What Andy Stanley Gets Right…. and Wrong… About The LGBTQ+ Conversation

The Internet is all abuzz about a recent conference at Andy Stanley’s North Point Community Church in Atlanta geared to help parents of LGBTQ+ children navigate through their struggles. Certain conservative Christian leaders, like Southern Baptist Seminary President, Al Mohler, have decried the conference, suggesting that Andy Stanley has parted ways from historic orthodox Christianity. Alternatively, certain progressive Christians have spoken out somewhat in favor of Andy Stanley here, while also indicating that not enough was shown regarding what they see as the moral bankruptcy of continuing to restrict the definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman for one life.

How does an evangelical Christian respond to all of this?  In defending the Unconditional Conference sponsored by Embracing the Journey, Andy Stanley has got some things right, while also getting some other things wrong.

Megachurch pastor Andy Stanley. Promoter of Biblical truth… or compromiser?

 

What Andy Stanley Gets Right

First, let us consider what Andy Stanley got right. Aside from the confusion experienced by many young people themselves today questioning their sexual and gender identity, the trauma that many Christian parents of such children face, trying to figure out how best to respond and love their children, can be extremely difficult and bewildering. Aside from a few pockets here and there, a long history of full-blown hatred against LGBTQ+ persons is finally starting to disappear, but there are still problems with the emerging, hopefully more-compassionate, less-combative approaches.

Unfortunately, there seems to be two paths currently taken in certain evangelical circles these days. One path might best be called the “stick your head in the sand” approach. Many such Christians simply want the LGBTQ+ discussion to go away. But that simply will not do. The data is not fully in yet, but some suggest that as many as one out of four young people today, growing up in the age of social media, wrestle with either a sense of sexual attraction to the same sex, or experience a sense of discomfort or anxiety about their own gender identity. Do the math. At least one out of five, but perhaps even one out of four. The sheer numbers are staggering. The LGBTQ+ discussion is not going away anytime soon.

The other path is to at first write into a church’s statement of faith or covenant a commitment for membership to only support traditional marriage, between one man and one woman. While this honorable stand for 2000 years of church teaching is taken, the church then sadly provides very little in terms of helping young people work through these questions of sexual and gender identity, as well as not providing sufficient resources for parents and other family members of such young people to work through their questions and struggles.

In this sense, Andy Stanley was right to break out of both the “stick your head in the sand” approach as well as the purely moral posturing approach, which offers little to no practical help. Andy Stanley was right to sponsor a conference intended to offer pastoral help and assistance for parents who want to know what to do when their son or daughter does not know if they are a “son” or a “daughter,” or if their son or daughter finds themselves attracted to members of the same sex. Parents need a safe space where they can share their stories, and listen and learn from one another, so that they can better know how to support their children.

According to a Sean McDowell video posted below, Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason attended the conference and reported that some of the sessions were very helpful in creating that kind of safe space, which is so desperately needed today. Thankfully, there are more and more resources available today that can help parents be equipped to better deal with these issues in their parenting. One that I can recommend is the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender. I was able to convince just a few of the staff at my church to attend such a training event a few years ago. I wish I could have gotten a few more to attend, but a few is much better than nothing!

Andy Stanley’s most knee-jerk critics should keep these positive points in mind before piling on against Andy.

What Andy Stanley Gets Wrong

On the other hand, there are some other things that Andy Stanley got wrong. I will note one thing in particular. Some of the speakers at the Embrace the Journey conference affirm a traditional, historically orthodox view of marriage and gender identity. That is great. However, not all of the speakers do so.

According to Shlemon, two of the speakers were gay men already participating in what is commonly known today as same-sex marriages. While there was no overt attempt to try to argue against a traditional view of marriage by the speakers, promotional material written by such speakers at the conference was made available to participants, seeking to challenge the traditional view of marriage.

For example, one of the other speakers was David Gushee, a scholar in Christian ethics. I never knew or met Dr. Gushee, but I know of friends who knew him. While I was off-to-college out of town in the 1980’s, David Gushee attended the College of William and Mary in my home town, where he participated in the evangelical Christian community. David Gushee even served as the youth director at a conservative evangelical Baptist church in Williamsburg, where my Boy Scout troop met when I was a kid. After college, David Gushee pursued Christian ministry and scholarship, but he eventually completely changed his mind regarding the biblical definition of marriage, publishing a book chronicling his change of thinking in 2014, which received a lot of media attention.  It boggles my mind how a young college student in my hometown went onto become a nationally-known, influential figure. But there you go.

I actually agree with Dr. Gushee when he supports those same-sex attracted believers who have been mistreated by Christian institutions, when someone holds to a traditional sexual ethic, while still acknowledging their same-sex attraction. Such idiotic treatment of fellow Christians completely baffles me. But Dr. Gushee goes much further than that with his perspective contrary to historic Christian teachings.

Again, according to Shlemon, Dr. Gushee did not openly try to persuade the conference participants to adopt his point of view. But apparently his books were there…. and it only takes a few clicks on the Internet to find out what Dr. Gushee really thinks.

In a Sunday sermon, Andy Stanley offered a response to critics, noting that North Point Community Church still teaches an historic view of marriage as being between one man and one woman, while still defending hosting the Embracing the Journey conference. As he put it, the Embracing the Journey conference was not a theology conference. Rather, it was a pastoral conference.

Here is the problem which Andy Stanley faces. On the one hand, theologically, Andy Stanley appears to be saying that his church still affirms an historic orthodox view of Christian marriage in its teaching. So far, so good. At the same time, the church is hosting a conference where several of the speakers hold a position on marriage which is out of step with the official position of the church. This is confusing.

Was North Point Community Church offering a conference where the speakers were being “platformed” by the church? Or was the conference simply an invitation to “have a conversation?”

I am all for the idea of dialogue. I am all in support of having conversations with people with whom I disagree. Churches should not be afraid to sponsor such conversations. But there is a huge difference between “having a conversation” and actually giving a platform for a speaker, who holds views which are contrary to the teaching of the church. Even if the speaker is not expressing their contrary views at such a speaking event, it really lacks a sense of clarity and transparency as to what the purpose of the event actually is. The outrage over the Embracing the Journey conference, given such lack of clarity and transparency, is not surprising. It might prove to be very difficult for Andy Stanley to recover from this situation.

Where were the elders of North Point Community Church when the decision was made to host the Embracing the Journey conference? Did they know if they were simply sponsoring an event, “having the conversation?” Or did they know that they might be platforming controversial speakers, who have publicly let the world know that they hold theological positions which go against the teaching of the church?

Chances are, even if Andy Stanley and the elders of North Point had effectively communicated beforehand that the conference was a only a conversation with contrary voices, and not a platforming event, Andy Stanley would probably still have his critics. There is not much you can do about that.  However, when churches like North Point fail to follow sound-principles of discernment they only generate a sense of mistrust of their leaders.

The irony of all of this is that Andy Stanley is known for hosting a Leadership podcast. Well, with all due respect, the way the Embracing the Journey conference was handled was not good leadership.

Andy Stanley means well, but this is one specific area where Andy Stanley got things wrong.

Grace and Truth in the LGBTQ+ Conversation

Not all Christian leaders who hold to an historic, orthodox Christian sexual ethic offer the same type of assistance to Christian parents. Voices ranging from Rosaria Butterfield and Christopher Yuan to Gregory Coles and Wesley Hill handle the pastoral issues quite differently, but they all recognize the consistent witness of Scripture regarding the definition of marriage held throughout the centuries. I lean towards approaches advocated by authors like the latter Gregory Coles and Wesley Hill, as the former voices tend to view “same-sex orientation” as some type of modern myth, which is hard to comprehend why they see the issue that way. Nevertheless, regardless of the approach, it is important that churches handle LGBTQ+ concerns with both grace and truth. The controversy at Andy Stanley’s church is not the first time confusion like this has shaken Christians. Nor will it probably be the last. Nevertheless, we can do better.

Andy Stanley is a high-profile Christian leader in evangelicalism, pastoring one of the largest churches in the United States.  He is basically a household name in evangelial Christianity. If local churches can follow the positive trend set by Andy Stanley, to offer better resources to parents wrestling with LGBTQ+ concerns in their family, then this would be a very good demonstration of grace. However, there is a negative side. For if local churches do not sufficiently uphold truth with clarity, then more confusion will inevitably result, with the unintended consequence of making grace less accessible, to where it is needed most.

Discerning the nature of the conference is crucial; that is, was this an invitation to “have a conversation,” or was it a platforming event offering an implicit endorsement of views contrary to North Point’s stated position? Many have already concluded that this was a platforming event, and I can understand why. Many have already written off Andy Stanley as a false teacher.

I do wish more churches would provide conferences and support for parents of LGBTQ+ as North Point has tried to do. But sadly the confusion over the nature of the conference, and even some points raised by Andy towards the end of his sermon, will potentially discourage families who need help the most to avoid churches that are trying ways to stay true to Scripture while simultaneously creating those safe places for sharing deep personal struggles. Church leaders need to communicate clearly when they are platforming a speaker, and by association, the message they stand for, versus hosting a conversational dialogue with those who do not subscribe to the teachings aligned with that church. I have seen this scenario of confusion played out in other contexts that need not be discussed here.

Have a listen to the Sean McDowell and Alan Shlemon discussion, as well as Andy Stanley’s sermon, and decide for yourself what Andy Stanley got right, and got wrong.

 

For other Veracity blog posts on this topic see: 

About Clarke Morledge

Unknown's avatar
Clarke Morledge -- Computer Network Engineer, College of William and Mary... I hiked the Mount of the Holy Cross, one of the famous Colorado Fourteeners, with some friends in July, 2012. My buddy, Mike Scott, snapped this photo of me on the summit. View all posts by Clarke Morledge

6 responses to “What Andy Stanley Gets Right…. and Wrong… About The LGBTQ+ Conversation

  • Clarke Morledge's avatar Clarke Morledge

    The following two examples involve scholars, who to my knowledge were and are not associated with the Embracing the Journey conference, but who hold views regarding human sexuality which are consistent with some of the speakers at the Embracing the Journey conference, who have publicly known positions which contradict the teaching regarding human sexuality espoused by Andy Stanley and North Point Community Church.

    In both cases, Jennifer Garcia Bashaw and Daniel McClellan are accomplished, accredited scholars, with degrees from traditionally evangelical institutions, who have much positive to teach Christians today, from which we can all learn. However, as seen in these short videos, their messages regarding human sexuality differ sharply from historically orthodox Christian norms.

    Jennifer Garcia Bashaw, when addressing Romans 1:26-27, argues that this passage has nothing to do with addressing the contemporary debate in the church regarding same-sex marriage/unions. Instead, she believes that this and similar passages are addressing the practices like pederasty; that is, the practice of an adult man having a sexual relationship with a younger boy (This idea was first popularly argued by Robin Scroggs in the 1980s):

    Daniel McClellan, when addressing the same Romans 1:26-27 passage, is a little more sophisticated, arguing that Paul is saying that Gentiles have embraced idolatry, whereby God has then given them over to their unnatural desires, in which Paul gives the example of crossing sexual behavioral boundaries, like women having sexual relations with women, and men having sexual relations with men. Alternatively, Paul is NOT addressing the situation whereby Gentiles give up their idolatry in order to follow the God of Israel. In that situation, the violation of sexual behavioral boundaries no longer apply (This idea is of more recent origin in scholarly discourse):

    In sum, both positions argued by Bashaw and McClellan say that these examples in Romans 1:26-27 are applicable only to local issues within the cultural framework of the first century letters by Paul. They have no relevance to how we might think about marriage today.

    In both cases, Bashaw and McClellan are making arguments from silence. Their critique would be that contemporary opponents to same-sex marriage are appealing to 2,000 year old identity markers that have no moral substance for Christians today.

    If some of the revisionist speakers at Embracing the Journey would have been able to unpack their beliefs during their speaking opportunities, they would have undoubtedly used arguments very similar to Bashaw and McClellan in defense of their views.

    For two other responses, from more historically orthodox perspectives, regarding what happened at the conference Andy Stanley supported, see the following by Gavin Ortlund and Preston Sprinkle:

    Like

  • Clarke Morledge's avatar Clarke Morledge

    Just reading through again this morning parts of Preston Sprinkle’s excellent People to Be Loved book which addresses the perspectives detailed by Bashaw and McClellan in the previous comment (see p. 189ff).

    Regarding Bashaw’s view, if she is correct, Sprinkle wants to know why Paul did not use the Greek word for pederasty, if that was indeed what Paul had in mind, to describe the sin mentioned in Romans 1. Furthermore, the mention of women having sexual relations with women makes the pederasty view impossible, as pederasty in the Greco-Roman period was associated with men, not women. Again, Bashaw assumes that Paul is unaware of same-sex relations of a more egalitarian variety, as opposed to the one-sided, abusive view she sees as what Paul was judging. This amounts to an argument from silence in order to try to support same-sex marriage.

    Regarding McClellan’s view, it is a more sophisticated form of saying that Paul is agreeing with his audience in Romans 1 in order to blast and rebuke them in Romans 2. This suggests that Paul is not endorsing the view that all same-sex relations are wrong in Romans 1, but rather that this is a rhetorical ploy in his longer argument in order to show that his Jewish listeners are just as guilty of sin as the Gentile idolaters are. Rhetorically, Paul’s argument does work this way, but it does not necessarily imply that Paul believes that certain same-sex relations are permissible. As a Jew, he rejected Gentile idolatry, and as a Jew, he rejected same-sex relations of any kind. There is no reason to assume that if the Gentiles were to give up their idolatry that Paul would therefore approve of something like same-sex marriage.

    Again, this is an argument from silence meant to try to prove a point which is not established by available evidence.

    Like

  • Clarke Morledge's avatar Clarke Morledge

    Warren Cole Smith on “I wonder what happened to Andy Stanley?” :

    https://ministrywatch.com/how-do-you-handle-a-problem-like-andy-stanley/

    Like

  • Clarke Morledge's avatar Clarke Morledge

    Fuller Theological Seminary is my alma matter, where I got my theology degree. Even in the 1990s, the LGTBQ discussion was going on there, but there was not an attempt to change the school’s definition of marriage. It is unfortunate for Ruth Schmidt that she lost her job at Fuller, but in fairness, there are other seminary institutions which have LGTBQ affirming policies (or that are not punitive).

    But Fuller Seminary is trying to stay within the evangelical camp. Nevertheless, this does not mean there are not pressures for the seminary to change. I know that many Christians do not believe that there is a logical necessity for a slippery slope when it comes to egalitarianism leading inevitably towards LGTBQ affirmation. But Ms. Schmidt’s story demonstrates that sometimes people DO go down the slippery slope.

    The news story shows that while Ms. Schmidt is outspoken in her views, others at Fuller silently agree but still uphold Fuller as an evangelical institution. From the news story:

    A lot of people enter theological education not knowing what they believe about queer Christians. And so you go through your educational journey, and at the end it’s possible you land in a different place than the school’s standards. But you don’t have to re-sign those standards when your convictions change,” said Schmidt. “That’s how so many affirming folks end up at Fuller.”

    As a student, Schmidt was energized by her sexuality and ethics course, which gave her space to wrestle with her beliefs about human sexuality while in a Christian context. Eventually, Schmidt concluded she was LGBTQ-affirming.

    ….she also believes Fuller should not market itself as a multidenominational school while excluding people from LGBTQ-affirming denominations.

    It would have been unthinkable thirty years ago to have an evangelical institution be “LGBTQ affirming,” but times have changed. Progressive Christianity which once was the domain of “mainline liberal Protestantism” has made it into the evangelical church.

    https://religionnews.com/2024/02/02/fuller-seminary-senior-director-fired-for-refusal-to-sign-non-lgbtq-affirming-statement/

    So while I agree with Fuller’s stand on this, I am not so sure if I had the opportunity today I would go back to Fuller.

    Like

  • Clarke Morledge's avatar Clarke Morledge

    Having attended a Super Bowl party with some Christian friends, I noticed that when the controversial “He Gets Us” ad popped up during the 1st quarter of the game, no one in the room said anything about it!! Yet the very next day, social media was lit into a frenzy about the ad…. Huh.

    There is a balance between knowing how to extend the love and acceptance of Jesus towards others, versus reminding others about God’s judgment against sin. A lot of these controversies, whether it be about Andy Stanley’s approach to LGTBQ issues, Alistair Begg’s advice to a grandmother whose grandchild is planning on getting married as a transgendered person, or to Super Bowl ads, is focused on how to strike that balance. Here is the original ad:

    A number of Christians have expressed concern that the ad does not confront sin very well. Someone has put together a different “He Get’s Us” ad they wish was aired at the Super Bowl:

    Then there is the Babylon Bee’s take with a satirical “Satan Gets Us” counter-ad:

    There have been some on one side who believe that the original ad was disingenuous, as it supposedly hides the fact that some of the backers behind He Gets Us are actually right-wing Christian fanatics bent on trying to deceive and trick people. But mostly the criticisms come from those Christian who believe that ad sells the Gospel short.

    I actually resonate the most with the brief comments from Gavin Ortlund:

    Like

  • Clarke Morledge's avatar Clarke Morledge

    For anyone wanting to know why folks on the more progressive side of the conversation did not like the “He Gets Us” ads at the Super Bowl, here ya go. Sometimes you just can not make anyone happy:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jesus-super-bowl-ads-hobby-lobby-billionaire-family-1234962817/

    Like

What do you think?