A co-author of the Grand Rapids East Report states: A significant number of people made in God’s image are not clearly male or female (and those definitions have changed across cultures and time), so exegesis of Scripture related to gender roles starts from a very complicated premise; so I approach that exegesis with a spirit of extreme humility, considering science, culture, history, and, most important, the arc of Scripture–the work of the Holy Spirit and the radical love and inclusion the Gospel represents.
In response to this Dr. John Cooper, professor emeritus of Calvin Theological Seminary, had the following to say:
The GRE Report also appeals to this material as a reason to reconsider our understanding of “normal” gender and sex. But it is a logical mistake and inconsistent with biblical-Reformed doctrine to suppose that current biology, psychology, and sociology can alter our normative understanding of sex, gender, and marriage, as the Report does.
The logical mistake is the is-ought fallacy, which confuses what is normative with what is statistically “normal”. One cannot infer how things ought to be from the way they currently are, even if they are universal. Racism and sexism are wrong even if all humans believe they are right. Cancer and genetic defects are “fallen” even if they inevitably affect everyone. In the same way, sexual disorientation, ambiguity, and confusion might be “normal” but not normative in a fallen world.
What do you think about these two views?