The Quieter Middle Space (and Other Lies)

The myth of neutrality goes down to Georgia.

Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

Introduction

By the time you read this, the doors of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia will have already opened to begin registration for a conference that has sent shockwaves through evangelicalism. Known as the Unconditional Conference, the event will be held just outside of Atlanta over the next two days at North Point, otherwise known as home to influential evangelical pastor Andy Stanley. The conference is currently sold out and will not be selling tickets at the door, according to the event website. I’ll let the event byline speak for itself regarding what the organizers hope to accomplish:

YOU’RE INVITED to the Unconditional Conference. This two-day premier event is for parents of LGBTQ+ children and for ministry leaders looking to discover ways to support parents and LGBTQ+ children in their churches. You will be equipped, refreshed, and inspired as you hear from leading communicators on topics that speak to your heart, soul, and mind. We deeply desire this time will bring about healing and restoration. No matter what theological stance you hold, we invite you to listen, reflect, and learn as we approach this topic from the quieter middle space.

I recently became aware of this event when I stumbled across an article published in WORLD Opinions last week entitled “The train is leaving the station,” written by Al Mohler. The article’s subheading calls out Stanley’s “departure from biblical Christianity” and pulls no punches in its critique of the conference, along with Stanley himself. Amid several points of consternation, it’s the final phrase in the above description that Mohler identifies as particularly problematic. Despite the language of neutrality used in the promotional material, Mohler identifies no fewer than two of the invited speakers who are in committed same-sex marriages, with a third openly claiming the church has been historically wrong on matters pertaining to sexual morality. Whatever your opinions on these two issues, Mohler’s point is the act of platforming such individuals in an ostensibly neutral discussion is an unavoidably partisan decision, absent a clear and direct refutation from the organizers, a clarification which has yet to surface.

After reading through the Mohler article, I wanted to know more about the situation and googled Andy Stanley’s name, hoping someone else would have picked up the story as well. The first article listed under the Google News tab was titled “Al Mohler vs. Andy Stanley: What’s really going on?” written by Mark Wingfield. Mr. Wingfield bills himself as “a pastor, writer, speaker and creative” whose article is buoyed by his claim that he counts the event organizers as personal friends of his. Wingfield’s article is instructive in identifying the marked difference in tone and scope between the two ideologies represented by Mohler and himself, and the rest of what I write here will address both how that difference is indicative of the many challenges facing the church today and what we must affirm as believers as we navigate a strange new world.

Congratulations, You’re a Sponsor

The Wingfield article strikes an intentionally antithetical tone to Mohler’s article and challenges Mohler directly, opening the article by referring to him and those who think along the same lines pejoratively as “the ultra-conservative Calvinist complementarian crowd.¹” While Mohler’s critiques are limited to the unbiblical nature of the stances being taken (a strictly intellectual criticism), Wingfield’s article is colored with accusations of arrogance, meanness, bigotry and fear-mongering, all of which qualify as emotional criticisms. Towards the end of his article, Wingfield lists several points regarding “what you need to know” about this conference that amount to a justification for the event by identifying points he feels Mohler either misses or misrepresents. However, in his attempt to reveal Mohler as both unkind and unwise, Wingfield deploys logic that fails to hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. To demonstrate this, I’ve listed Wingfield’s points of refutation below, with my responses in bold following each point.

• “Andy Stanley didn’t plan or promote the conference. It is the work of the McDonalds, who are faithful members at North Point Church. They believe the idea came to them from the Lord.” Me: Even if he was not asked to be a keynote speaker at this event, given his position as the senior pastor at North Point, the degree to which Stanley was involved in the planning process is very much beside the point here.

• “Andy Stanley didn’t ask to speak at the conference. He was invited by the McDonalds — after the event location had been booked. And what he’s been asked to speak about is not a topic that’s likely to generate new heat. So his critics ought to wait and see before they criticize.” Me: But he did agree to speak, did he not? And anyway, the idea that Stanley would repudiate guests he permitted to be invited on his stage at a conference where he was invited to speak when he has the floor borders on the ridiculous. Of course he’s going to back them; to do otherwise would be the very definition of inhospitable. Asking people to “wait and see” here is mere foolishness.

• “North Point Church isn’t “sponsoring” the event. The church is merely the site of the conference put on by Embracing the Journey, which is solely responsible for paying the bills and taking the heat.” Me: If it’s happening in your house, and you permit it, then congratulations, you’re a sponsor.

• “The conference speakers do not represent anything close to the extreme of LGBTQ advocacy. Every one of them embraces orthodox Christianity by any measure other than the view of Mohler & Co.” Me: But now we’re just debating who gets to define “extreme LGBTQ advocacy” and “orthodox Christianity.” The speakers can claim orthodoxy all they want, but the stands they are publicly known for taking (both personally and professionally) are anything but.

• “The point of the conference, its reason for being, is “to support parents and LGBTQ+ children in their churches.” Me: Or, read another way, people who genuinely believe they have good intentions should be allowed to do whatever they want and call it the will of God for their lives. What could go wrong?

I encourage you to read both articles for yourself, if only because the tonal difference is stark and presents a good example of one of the major fault lines we can see impacting the church today. Both are linked above in the opening paragraphs.

Conditions of Low Visibility

The greatest indictment against Stanley here is not his misplaced hospitality, but rather his chronic ambiguity. For his part, Mohler suggests that Stanley “has been moving in this direction for years, often by suggestion and assertion but clouded by confusion and the deliberate avoidance of clarity.” He goes on point out several statements made by Stanley over the past decade that I confess I was not familiar with prior to this writing, but cannot deny are deeply concerning as it pertains to historical biblical orthodoxy. When considering Stanley’s widespread appeal and notoriety within evangelicalism, that concern is all the more magnified.

To be less than clear on the issue of human personhood and sexual morality can create the impression that those issues are not very important to begin with, at least as it applies to the problem of sin and repentance. As Neil Shenvi said recently, we run the risk that others will wrongly assume such errors are not serious, or are not even errors. Stanley implicates himself in this when he makes statements like “If your theology gets in the way of ministry—like if there’s somebody you can’t minister to because of your theology—you have the wrong theology." To split off theology from missiology in this way is a category error. “Ministering to people” is impossible without the theology required to bring clarity to their fallenness. Otherwise we have nothing to offer them but our pity.

Theologian J. Gresham Machen once referred to the liberal theological tactic of operating under “conditions of low visibility,” deploying ambiguous language and avoiding definitive stances as a means of appealing to the sympathies of unbelievers while still claiming good fellowship with the body of Christ. If a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, in this case the chaser is a cocktail of half-truths, thoughtless platitudes, and therapeutic sympathies. For Machen, he perceived that many saw that lack of clarity as a feature, not a bug. The ambiguity allowed for a less offensive gospel, one that modernized Christianity to be more in step with the times and required fewer apologies in the public square. Sadly, this appears to be the direction Stanley is moving in.

The Myth of Neutrality

Mohler makes a point here that bears both repeating and emphasizing: despite the best efforts of those who wish to avoid offense, there simply can be no neutrality here. What we are discussing is ultimately a clash between the supremacy of God as revealed in His Word and the supremacy of us as revealed in our own experiences. We can stand in opposition to His good design for humanity, but try as we might, we cannot serve two masters.

Each word in the phrase “quieter middle space” is designed to communicate an abdication of judgment, a zone specifically crafted to discuss the issue at hand in what is considered to be its purest state, as if the only real way to engage it is apart from the trappings of theology and bias. The truth is this would be a great and glorious thing to aspire to if we did not already have the Word of God, which illuminates our broken hearts by being a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. Thus the phrase has every intention of being warm and accepting, but is nonetheless inescapably disingenuous.

The reason neutrality is impossible is because inevitably our presuppositions about the world will work their way into our expressions. This is not necessarily malevolent, but rather the unavoidable reality of being human. A conversation that takes no sides will inherently lean in the direction of whatever is the most agreeable, acceptable position for all parties involved. And because the human heart is deceitful and curved in on itself, we can always count on our hearts being prone to wander. We must remember that a biblical worldview is not an obstacle to be overcome in order to “love others.” Rather, a disciplined theology provides the anchor, in tandem with faith, that tethers us to the Rock of Truth.

Final Thoughts

I’m curious to see what news comes out of this conference in the days to come, particularly what is shared by the keynote speakers. To be sure, parents of LGBTQ+ children and ministry leaders are in desperate need of direction and clarity on how to engage this issue. That this conference not only exists, but has sold out, speaks to how urgent that need is, both for the body of Christ and for our world. But we must bring them the risen Jesus, not a new set of moral ideas. Our gospel is not simply a what or a how, but a who. When Jesus takes up residence in our lives, we are transformed by the renewing of our minds. Only then will we come to know God’s good, pleasing and perfect will for our lives. In Him we truly live and move and have our being.

My sincere prayer is that those who attend the conference will receive mercy and find grace to help in their time of need. But I also pray that they would receive the clarity they need to engage their loved ones with the life-giving words of Almighty God rather than a kind of ham-handed affirmation. As the hymn declares, all other ground is sinking sand.

1. As an aside, Wingfield’s choice of words here is a perfect example of an attempt to irrationalize an unemotional critique by spiking it with inflammatory language. For more on how language is deployed in the service of making traditional religious thinking appear absurd, see Jeff Caldwell’s article from a few weeks back.