Statement For Overture 20 – We Need To Delay So More Studying Can Be Done
Statement – The Image of God
One’s identity as created in the image of God is referenced in the following quote from the Agenda for Synod 2021 (2022), page 400:
The human sexuality report has the potential to do harm by assuming that those with developmental sexual disorders or those who identify as LGBTQIA+ have a “disordered sexuality” (p. 19) and that this is a result of the fall. There is no clear teaching in Scripture on this. This is an exceedingly important distinction due to the close connection between one’s gender and sexual identity and one’s identity as God’s image bearer.
.
Response
First, in order for a sentence with two parts connected by the word “or” to be true (as in the first sentence of the paragraph above), each of the two parts must be true. “The human sexuality report has the potential to do harm by assuming that those with developmental sexual disorders . . . have a ‘disordered sexuality’ . . .” So, it is logical to assume that those with developmental sexual disorders have a disordered sexuality. Simply going by the meaning of words, doesn’t it have to be true that someone with a sexual disorder has a disordered sexuality?
Second, the latter half of the statement above says that the Report had potential to do harm by assuming that those who identify as LGBTQIA+ have a “disordered sexuality” and that this is a result of the fall. The Overture claims there is no clear teaching in Scripture on this. While it is true that the Scriptures do not mention sexual disorders, nor do they mention those who identify as LGBTQIA+, the Scriptures do contain a number of statements on same-sex erotic acts. Leviticus 18:22 states, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” I Corinthians 6:9-10 states, “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral . . . nor men who practice homosexuality . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” These are both quite straight forward; have the many efforts to re-interpret these passages succeeded so far? When the Bible calls the acts in question an abomination and also that those who do them will not inherit heaven, those are clear teachings that such acts are sinful. We also have clear teaching in Scripture that all sin is the result of the Fall.
Third, the Overture goes on to state, “This is an exceedingly important distinction due to the close connection between one’s gender and sexual identity and one’s identity as God’s image bearer.” If I am reading this correctly, the Overture is saying that one’s sexual identity, identifying as LGBTQIA+, has a close connection with our being image bearers of God. Doesn’t that imply that being homosexual is part of the image of God which He designed into us before the Fall, when everything about human life was perfect? Is it in fact the position held by the authors of the Overture that, “. . . those with developmental sexual disorders or those who identify as LGBTQIA+ . . .” have those traits because they were given them by God Himself and that those traits are good and perfect? If so, this is a very important aspect of the topic and must be stated very clearly. It cannot be expressed only in vague terminology. Having studied this topic now over a number of years I am not aware of really any attempt to show that homosexuality is part of the perfect image of God which we were created with. A clear, well-defined statement of this aspect could go a long way in clarifying why those in favor of same-sex marriage and those opposed to it appear to be separated by such a major gulf. It doesn’t work to make a point in passing, without developing that point so that the implications are clear. Vague language is not effective.
.
Conclusion
As this section currently stands, in order to support the overall recommendation of the overture that the Human Sexuality Report not be adopted by synod, this point would need to be developed further. The church has historically believed that there is in fact a clear teaching concerning same-sex erotic acts being sinful. The overture is not adding value to the current discussions by simply stating there is no clear teaching. It would need to show how that is the case.
The reference to the image of God also needs to be developed. As it stands it is pretty much limited to being a passing reference. In order to advocate that the matter of the image of God does in fact support acceptance of same-sex erotic acts the overture would either need to develop that or it would need to point to literature that already does make such a case.
As this section stands it is not considered a viable reason to not adopt the Human Sexuality Report.