A Review of the Seoul Statement of the Fourth Lausanne Congress (2024), Part Four (The Human Person)

 Section IV of the Seoul Statement of the fourth Lausanne Congress (September, 2024) is titled, ‘The Human Person: The Image of God Created and Restored’.  It consists of paragraphs 48-70.  From paragraph 56, the section has to do with human sexuality.  My review of this section follows.

A theological understanding of the 'image of God' underpins what is said in this section.  While what is meant by the 'image of God' has received a vast amount of attention from Biblical scholars and theologians, the statement does not engage with them.  (It would be difficult to do so in a statement such as this, but this difficulty should not allow us to pin theology or ethics that we derive from elsewhere onto this concept instead of arguing our case from the Biblical text.)  The statement affirms that humanity created in God’s image makes us unique, ‘includes stewardship roles and responsibilities’, and involves ‘inherent dignity, equality, and worth’ (paragraph 48).  Also, the sttement avers that a human being is an integrated unity of body and spirit (paragraph 49)—a reasonable enough claim for a creation theology, but one that raises unexplored implications.  Is this a rejection of physicalism (including the non-reductive physicalism of Nancey Murphy[1] of Fuller Theological Seminary) or of asceticism or of forming one’s identity around sexual orientations? 

Nor does the statement identify one of the elephants in the room about human existence: the status of the foetus and the widespread rejection of abortion by Evangelicals.  Why not concretise the claims of a Christian theology of humanity by rejecting the notion that a fertilized egg is just a mass of tissue, a non-human, and affirm the sanctity of life in the womb from the moment of conception?  The chairman of the board at a once flagship Evangelical seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary—Bishop Claude Alexander—is a major advocate for American presidential candidate Kamala Harris, whose uncertain and changing political platform has at least one clear position: the availability of abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.[2]  (The seminary authorities have also championed the culture’s values of diversity, equity, and inclusion—values originating not out of a creation theology and the image of God but out of a postmodern worldview.)  Evangelicals need to state what they believe more clearly.

Paragraph 50 drops the other shoe in the creation story: and humans have sinned, do not ‘fully represent the image of God’, and sometimes do not treat others as image bearers.  While only briefly noted, this is an important point.  Mainline denominations have a very weak doctrine of sin and therefore a very weak doctrine of salvation.  This is one of the points that distinguishes orthodox Christians and Evangelicals from them.

Paragraphs 51-56 provide a brief soteriology covering the restoration of the image of God through Jesus Christ, the image of God, as Spirit-transformed believers increasingly partake of the divine nature (paragraph 51).  The Church is the new humanity (paragraph 52) and ‘endowed with gifts and ministries in order to serve the common good of the church and bring glory to God in the world’ (paragraph 52).  Negatively, the statement notes that there are ‘false gospels’ and un-Christlike ministries (‘prosperity and fame-based ministries are mentioned) (paragraphs 54-55).  While these are serious concerns facing the Church, including Evangelical institutions and ministries, one might hope for more than such a general theological statement.  On the one hand, what does the Church offer believers and the world if not prosperity?  Is there healing, are there miracles, is there social restoration—in fact, is Satan being overcome?  And when fame-based ministries are denigrated, why are Evangelicals so often calling ministry ‘leadership’ since the 1980s?  (The entire ‘leadership’ paradigm is not compatible with a Christian theology of ministry, I would contend.)  Paragraph 56 provides an eschatological reserve to the theology of restored humanity: ‘we await the resurrection of the body and the consummation of the new creation’.

The other elephant in the room is human sexuality, and the rest of this section of the statement is on this issue.  While noting a technical distinction between biological sex and gender, the statement clearly affirms that male and female gender are biologically determined (paragraph 57).  A note about the exceptional circumstances of intersex persons and eunuchs is offered in paragraph 58—the aberrations are not introduced to confuse our understanding of the relationship of biological sex and gender.  Marriage is defined: it is between a man and a woman (paragraph 59).  ‘Covenant marriage is the only legitimate context for sexual intercourse’ (paragraph 60).  In case there is any confusion, paragraph 61 laments (why not condemns?) the contention of some ‘Christian denominations and local congregations’ that same-sex partnerships can be treated (‘consecrated’) as marriage.  Given that this issue has led to Evangelicals separating from such denominations, I would have appreciated more than ‘lament’ at this point.  These denominations are, in my view and that of many others, no longer Christian but heretical distortions of the faith.

Marriage as defined is the context for nurturing children (paragraph 62).  This seemingly obvious statement might actually cost a Christian his or her employment or remove eligibility for adoption or fostering in some countries.  One wonders if such a statement—really an affirmation of what the Church has historically taught—might be used to define religion in those countries.  Would denying a Christian employment or adoption because of his or her statement on marriage and family be a case of religious persecution from a legal standpoint?

Paragraph 63 addresses the relationship between marriage, sex, and procreation—over against, say, recreational sex, which devalues children and increases abortion globally.  Protestants, including Evangelicals, have held wider views on this topic than Roman Catholics, and the issue comes down to a discussion of contraception.  Yet an Evangelical consensus does seem to exist about the intrauterine device (IUD) being unacceptable.[3]  Evangelicals ought to agree with Catholics that in vitro fertilisation, allowing the destruction of fertilised eggs, should be rejected and called sinful.  Pornography plagues Evangelical churches in a digital age.  A statement that hopes to be a ‘statement’ and not just a systematic theology in brief might be expected to address such current and specific issues facing Evangelicals.

The good of marriage (and therefore the need to work at good marriage) and of singleness are mentioned in paragraphs 64 and 65, respectively.  The role of churches in supporting both—and families—is identified in paragraph 66.  Given the increasing commonness of divorce and cohabitation in Evangelical churches in some parts of the world, this statement once again falls to repeating standardized teaching rather than addressing issues facing Evangelicals today.

Paragraphs 67-70 conclude section four by addressing what we might call the ‘bull elephant’ in the room: same-sex sexual relations.  That is, this is the big issue that has brought widespread schism in our time between Evangelicals and mainline denominations. The statement first hones in on six of the relevant passages in Scripture (excluding Jude 7-8 and 2 Peter 2, unfortunately): Genesis 19.1-3; Leviticus 18.20; 20.13; Romans 1.24-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9-11; 1 Timothy 1.9-11.  Only one term for homosexuality is noted in 1 Corinthians 6.9 (arsenokoitai), not the other one (malakoi).  Be this as it may, the statement offers the orthodox teaching of the Church in Scripture and tradition: homosexuality is a sin (paragraph 68).  Importantly, this paragraph also affirms that God provides forgiveness and restoration of fellowship through confession, repentance, and trust in Christ.  While revisionist interpretations of these texts (attempting to dismiss them with new, exegetical insight) has failed, and while dismissal of them with the rest of Scriptural authority has failed for orthodox Christians, a new attempt has been mustered along Marcionite lines: the God of Law is not the God of Mercy (allegedly, He keeps changing His mind in the direction of mercy).[4]  That this argument comes from a professor at Fuller Seminary, a once flagship Evangelical seminary, the importance of paragraph 68 should be noted.  Will this false teaching be affirmed or rejected?

What, then, is to be said about persons struggling with same-sex attraction (I would prefer the Roman Catholic moral theological language of ‘internal disorder’)?  Here the statement fails, in my view.  On the positive side, it calls for believers to resist temptation and maintain sexual holiness in desire and behaviour (paragraph 69).  Yet it stops the pastoral care at showing understanding, friendship, and love toward people struggling with sin (paragraphs 69-70).  This seems to be the default position of many Evangelicals who feel culture’s pressure to welcome and include and not strive for holiness and purity, as though the latter is legalistic and judgemental.  An entire list of spiritual disciplines, a doctrine of the local church, and a theology of pastoral care stand waiting to say more on this issue. 

Finally, these paragraphs leave open the possibility of ordaining same-sex attracted persons to ministry in the church.  This is currently a major issue facing Evangelicals and one that might have been directly addressed with greater clarity.  In my view, Evangelicals are divided between a theology of grace that is merely forgiving grace and a theology of grace that is both forgiving and transforming.  Is the Gospel ‘good news’ that our sins are no longer accounted, or is it ‘good news’ because it is not just news but a power at work within us to prepare us to be a pure bride for Christ’s return?  Are ministers to be understood as representatives of God’s forgiving grace or also called to higher standards of holiness and purity (as in Leviticus 21; 1 Timothy 3)?  Yet, the next section of the statement is ‘Discipleship: Our Calling to Holiness and Mission’, and more is yet to come.

 

For the Seoul Statement, click here.  For my earlier review articles:

Section One: Preamble and the Gospel, click here.

Section Two: Scripture, click here.

Section Three: The Church, click here.



[1] Nancey Murphy, Bodies and souls, or spirited bodies? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

[2] Cf. Denny Burk, ‘Evangelicals for Harris: Here’s What You Need to Know’, World (14 August, 2024); online at: https://wng.org/opinions/evangelicals-for-harris-1723629490 (accessed 31 October, 2024).

[3] Cf. Rollin G. Grams, ‘The Intrauterine Device (IUD) for Contraception and Christian Moral Considerations,’ Bible and Mission Blog (25 August, 2024); online at: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-intrauterine-device-iud-for.html.

[4] Christopher Hays and Richard Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy; Sexuality within the Biblical Story (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2024).

No comments:

A Review of the Seoul Statement of the Fourth Lausanne Congress (2024), Part Five (Discipleship, Local Church)

The fifth section of the Lausanne Statement is titled ‘Discipleship: The Call to Holiness and Mission’.   It begins with a statement of a ...

Popular Posts