One of the largest US mega-churches, led by Andy Stanley, one of the most influential US pastors, broke Christian internet recently when they held the "Unconditional Conference". The conference was promoted as not focussing on the theological LGBTQ affirming vs non-affirming debate, but rather focussing on equipping parents to better love and care for their LGBTQ children. It claimed theological neutrality and that parents would benefit regardless of which side they were on in the debate. Although on the surface that seems harmless enough, a number of the speakers were LGBTQ-affirming and a couple were even in same-sex relationships themselves, plus there were affirming books being sold in the lobby.
All of this got Christians in an uproar about Stanley being affirming and trying to covertly smuggle affirming theology into evangelicalism. Various bloggers, YouTubers, and podcasters have shared their reactions to the ordeal, most of which have not been surprising reactions. Affirming people were pleased and non-affirming people were critical.
What I was surprised and honestly disappointed by was the refrain that kept popping up from conservative folks that this is "not an agree to disagree issue".
It's a little bit vague what they meant by that, but it's something in the realm of "LGBTQ-affirmation is irreconcilable with Christian belief" or even "real Christians cannot be LGBTQ-affirming". This sort of thing has been said by Sean McDowell, Preston Sprinkle, and Sam Allberry. These men are not extreme irrational fundamentalists; each of them from what I have seen are smart, reasonable, and kind people and I respect their opinion on a number of issues.
The Three Levels of the Issue
Before I continue let's pause and get really clear about three related but distinct levels of this issue. There's at least three:
In this blog post I'm zooming in on Conversation #3 and not weighing in on Conversation #1 or #2. Let me repeat: nothing I say in this blog post is meant to comment on Conversation #1. My focus here is entirely on #3. It's important we keep that really clear in our minds because discussions that happen at level #3 often slip into level #1 conversations without even realizing it. Conversation #3 is an important conversation in its own right, regardless of where you fall on the #1 debate.
Theological Triage
To dive right into it, the first thing that we need to do is clarify what is meant by "agree to disagree" issues. It's honestly not a helpful phrase because people can mean different things by it. Here's where the concept of "theological triage" becomes helpful. Similar to how hospitals need to be able to differentiate how urgent certain medical needs are to know how to prioritize them, in theological conversations like this we need to be able to differentiate how "urgent" different issues are. Whether Jesus existed is a more important issue than how many angels can fit on the end of a needle, for example.
Different people make different categories, but for our purposes we can make three categories:
Essential beliefs. These are the beliefs that make up the essence, core, or DNA of Christianity. Change one of them and you don't have Christianity anymore. Stray outside the bounds of them and you are outside the bounds of Christianity. I know more progressive-leaning Christians may be uncomfortable with this concept, wondering why such strict boundary lines need to be drawn at all, but from my perspective it's just a fact that the bible and through all of church history there are certain non-negotiables of the faith.
Important beliefs. These beliefs are significant. What perspective you take on them will have a notable effect on how you or your church thinks/behaves. Congregations or denominations will often split over these types of issues, which, while not always necessary, is mostly understandable. For example, take the issue of women in leadership. It would be hard to maintain a congregation in which half the people believe women can be church leaders and half the people believe they can't. The key about these beliefs, however, is that they are not essential. Christians can disagree—even passionately disagree—over them and still be Christian.
Opinion or Uncertain Beliefs. These are basically those things in the bible or in the Christian faith that Christians disagree about and it makes less of a practical, noticeable difference which perspective you take. In some cases we can guess at answers but have to just admit we aren't sure. While debate can and does still happen over issues at this level, they would tend to be less passionate or impactful.
The key is to identify the right beliefs into the right category of importance. If you consider too many of your beliefs to be essential then you drift towards the extreme of fundamentalism. On the flip side, if you consider too many Christian beliefs to be mere opinion, then you drift towards the extreme of theological liberalism. The truth is found in proper balance.
Ok, so having established the three categories, the question for this discussion is whether LGBTQ is an essential belief or an important belief.
I think we can all agree it is at least important. What side your congregation takes will have significant practical consequences. In some of the reactions to the Unconditional Conference I heard people say that we can't treat this as an "agree to disagree" issue because the bible treats sexuality as important. But I think that's missing the point because we all agree this is an important issue that people understandably have passionate opinions about.
The real question is whether it is essential. If you get this wrong do you stop being a Christian? Is the traditional view of marriage, for example, as being between one man and one woman core, central, and part of the DNA of the Christian faith?
The Apostles' Creed
Here's where the evangelical community has done us a bit of a disservice because it has severed our connection to and familiarity with church tradition. In Evangelicalism's right desire to uphold biblical authority they have been neglectful or even outright suspicious of any church tradition. But this is a shame because church tradition at its best is meant to enhance our understanding of the bible and provide some guardrails for how we interpret it.
So much could be said on this topic, but to get straight to the point, just a few hundred years after Jesus the Christian Church formulated creeds (most notably the Apostles Creed) to succinctly lay out the essential Christian beliefs. One reason the Apostles Creed is so valuable is that every legitimate Christian community and denomination throughout all time and across the whole world has held the beliefs it lays out.
Additionally, in his book The King Jesus Gospel, biblical scholar Scot McKnight traces many of the key beliefs outlined in the Apostles Creed all the way back to what Paul wrote in the first century in 1 Corinthians 15. In 1 Cor 15 Paul explicitly says that the teaching he is about to lay out is "of first importance" (verse 3). In other words, these are the types of things that are essential to Christianity. Then Paul goes on to talk about things like Jesus' death, resurrection, and how the cross saved us from our sins. McKnight then shows how what Paul says there is the core of what came to be known in the early church (ie within the first 200 years) as the "rule of faith". Early Christian giants like Irenaeus and Tertullian speak of the importance of Christians holding to this "rule of faith" because it has been believed by Christians everywhere and always. And the content of their rule of faith is substantially similar to 1 Cor 15 in the first century and the Apostles Creed in the fourth century.
Let's bring these threads together by playing a game of "which of these things is not like the others":
God created everything
The Trinity
Jesus is God
Jesus was born, suffered, died, rose again, and ascended to heaven
Jesus will come again someday
The Holy Spirit
Salvation from sin
Same-sex marriage
Ok, I'm being a bit cheeky but the point is I just do not see how the LGBTQ issue is on the same level as the beliefs covered in the Apostles' Creed. Some of the conservative critics I read tried to smuggle the traditional view of marriage into the "essential beliefs" category by pointing to Ephesians 5 which says that marriage between a husband and wife is a reflection of the love between Jesus and the Church. Honestly that just seems like a stretch to me. Yes, it might be something that points to the gospel but that doesn't make it the gospel itself.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Inheriting the Kingdom
To me, the more persuasive argument I came across on this issue is pointing to verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which says that "men who have sex with men" won't "inherit the kingdom of God". This specific argument isn't so much asking "Is the LGBTQ issue an essential Christian belief?" but rather "Is there a chance people in same-sex relationships won't be saved?". This verse, if the theological conservatives are interpreting it correctly, is essentially saying that people in same-sex relationships won't be saved! That is a serious matter, without a doubt.
But even still I have two responses. Firstly, in that same exact passage Paul also lists some other types of people that won't "inherit the kingdom of God", and that list includes the greedy! Surely most of us who live in developed countries are guilty of greed on a regular basis. I know that brings up a whole separate discussion that I don't mean to fully get into right now, but the simple fact that we continue accumulating an overabundance of wealth and possessions when there are millions of people starving sounds like greed. And we justify it to ourselves and have made it into a lifestyle! My point is not to judge (because I'm guilty myself), but rather to point out that I don't see the people up in arms about the LGBTQ issue equally worried about the eternal fates of the rest of us struggling with greed.
And secondly, I think the question comes down to what kind of God you believe in.
I believe in a God who judges fairly because he takes all the relevant facts into account, and he judges people based on the "cards they were dealt," ie the circumstances and information they were given. So, imagine this hypothetical situation with me. Imagine a Christian teen who realizes they are attracted to the same sex. They love God and want to obey Him, so they commit to a season of discerning. They sincerely look at what the bible says, they gather information on the issue from books and podcasts, they ask wise Christians in their community for advice, and they pray fervently for God's guidance on the issue. And then let's say after thoroughly going through that process they conclude that God does in fact bless same-sex relationships. Their conscience is truly and sincerely at peace on the issue and they feel right with God about it. And then let's say, for the sake of argument, they die and it turns out God does not bless same-sex relationships and actually calls it sin. I just cannot imagine God—who truly takes into account "the motives of the heart" (1 Cor 4:5)—damning such a person for eternity.
Don't misunderstand me: I am not saying we have permission to flippantly disregard biblical commands we don't like. I am talking about someone who sincerely and wholeheartedly weighs both sides of the debate and is subsequently convinced deep down that the LGBTQ-affirming position is correct and then lives accordingly. I believe that, in this imaginary thought experiment, God would show mercy to such a person. So this issue remains incredibly important, but I do not believe it is so core that we can start labelling people "non-Christian" because they disagree with our perspective on it.
Conclusion: Make Every Effort
I think that a lot of people today care more about the LGBTQ culture war debate than they do about church unity. I'm not suggesting we should care less about the LGBTQ question—we all agree how important the discussion is—but I am suggesting that church unity is at least as important an issue in the bible. Yes the bible is clear on the need for doctrinal accuracy, and yes the bible is clear on the importance of moral purity, but it is equally clear on the high value of church unity. Prioritizing each of those things will sometimes mean "living in the tension": the tension between beliefs that we passionately hold on the one hand and our desire to stay in loving relationship with our spiritual brothers and sisters on the other.
In Ephesians 4:3 Paul urges us to "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." At the pinnacle of Jesus' discussion with his disciples before he is killed, he confirms unity is a priority when he prays that the Father would make the disciples "one" just as he is one with the Father (John 17). Whole books of the bible like Philippians, Ephesians, Galatians, and Romans were written in large part to encourage church people to get along with each other and be united. Elsewhere I have argued that creating a spiritual family can be seen as the goal God is aiming for in the bible. We cannot let the current culture war overshadow this profound biblical priority of unity. We need to be able to strongly disagree with each other but do so with gentleness and respect, still calling each other "brother" and "sister" at the end of the day.