A Summary of Statements--Nashville, Denver and Nazareth Article 6

revjohn

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,166
Reaction score
5,579
Hi All,

Nashville Statement said:
WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.

WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.
Hmmmmmm. I see the tyranny of normalcy creeping into the language of the statement and I have to say that concerns me. It concerns me because it relegates individuals created in the image and likeness of God to second class status. There is a hint that some are free from disorder simply because they are "normal."

There is also a presumption about what Jesus meant with the phrase which I do not think captures the reality of what they purportedly oppose.

I am also concerned about the invitation to embrace their biological sex in that it appears, in the moment, to trump the notion of monogamy. We will overlook how many people you sleep with provided they are the appropriate people for you to sleep with kind of thing.

In this case the Denial is actually stronger than the Affirmation and if it was upheld then the discussion would likely be transformative for those who participated in it. As it is now there have been many attempts to disqualify individuals from Christianity based on those ambiguities.

Denver Statement said:
WE AFFIRM that the bearing of God’s image occurs in every glorious genital and chromosomal variation found in the human race.

WE DENY that any variation in the human body exempts one from living a joyful and full life.
Provisos required for the Affirmation. Every human being bears the image of God. Not every image born is free of corruption. What is at stake is how much corruption is present before we fail (and the failure is ours) to recognize the image of God in the face of the other.

And if we fail (because the failure is ours) then why do we feel it necessary for others to correct for our failure?

So I would grant, the intent of the Affirmation even though I think the language leads to mistaken conclusions.

The Denial is, I find, stronger than the Affirmation and it does lead us to directly question how we, as followers of Christ Jesus are going to welcome others into the joyful and full life that we believe Christ offers.

Nazareth Statement said:
We believe there is no such right as manifest destiny, nor a Doctrine of Discovery, presuming the ability of Europeans to take land already occupied by human beings. The creation of borders to enhance the coffers of the rich has led to outrageous and inhumane treatment of immigrants and refugees. Therefore, we support DACA and DAPA and stand against ICE raids that separate families.


Once again Nazareth is doing their own thing instead of reacting. There are tenuous connections that I think are defensible. If Manifest Destiny does not exist nor a Doctrine of Discovery then peoples must also be exempt from similar totalitarian advances. If Settlers cannot presume the ability to take land already occupied do they have a claim on bodies already identified? And if the creation of borders to enhance coffers is wrong because of the inhuman treatment that it leads to what can we say about the creation of ideological borders that has already lead to inhuman treatment?

 
Top