not dishonoring to God. We are all broken, in one way or another. I don’t have to think it’s part of God’s original design. I don’t have to believe people should be free to engage in whatever self-destructive behavior they like. But telling someone who thinks he is a she that he is a he, damn it, I’m not going to dishonor God, might not be the best way to help. It might, in fact, be destructive. It might break even the broken pieces. Reasonable Christians can think this, and we don’t need to be told we are dishonoring God if that’s how we choose to love a brother or a sister. We can disagree about how to love.

• Article XII says that the grace of God helps us to “put to death sinful desires.”

No. No, no, and again no. Even after baptism, concupiscence remains. Sinful desires do not get “put to death.” Grace enables us to resist them; it does not eliminate them. Sinful desires, according to the Catechism, are “part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle.” (Jen Fitz has more about this on her blog Sticking the Corners.) And this matters. Someone who has SSA will likely always have SSA. It will be a cross every day. To give them false hope that, you know, if only you had grace enough, you could conquer that, is unbelievably cruel, however well-intentioned. That’s true whomever the sinner, whatever the sinful desire.

• Article XIII says “that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions.”

Again, this assumes, falsely, that people choose “transgender self-conceptions.” We can only forsake what we choose. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, just as much as bipolar disorder. The “grace of God in Christ” does not permit anyone to “forsake” being bipolar. I don’t deny that God can sometimes miraculously heal people of physical or psychological ailments. But “the grace of God in Christ” helps us to overcome the consequences of sin. Gender dysphoria is not a sin.

But other than those things…

The NS is not entirely lacking in truth, but it has very definite flaws, and I don’t think Catholics should be affirming it or signing it.

Homosexuality

Nashville Statement

Previous Post

May 4, 2017

I, Scott Eric Alt, Forced Trump's Hand and Saved the Little Sisters

Next Post

September 13, 2017 Reports of the Threats to Humanae Vitae Are Greatly Exaggerated

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion About Me Answers for Calvinists Answers to Media Fictions Answers to Objections Anti-Catholicism Apologetics Apostolic Succession Atonement Authority of the Church Baptism Benedictines Biblical Exegesis Blogging Book Reviews Books & Writing &c. Calvin's Institutes Capital Punishment Catholic Church Chastity Christology Church Fathers Church Social Doctrine Confession Contraception Conversion Stories Crusades Debates Depression & Suicide Deuterocanon Development of Doctrine Ecumenism English Language Eucharistic Adoration Exorcism Extra Ecclesiam Fisks & Rebuttals Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Fundamentalism Gender Politics Gender Theory Good Works Homosexuality Humor Idolatry Immaculate Conception In the News Inquisition ISIS Islam Just for Fun Just War Justification LCWR Limbo Liturgical Abuse Liturgical Year Magisterium Marriage and Family Mary Mortal Sin New Evangelization NFP Papacy Papal Documents Papal Infallibility Personal Narrative Politics Pope Francis Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Population Control Praying to the "Dead" Priesthood Primacy of Peter Protestant Denominations Purgatory Radical Islam Radical Traditionalists Real Presence Right to Conscience RIght to Life Saints Same-Sex "Marriage" Seven Quick Takes Social Justice Social Media Sola Scriptura Spirit of Vatican II SSPX The Eucharist The Mass The Resurrection Traditionalism Vatican II Year of Mercy

Select a Month August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 May 2013 April 2013 February 2013 January 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am a city that comes down from heaven, adorned as a bride. My streets are gold, my gates are pearls. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

New Jerusalem Heaven Bethlehem Zion