Andy Stanley’s sermon on Sunday, which sought to clarify his stance on LGBTQ+ issues, is evoking condemnation from non-affirming Christian leaders and praise from ones that affirm same-sex relationships.
Author and talk radio host Michael Brown spent his daily program on Monday responding to Stanley’s sermon at North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga. (North Point has not yet published the sermon, but The Roys Report (TRR) published audio of the sermon on Monday.)
“Pastor Andy, you’ve got to do better,” said Brown. “You’ve got to make some radical changes to be in full conformity with the will, heart, and mind of God as a pastor and shepherd . . . Let’s reach those who are hurting (and) let’s also rebuke sin and call it what it is.”
Similarly, Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in Louisville, Ky., wrote an op-ed in response to Stanley’s sermon. “This is not Biblical Christianity,” wrote Mohler. “It is Andy Stanley’s own invention, and it is not plausible . . . (It is) something new and completely irreconcilable with the gospel, with discipleship, and with holiness.”
However, author and speaker Jonathan Merritt described the pushback to the sermon as “sad but expected” from many evangelicals. “Stanley and North Point are trying to do something most evangelical churches are failing at,” Merritt told TRR. “And that’s to have honest and productive conversations about how parents of LGBTQ children can love their kids.”
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Hurt and Healed by the Church” by Ryan George. To donate, click here.
On Sunday, Stanley addressed comments by Mohler in an earlier op-ed accusing Stanley of departing from “biblical Christianity.” The comments came in response to last week’s Unconditional Conference at North Point, which featured numerous gay-affirming speakers, advising parents and ministry leaders on how to minister to kids identifying as LGBTQ+.
Stanley replied in his sermon: “I have never subscribed to (Mohler’s) version of biblical Christianity to begin with, so I’m not leaving anything.”
Stanley said Mohler’s version of biblical Christianity is “why people are leaving Christianity unnecessarily. It’s the version that causes people to resist the Christian faith because they can’t find Jesus in the midst of all the other stuff and all the other theology and all the other complexity that gets glommed on to the message.”
Later in his message, Stanley affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman. He stated North Point and its network of 150 partner churches teach “fidelity in marriage and sexual purity outside of marriage.”
But Stanley also presented a range of options that Christian-identified LGBTQ individuals follow. He said some commit “to living a chaste life” and forego traditional marriage. “For many, that is not sustainable,” preached Stanley. “So they choose same-sex marriage—not because they’re convinced it’s biblical . . . They choose to marry for the same reason many of us do: love, companionship. . . And, this is the important thing I want you to hear me say: it’s their decision.”
Stanley noted that gay Christian authors Justin Lee and Brian Nietzel—both speakers at last week’s Unconditional Conference—had been invited to speak “on several occasions” to North Point’s Parent Connect groups.
Stanley described the two men as “bridge builders” and “compassionate Christians who don’t want another generation of LGBTQ+ kids that feel like, ‘Hey, who I think I am is incompatible with at least attempting to follow Jesus.’”
Drawing lines vs. circles
In his sermon, Stanley explicitly differentiated North Point from churches that exclude LGBTQ-identified people.
“Jesus drew circles,” he preached. ”He drew circles so large and included so many people in his circle, that it consistently made religious leaders nervous. His circle was big enough to include sinners like me . . . We decided 28 years ago, (we) don’t draw lines, we draw big circles.”
Brown, who told TRR he had spoken directly to Stanley on Monday about his concerns, responded at length.
“The truth is that Jesus drew both circles and lines, and if we don’t do both, we hurt those we are called to help,” wrote Brown in an op-ed. “Jesus (drew) a massive circle that invited sinners of every sort and stripe, including you and me, and laying out clear lines as well.”
Brown explained he “categorically rejects” how Stanley had invited speakers who are in same-sex relationships to advise parents in the church. “They say that you can practice homosexuality and follow Jesus at the same time,” said Brown. “This is terribly misleading and dangerous for the gay-identifying kids as well as for their parents.”
In a statement to TRR, Justin Lee, founder of Nuance Ministries, who is in a same-sex relationship, claimed he didn’t “take any position on topics like same-sex marriage or sexual behavior” at the recent conference.
“My primary message was that Christians should look to Jesus and to Scripture—not to me or any human source—for determining what is God’s will,” said Lee. “And that Christians who follow Jesus’s example can treat others with love and empathy without compromising on truth.
Lee claimed that, following his sessions, several parents came up to him “in tears, thanking me for offering them practical advice on how to love their LGBTQ children even when they cannot agree with their life choices.” He noted this aspect “often gets glossed over in theological debates.”
Dialogue and differing approaches
Merritt, author of Learning to Speak Jesus from Scratch and a self-described “gay progressive Christian,” called North Point’s approach “incredibly risky, messy, and difficult.”
He added: “There is no way to have conversations around this issue that are productive and helpful that will not anger half of Christian America or more. That’s the nature of the issue.”
However, a colleague of Mohler’s at SBTS, ethics and public theology professor Andrew Walker, posted online that he had spoken to Stanley over several years regarding these issues. Similar to Brown, Walker recounted those conversations as “kind and respectful.”
But, following Stanley’s sermon, Walker said Stanley is “gaslighting” his critics. “(It’s) as though dissent from North Point’s ministry model is soaked in animosity, contempt, and hatred toward LGBT family and friends.”
“Stanley is attempting to be more compassionate than Jesus, which is impossible,” added Walker. “Scripture embraces truth and love as mutually reinforcing (1 Cor. 13:6). This sort of third-way ‘quieter middle space’ is neither biblically faithful nor practically sustainable.”
For his part, Merritt, whose father is longtime pastor and former SBC president James Merritt, criticized Walker’s colleague, seminary president Mohler. He called Mohler “a high-minded theologian in an ivory tower” who has never pastored a local church.
Jonathan Merritt stated: “It’s very easy to make theoretical proclamations about what should be done in a church. But it’s much more difficult for ministers on the ground to actually love their people well. You ask any pastor in America, and they’ll tell you that’s true.”
“In such a fraught and divisive moment, Stanley is working overtime to find ways to help parents love their kids.”
In his sermon, Stanley spoke of how he heard from North Point youth leaders that several “high school and middle school students” in the church “(came) out about same-sex attraction.” Stanley added the students had not “engaged in any same sex behavior.”
Stanley said that to formulate study materials to help these youth, he and youth leaders spoke to “about 15 gay adult attenders, who attended our campuses that we had contacted through the years.” He said he asked questions such as: “How do you wish the church had responded when you came out? And: What would have made a difference in your life?”
In his post, Walker responded: “This is an example of unbounded empathy that listens (which is good) but never invites toward transformation (which is not good).”
The theology professor summed up his objections. “What Stanley considers as a failure to live up to an unattainable ideal, Scripture calls sinful,” said Walker. “Nowhere in the message was there any expectation that someone would turn from their same-sex relationship.”
I was able to listen to Andy Stanley’s messages from today on the topic of same-sex attraction and marriage.
What’s clear from Stanley’s teaching is that he’s drawing a distinction between doctrine and pastoral practice. What does that mean? It means the doctrine has not…
— Andrew T. Walker (@andrewtwalk) October 2, 2023
Jason Truett Glen, who teaches philosophy at Liberty University shared and praised Walker’s post as reflecting “grace and accuracy.”
Glen stated: “There’s no doubt that (Stanley) believes he’s in the right on this . . . as many pastors do when they throw God’s revelation under the bus in order to pitch a ‘kinder, gentler’ Christianity that supports their vocation.”
Freelance journalist Josh Shepherd writes on faith, culture, and public policy for several media outlets. He and his family live in the Washington, D.C. area.
English 
Spanish
13 Responses
Mohler lied about Stanley’s talks in his op-ed on 10/3. Mohler claimed Stanley didn’t clarify his church and organization’s stance on homosexuality. However, Stanley explicitly stated that his church considers sex as reserved for marriage and marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.
How can Mohler expect to be taken seriously when making such egregious errors regarding what he is criticizing? I suspect he knows most of his readers will never listen to Stanley’s message. World’s editorial council should require a retraction from Mohler – but, then again, I guess they couldn’t be bothered with even the minimum amount of fact-checking.
There was a later statement down playing the need to follow the biblical declaration of one man one woman. As long as they declare their need to be loved then same sex relationship are to be accepted by his church.
But Stanley contradicts himself when he invites a homosexual couple to speak at the conference. How can we not think he is affirming being homosexual?!!!!
Strong language, Paul, but unfortunately you severely misrepresent what Mohler said and clearly meant: in fact he did explicitly state Stanley said the same things you say Stanley said about his official theological view of marriage and sex outside of marriage. The problem is that Stanley muddies and distorts the truth by not following practically what he says is his theoretical theological belief, conveniently leaving out repentance and sanctification according to the biblical standard he pays lip service to.
It is strong language backed up by the fact of Stanley’s own message. Anyone can listen to him explicitly affirm sex as reserved for marriage and marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.
Regardless of how one feels about this issue (or how one feels about Mohler and Stanley), it is a gross misrepresentation for Mohler to say to his readers that Stanley, “…did not […] clarify the position or policy of his church.” This is an untrue statement on Mohler’s part. It is a lie.
Mohler can disagree with Stanley as can anyone else. But don’t LIE about a message Stanley gave in order to win an argument.
Honestly, I have concerns about both these guys. Maybe Stanley will eventually turn out to be affirming – but he is not there yet according to his own words. He may never be.
I interpreted Mohler’s statement as referring to Stanley’s persistent ambiguous “yes we believe this but…” statements. Stanley calls One man/One woman marriage God’s best, not God’s ONLY. Stanley excuses same sex marriage as a last ditch, desperate effort to achieve the same things heterosexual married couples have. “They chose to marry for the same reason many of us do, love, companionship and family.” If Burk and Mohler’s critics would bother reading their articles, it would all be clear. Stanley’s statement is like comparing various wines or cheeses. There’s a “best” but there’s also acceptable also-rans. An easy internet search will show that Stanley’s current position on homosexuality is not the same one his church has had for 28 years.
Believers can choose not to follow Christ as selfless disciples (Mk 8:34). Christians who choose a lifestyle of immoral conduct (1 Cor. 6:9-10) will forfeit eternal rewards and honor in the Kingdom. In addition, Rabbi Paul’s counsel in 1 Cor. 5:9-13 is not to associate with immoral Believers. John was clear; Christians who engage in sin forfeit fellowship with the Father (1 Jn 2:4-6). The loss of reward and fellowship are real consequences for disobedient Believers. God’s discipline is a fact (Heb 12:6). Just as real is forgiveness (1 Jn. 1:9), faciliting a prodigal to come home (Lk 15:11-32), avoiding shame & loss (1 Jn 2:28), as well as restoring usefulness to the Master (Jms 5:19-20). Moral imperfection in the life of a Believer 1.) is not to condoned (1 Pt. 1:15), 2.) should not be tolerated (1 Cor. 9:13, Mt 18:15-20), 3.) is paid for (1 Jn. 2:1-2), and 4.) comes with consequence (2 Jn. 1:8). These are hard ideas Mr. Stanley seems to skirt around. The biblical text is clear, the issue is serious, failure is a reality, absurdity is not to be embraced, and love and forgiveness are crucial. We’ll all give account (2 Cor 5:10).
It’s so good that Stanley and the Merrits have triggered this explosion of testimony. Strong testimony from two sides of a fundamental disagreement.
I say good, on a personal basis, because as I read the push-back to the testimonies of this trio, I can see very clearly how I might dismantle the push-back element by element. Where usually conservative Christian polemic is so tightly informed by implacable belief and faith, that it is neither relevant or possible to engage it in spiritual discussion.
It seems to me that the progressive Christianity Stanley and Jonathon Merrit represent, has conservative Christianity so much on the back foot, that polemic grounded in frustration is diluting and weakening its doctrinal and ethical expression.
My sense is, that ethical expression on both sides to this disagreement, has to be so well articulated, that we push down onto a deeper theological plane that can yield better doctrinal resolution. It’s not just son and dad Merrit that have to do this, rather it’s all members of the Christian community.
Christianity cannot be separated from adherence to its spiritual thesis.
Arguably the pool from which adherence can come, is leaning into considering that same gender relationships are justified where they subsist in mutual love and respect between coupled partners Again arguably, the same standard to be applied to marriages had under aegis of Biblical principles; namely that they are justified where they subsist in mutual love and respect. This basis for justification trumping all doctrinal and theological theorising.
Again arguably, sexuality between coupled partners, is good when subsisting in mutual love and respect, and bad when those qualities are absent. Again, this consideration trumping all doctrinal and theological theorising.
All this simply an emerging climate of understanding in the pool from which adherence to Christianity can come. The risk posed by intransigent conservative Christian understanding, then being, that adherence will diminish to where the ecology of collective Christianity collapses.
I understand my sense of things will not convince those whose understanding of God and Bible allows for saints to be the sole custodians of the Biblical Truth, irrespective of how small their numbers might be.
The Bible teaches that God intended for men and women to have sexual intimacy within the context of a marital relationship (Genesis 1-2). However, after sin entered the world, this original design was distorted, leading to various forms of sexual immorality, including homosexual practices. In both the Old and New Testaments, homosexuality is condemned as sinful (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27).
Romans 1:26-27 specifically addresses the abandonment of natural sexual relationships for unnatural ones, including same-sex relations. It describes this as a result of rejecting God’s plan for sexuality and portrays it as unnatural and a source of shame. It is important to note that these passages do not only refer to abusive or distorted forms of homosexuality, but describe any form of same-sex relations.
While homosexuality may be a current hot-topic issue, it is just one form of sin among many. Romans 1 reminds us that all humans are equally condemned and have no right to judge others. The only way to find true identity is by belonging to Jesus Christ (Romans 1:25).
It is important to approach this topic with love and compassion, recognizing that all people, regardless of their struggles or sins, are in need of God’s grace and forgiveness. We are called to love and accept others while also upholding the biblical teachings on sexual morality.
Email
If your kid tells you she is lesbian or trans you tell her that she must repent and never engage in it. This applies to all sins. Its that simple.
Mike. Your post stimulated a thought in me.
Perhaps the imperative informing your post is separation. Separation from any and all who do not share your absolute commitment to an exclusive hermetic (what you possibly take as the Biblical word).
This seems to me rather OT, and it unleavened by so much that the NT says about Jesus.
Jesus had the religious option of separating himself by way of adhering to the Jewish orthodoxy of the day. Instead he chose to immerse himself in the living reality of all. His faith in God being strong enough to there protect him.
Matthew and Luke record Jesus feasting with the categorical blatant sinners of those days. This raises some questions. Why would these sinners want to hang out with Jesus? Presumably, Jesus did not lead with a heavy hand in calling sinners to repentance. Jesus countered the expected objections to his associations by declaring himself a physician intending to heal those who are sick. Additionally, he rebuked the religious authorities with a challenge to learn the meaning of “I desire mercy/ compassion rather than sacrifice.” Compassion is not affirmation of sin. But it is an approach to obtaining repentance that doesn’t drive away the sinner with standards they are not yet capable of attaining. This is what I see Stanley attempting to do. He seems to have in mind the person who sincerely wants to be a Christian yet has found their same-sex attraction to be overwhelming, sometimes to the point of despair. Apparently, transformation/ sanctification may require more than simply knowing the standards of holiness. Stanley seems to assume the people he has in mind already know the standards and have given it their best shot already. Maybe in such a situation, mercy is the better play.
Jesus said, wisdom is vindicated by her children. Hopefully we’ll get to see if Stanley’s approach proves to be the wiser path. I don’t claim to know. But I don’t think Stanley is a wolf trying to smuggle an LGBTQ agenda into the church. He’s a pastor trying to do the best he can with a difficult situation in an impossible political climate. It’s probably better to be slow to speak, and quick to listen.