Such is the case with the Nashville Statement, and the Nashville Statement Fortified. Read them and then come back.
The first says, basically, that:
- men are men
- women are women
- marriage is only between one man and one woman
- sex is only to be in marriage
- homosexuality and transgenderism are not valid expressions of sexuality
I agree.
The second say basically the same things, but with addition declarations against effeminacy. I agree with that also. It is good to be against effeminacy, but a fortified version of a statement on marital and sexual relations is incomplete if it does not speak on how half of only two sexes are to behave! I have searched the NSF and it does say this under Article 3:
Explanation of changes: The original statement affirms the ontological equality of man and woman without also confessing man’s headship. The order in which God created man and woman has ongoing application for the relationship between the sexes, as taught in 1 Corinthians 11:1–9. In an egalitarian age it is not faithful to confess the equality of Adam and Eve without also confessing Adam’s headship.
But where is the directive that wives must choose to obey their heads? Where is the article in which they deny that wives should be irreverent, rebellious, or usurpers? Where do they affirm that wives are to be sexually available to their husbands except for agreement of a limited time? What is more important to marriage than that the wife be submissive to her husband? These are serious and timely issues of marriage worthy of writing in these statements; more so than sodomy and transgenderism. All the more so because they make us uncomfortable.
Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that this current generation of church leaders will always refuse to allow women to be held to account in any way real. And as far as I can tell, this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
Pingback: The High Ground | Donal Graeme
And as far as I can tell, this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.
And my personal favorite “loving too much/being too forgiving.”
Bonald over at Throne and Altar had a good post on this kind of thing a while back. Many women seem unwilling to do a genuine examination of conscience.
Pingback: Boldly inoffensive. | Dalrock
Another glaring omission from the Statement: They did not condemn remarriage as adultery. This teaching of the Lord Jesus was pretty hard to swallow even for his contemporaries. John the Baptist lost his head over it. Most Christians today do not believe it – they have concocted all kinds of exceptions. The Nashville Statement will not take a stand on this because many Christians would balk. How hypocritical is it for Christians to rebel against what God says about remarriage, and then tell homosexuals to submit to God’s word?
The Nashville Statement looks more like an advertisment for the individuals leading it than anything else. Maybe it will have some kind of political effect, but that’s impossible to say with any certainty.
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer has good marriage vows.
A.J.P.
@AJP
You might be right. If true, that’s not totally useless.
Yes, because if something does, this event would have been the networking part of such an effort. That’s why I said it seems like it’s about personalities rather than anything surprising, because clergymen have been speaking against sodomy for a long time; and have participated in statements like this along the way; but still have seen society end up where it currently is.
Pingback: CoE V: I Am Not Called to “Lead” in the Bible | Things that We have Heard and Known