Above: Man attempts to open a pickle jar.
Recently an organization with the entertaining name of the Council for Christian Manhood and Womanhood met in Nashville and released a document called the Nashville Statement. This document claimed to speak on behalf of a God that does not sanction “same-sex attraction or transgender self-conception.” It made the news for a bit.
The mayor of Nashville quickly made it clear that this statement was not a city-condoned proclamation. One of the Nashville Statement signers, David French, wrote an editorial in the National Review. He writes that for some people, separation of church and state “is just a pit stop on the road to de-Christianizing America.”
Obviously the mayor was not invoking the separation clause; just trying to protect the city’s reputation. But it’s interesting to see this writer describe the very idea of upholding the Constitution as a way to “de-Christianize.”
French goes on to summarize the Nashville Statement: “We believe the Bible is the word of God, and the word of God declares that sexual intimacy is reserved for the lifelong union of a man and a woman in marriage.” And also for men and concubines, right? Because in that book, people like Abraham, Gideon, and Solomon had concubines, too. There is a pile of polygamy in the Bible.
Then there was God’s order to Moses about dealing with the Midianites (Numbers 31). “Now kill all the boys,” says the Lord. “And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” So the spoils of war are okay for men, also. If the Nashville Statement signers don’t accept these practices as well, then maybe their statement is just a wishy-washy modern reinterpretation of Biblical family values.
French’s editorial goes on to say, “There are powerful peer and cultural pressures that are pushing Christians to compromise on core principles. In some parts of the country, Christians are social pariahs if they admit to their Biblical views.”
I wonder if he means people who admit to the Biblical views displayed in Judges 19:22-24. That’s the one where wicked men surround a house and demand that the homeowner send one of his guests out of the house so they could have sex with him. But the homeowner is righteous. He protects his guest, and says, “No, take instead my virgin daughter and my guest’s concubine and do what you want with them.” I suppose people who admire this passage might become pariahs.
French writes that today’s Christian liberals subject “God’s word” to a cultural and political test. He says that today, “One can reject even His clearest commands if those commands are ‘mean’ or ‘intolerant.’” Maybe a good example is how the Bible clearly condones slavery (including the sale of one’s daughter) and stoning people to death for infidelity or disobeying parents. We can only assume French is not a wimpy-ass liberal and fully accepts these clearly stated principles.
The article also claims that in today’s society, punitive reprisals are made against “moral” businesses. “They will re-educate or ruin small-business owners who won’t lend their creative talents to celebrate gay weddings.” By this logic, opposing and prohibiting a whites-only lunch counter is an unfair punitive reprisal.
Another shining example from French’s article: “They [liberal Christians] will publicly reject basic statements of Christian theology, and they will do it in the name of comprehensive social engineering.”
I suppose he considers the entire history of civil rights, including the prohibition of slavery, to be social engineering. Maybe so, but they represent the ending of tyranny. It’s amazing the lengths someone will go to justify the desire to mistreat fellow humans.