What Egalitarians Need to know about the Nashville Statement

[mkgal1]

This is a touchy subject.....but I think it'd be a good topic for discussion if we can sort of avoid the issue of same-sex relationships and only focus on feminism/egalitarianism.

If you are involved in the egalitarian movement, you have probably heard of the CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood). This organization is the Baptist propaganda organ for complementarian theology. This organization has ensured that its take on gender doctrine has been incorporated into every orthodoxy statement alongside fundamental doctrines such as salvation by grace and the triune nature of God issued by the Baptist Church and its associated bodies from the “Baptist Faith and Message” to the mission statement of the Acts 29 church planting organization.

You may be tempted to believe that the Nashville Statement is simply about homosexuality. It is not. For the CBMW, homosexuality and gender hierarchy are inextricable issues. This group has expressed collectively and individually that the blame for the rise of homosexuality and transgenderism should be placed solely and squarely at the feet of feminism and egalitarianism. They believe that the erosion of the “traditional marriage/family” concept is due to the failure of men and women to embrace the restrictive gender roles that CBMW believes God has ordained since before the Fall. They believe that the refusal of women and the diffidence of men to embrace dominant masculinity and submissive femininity have greased the slippery slope of gender fluidity, creating “gender confusion”. They believe that only a return to their strict gender dichotomy can stem the tide of LGBT madness and pansexual promiscuity.

It is my opinion that one cannot embrace the Nashville Statement without embracing the entire complementarian gender programme. I believe that its originators and signatories would agree
~What Egalitarians Need to Know About the Nashville Statement

It just seems to me that there's a LOT of reaching going on to prove just how "bad" egalitarianism/feminism really is.

 

[Anguspure]

This is a touchy subject.....but I think it'd be a good topic for discussion if we can sort of avoid the issue of same-sex relationships and only focus on feminism/egalitarianism.



It just seems to me that there's a LOT of reaching going on to prove just how "bad" egalitarianism/feminism really is.

I know that you would rather avoid this avenue, but are you able to shed light on article 6? According to the statement can a Congenital Eunuch (under the definition given) enter into a marriage covenant?

 

[Anguspure]

This is a touchy subject.....but I think it'd be a good topic for discussion if we can sort of avoid the issue of same-sex relationships and only focus on feminism/egalitarianism.



It just seems to me that there's a LOT of reaching going on to prove just how "bad" egalitarianism/feminism really is.

The problem with Egalitarianism, as a movement, is that it affirms equal rights but neglects the responsibilities. It affirms individualism but harms community. It embraces diversity but despises cultural boundaries.
So like any human movement that is not under the Lordship of Christ there is no balance, no understanding. Only reactionism leading to death.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

The problem with Egalitarianism, as a movement, is that it affirms equal rights but neglects the responsibilities. It affirms individualism but harms community. It embraces diversity but despises cultural boundaries.
So like any human movement that is not under the Lordship of Christ there is no balance, no understanding. Only reactionism leading to death.

It would be wise if visitors to this particular faith group forum read its Statement of Purpose before commenting in the threads and disputing the core beliefs of this faith group. If they did so, they would have read this particular rule, "This is a safehouse forum for Egalitarian Christians. Criticizing or mocking members hold that view is not allowed." Coming into this forum and arguing about what this faith group believes isn't beneficial to anyone and it's also against this forum's rules.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

@mkgal1, thank you for posting that information and link in your OP. I had heard a little bit about this "statement" but I hadn't read the entire article yet. I also didn't know about the egalitarianism and feminism angle either. Anyway, I look forward to discussing this issue further here.

 

[JackRT]

The problem with Egalitarianism, as a movement, is that it affirms equal rights but neglects the responsibilities.

Really? I never noticed.

It affirms individualism but harms community.

Gee, I missed that too.

It embraces diversity but despises cultural boundaries.

Do we live in different realities?

 

[Anguspure]

Really? I never noticed.



Gee, I missed that too.



Do we live in different realities?

Perhaps it's just that the message of responsibilty is not being promulgated well enough.

 

[Paidiske]

I have not, personally, found that egalitarians are indifferent to the responsibility side of the coin. I have found that we are perhaps less quick to assign blame. When - for example - a marriage is in trouble, we don't feel that we have an automatic fix to hand to say, "Well, if she'd submit and he'd lead, they'd have no problems." Instead we assume that the situation is complex and that the solution for this couple will take time and work to discover.

That might look like not pushing a message of responsibility, but I think in reality it's being more careful about how we talk about responsibility; not trying to push everyone into identical boxes.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I have not, personally, found that egalitarians are indifferent to the responsibility side of the coin. I have found that we are perhaps less quick to assign blame. When - for example - a marriage is in trouble, we don't feel that we have an automatic fix to hand to say, "Well, if she'd submit and he'd lead, they'd have no problems." Instead we assume that the situation is complex and that the solution for this couple will take time and work to discover.

That might look like not pushing a message of responsibility, but I think in reality it's being more careful about how we talk about responsibility; not trying to push everyone into identical boxes.

Well said, Paidiske. I couldn't agree more.

 

[PloverWing]

The Nashville Statement is consistent with other documents I've seen from the CBMW. I read their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood back in 1991 when it came out. (A depressing read, but good for staying informed about the conservative religious community.) The new statement isn't surprising to me. Given that men holding power over women is very important to them, it makes sense that they would oppose same-sex marriage (because who dominates whom in the relationship?). It also makes sense that they would oppose transgender people, because if you can just hop from one caste to the other, it upsets the power structure. (Imagine, in The Handmaid's Tale, if a Handmaid could choose to be a Commander instead of a Handmaid.)

I don't want to debate the LGBT issues themselves (and we can't, on CF). My point, rather, is that the CBMW's view on LGBT issues is unsurprising, given their other views.

Their views on gender roles are, indeed, woven into the document throughout. A person with egalitarian views would not be able to affirm the Nashville Statement, regardless of the person's views on LGBT issues.

 

[mkgal1]

The new statement isn't surprising to me. Given that men holding power over women is very important to them, it makes sense that they would oppose same-sex marriage (because who dominates whom in the relationship?). It also makes sense that they would oppose transgender people, because if you can just hop from one caste to the other, it upsets the power structure. (Imagine, in The Handmaid's Tale, if a Handmaid could choose to be a Commander instead of a Handmaid.)

I think this is such a great way of summing it all up. "Caste system" is just what the dynamic is.....and I believe there's fear in losing control.

 

[WolfGate]

The Nashville Statement is consistent with other documents I've seen from the CBMW. I read their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood back in 1991 when it came out. (A depressing read, but good for staying informed about the conservative religious community.) The new statement isn't surprising to me. Given that men holding power over women is very important to them, it makes sense that they would oppose same-sex marriage (because who dominates whom in the relationship?). It also makes sense that they would oppose transgender people, because if you can just hop from one caste to the other, it upsets the power structure. (Imagine, in The Handmaid's Tale, if a Handmaid could choose to be a Commander instead of a Handmaid.)

I don't want to debate the LGBT issues themselves (and we can't, on CF). My point, rather, is that the CBMW's view on LGBT issues is unsurprising, given their other views.

Their views on gender roles are, indeed, woven into the document throughout. A person with egalitarian views would not be able to affirm the Nashville Statement, regardless of the person's views on LGBT issues.

I agree their views of gender in marriage (somewhat hidden if you don't know them by the term "divinely ordained differences) are woven in this document. I also agree that makes it hard for an egalitarian to affirm.

I disagree that the root of their view on LGBT and transgenderism is about domination and power structure. I believe it is rooted in the direct scriptures on the topic.

 

[PloverWing]

I agree their views of gender in marriage (somewhat hidden if you don't know them by the term "divinely ordained differences) are woven in this document. I also agree that makes it hard for an egalitarian to affirm.

I disagree that the root of their view on LGBT and transgenderism is about domination and power structure. I believe it is rooted in the direct scriptures on the topic.

It is possible to argue from the Scriptures in support of male domination, so their view of LGBT issues could be rooted in both places.

I acknowledge that an argument against same-sex marriage can be constructed from the Bible. It's possible that the CBMW have come to their conclusions on same-sex relationships in a way that's separate from their views of rigid gender roles; I can't really know what's in someone else's head. But I mistrust the CBMW, because of what they've written elsewhere about male headship and female submission in marriage.

I am even more distrustful of their views about transgender people, because the argument from Scripture is so much weaker, and because rigidly fixed gender identity is so important in their belief system.

With all that said, I'll add this: I do think that the CBMW are acting according to their understanding of the Scriptures. The male/female power hierarchy is one that they see in the Bible, and they believe that this hierarchy should be continued today, as an act of obedience to God's design. I disagree with the CBMW, but I think that they are acting out of genuine devotion to God.

 

[Paidiske]

I disagree that the root of their view on LGBT and transgenderism is about domination and power structure. I believe it is rooted in the direct scriptures on the topic.

I've recently been doing some research on the topic and have not been able to find any direct Scriptures on the topic of being transgendered. From what I can tell it's something the Biblical texts don't address. Would you be able to cite chapter and verse for me?

 

[WolfGate]

I've recently been doing some research on the topic and have not been able to find any direct Scriptures on the topic of being transgendered. From what I can tell it's something the Biblical texts don't address. Would you be able to cite chapter and verse for me?

I should have limited that to LGB. I used the same acronym Ploverwing had without paying attention to detail, which was my error. I do agree the T part is not directly addressed.

The key point of my post was addressing the motivation of the signers of the Nashville Statement in response to Ploverwing's post - which Ploverwing then clarified two posts above this one.

 

[WolfGate]

It is possible to argue from the Scriptures in support of male domination, so their view of LGBT issues could be rooted in both places.

I acknowledge that an argument against same-sex marriage can be constructed from the Bible. It's possible that the CBMW have come to their conclusions on same-sex relationships in a way that's separate from their views of rigid gender roles; I can't really know what's in someone else's head. But I mistrust the CBMW, because of what they've written elsewhere about male headship and female submission in marriage.

I am even more distrustful of their views about transgender people, because the argument from Scripture is so much weaker, and because rigidly fixed gender identity is so important in their belief system.

With all that said, I'll add this: I do think that the CBMW are acting according to their understanding of the Scriptures. The male/female power hierarchy is one that they see in the Bible, and they believe that this hierarchy should be continued today, as an act of obedience to God's design. I disagree with the CBMW, but I think that they are acting out of genuine devotion to God.

Thank you for the clarifications. I think any further comments I would have on your posts would really be quibbles on semantics.

 

[Dave-W]

Given that men holding power over women is very important to them, it makes sense that they would oppose same-sex marriage (because who dominates whom in the relationship?).

They are just following the first rule of power: Those in power do what they can to stay in power.

 

[Dave-W]

I should have limited that to LGB. I used the same acronym Ploverwing had without paying attention to detail, which was my error. I do agree the T part is not directly addressed.

I would add the "L" part is barely mentioned - only one verse out of all of scripture; and that more a description of our fallen state rather than a prohibition.

ETA: I have had some interesting discussions as to WHY lesbianism is NEVER even mentioned in the OT Law, even though the historic (going back to Moses' time) Jewish cultural understanding was that female sexual desire/need exceeded that of men.

 

[JackRT]

They are just following the first rule of power: Those in power do what they can to stay in power.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote --- "It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order; and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it."

 

[FireDragon76]

It's been known for a long time among academics that homophobia and misogyny tend to go together in the way patriarchy operates in western culture.