The Nashville Statement: Why Affirm It Despite Media Backlash?

Published On: September 9, 2025

WHY DO REFORMED CHRISTIANS STAND BY THIS STATEMENT ON MARRIAGE AND GENDER?

When the Nashville Statement was released in 2017, it sparked immediate controversy. Major media outlets criticised it as divisive, even outdated, while even some evangelical voices questioned its necessity. Yet Reformed Christians have compelling reasons to affirm the statement—despite the backlash—precisely because Scripture calls us to stand firm on biblical truth, regardless of cultural pressure…

CORE AFFIRMATIONS OF THE NASHVILLE STATEMENT

Before examining the backlash, we must understand what the Nashville Statement actually affirms about biblical sexuality.

Marriage as God’s Design (Article 1): The statement affirms marriage as “a covenantal, sacred bond between one man and one woman” rooted in Genesis 2:24. Jesus reaffirmed this design in Matthew 19:4-6, explicitly grounding marriage in creation rather than culture. Paul reveals marriage’s deeper significance—it pictures Christ’s union with his bride, the church (Ephesians 5:31-32).
Gender and Identity (Article 4): God created humanity as “male and female” (Genesis 1:27), establishing a binary that reflects his image. Deuteronomy 22:5 reinforces distinct gender expressions as part of God’s order. From a Reformed perspective, total depravity means sin distorts our understanding of identity (Romans 3:23), but redemption restores us to God’s original design as we’re “conformed to the image of his Son” (Romans 8:29).
Sexuality and Chastity (Articles 7-8): Sexual intimacy belongs exclusively within marriage between husband and wife. While acknowledging that same-sex attraction may be unchosen, the statement rejects treating it as core identity. Scripture is clear: “Men who practice homosexuality… will not inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Paul’s past tense demonstrates the gospel’s transformative power.
Grace and Repentance (Article 12): Those experiencing sexual struggles can live fruitfully in Christ through his sanctifying grace. This isn’t cultural accommodation but sovereign grace enabling holiness: “We know that our old self was crucified with him… that we might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:6, 4).

THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION: WHY SCRIPTURE DEMANDS CLARITY

The Nashville Statement isn’t an arbitrary cultural stance—it’s rooted in the clear teaching of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. God’s design for human sexuality emerges from the creation account itself (Genesis 1:27). This foundational truth establishes our sexual identity flows from God’s creative intent, not human self-determination.

Jesus Himself affirmed this design when challenged about marriage (Matthew 19:4-5). Christ’s words weren’t culturally conditioned—they pointed back to God’s original design for human flourishing.

Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:24-27 provides equally clear guidance, describing the exchange of “natural relations” for “those that are contrary to nature” as part of humanity’s rebellion against God’s created order. This isn’t harsh judgement but loving truth-telling about the consequences of abandoning God’s design for sexuality.

Scripture alone (sola scriptura) must determine Christian doctrine and practice. When cultural winds shift, we anchor ourselves in God’s unchanging Word—rather than on popular opinion.

ADDRESSING CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S CONCERNS

Christianity Today’s former editor Mark Galli criticised the Nashville Statement for “confusing some issues” and creating unnecessary division among evangelicals. While we respect the concern, it ultimately misses the mark.

First, biblical truth necessarily divides. Jesus himself warned, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Unity that requires compromising clear biblical teaching isn’t biblical unity at all.
Second, clarity protects the vulnerable. When church leaders remain ambiguous about sexual ethics, they leave congregants confused and pastoral caregivers without proper guidance. Jude urged believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)—this includes sexual ethics.
Third, the Jerusalem Council provides biblical precedent. When cultural pressure mounted regarding Gentile inclusion, the apostles didn’t avoid difficult conversations—they issued a clear statement (Acts 15:19-29). The Nashville Statement follows this apostolic pattern of providing clarity in times of cultural confusion.

The Reformed confessions themselves emerged from similar pressures. The Westminster Confession wasn’t written in a theological vacuum but addressed pressing cultural and theological challenges. Truth-telling always requires courage.

RESPONDING TO SECULAR OPPOSITION

Media criticism of the Nashville Statement typically focuses on claims of discrimination and cultural irrelevance. The New York Times and similar outlets frame biblical sexual ethics as inherently harmful to LGBTQ+ individuals. How should Reformed Christians respond?

We must distinguish between disagreement and hatred. Affirming biblical sexual ethics doesn’t constitute “homophobia” any more than affirming biblical financial ethics constitutes hatred of the wealthy. Christians can lovingly disagree with behaviours while fully affirming human dignity and worth.

Scripture’s counter-cultural nature is expected. Paul warned that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18). When biblical truth conflicts with cultural values, we shouldn’t be surprised—we should be faithful.

Religious liberty protects conscience. In the US, The First Amendment guarantees Christians the right to maintain biblical convictions, even when those convictions are unpopular. Surrendering this ground serves no one well.

Most importantly, we’re called to speak truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). This means neither compromising biblical standards nor abandoning pastoral compassion. The Nashville Statement attempts this balance by affirming both God’s design for sexuality and His grace for sexual sinners—a category that includes all of us.

WATERTIGHT: THE BIBLICAL CASE

The case for biblical sexual ethics doesn’t rest on isolated proof-texts but on Scripture’s unified testimony. From Genesis’ creation account to Revelation’s marriage supper of the Lamb, Scripture consistently presents marriage between one man and one woman as God’s design for sexual expression.

This isn’t merely Old Testament law but New Testament gospel. When Paul addresses sexual ethics in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, he doesn’t simply condemn—he offers hope: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” The gospel transforms sexual sinners without erasing sexual standards.

The theological coherence is compelling. Sexual ethics flow from creation ordinances that pre-date the fall. Redemption in Christ restores rather than redefines God’s original design. The resurrection hope includes our bodies—suggesting that sexual identity isn’t merely cultural construct but reflects God’s creative intent.

This represents 2,000 years of consistent Christian teaching across denominational lines. The burden of proof rests on those advocating doctrinal innovation, not those maintaining historic orthodoxy.

STANDING FIRM WITH GRACE

The media backlash against the Nashville Statement reveals more about our cultural moment than about the statement itself. We live in an age that views any moral boundaries as oppressive and any truth claims as intolerant. Yet this is precisely when Christian clarity becomes most necessary.

Reformed Christians affirm the Nashville Statement not because we lack compassion but because we believe biblical truth ultimately serves human flourishing. God’s commands aren’t arbitrary restrictions but loving guidance toward the life He designed for us to live.

The Nashville Statement provides a framework for this biblical balance. It affirms both human dignity and divine design, both God’s grace and his standards, both pastoral compassion and theological conviction.

As the Psalmist declared, “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89). Cultural opinions shift like sand, but Scripture stands like bedrock. The Nashville Statement simply calls us to build on that rock, regardless of the storm.

THE NASHVILLE STATEMENT: RELATED FAQs

Did prominent Reformed theologians actually endorse the Nashville Statement? Yes, notable Reformed scholars including RC Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, and Kevin DeYoung signed the statement. However, some Reformed voices like Russell Moore initially expressed concerns about its timing and approach, though not its theological content. The Reformed consensus emerged because the statement aligns with confessional standards such as the Westminster Confession’s teaching on marriage (Chapter 24) and reflects the Reformed commitment to sola scriptura over cultural accommodation.

What does the Nashville Statement say about celibate gay Christians who don’t act on their attractions? Article 7 distinguishes between temptation and identity, affirming that experiencing same-sex attraction isn’t sinful but adopting it as core identity is problematic. This reflects the Reformed understanding that sanctification is progressive—believers struggle with various temptations while growing in holiness. Some critics argue this creates an unfair burden, but Reformed theology has always taught that all Christians carry crosses (Luke 9:23) and that God’s grace is sufficient for every struggle (2 Corinthians 12:9).
What about intersex conditions? Doesn’t biology complicate the “male and female” binary? The Nashville Statement acknowledges that sin affects all creation, including biological development (Article 6). Reformed theologians like Carl Trueman argue that rare intersex conditions (affecting roughly 0.018% of births) represent the fall’s corruption rather than God’s original design. While requiring pastoral sensitivity, these conditions don’t negate the creation norm of binary gender any more than birth defects negate the design for healthy limbs. The statement calls for compassionate care while maintaining biblical standards.

Why didn’t more Reformed denominations officially endorse it if it’s so clearly biblical? Several factors explain denominational hesitation: ecclesiastical procedures require extended deliberation, some preferred crafting their own statements, and others worried about appearing reactionary. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) had already addressed these issues in their 2012 report on sexuality, while the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) felt their existing standards were sufficient. Individual endorsement by Reformed scholars often preceded institutional action, following the pattern of how Reformed confessions historically developed.

How do progressive Christians who claim allegiance to the Reformed heritage justify rejecting the Nashville Statement? Progressive Reformed voices like those in the Presbyterian Church (USA) argue for “contextual hermeneutics,” claiming cultural evolution requires reinterpreting Scripture’s sexual ethics. They often emphasise hospitality and inclusion over doctrinal boundaries. However, this approach abandons the Reformed principle of Scripture’s clarity and substitutes cultural accommodation for biblical authority. As John Frame argues, when cultural pressure demands reinterpreting clear biblical teaching, we’ve effectively made culture our ultimate authority rather than Scripture.
Does the Nashville Statement adequately address pastoral care for LGBTQ+ individuals and families? Critics argue the statement lacks pastoral nuance, but Article 13 explicitly calls for “compassionate care” and recognises the complexity of pastoral ministry. Reformed pastor Sam Allberry, who experiences same-sex attraction, demonstrates how biblical faithfulness and pastoral sensitivity can coexist. The statement provides theological boundaries within which pastors can offer genuine care—clearer than therapeutic approaches that avoid biblical categories. Reformed pastoral care has always required both truth and grace, as modelled by Christ himself (John 1:14).

How does the Nashville Statement relate to broader Reformed views on church discipline and membership? Article 10’s assertion that approving “homosexual immorality” disqualifies someone from Christian fellowship reflects Reformed church discipline principles found in Westminster Confession Chapter 30. Some evangelicals like Christianity Today’s Mark Galli worried this was too rigid, preferring pastoral flexibility. However, Reformed polity has always maintained that persistent, unrepentant sin—especially when publicly endorsed—requires church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). The statement doesn’t mandate hasty discipline but establishes clear boundaries for what constitutes faithful Christian belief and practice.

THE NASHVILLE STATEMENT: OUR RELATED POSTS