Connect with us

Culture and Religion

If the Nashville Statement must be a declaration of war, then we must sign it

Published

on

I’m fascinated and floored at the same time. Just about every writer at The New Americana wanted to take a crack at writing about the Nashville Statement. Not just here either. At The Resurgent (where I also contribute), there have been multiple takes on it. Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, tweeted “Did I miss the part of the #NashvilleStatement where any serious Christian doctrine changed in the slightest?”

Such a non-controversial statement, so plain and direct, should not have generated such vitriol and discussion. That’s why I’m fascinated. I’m floored because it has.

Obviously, something has touched a nerve. To me, and many who have read the Bible, think critically, and know what it says and what Christians believe, there’s no controversy here. The fact that there’s not only controversy, but great consternation, is a sign to me that I needed to sign the statement.

If you are a Christian who is asking “what’s the big deal?” you need to sign it too. Here’s why.

In 1776, on July 2, the Continental Congress approved the language for the Declaration of Independence. On July 4, the first printing, which consisted of two hundred copies for the colonies, and for the record, was released. An original from that printing run ended up stored away in an attic in the Ladd-Gilman House in Exeter, N.H., where it was found in 1985.

That document, once signed, became a death warrant for the signers. They had broken their allegiance with the Crown and placed it in the hands of God Almighty.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Nothing changed as regards the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God; the long list of grievances the King perpetrated against the colonies was an affront to liberty and God. At no time did more than about one-third of the colonists actively support independence, and about one in four remained loyal to the Crown to the end of the war. The rest did what they could to stay out of the way, rendering aid or obstructing either side based on what action would leave them in peace.

But in order that the colonies could win freedom, the Continental Congress members had to sign their names to a death warrant.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Today’s battle lines in the culture war, the offensive war against Christian, Biblical values, have not been set by Bible-believing Christians. God’s word has not changed. The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God are the same for us as they were for John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson.

Signing the Nashville Statement may, culturally, be tantamount to a death warrant, a declaration of war and an acknowledgement of a separation, an unbridgeable gulf, between the values of those who sign it and those who oppose it on whatever grounds.

We’ve tried reasoning with them, explaining to them the historicity, metaphysical consistency, and exegetical simplicity of the Bible in terms of things like “man,” “woman,” “marriage,” and the relationships between them. We’ve tried to reach out in peace. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow their usurpation of our transcendent moral law and its law-giver.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. Sound familiar?

Those who oppose such an essential, clear, and non-controversial doctrine as the Biblical definition of gender and marriage, one which comports with biology, anthropology, sociology and history, have only one goal in mind. They wish to rule over us as Lord and Master, as the moral law-giver in place of God Almighty.

That is intolerable to Christians, and fellow-travelers in clear, critical thinking, just as it was to our founding fathers.

If the Nashville Statement is to be the defining line between the culture of God-fearing people and the madness of Nietzsche’s super-men who have killed God in their own minds, then that line was set by the enemies of God, not by the people who drafted the statement.

There is no choice for any Bible-believing Christian but to sign the statement, and literally side with God.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence closed with this promise:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

If the battle is to be joined, we must do no less.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Jake Gambino

    September 1, 2017 at 5:33 am

    Steve-

    This piece is incredible. As I said about Ben Shapiro’s recent piece on men, women, and children, even Alexander Hamilton would be tipping his hat to you.

    Seriously amazing write up.

  2. Terry Lydell

    September 1, 2017 at 5:02 pm

    In Christ’s time the lepers were scorned – untouchables. Christ went to the lepers. Think about it. What would Jesus do?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Video: What is a Classical Liberal?

Published

on

By

A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.

In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.

OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?

Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.

The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?

Published

on

Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.


This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?

Published

on

By

Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.