"[Andy] Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin."

Not a big follower of Stanley, but I did watch this sermon since so many of my people love his Dad. It is a really strange discussion of “grace” and “truth” with little on screen graphics of this horribly broken family that is a marvelous example of grace because they all came to church together on Christmas. The new homosexual couple are allowed to be hosts for visitors at a satellite campus since they are now properly divorced from their wives.

But what stands out is his discussion of “grace and truth.” It appears that grace is acceptance, and truth is not God’s standard, but the messy reality of life. This lady’s husband is gay, and left her for a man (who left his wife for her man). That’s the “truth.” Grace was when she learned not to be bitter about it, and they all get along wonderfully now.

Clearly neither divorce nor homosexuality are issues at Northpoint. But it’s not like they don’t have standards. As long as the divorced homosexual’s partner was still married (to his wife), “you can’t serve on a host services team,” because that’s “good old-fashioned adultery.”

Painful to watch, but you can find it here. Click on #5 and the interesting part starts about 24 minutes in.

http://www.northpoint.org/messages/christian

The first time I evaluated AStanley some years ago I came away convinced he was not theologically driven but was, instead, philosophically driven. Some might protest that AS’s non-comment on the homosexual end is just that, a non-comment and it should be left alone. However, his audience is not stupid and many undetstand his silence speaking very loudly. We shall see what comes.

[Wayne Wilson] Painful to watch, but you can find it here. Click on #5 and the interesting part starts about 24 minutes in.

http://www.northpoint.org/messages/christian

i think you also have to compare that part with the part that starts around 34:30. maybe stanley does in fact think that committed gays are not in sin and should be accepted because they are ok. but i think the more clear idea from this is that stanley thinks grace is welcoming sinners in spite of their sin.

i think you also have to compare that part with the part that starts around 34:30. maybe stanley does in fact think that committed gays are not in sin and should be accepted because they are ok. but i think the more clear idea from this is that stanley thinks grace is welcoming sinners in spite of their sin.
.

I don’t have a problem so much with the part on “gracey.” I am very concerned about how he defines “truthy.” Does he let sinners know they are sinners at all?

It is quite clear that he limits people in ministry for adultery, but not for practicing homosexuality. I have since listened to an earlier sermon in the same series where he says the early church just loved people, and never judged them (basing that on 1 Cor 5), and Christians should pretty much just model Christianity and let people be drawn to that. (Clearly he has never read the early fathers). I also read that in a book he said unbelievers should have a role in ministry, so he may believe the homosexuals in the visitor ministry are unsaved. But then why forbid them for adultery, which judges them as believers? So his philosophy of ministry is starting to come together for me. So, does he actually preach the New Testament Gospel?

[Wayne Wilson] I also read that in a book he said unbelievers should have a role in ministry, so he may believe the homosexuals in the visitor ministry are unsaved. But then why forbid them for adultery, which judges them as believers? So his philosophy of ministry is starting to come together for me. So, does he actually preach the New Testament Gospel?

which book is this? this sounds a bit like condemning someone based on speculation. if you’re going to call someone a heretic, it should be based on something more than speculation.

from the article:

He concluded by telling of Christ’s death for sinners and told the congregation that Jesus does not condemn them, even if they cannot or do not leave their life of sin.

i listened to the sermon and it seemed to me that the conclusion was different than this. i understood the conclusion to be that grace loves the sinner in spite of their sin.

if you’re going to call someone a heretic, it should be based on something more than speculation.
.

A heretic? When did I say that, Chris? I’m just trying to understand where he’s coming from. It is a bizarre but well planned sermon. To spend that much time on an illustration about people he knows and leave the homosexuality issue hanging is cause for grave concern. Would you do that?

Anyway, you can see the reference I made to Stanley saying unbelievers should have a role in ministry comes from this review of his book at 9 Marks. I hope that is sufficient substantiation.

For example, in explaining the importance of inviting people to church, he writes on page 2: “Believers are responsible for leveraging their relational influence for the sake of the kingdom of God. That’s the part they can do that we—the church—can’t.” They, the believers—we, the church. Biblically, though, the believers are the church, and the church is the assembly of believers. Later, on page 77, he explains that he does not require members of his Welcome Teams to be believers. The defense is that “for many seekers, community is the door to conversion.” That certainly may be, but does that community really have to be found in the group of people who welcomes others to your church meetings? Seems to me you’d want the first faces that newcomers see at your church to be genuinely converted Christians who are excited to be serving their Lord! There are other ways to give “seekers” a community that doesn’t put them in a position of representing the church.

http://www.9marks.org/books/book-review-can-we-do-andy-stanley-and-ed-y…

These are the actual words Pastor Stanley spoke at the end of his message to/about unbelievers.

He said he wants everyone from every walk of life to know, “God says, ‘Yes you’ve sinned and I paid for it. And you’re not condemned and I love you.’ And if you don’t get that from reading words on a page, then perhaps when you go to My body you will sense grace and truth in such a redemptive way that it will change your life forever.”

That’s it. He does use the word “sin” in general terms. Certainly in this message, at least, repentance and faith are absent. It’s not hard to understand why Mohler and others find this disconserting. I do.

i understood your comment (“…does he actually preach the New Testament Gospel?”) as a rhetorical question, meaning stanley was a heretic in the sense of preaching another gospel (gal1:6-9). maybe that’s not actually what you meant.

would i spend that much time on this story without taking 30 seconds to clearly include the homosexual part of the situation in the sin problem? no, but i’m inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt on serious charges until they clearly say something. before i wrote a piece like mohler’s, i would have definitely contacted stanley for clarification on the issue.

anyway, this is the first time i’d ever heard anything from stanley, and it might be the last. but, i think by pointing out the adultery angle, he was saying that this situation wasn’t even about some theological disagreement about the sinfulness of the situation. i think he picked the weirdest family situation he had encountered not to say that it was a good situation, but to say that grace should be extended even in the situations that make us uncomfortable. when i listen to minutes 34–37, i think he’s making it clear that he doesn’t discount sin as being ok.

How do you know he didnt contact Stanley? But regardless, there’s no need to contact someone privately to comment on something they have said or written publicly.

how about we just call it how it is. this guy is a false teacher. no need to complicate things so much trying to define the situation.

Some time ago I listened to the 1st sermon in a series by Stanley.

He spoke for 50 minutes and it wasn’t until near the 45 minute mark that he referenced the text of scripture. He mentioned an OT story but provided no book or chapter for the story.

Then in the last few minutes of his “speech” he referenced the scripture for the 2nd time. He quoted a verse (out of it’s context) and mentioned the NT book, but again gave no chapter or verse. I didn’t bother to listen to the rest of the series.

Not a big fan of Andy Stanley. He did make a statement that people should wait for the concluding sermon before making assumptions. I hope he clarifies for the sake of his congregation. Let’s just say I give it less than a 50/50 chance of there being a good clarification.

That said: folks, don’t leave people hanging in a sermon series. Each sermon should be self-contained enough so someone doesn’t leave confused if they don’t make it back.

For what it’s worth, I asked this question of a Northpoint member in an online discussion:

Maybe you can answer this question for us: does North Point receive practicing, unrepentant homosexuals as members? The answer to that will clear up a lot of concerns.

This was the answer I received:

Northpoint doesn’t ask anyone to list the sins they commit and/or struggle with when they seek membership in the church. They require that you accept Christ as your Savior and receive Him as your personal Lord, and follow that decision with obedience to Him; however, every single person, including Andy, is a sinner and will fall short. In essence, we seek to be obedient but will never be entirely successful. Everyone must work out their own faith and each person is at a different place in their relationship with God. We are all hesitant to repent from a particular sin in our lives, no matter what it might be, and this is an issue we must take up with our Lord and look to Him to provide forgiveness and restoration. Sometimes it takes people longer than others to admit what they’re doing is wrong. So does Northpoint allow unrepentant homosexuals to be members? Yes. The same as it allows unrepentant gossips, liars, and cheats. We are here to love in grace and truth and help lead one another in the direction of obedience, but we can’t do that if all we’re looking for is the sin in someone’s life.

Emphasis is mine.

so in other words, they are saying “No, we don’t get involved in other people’s lives. Each person does whatever they want. We don’t want to judge.”

Ironic that they would say that they are there to love in grace and truth. Yet they are not proclaiming the truth if they do speak against homosexuality, and all other sexual immorality.