In Defense Of The Nashville Statement

This is not an attack on the LGBT community. If anything this is a defense for the LGBT community because we’re protecting them from a dangerous narrative that sin doesn’t matter- that message is dangerous to ANY person regardless of what their sin is.

There's been a fuss within the blogosphere ranging from the Church to culture regarding the Nashville Statement. Progressive Christians and secularists have taken great offence (supposedly) over the statement and have identified its endorsers as "hateful," "bigoted," and other harsh synonyms used in the place of intelligent reasoning.

I'm going to respond to the popular criticisms this statement has received but first I'll provide a quick background on the Nashville Statement.

What is the Nashville Statement?

The Nashville Statement is a document recently signed affirming a commitment to biblical teachings on sexuality. The statement was authored by members and affiliates of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Tenets of the statement included marriage being a covenant between one man and one woman, sexual intercourse only being holy within the covenant of marriage, and other details typically found within traditional values.

Signatories of this statement include John Piper, Rosaria Butterfield, J.I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, H.B. Charles, Al Mohler, Francis Chan, and many more who I’m sure you’ve heard of.

Why was the statement necessary?

Unfortunately some of the Church (albeit the small minority) has embraced sexual immorality as biblically condoned. Instead of caving to cultural pressures and liberal theology, these Church leaders developed the statement to set a standard for where the vast majority of the Church stands on the issue.


"The signers of the Nashville Statement are hypocritical for making a statement against sexual immorality, but staying silent on white supremacy."

There's a couple of problems with this accusation. First, the use of "hypocritical" is off. It isn't hypocritical to call out one sin and not another. Hypocrisy is when you call out a sin but unrepentedly practice that sin yourself. So unless the signers are engaging in sexual immorality, there's no hypocrisy present here.

The second issue with this accusation is that it hastily (and inaccurately) assumes that the signers were in fact silent on white supremacy. Below is a tweet from the president of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denny Burk, who is also the initiator of the Nashville Statement.

Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, also weighed in:

And Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission:

All three of these tweets are from signers of the Nashville Statement. There are over 150 signers of the Nashville Statement but instead of going through each of their statements on white supremacy you can go ahead and do so if you like-- I think my point is clear.

"The signers of the Nashville Statement are insensitive for releasing the statement at the time where the nation's 4th largest city is underwater."

The statement was finalized and signed at a conference in Nashville that had been in the planning for about 9 months. Nobody intentionally gave the statement to undermine the severity of the hurricane or to distract the flow of aid to the victims.

On a related note:

"If the signers of the Nashville Statement were genuinely concerned for Christianity then they'd be donating to relief efforts from hurricane Harvey!"

Of those making this accusation how many of you donated to hurricane relief? I don't know- I didn't ask. So it would be silly of me to assume. See how that works?

But let's take a look:

One of the most prominent funds for Harvey relief comes from an organization called the Samaritans Purse, which is run by a man named Franklin Graham. If you know much about Graham you’ll know that he is less than shy on his position on traditional marriage and conservative values, he was also a big Trump supporter.

Also Liberty University, the largest evangelical university in the world, sent a team of students and staff to assist with relief efforts in the Houston area. LU also holds a strict biblical approach to traditional marriage and their doctrinal statement is completely in line with the Nashville Statement.

I’m sure many of the others assisted in Harvey relief but you get my point…you can't just say that those who fall in line with the Nashville Statement aren’t doing anything for Harvey relief.

"The Nashville Statement statement is the theology of a bunch of white, conservative, Christian men…"

Except the fact that H.B. Charles is black, Francis Chan is Chinese, Rosa Butterfield is a woman (formerly a lesbian) and there are many other signatories who do not fit the "white male" description. You can find them listen on the statement's page linked above.

But on a side note the next time you feel like discrediting someone based on their skin color or sex remember that that is TEXTBOOK racism and sexism. Wait- I forgot, it's only racist or sexist if a white conservative says it, right? Geez...

And finally, Jen Hatmaker comes in with both barrels of unreasonable ammo blaring:

Is the fruit of the Nashville Statement really suffering, rejection, shame, and despair?

Article 8 denies that same-sex attraction in itself puts somebody outside the hope of the gospel. A proper understanding of the gospel is that there is NO GREATER hope than that which is found in Jesus Christ and that NO ONE is outside the reach of Christ’s atoning work on the Cross.

Also, consider Article 12

This statement is quite antithetical to “suffering, rejection, shame, and despair.”


There is nothing hateful about holding to biblical truths. When you compromise the truths of the Word of God you are compromising the eternal implications of your audience. When you engage scripture through the lens of cultural narratives, instead of engaging culture through the biblical narrative, you fail at the Great Commission and you fail and providing the message of hope and restoration that was displayed on the Cross.

When we accept people for who they want to be, we neglect who God made them to be.

This is not an attack on the LGBT community. If anything this is a defense for the LGBT community because we’re protecting them from a dangerous narrative that sin doesn’t matter- that message is dangerous to ANY person regardless of what their sin is.

To the progressive Christians out there who are undermining the Word of God in the name of “loving others" you are no less than an accessory to their damnation by affirming their path towards destruction. I have sin and I have weaknesses in my life. The last thing I need is for someone to say “you’re not sinning. You’re good.” This would do NOTHING for my growth or pursuit of restoration. Stop affirming sin. Your support for sin is detrimental to both you and the people who you’re supposedly loving.

For the Gospel,


Hi, my name is John and I love coffee. As I write this I’m sitting in a local roastery sipping a “mudslide” espresso with cream and two and a half sugars. There are few things in life that I feel merit precise orchestration with no room for error, coffee is one of them.

My life belongs to Jesus. I am his son and He is my King. His work in my life is reason enough for my faith to be made complete. He lived to die for me so that I may be credited righteous thus I will live for Him. I believe one area that has been greatly ignored by Christians is culture and politics. We must be active in representing our faith in these communities, but not in a relativistic or compromising way.

20 views0 comments

© 2023 by The Artifact. Proudly created with

  • Facebook B&W
  • Twitter B&W
  • Instagram B&W