Update on the Andy Stanley Conversation

For those of you following the conversation about Andy Stanley’s controversial message, a few remarks by way of update: 

1. Scot McKnight weighed-in today, and he thinks that critics (including yours truly) have improperly put Stanley on a slippery slope. McKnight also highlights a statement I made in an interview with CT last week in which I said this about Stanley’s sermon: “It was ambiguous at best. It was a total capitulation to the spirit of the age at worst.” After reading my remarks, McKnight wonders what my “best” read of the situation is as opposed to my worst read. My “best” read is that Stanley believes in the Bible’s teaching about human sexuality, but for whatever reason muted that belief in his sermon. If that is the case, then the question becomes whether the ambiguity was intentional or unintentional. 

If it was unintentional, certainly he could have clarified the matter by now. The audio of his most recent sermon is not yet available, but The Christian Post’s coverage of the message doesn’t indicate that any clarification was forthcoming. If it was intentional, then for what purpose did he do it? To steer clear of divisive subjects while in the pulpit? To make North Point a more attractive place for homosexuals to attend? Or perhaps he just thought adultery was the only relevant moral question in the story he was telling. Whatever the reason, it is difficult to imagine a good reason for intentionally leaving the impression that adultery is sin while homosexuality may not be.  Continue at Denny Burk