‘Nashville Statement’ condemns LGBT Christians and those who support them

Mine doesn't. But why do you ask? Does yours?

 

No. But that's kind of my point: if we don't ask about who's in bed with whom, then why do we make such a song and dance about what the answer might be? Surely there are more important things for the Church to be stressing about than what two consenting adults, causing no harms to anyone else, may or may not get up to in private?

 

Two consenting adults, causing no harm to anyone else? You really have missed the point about this whole discussion, haven't you? Sexual immorality is not a victimless sin. Besides the harm the person committing the sin causes to himself, there are others involved. The person he sins with, family members, the local church body, his witness for Christ, Christ's name...I can go on.

Biblical marriage is under attack. Enemies of Christ from within the church would love for pulpits to go silent on the issue of sexual immorality. That is all that is needed for evil to triumph; for the church to stop preaching the truth and cede its moral imperative. This is not about prying into private lives. Trust me, these type of things take on a life of their own and cannot be hidden for long.

What you are really advocating is incrementalism. While you may not overtly support same-sex marriage, your willingness to sweep it under the carpet is just a first step. Once the Church becomes desensitized to a sin, allowing it without any compunction is not far behind. Understand what this passage means:

Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. "

 

No, the Nashville Statement is good. Don't be syncretistic.

 

Also, this topic has absolutely nothing to do with how Christians should deal with sexually immoral individuals. We should treat each sinner with love and respect. After all, is not our desire to see sinners converted; to forsake their sin and follow Christ in obedience? But like it or not, there are some sins that are invasive, and so destructive, that they must be opposed with vigor. Homosexuality goes against God's created order for men and women. Adultery goes against God's created order for marriage. These sins are not unforgivable, but the amount of collateral damage they do to others makes them especially heinous.

 

Sorry but I really don't understand this argument that SSM is somehow a 'threat ' to or undermines straight marriage. I mean, it's not like I woke up the morning after it was legalised in the UK and said to my wife, "Right, that's it! The gays can get hitched so I want a divorce." In fact I don't know anyone who said or did that. Do you?

 

No, I don't know anyone who did that but it is a big world. Don't you criticize Trump based on moral grounds or do I have you confused? The church needs to throw out syncretism and be happy to be free of it.

 

Trump's actions have harmful consequences and I think the Church needs to be far more anxious about things like that

 

Matt, you really do not get it. The perversion of biblical marriage does undermine God's covenant relationship between one man and one woman. You did not deny my charge of incrementalism, so I will assume that is what you are advocating for. The Church has a right, nay, a responsibility to address threats to God's word. All the world's evils become worse when the Church takes a passive approach. No one is advocating a witch hunt for sexually immoral people, but the Church has to be ready to fight against the cultural warriors that are arrayed against it. Of course, we fight not like the world fights, but we fight nonetheless.

 

No, I don't get it: explain in what way SSM is a threat to heterosexual marriage.

 

Society is putting on a full court press to for perverted marriage to be accepted as normative. Those that offer dissent are targeted. They are called names, marginalized, demonized, and litigated against. In the United States, business owners have already been sued because they refused to participate in same-sex weddings*. With the pressure placed on Christians to accept perverted marriage, some Christians are trying to give assent to perverted marriage in public while opposing it in their private lives. That sort of cognitive dissonance does not last very long. Pastors that preach the truth on marriage are being targeted on social media. But wait, there is more.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. It does not exist. Marriage is God-ordained between one man and one woman. Isaiah wrote:

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Calling evil good is one-way perverted marriage threatens biblical marriage.

Look at the city of Sodom. In Genesis 19:4 we read, "all the people from every quarter". The city of Sodom had fallen into such gross immorality that not just the wicked were named, but "all the people from every quarter". Did you ever wonder where the term "sodomy" came from? The city of Sodom fell into gross immorality that permeated "every quarter". Good was called evil and evil good. When God's people fail to stand up for what is right, they will fall into what is wrong.

*There is the case of a Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Creating a wedding cake is as much an artistic expression as it is just making something to eat. The wedding cake is the focal point of celebrating a wedding between a man and a woman. For the baker to convey that celebration to a fraudulent wedding is something he refused to do. For that he was fined and sued.

**edited to correct typos.

 

For the most part, IMHO, there is no need for ministerial interragation. These folk seem to wear their deviancy as "a badge of honor", and make sure you know their bedroom preferences before they tell you their name! (Slightly sarcastic)

I could not care less if a guy is queer, as long as he doesen't try to flaunt his sin and attempt to force me to "accept his sin as normal"!

Sans the above, I will treat him like anyone else, even IF I know about him.

I state this as fact, as I've practiced this in the dim, dark past when no queer would ever think of bragging of his deviancy. Today it seems that they think that if you treat them as normal, they are -- therein lies the rub, if you are cordial, you accept & agree with their lifestyle.

 

I don't see though how any of that though changes the previous changes to marriage; you'd have more of a point if the same baker had been prosecuted for refusing to bake a cake for a remarriage of a divorces couple but the cases you cite come across as "some redefinition of marriage are more equal than others" ie: " Other unbiblical relationships are ok but we don't really like the gays because they're a bit icky"

 

To an extent, the histories are indeed different. In Britain the debate has been more characterised by the 'redefinition' point: here we have moved over the centuries from married women being goods and chattels through married women being able to own property (1880s) from marriage not existing in law for the common people through divorce being permitted for two reasons (adultery, desertion) to divorce being permitted for five reasons (adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion for two years, two years separation with agreement, five years separation with no agreement; 1973) , then Civil Partnerships (2004) and finally SSM in 2014. Every one of these changes (and these are just the major ones) have redefined marriage, and the Church has let each one go through without much if any of a protest - until it's about the gays. I suspect similar can be said of the Church in the US , albeit with more of the race relations arguments thrown in as you say.

 

The evangelical church in America has never redefined marriage. They have argued about it. Some denominations excoriate people who divorce and remarry. Mixed-race marriages were taboo in many areas of the country; vestiges of deep-seeded racial divides that have still never fully healed among some people. But even in those cases, the institution of marriage has never been redefined from God's decree in Genesis 2:24, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Matt, any good debate advances the argument. I do not believe that is happening here. I have twice given you the opportunity to refute my charge of incrementalism in, what I believe, is your intent to accept sodomite marriage in the church. You have yet to respond to that charge, so I am left to conclude that is, indeed, your intention. Please give me a convincing reason to believe otherwise.

 

So the church should not be strong now since they were weak in the past? That's an odd argument.

 

The Church needs to be consistent. That at least can be said about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches who have upheld their standards of marriage steadfastly and only recognise sacramental marriage, as defined by them. Protestants have not been so consistent: only a couple of generations ago some denominations in the American Deep South and in South Africa allied with the secular government in endorsing laws against 'miscegenation', then turned a blind eye to the liberalising of divorce laws. I would rather the Church be consistent and, frankly, ignore the State - which, as we have seen, redefines marriage every five minutes or so - as is the case in France where there is a clear cut distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. As far as the former is concerned , let the State do what it wants in a democracy: i couldnt care less if the government of the moment decides that two cucumbers can get married, but let the Church be consistent and not hypocritical in her own approach to the issue.