Journal: Priscilla Papers
Volume: PP 33:1 (Winter 2019)
Article: The Nashville Statement: A Critical Review
Author: Jamin Hübner

PP 33:1 (Winter 2019) p. 19

The Nashville Statement: A Critical Review

Jamin Hübner

Jamin Hübner (ThD, University of South Africa) is a theologian, musician, and entrepreneur. In addition to being the former dean of John Witherspoon College in Rapid City, South Dakota, he is the author of A Case for Female Deacons.

It is not every day that a document about theology and gender makes national news. The “Nashville Statement,” however, accomplished this very thing in September of 2017.1 The document, issued by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), is identified as “A Coalition for Biblical Sexuality” and intends to set the record straight with regard to human identity, transgenderism, homosexuality, and other related topics.

The initial response to the Statement was extensive, both in and outside the Christian community. Discussion about the Statement has since died down, but the debates surrounding ethics and gender/sexuality certainly have not. In any case, there has been little interaction with the Statement beyond popular commentary. What follows is a more detailed analysis of the document in hopes of shining a brighter light on this controversial topic. The plan is to frame the debate, systematically examine the Statement itself, and conclude with final reflections.

The Deep Context Of The Nashville Statement

A number of contextual layers stand behind the Nashville Statement (henceforth NS). For example, the socio-political context reveals that the NS came just two years after the landmark US Supreme Court decision favoring same-sex marriage. This event, viewed by many as emblematic of the decline of “Judeo-Christian values,” has left many evangelicals on edge, thus prompting, in part, the production of the NS. “It would be much easier to be quiet,” wrote Albert Mohler in The Washington Post on the NS, “to let the moral revolution proceed unanswered, and to seek some kind of refuge in silence or ambiguity . . . we did not believe we could remain silent.”2

The socio-theological context is another important layer. The NS is essentially a sequel to the 1987 Danvers Statement on gender roles.3 Both were written by the same organization and endorsed by many of the same professors, pastors, and authors. The Danvers Statement provided the necessary framework for the NS, including specific content, such as Art. 1, 3, and 4 (which address the differences between man and woman). What, then, is CBMW?

CBMW was established to counteract the progress of secular feminism and Christian feminism and egal...