It's Denver VS Nashville In Statements On Sexuality

Just recently, we've seen two statements written by groups that claim to be Christian. Both statements concern themselves with sexuality, including relations,  orientation, and gender identity, as is being experienced and promoted in America today. And both statements are reactionary in nature. The Nashville Statement (click here) consists of a preamble and 14 article statement that serve as a reaction to sexual relations and gender identity as is practiced and experienced in 21st century America. The Denver Statement (click here, note that the copy linked to also contains the contents of the Nashville Statement) is a reaction to the Nashville Statement and thus consists of an alt-preamble and 14 alt-articles plus a bonus article. For both, each article contains expressions of what is affirmed and what is to be denied. And whereas the Nashville Statement challenges popular notions about sex and gender issues as well as sexual practices as celebrated in our culture and seen in society, the Denver Statement challenges what is declared in the Nashville Statement. And whereas the Nashville Statement was written by and endorsed by religiously conservative American Christians, the Denver Statement was written by members of both the LGTB community and the straight community.

When reading these statements side-by-side, it is not enough to summarize these statements by noting that one statement challenges the society's current mores while the other one lends support to society's approval of each individual's own direction in sexual self-discovery.

But the statements' different reactions to culture and society are not the most significant differences between the two statements. Rather, it is the different views of mankind that best distinguishes and explains the two statements. We should note that the writers of both statement acknowledge that people sin. The difference lies in the fact that the writers and supporters of the Nashville Statement believe that human nature has fallen into sin. What follows is the need for God to reveal both Himself and how He wants us to live. In contrast, the writers and supporters of the Denver Statement, though acknowledging the fact that people sin, do not seem to look at human nature has having fallen from a sinless state. Sin seems to be a natural result of being an imperfect creature. What follows that is the belief that mankind is in a constant discovery mode about himself and God. And so what each person discovers must be not just respected, which means not challenged or disagreed with, but supported as well.





So while the Nashville Statement does an admirable, but not inerrant, job at expressing the Biblical view of sexual issues such as sexual practices, sexual orientation, and gender identities, the Denver Statement serves as an apologetic for society's current support for the right of each person to explore how to live as a sexual being to the criticisms of the Nashville Statement.

With the two statements, is there any context in which we could perhaps create some kind of hybrid of the two statements? Except for Article 10 of the Nashville statement, I believe that is possible. For if we define the sphere of influence of the Nashville Statement to be that of the Church and what the Church will preach to society while the sphere of influence in the Denver Statement to consist of what will be regarded as legal in and accepted by society, we could perhaps make up a partial hybrid of the two statements. That is we could except for Article 10 of the Nashville Statement. For Article 10 says the following:

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

For such a statement suggests that the answer to the possibility of creating a rough hybrid of the two statements is a definite 'NO.' For Article 10 fails to make a distinction between public approval of sexual practices, sexual orientations, and sexual identities in society from a public tolerance of the same in order to promote and protect the full equality of the LGBT community in society. This is where Article 10 of the Nashville Statement needs revision. After all, we know from the exclusionary claims made by Christ, that we are not to publicly approve of any religion that does not make Christ its only Lord and Savior. And yet, we vigorously defend freedom of worship and religion even for those faiths that we consider to be outside the Christian Church. Why can't we make the same distinction for the sake of those whose sexual practices and views with consenting adults vary from those taught by the Scriptures?

The lack of nuance that is part of Article 10 will unnecessarily cause  great confusion for many a young, religiously conservative American Christian. Why? Because while Article 10 seems to suggest that the Church must forever work to marginalize, at least to some degree,  those from the LGBT community in society, Millennial Christians know that such marginalization is a form of oppression and is thus wrong. They understand that some who promote such marginalization do so out of a fear-inspired hatred for those from the LGBT community. And thus, Article 10 draws a line in the sand that seems to say that one must continually work for at least some degree of marginalization for the LGBT community in society or one must see oneself as being outside the Christian faith. And thus the choice some of these religiously conservative American Millennial Christians will make is to believe that God must approve of the unbiblical kinds of sexual practices, sexual orientations, and gender identities otherwise they must  oppress those from the LGBT community.