A Summary of Statements--Nashville, Denver and Nazareth Article 5


Well-Known Member
Reaction score
Hi All,

Nashville Statement said:
WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female.

WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.
Hard to deny the affirmation. We do have technology which can get around the biological structure issue when it comes to procreation. Of course the position limits self-conception to procreation and we are then forced to deal with what infertility means to self-conception. Or even the choice not to reproduce and what it means to self-conception of male or female.

Even if we grant the denial what would be the pastoral response to individuals wrestling with such contexts? Does either the affirmation or the denial communicate that the signatories to the Nashville statement can or will act compassionately to individuals that they might disagree with?

Denver Statement said:
WE AFFIRM that the biological capacity for human beings to reproduce is a glorious wonder and that humanity continues to discover the gender and sexual diversity with which God has created humans.

WE DENY that gender is always linked with biological sex characteristics, and we deny that those whose bodies contain physical or psychological realities outside of the “norm” need curing or reparation.
I think it is equally hard to deny this affirmation we are discovering new things about gender and sexual diversity even as we recognize that reproduction requires biologically male and female parts to play their assigned roles in the procreative dance. Yes, we can skip past that with technology, there is no denying that the dance is still normative for the majority of all humanity.

As with the Nashville statement what comes next if we grant the denial to be true? That different bodies are not "broken" bodies. Can humanity exist with difference or does difference become a threat to human survival? What, in this denial, advances compassion with those that they might disagree with?

Nazareth Statement said:
We believe the Spirit of God came upon Jesus (Luke 4) and gave him power to liberate the captives. Therefore, we stand against the prison industrial complex and mass incarceration, which warehouses the children of God. We must think about restorative justice, and rescue our children who are imprisoned as adults.

It would appear that the Nazareth Statement has given up reacting to every article produced by the Nashville Statement. Which is great in that it is not merely reactionary. Makes it harder to present meaningful comparison of ideas.

So, liberation of captives, should this apply to notions of gender and/or sexuality?

Is restorative justice something we would deny to GBLTQ et all who have been wronged and harmed through the years?

What about rescuing our children? Is it still a valid mission and should the rescue vehicle chosen be respectful or injurious to the persons we are attempting to rescue?

I like that the Nazareth Statement is shaping up to be more rounded than the pointed attempts made by the Nasville and Denver Statements.