Meaning that God “does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being...” Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1249.

While Christians agree that humans are made in the image of God, its meaning has been understood differently. Thus, we consider the meaning of the image of God to be a secondary issue. Most views define the image of God as something humans do: rational capacity, relational nature, or rule over creation. While we affirm that God created humans to reason, relate and rule, the Bible never explicitly identifies these abilities or actions as the image of God. Our position is that the image of God refers not to something that humans do, but to what God intends to do through humans: to dwell with them and manifest his presence through them. For an explanation of primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrinal matters, see Prolegomena: Our Theological System and Tradition.

As Marc Cortez explains, “...in Jesus we see that being human fundamentally involves manifesting God’s own glorious presence through the indwelling power of the Spirit. In the incarnation, we have the singular instance of the imago Dei [image of God] in all its fullness, yet other humans are called to participate in the reality of the image by being united with the Son through the power of the Spirit.” Marc Cortez, ReSourcing Theological Anthropology (2017), 115.

John Kilner describes this as the dignity that all humans share by virtue of being made in God’s image, and the destiny of being conformed to the image of Christ that only believers will experience. John F. Kilner, Dignity and Destiny: Humanity in the Image of God (2015).

Doctrine of Creation, 7:

7. The effects of humanity’s rebellion against God extend to all creation. Creation is groaning under “bondage to decay” (Rom 8:21) and is waiting to be redeemed, just as humanity is waiting. Therefore, ever since humanity’s rebellion against God, the created world has been subject to “thorns and thistles” (Gen 3:18), as well as fires, floods, drought, storms, and other natural disasters (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 8:18-25).

Genesis 9:6 affirms that sinful humans are still made in the image of God. Many theologians have written that sin has “broken,” “distorted,” or even “obliterated” the image of God in humans, but Scripture never speaks of the image of God this way. It is better to say that, for sinful humans, the image of God is unfulfilled rather than broken, because they have become impure, unrighteous, and therefore unfit for God’s presence. For more on the dangers of viewing the image of God as broken, see Kilner, 147-176.

Doctrine of Creation, 6-7:

6. God has given humanity, starting with Adam and Eve, the responsibility of caring for his created world. “Ruling” and “subduing” the earth (Gen 1:28) suggests that the resources of the earth are to be developed and enjoyed in ways that cause mutual flourishing for all life on earth—not abuse and exploitation for selfish or material gain. Thus, we embrace a care and concern for creation that respects the earth and its resources as gifts from God for the benefit of all humanity and all God’s creatures (Gen 1:26-30; Ps 8:6-8).

7. The effects of humanity’s rebellion against God extend to all creation. Creation is groaning under “bondage to decay” (Rom 8:21) and is waiting to be redeemed, just as humanity is waiting. Therefore, ever since humanity’s rebellion against God, the created world has been subject to “thorns and thistles” (Gen 3:18), as well as fires, floods, drought, storms, and other natural disasters (Gen 3:17-19; Rom 8:18-25).

Yet, because of sin, God’s design for human gender has been distorted at the psychological, physical and societal levels. Many individuals experience a profound sense of tension between their physical gendered characteristics and their psychological sense of their gender identity (often called gender dysphoria). Others experience physical and/or chromosomal incongruities, with the result that their bodies bear characteristics of both genders (often called intersex). Furthermore, human societies have defined masculinity and femininity according to their own sensibilities, distorting both male and female gender roles in ways that are harmful to one another. Thus, all humans and all human societies are in need of repentance, healing, and transformation through the gospel in the area of human gender. For more, see Mark Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria (2015).

1. The leaders of a local church are responsible and accountable first to Jesus Christ as the head of the church, and second to their congregation, whom they oversee in love and humility, according to the standard of servant-leadership modelled by the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 1:22-23; 4:11-16; 1 Pet 5:1-4; Matt 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:24-27; John 13:1-17).

Go to the Doctrine of the Church section for more on Leaders, Members, and Church Discipline.

We acknowledge that human cultures and governments define, authorize and regulate various types of marriages. However, we believe that marriage has been created by God himself and is not a product of human cultures. Thus, any relationship between two humans must accord with the biblical definition of marriage in order to accurately be called a marriage. In Scripture, marriage is consistently defined as a relationship between differently gendered (or sexually different) individuals. In other words, gender/sex differentiation is inherent to the biblical definition of marriage. Thus, only a union between one biological man and one biological woman can accurately be called a biblical marriage. For more, see Preston Sprinkle, Grace//Truth 1.0: Five Conversations Every Thoughtful Christian Should Have About Faith, Sexuality & Gender (2017), 63-85.

See Sin, 4, a, above.

We define this as a secondary doctrinal matter, recognizing that godly Christians hold different convictions regarding the use of birth control (methods of engaging in sexual acts while preventing conception). On one hand, some Christians and churches hold a conviction that sexual acts between a husband and wife must be open to procreation. On the other hand, other Christians and churches (including Cornerstone) hold the conviction that husbands and wives can engage in sexual acts without these acts being open to procreation. In identifying this as a secondary matter, we mean to communicate that there is room for both convictions among the members of Cornerstone. Husbands and wives are free to hold and practice either conviction (provided they agree with each other), but they may not seek to impose their conviction on others or be judgmental of those who hold a different conviction. On this matter, we believe that “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5, c.f., vv. 1-12). For more on birth control, see point ii and footnote 14 below. For an explanation of primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrinal matters, see Prolegomena: Our Theological System and Tradition.

Non-abortive birth control refers to types of birth control that prevent fertilization (the union of sperm and egg). Some non-abortive methods are temporary (e.g., condoms, diaphragms, the “timing method”), while others are more permanent (e.g., vasectomy, tubal ligation). In contrast, abortive (or abortifacient) birth control prevents implantation (e.g., intrauterine devices, the “morning after pill”). With abortive birth control, a sperm and egg may unite, but the fertilized egg is prevented from implanting in the woman’s uterus and continuing to grow. We believe abortive methods of birth control should not be used. While there is much that we do not know about the mysterious, miraculous way that God knits a human being together in a woman’s womb (Eccl 11:5), we do know that it all begins with the union of sperm and egg. We acknowledge that there are many times when a fertilized egg may fail to implant in a woman’s uterus without any contraception. This seems to be another tragic effect of sin within our bodies, which we entrust to God as we long for restoration. But when a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus because humans have actively done something to stop it from doing so, we believe this is a line that humans should not cross. We strongly encourage Christian married couples to investigate and seek counsel regarding any birth control methods they are considering before they use them.

The closest thing to a New Testament command to bear children is found in 1 Tim 5:14, where Paul tells younger widows to “marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.” However, this is not a command but a statement of Paul’s desire (Greek: boulomai, “wish/want”) for younger widows to remarry, rather than enrolling them among the older widows whose needs were to be supplied by their local church (see vv. 11-13).

For more on the Church as the New Covenant Community, see Doctrine of the Church, The Church in the Biblical Story, 3.

While discipleship is and should be the desire of all Christian parents, we acknowledge that it is God who opens peoples’ eyes to understand and embrace the Gospel (2 Cor 4:1-6). The task of Christian parenting is not to assume that our children have faith in Jesus, or to pressure them to profess faith in Jesus, but to call them to put their faith in Jesus as we teach them about Jesus, and to help those who believe to grow in their faith by following Jesus (2 Tim 3:15-17).

The Old Testament prophet Isaiah promised that a day would come when “the children of the desolate one [barren woman] will be more than the children of her who is married,” (Isa 54:1) and when God would give eunuchs (men incapable of bearing children) who trusted in him “a monument and a name better than sons and daughters” (Isa 56:4-5). We believe that both promises find their fulfillment in the call to spiritual multiplication through disciple-making. In Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus spoke of people who, like him, would willingly embrace a single, celibate lifestyle for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. This lifestyle was further exemplified by the Apostle Paul, who taught and modelled celibate singleness as even more effective than marriage for serving the Lord with “single-minded devotion” (1 Cor. 7:25-38). Paul forsook marriage and childbearing, not to avoid the command to be fruitful and multiply, but to fully devote himself to spiritual multiplication through disciple-making (1 Cor 4:14-15; 1 Thess 2:7-12).

Thus, we believe that the abortion of a human fetus at any stage of development is sin, because it is the murder of a human being made in God’s image. The image of God—not the viability of the fetus outside the womb—is the determining factor in valuing and protecting the lives of the unborn (Ps 139:13-16; Ecc 11:5). The only exception to this would be in the case of a human fetus that cannot survive to the point of delivery and poses a grave threat to the mother’s life if it continues to grow (for example: an ectopic or tubal pregnancy, in which a fertilized egg implants and grows outside of a woman’s uterus, most often in the fallopian tube). We believe that conditions like ectopic pregnancies are evidence of the brokenness in our world and bodies because of sin, and we grieve over these realities, because the fertilized egg represents a human being, made in God’s image. However, in only these types of situations a pregnancy should be terminated in order to protect and preserve the life of the mother, who is also made in the image of God.

These two terms are often used interchangeably but may be distinguished, as Strachan writes, “In general terms, race is seen as a social construct based on skin color, while ethnicity refers to one’s cultural background.” He continues, “[M]any today prefer to speak of ethnicity over race, for while there are different people groups of the earth, with different cultural practices, the human race is unitary. There are not essential biological differences between people of varying skin pigmentation, though some still divide humanity along these lines.” Owen Strachan, Reenchanting Humanity (2019) 216, 219.

For more on the distinction between diversity and reconciliation, see Jarvis Williams, One New Man: The Cross and Racial Reconciliation in Pauline Theology, 2010.