I frankly don't see where the Nashville Statement contradicts statements made by the CRC about the same subject matter. Could the author or someone point out those differences?
I also don't see where the Nashville Statement "promotes conversion therapy," nor "patriarchy." I do see where it might be said to promote "complementarianism" but not in a way different from the CRC. Anyone?
Jonathan: I don't read in Articles 12 and 13 what you claim for them. Indeed, the last phrase in Article 12 seems to make clear that believers may be drawn to sin but yet resist it.
As to Article 4, very little is said by the Nashville Statement except that "God made us male and female," and that this "difference" is a matter of "original creation design." It doesn't even say what that design difference is.
So with the possible exception of Article 10, which is unclear, I think we agree this Nashville Statement is rather unremarkable in terms of how it compares to the CRC position. Given that, I think your assertion that the statement represents "hate and fear" is a bit hyperbolic. I think you are correct that "many in our denomination look favorably upon the Nashville Statement," in large part because they will (accurately) perceive it as in line with what the denomination has said, which is what they believe.
Just curious: what do you think about the "Denver Statement?"
JI Packer is one of the signatories. I really doubt he signed because of his "fear" that "there are alternate, valid interpretations" about this issue.
"Soooo," what? First, you characterize the statement rather than quoting it, but second, you "sooo" as if Packer's "fear" should be self-evident. But I still don't see Packer's "fear".
Kyle: I actually think it is fair to say that in some sense Article 10 is a conversation killer, and in a sense, signing on to the Nashville Statement generally is a conversation killer. But then the CRC statements in the past about these questions are equally conversation killers. In fact whenever the CRC says something, you can look at that as a conversation killer.
But there is a sense in which characterizing a stated position, whether the Nashville Statement or any prior CRC statement, as a statement made out of "hate and fear" is a bit different. It doesn't constitute an argument about the confesssional stance but rather a claim of an internal motivation on the part of of the stance taker, an attempt to convince by ad hominem argument (not by argument against the stance itself) that the stance is a wrong one.
Now you may say that the confessional stance takers who signed on to the Nashville statement are being derogatory (judgmental) to others by stating that people who take other stances or act on them are acting sinfully. And I understand that, but that level of judgment (and it is judgment) is unavoidable, and not ad hominem. It may judge an action or perspective negatively, but that judgment results from an argument about the stance itself, rather than from a claim that the motivation of the stance taker is all the proof needed to judge whatever stance the person took.
Sorry Kyle but that's a bit of a silly argument. The Nashville Statement doesn't condemn homicide or burglary or embezzlement either. It is a statement about less than all of human activity. Your argument can be used to damn any and all statements, creeds, or confessions.
The words "litmus test for Christian or not" are yours, not the authors or signers of this statement.
Kyle: Again you have to explain the statement for lack of the statement saying what you claim. The Nashville makes no claim to comprehensively opine as to all questions about human sexuality. Are you supposing they approve of heterosexual adultery because this statement doesn't cover it. Granted, embezzlement is not sexual but this argument remains silly notwithstanding, and for the same reason.
What I would recommend you do is to put together your own Denver type of statement. Get together with others, like the Nashville and Denver folk have done, and say what you think. You can even comprehensively cover all sex related questions if you like, so that no one would accuse you have having a "litmus test" (although I would defend you if you didn't :-) ). Seriously, do a Denver style response. Or align with Denver. Its easy to tear down, not as easy to build up. Make your affirmative case so folks can evaluate your position.
I think that approach, Kent, at least done as it is usually done these days, simply leads to increased racism. Human history is one big "long story of inequality and dismissiveness," in the US and anywhere else in the world (perhaps even more so in other places in the world). Someone recently recommended a Netflix documentary to me, Accidental Courtesy, "starring" Daryl Davis, a black American musician who has -- for decades now -- made it his practice to talk with, and befriend even, KKK's and other white supremicists (included or even especially their leaders). A good watch.
Its funny how we preach forgiveness, over and over and over and over, but then as to some culturally pet wrongs, we make exceptions. It might feel good, righteous even, but it doesn't make for progress, or even for justice or mercy, but rather the opposite. Of course that doesn't mean we need to simply tolerate racism and do nothing about it when it occurs, but that is no different than what we should do for any other unjust "inequality."
No doubt our inclination to "hate our neighbor" can be manifested by our dividing up people by "race," or by other criteria equally meaningless, and then by treating some groups created by that irrational division unjustly, but that is merely one of many ways to "hate our neighbor." I buy the notion that we all have an inclination to hate others, but I don't buy the notion that all manifest that hatred by dividing according to skin color.
Indeed, Daryl Davis seemed not to. When as a child he was pelted with thrown objects marching in a parade and holding an American flag, it never occurred to him that anyone would throw those things at him because he appeared to be of a certain race. And then Daryl grows up, talks with and befriends (even if he totally disagrees with) KKKers and white separatists, which suggests that Daryl himself does not have the claimed universal "vice" of racism. And if Daryl is not afflicted with that universal vice, why could others not be also?
Personally, I think "classism" is a far greater problem in today's United States than racism, even if once upon a time it could have been otherwise.
Call "classism" a sin or a vice if you like, acting on that perspective is destructive, sinful, unjust and unloving. And yet the CRCNA largely ignores it, or perhaps recognizes it but only when and where the victims of classism are particular races, which is itself racism, as Daryl Davis seems to understand. The book, Hillbilly Elegy, is instructive as to this reality, as is, frankly, the election of Donald Trump.
It was interesting (and spot on I thought) that Daryl Davis saw fear as the underlayment for the KKK and white separatist/sovereignty groups. I'd add of course our disposition to hate our neighbor, but I think Davis was quite astute in that observation.
But Benjamin, your claims notwithstanding, the "history of slavery and racial oppression" has been anything but "ignored." To the contrary, the CRCNA beats it to death. These days, one out of every _____ articles on the various CRC publications deal with racism. Confessions, both individual and institutional, abound.
I really don't think all of this "recognizing" is doing much good in the real world. After all we keep saying it and nothing changes except for the worse. While racism is being more and more reported on and emphasized by the media, and by institutions like the CRCNA, the racial divide is clearly growing.
I don't think this author is an "unaware" as you claim. Rather, I think he believes our focus might better if more turned to emphasize reconciliation, using methods that increase the chances for that, instead of our continuing to grind guilt and shame into the foreheads of the "bad guys" like a lighted cigarette.
This sin has never been "unnamed" -- as you state -- but rather named over and over and over and over again. It's even named when it doesn't exist. Our former president was quick to declare it even when it wasn't the case when the facts were more fully made evident. You may want to solve the problem of "Way too many Americans [] not [wanting] to recognize the systemic nature of racism" but both this author (I think at least) and I would prefer the Daryl Davis route, a route that actually gets something done.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
I frankly don't see where the Nashville Statement contradicts statements made by the CRC about the same subject matter. Could the author or someone point out those differences?
I also don't see where the Nashville Statement "promotes conversion therapy," nor "patriarchy." I do see where it might be said to promote "complementarianism" but not in a way different from the CRC. Anyone?
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Jonathan: I don't read in Articles 12 and 13 what you claim for them. Indeed, the last phrase in Article 12 seems to make clear that believers may be drawn to sin but yet resist it.
As to Article 4, very little is said by the Nashville Statement except that "God made us male and female," and that this "difference" is a matter of "original creation design." It doesn't even say what that design difference is.
So with the possible exception of Article 10, which is unclear, I think we agree this Nashville Statement is rather unremarkable in terms of how it compares to the CRC position. Given that, I think your assertion that the statement represents "hate and fear" is a bit hyperbolic. I think you are correct that "many in our denomination look favorably upon the Nashville Statement," in large part because they will (accurately) perceive it as in line with what the denomination has said, which is what they believe.
Just curious: what do you think about the "Denver Statement?"
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
JI Packer is one of the signatories. I really doubt he signed because of his "fear" that "there are alternate, valid interpretations" about this issue.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
"Soooo," what? First, you characterize the statement rather than quoting it, but second, you "sooo" as if Packer's "fear" should be self-evident. But I still don't see Packer's "fear".
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Kyle: I actually think it is fair to say that in some sense Article 10 is a conversation killer, and in a sense, signing on to the Nashville Statement generally is a conversation killer. But then the CRC statements in the past about these questions are equally conversation killers. In fact whenever the CRC says something, you can look at that as a conversation killer.
But there is a sense in which characterizing a stated position, whether the Nashville Statement or any prior CRC statement, as a statement made out of "hate and fear" is a bit different. It doesn't constitute an argument about the confesssional stance but rather a claim of an internal motivation on the part of of the stance taker, an attempt to convince by ad hominem argument (not by argument against the stance itself) that the stance is a wrong one.
Now you may say that the confessional stance takers who signed on to the Nashville statement are being derogatory (judgmental) to others by stating that people who take other stances or act on them are acting sinfully. And I understand that, but that level of judgment (and it is judgment) is unavoidable, and not ad hominem. It may judge an action or perspective negatively, but that judgment results from an argument about the stance itself, rather than from a claim that the motivation of the stance taker is all the proof needed to judge whatever stance the person took.
Posted in: The CRC Needs to Have a Conversation About the Gospel and Social Justice
I agree.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Sorry Kyle but that's a bit of a silly argument. The Nashville Statement doesn't condemn homicide or burglary or embezzlement either. It is a statement about less than all of human activity. Your argument can be used to damn any and all statements, creeds, or confessions.
The words "litmus test for Christian or not" are yours, not the authors or signers of this statement.
Posted in: Fear and the Nashville Statement
Kyle: Again you have to explain the statement for lack of the statement saying what you claim. The Nashville makes no claim to comprehensively opine as to all questions about human sexuality. Are you supposing they approve of heterosexual adultery because this statement doesn't cover it. Granted, embezzlement is not sexual but this argument remains silly notwithstanding, and for the same reason.
What I would recommend you do is to put together your own Denver type of statement. Get together with others, like the Nashville and Denver folk have done, and say what you think. You can even comprehensively cover all sex related questions if you like, so that no one would accuse you have having a "litmus test" (although I would defend you if you didn't :-) ). Seriously, do a Denver style response. Or align with Denver. Its easy to tear down, not as easy to build up. Make your affirmative case so folks can evaluate your position.
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
Thanks for this insightful post. :-)
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
I think that approach, Kent, at least done as it is usually done these days, simply leads to increased racism. Human history is one big "long story of inequality and dismissiveness," in the US and anywhere else in the world (perhaps even more so in other places in the world). Someone recently recommended a Netflix documentary to me, Accidental Courtesy, "starring" Daryl Davis, a black American musician who has -- for decades now -- made it his practice to talk with, and befriend even, KKK's and other white supremicists (included or even especially their leaders). A good watch.
Its funny how we preach forgiveness, over and over and over and over, but then as to some culturally pet wrongs, we make exceptions. It might feel good, righteous even, but it doesn't make for progress, or even for justice or mercy, but rather the opposite. Of course that doesn't mean we need to simply tolerate racism and do nothing about it when it occurs, but that is no different than what we should do for any other unjust "inequality."
Do check out "Accidental Courtesy."
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
No doubt our inclination to "hate our neighbor" can be manifested by our dividing up people by "race," or by other criteria equally meaningless, and then by treating some groups created by that irrational division unjustly, but that is merely one of many ways to "hate our neighbor." I buy the notion that we all have an inclination to hate others, but I don't buy the notion that all manifest that hatred by dividing according to skin color.
Indeed, Daryl Davis seemed not to. When as a child he was pelted with thrown objects marching in a parade and holding an American flag, it never occurred to him that anyone would throw those things at him because he appeared to be of a certain race. And then Daryl grows up, talks with and befriends (even if he totally disagrees with) KKKers and white separatists, which suggests that Daryl himself does not have the claimed universal "vice" of racism. And if Daryl is not afflicted with that universal vice, why could others not be also?
Personally, I think "classism" is a far greater problem in today's United States than racism, even if once upon a time it could have been otherwise.
Call "classism" a sin or a vice if you like, acting on that perspective is destructive, sinful, unjust and unloving. And yet the CRCNA largely ignores it, or perhaps recognizes it but only when and where the victims of classism are particular races, which is itself racism, as Daryl Davis seems to understand. The book, Hillbilly Elegy, is instructive as to this reality, as is, frankly, the election of Donald Trump.
It was interesting (and spot on I thought) that Daryl Davis saw fear as the underlayment for the KKK and white separatist/sovereignty groups. I'd add of course our disposition to hate our neighbor, but I think Davis was quite astute in that observation.
Posted in: Charlottesville From a Cross Cultural Perspective
But Benjamin, your claims notwithstanding, the "history of slavery and racial oppression" has been anything but "ignored." To the contrary, the CRCNA beats it to death. These days, one out of every _____ articles on the various CRC publications deal with racism. Confessions, both individual and institutional, abound.
I really don't think all of this "recognizing" is doing much good in the real world. After all we keep saying it and nothing changes except for the worse. While racism is being more and more reported on and emphasized by the media, and by institutions like the CRCNA, the racial divide is clearly growing.
I don't think this author is an "unaware" as you claim. Rather, I think he believes our focus might better if more turned to emphasize reconciliation, using methods that increase the chances for that, instead of our continuing to grind guilt and shame into the foreheads of the "bad guys" like a lighted cigarette.
This sin has never been "unnamed" -- as you state -- but rather named over and over and over and over again. It's even named when it doesn't exist. Our former president was quick to declare it even when it wasn't the case when the facts were more fully made evident. You may want to solve the problem of "Way too many Americans [] not [wanting] to recognize the systemic nature of racism" but both this author (I think at least) and I would prefer the Daryl Davis route, a route that actually gets something done.