Theological Mechanisms and Sociological Pressures: Analyzing the Shift Toward LGBTQ Affirming Stances in Ex-Evangelical Contexts

Introduction: The Intersection of Missiology and Sociology in the Modern Church

In recent years, traditional evangelical institutions, denominations, and parachurch organizations have faced unprecedented pressure to revise their historical positions on human sexuality, gender identity, and marriage. While the broader cultural shift toward the affirmation of LGBTQ+ identities is well documented, the specific mechanisms by which historically orthodox, evangelical leaders and congregations have navigated this transition require granular analysis. This report investigates a highly specific and remarkably effective paradigm shift within the ex-evangelical and progressive Christian movements: the utilization of missiological “centered set” theory to justify the transition toward a pro-LGBTQ+ stance¹.

Simultaneously, this report examines the geographical and sociological contexts of the primary leaders driving this movement. By analyzing these shifts through the lens of H. Richard Niebuhr’s foundational sociological work, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, a clear pattern emerges⁵. The theological deployment of “centered set” ideology is consistently utilized in highly progressive, urban environments where evangelical organizations face the steepest sociological pressures to secularize⁷. In these contexts, centered set theory serves as a sophisticated theological mechanism to achieve what Niebuhr identified as the inevitable cultural accommodation of the middle-class church to its surrounding secular environment⁶.

For parachurch leaders—particularly those directing ministries like Young Life, InterVarsity, and various campus or urban organizations—holding to a traditional view of marriage and sexuality has never been more costly. Understanding the symbiotic relationship between this missiological language and urban sociological pressure is critical. It provides a predictive model for where and how traditional boundaries will be challenged next, allowing orthodox leaders to prepare for ideological incursions before they shatter the institutional foundations of their ministries.

The Missiological Foundations of Set Theory

To understand how the pro-LGBTQ+ movement has leveraged “centered set” theology, one must first examine the origin and intent of the concept. The terminology was introduced into Christian missiology in the late 1970s and popularized in the 1990s by the esteemed Mennonite missiologist and anthropologist Paul Hiebert, most notably in his work Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (1994)¹¹.

Hiebert borrowed concepts from mathematical set theory to solve a distinct missiological problem he encountered while serving as a missionary in India¹³. In a cross-cultural context dominated by Hindu and animist worldviews, Hiebert struggled to define and measure Christian conversion using traditional Western metrics¹³. He sought a paradigm that could differentiate between authentic adherence to Christ and the mere adoption of Western cultural boundary markers. To resolve this, Hiebert categorized groups into three distinct sets: Bounded, Fuzzy, and Centered¹¹. These categories were later popularized in Western church-planting circles by authors like Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch in The Shaping of Things to Come, and Mark D. Baker in Centered-Set Church¹⁵.

The Bounded Set: Fences and Intrinsic Boundaries

A bounded set is defined by intrinsic characteristics and a clear, static boundary line¹². Hiebert used the analogy of apples: an object is either an apple or it is not¹³. In a sociological or ecclesiological context, a bounded set defines its membership by essential, agreed-upon criteria—often doctrinal statements, behavioral codes, and ethical boundaries⁴. Those who meet the criteria are considered “in,” and those who do not are “out”⁴.

The organizational focus in a bounded set is heavily skewed toward boundary maintenance¹¹. Frost and Hirsch utilized the analogy of a farmer with a small ranch who builds fences to keep his cattle in and predators out¹⁶. For traditional evangelicalism, these fences have historically been defined by adherence to orthodox creeds and a commitment to biblical sexual ethics. However, critics of the bounded set argue that it inherently breeds judgmentalism, self-righteousness, and superficial unity based on shame and exclusion⁴.

The Fuzzy Set: The Erasure of Distinctiveness

A fuzzy set has no sharp boundaries and no stable point of reference¹¹. Categories flow into one another seamlessly, lacking any definable demarcation¹⁸. In an ecclesiological context, a fuzzy set represents absolute theological and moral relativism¹². There is no sharp distinction between a believer and a non-believer, and the group tolerates a limitless diversity of beliefs and practices without requiring alignment to any specific orthodoxy¹². In the fuzzy set, the boundary line is entirely removed, meaning there is no compelling motivation for spiritual maturation, repentance, or transformation⁴.

The Centered Set: Wells and Directional Orientation

The centered set, which Hiebert advocated for missiological contexts, removes the rigid boundary line of the bounded set but attempts to avoid the relativistic chaos of the fuzzy set¹¹. A centered set is defined entirely by an external reference point—the center—and the directional movement of individuals relative to that center⁴.

Using Frost and Hirsch’s pastoral analogy, a rancher with an immense property does not need to build miles of fencing to contain his cattle; instead, he digs a deep well in the center of the property¹². The cattle, driven by their need for water, will naturally remain oriented toward the well. In a centered set, the primary question is not whether an individual has crossed a behavioral boundary to become an “insider,” but rather whether they are oriented toward and moving closer to the center, defined as Jesus Christ¹². Everyone is seen as being on a journey; some may be far from the center but moving toward it, while others may be close to the center but facing away¹³.

The Original Intent Versus Modern Application

Hiebert’s centered set was intended to foster a dynamic, relational approach to discipleship and evangelism, emphasizing spiritual trajectory over static boundary maintenance¹¹. It allowed missionaries to view seekers, who had not yet abandoned all pagan practices, as part of the “centered set” if they were actively moving toward Christ¹³. It was never intended by Hiebert to abolish biblical ethics, redefine Christian anthropology, or suggest that continuous, willful sin was compatible with proximity to the center¹¹. Hiebert explicitly noted that well-formed centered sets still have sharp boundaries that naturally emerge between those moving toward the center and those who are not¹¹. However, the inherent flexibility of the paradigm—specifically its deliberate dismantling of rigid boundary lines in favor of subjective directional movement—created a framework highly susceptible to theological repurposing by progressive movements.

Paradigm	Boundary Maintenance	Definition of Belonging	Theological Posture
Bounded Set	High. Strict enforcement of doctrinal and ethical lines (Fences).	Determined by intrinsic adherence to orthodox beliefs and behaviors.	Traditional/Orthodox. Focus on defining who is “in” versus who is “out.”
Fuzzy Set	None. Complete absence of defining parameters.	Universal belonging. No requirement for directional movement.	Liberal/Universalist. Full affirmation based on moral relativism.
Centered Set	Low external boundary, high focus on the core (Wells).	Determined by self-reported direction/orientation toward a “Center.”	Relational/Missional. Everyone is on a journey toward or away from the center.

The Reappropriation of “Centered Set” for LGBTQ+ Affirmation

Over the past decade, the ex-evangelical and progressive Christian movements have systematically reappropriated Hiebert’s centered set paradigm. By detaching the concept from its original cross-cultural missiological context, progressive leaders have utilized it as the primary theological mechanism to dismantle traditional boundaries regarding human sexuality⁴.

For leaders seeking to transition their congregations or parachurch organizations toward an affirming stance, the centered set offers a brilliant rhetorical advantage. If a leader simply adopts a “fuzzy set” model, they are immediately identified as liberal or heterodox, triggering a rapid loss of evangelical funding, membership, and institutional support¹². The fuzzy set openly abandons the authority of Scripture. Conversely, the centered set allows leaders to retain evangelical vernacular. They can emphatically claim that “Jesus is the center,” that they are “gospel-focused,” and that they maintain a “high view of Scripture”². Yet, by replacing the bounded set with the centered set, they successfully reclassify historical sexual ethics from essential boundary markers to secondary, non-salvific matters of personal conscience¹.

The “Third Way” Movement and Strategic Ambiguity

The initial phase of utilizing centered set theology for LGBTQ+ affirmation often manifests as the “Third Way.” The Third Way purports to reject both the “extreme” of traditional exclusion and the “extreme” of progressive theological liberalism, proposing instead a grace-filled space where differing views on sexuality are equally accommodated².

A prime example of this mechanism is found in the work of Ken Wilson, a former Vineyard pastor in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who authored A Letter to My Congregation²⁵. Wilson explicitly utilized the centered set worldview over the bounded set to argue that the church should accept LGBTQ+ individuals into full membership and leadership without requiring adherence to historical sexual ethics²⁵. Wilson argued that traditional boundary maintenance caused immense psychological harm to LGBTQ+ individuals, thereby violating the “center” of Jesus’ love²⁵. By adopting the third way, Wilson granted permission for disagreement within the congregation, essentially transforming biblical sexual ethics into a “disputable matter”²⁶.

Following Wilson’s framework, Pastor Danny Cortez of New Heart Community Church in La Mirada, California, guided his Southern Baptist congregation into a Third Way stance after his son came out as gay²². Cortez effectively employed centered set logic, arguing that to maintain unity, the church must “give space to one another regarding our theological convictions” on sexuality²². In Cortez’s model, sexual ethics were no longer a boundary determining church leadership or participation; rather, the only requirement was a shared orientation toward the community’s center²². Cortez argued that a focus on unity through the creeds was more inviting than statements of faith, which divide²². While New Heart Community Church was ultimately expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention—a denomination that operates strictly as a bounded set—Cortez’s methodology became a blueprint for progressive entryism into evangelical spaces²².

By framing the debate as a choice between a harsh, exclusionary bounded set and a loving, Jesus-focused centered set, these leaders successfully shifted the theological Overton window. As progressive commentators have noted, the Third Way is not a permanent state of neutrality; it is a transitional mechanism. As one observer stated, “In the third way, ‘Gay is sin’ is no longer gospel truth,” which inevitably leads to the full normalization of LGBTQ+ relationships within the congregation²⁶.

Operationalizing the Centered Set in Local Congregations

The practical application of centered set theology to achieve full affirmation is perfectly illustrated by Anchor Bay Church. In explaining their posture toward LGBTQ+ inclusion, the church’s leadership explicitly cites their rejection of bounded sets: “At our church, we hold to a centered-set theology, rather than a bounded set, which means that our views toward many non-salvific issues like sexuality are as varied as the people in our church”¹. Anchor Bay insists that because the Bible is not “crystal clear” on these matters, their job is to learn and grow together without judgment, allowing for both “traditional” and “affirming” views to coexist within leadership¹.

However, by declaring sexuality a “non-salvific” issue and removing the boundary against same-sex relationships, the church functionally becomes affirming. The Q Christian Fellowship, a prominent advocacy group for LGBTQ+ Christians, leverages this exact language. They state that they recognize a broad range of relationships “to the extent that they align with our centered set of values on sexual ethics”³. By employing the term “centered set,” they signal a rejection of traditional boundaries while maintaining an aura of structured, value-driven spirituality that appeals to ex-evangelicals³.

Similarly, the “Better Together Project,” launched by congregations within the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), utilized this terminology to push back against the denomination’s traditional boundaries. After the CRC synod upheld traditional views on unchastity, the Better Together Project received a massive Lilly Endowment grant to build a “centered-set network” of churches that focus on the common mission of following Christ, rather than a “bounded-set” that defines who is in or out based on doctrines regarding same-sex relationships²¹. The rhetoric explicitly pits relational love for Jesus against doctrinal boundaries, rendering the orthodox position as inherently unloving²¹.

Institutional Adoption: Evangelical Higher Education

The use of centered set theology to navigate LGBTQ+ inclusion has not been limited to local congregations; it has heavily impacted evangelical higher education. In 2022, Seattle Pacific University (SPU) faced intense internal and external pressure to abandon its traditional lifestyle expectations, which prohibited the hiring of faculty in same-sex marriages²³. A university-commissioned LGBTQIA+ Work Group explicitly recommended a “Third Way” approach, deeply rooted in centered set theology, to resolve the crisis²³.

The Work Group advised the Board of Trustees to position the university as a “grace-filled learning community” that refrains from staking out a “closed” (bounded) position on sexuality, thereby allowing the employment of individuals in same-sex marriages²³. The Work Group argued that this centered set approach would allow the community to benefit from diverse Christian wisdom while maintaining an overarching commitment to the university’s mission²³. When the Free Methodist Church (FMC), SPU’s affiliating denomination, made it clear that changing the hiring policy would cross a definitive bounded-set line resulting in disaffiliation, the conflict reached a boiling point²³. The SPU Faculty Senate overwhelmingly voted to endorse the Third Way, demonstrating how centered set rhetoric had thoroughly captured the academic leadership, pitting them against the orthodox boundaries of their denomination²³.

The Urban Crucible: Geographic Contexts of the Affirming Movement

To fully grasp why centered set theology has been so eagerly adopted by certain segments of evangelicalism, one must map the geographic and sociological locations where these shifts are occurring. The leaders pioneering the ex-evangelical and pro-LGBTQ+ movements are not distributed evenly across the cultural landscape. They are overwhelmingly concentrated in highly progressive, urban, and post-Christian metropolitan centers.

The Geography of Deconstruction

A review of the key figures utilizing centered set and Third Way theology reveals a striking demographic pattern:

• Ryan Meeks (EastLake Community Church): Located in the greater Seattle, Washington area, one of the most secular and progressive regions in the United States³⁰.
• Seattle Pacific University (SPU): Also located in Seattle, facing immense pressure from progressive student bodies, local government anti-discrimination laws, and the surrounding Pacific Northwest cultural ethos²³.
• Danny Cortez (New Heart Community Church): Located in La Mirada, part of the greater Los Angeles, California metropolitan area, a global epicenter for progressive cultural values and media²⁴.
• Ken Wilson (Vineyard): Located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a deeply progressive university town dominated by the secular academic culture of the University of Michigan²⁶.
• Colby Martin (UnClobber): A leading progressive pastoral voice who has ministered in progressive urban centers like San Diego, California, and Austin, Texas³⁴.

These locations are not coincidental. They represent urban crucibles where the cultural cost of holding a traditional, bounded-set view of human sexuality is extraordinarily high. In these environments, traditional parachurch organizations, campus ministries, and local congregations face severe social stigma, accusations of bigotry, loss of access to civic or campus facilities, and the alienation of the upwardly mobile, educated demographics they seek to reach²³.

For an evangelical leader operating in Seattle, Austin, or Los Angeles, the daily friction between the traditional Christian sexual ethic and the dominant culture’s highest moral values is agonizing. The culture views the affirmation of LGBTQ+ identities not merely as a political issue, but as a fundamental matter of human rights and basic decency. Consequently, the traditional church is viewed not just as incorrect, but as actively harmful and morally regressive³³. Danny Cortez highlighted this exact friction, noting that in traditional churches, LGBTQ+ individuals are often barred from teaching Sunday school or taking leadership roles, which the progressive culture views as deeply discriminatory and harmful³³.

The Empathy Trigger: Head Versus Heart

In these progressive urban centers, the theological shift often begins as a psychological and emotional crisis for the leader. Colby Martin, in his influential book UnClobber, describes this transition as an agonizing battle between the “head” and the “heart”³⁴. Martin details how his conservative upbringing provided strict bounded-set theology (the head), but his personal interactions with LGBTQ+ individuals in progressive spaces generated deep empathy (the heart)³⁴. The tension between the desire to create an inclusive, welcoming space in an urban setting and the rigid demands of traditional orthodoxy became untenable³⁴. Martin’s ultimate conclusion—that traditional interpretations of the Bible lead to harmful actions against LGBTQ+ individuals—reflects the exact psychological mechanism that precedes the adoption of centered set theology³⁴. The leader must find a theological off-ramp that relieves the emotional dissonance without requiring an immediate admission of apostasy.

The Trajectory of Affirmation: The Case of Ryan Meeks

While the centered set is often presented as a stable resting point that preserves Christian orthodoxy while expanding inclusion, longitudinal observation of its primary architects reveals a different trajectory. In many cases, the dismantling of ethical boundaries acts as a catalyst for broader theological deconstruction.

The case of Ryan Meeks and EastLake Community Church in Seattle serves as a poignant, cautionary example for parachurch leaders³⁰. Meeks led his massive evangelical megachurch through a transition to full LGBTQ+ affirmation, initially framing the shift through the lens of radical inclusion and Jesus-centered grace³⁰. Meeks argued against the traditional boundary markers, playing a welcome video declaring, “Gay or straight here, there’s no hate here”³⁹. He stated, “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant… the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity”³¹.

However, once the bounded set of traditional exegesis and sexual ethics was removed, the center itself failed to hold. The relational, centered-set focus on “love” and “inclusion” quickly superseded any reliance on biblical authority. Over the following years, Meeks’ theological transition accelerated far beyond affirming same-sex marriage. He eventually deconstructed his Christian faith entirely, left the ministry, described EastLake as a “laboratory for unorthodox” exploration, and ultimately moved into the advocacy of psychedelic therapy and post-Christian spiritualities⁴⁰.

This trajectory highlights a profound sociological reality: When the centered set is removed from its original missiological purpose (bringing pagans into orthodox boundaries over time) and is instead used to dismantle the ethical boundaries of an already established church, it effectively functions as a slow-motion fuzzy set. The “center” (Jesus) becomes a highly subjective, malleable concept defined by the cultural ethos of the progressive city rather than the objective revelation of Scripture.

Leader / Institution	Geographic Location	Cultural Context	Theological Mechanism Utilized	Long-Term Outcome
Ryan Meeks (EastLake)	Seattle, WA	Highly secular, progressive urban center.	“Wide inclusivity” / removal of boundaries.	Transitioned to fully affirming; later deconstructed faith entirely to post-Christianity.
Seattle Pacific Univ.	Seattle, WA	Progressive academic environment; high social pressure.	“Third Way” / Centered-Set approach to hiring policies.	Institutional fracturing; profound conflict with traditional denomination (FMC).
Danny Cortez	Los Angeles, CA	Progressive metropolitan hub.	“Third Way” / removal of sexuality as a boundary marker.	Expelled from Southern Baptist Convention; church split.
Ken Wilson	Ann Arbor, MI	Progressive university town.	Centered Set explicitly championed over Bounded Set.	Affirmation of same-sex marriage; departure from traditional evangelicalism.
Colby Martin	Austin, TX / San Diego, CA	Progressive urban centers / technological hubs.	Elevation of empathy/heart over traditional exegesis (UnClobber).	Transition to progressive Christianity; advocates for fully inclusive theology.

H. Richard Niebuhr and the Sociology of Accommodation

The geographic correlation detailed above points to a much deeper sociological phenomenon, one famously articulated by the American theologian and sociologist H. Richard Niebuhr in his 1929 masterwork, The Social Sources of Denominationalism⁵. Niebuhr’s thesis provides the exact interpretive key needed to understand why centered set theology is being deployed by urban evangelical leaders today.

The Victory of the World Over the Church

Niebuhr argued that the division of Christianity into various denominations and theological camps was rarely driven by pure theological discovery or biblical exegesis. Instead, these divisions were sociologically driven, representing the “accommodation of religion to the caste system” of human society⁵. For Niebuhr, the shifting of theological stances to align with social classes, racial groups, or national identities represented the “secularization of Christianity” and the “victory of the world over the church”⁵.

In Niebuhr’s piercing analysis, churches routinely find the demands of the Gospel and the cross to be inexpedient when dealing with the pressures of the surrounding culture⁶. To survive and maintain prestige, institutions inevitably discover “convenient ambiguities in the letter of the Gospels” which enable them to adapt to the conditions of civilization without explicitly admitting defeat⁶. This “proneness toward compromise,” Niebuhr observed, characterizes the history of the church as it seeks to alleviate the tension between the radical demands of Christ and the necessities of civilized, social existence⁶.

Niebuhr warned that this process results in the “emasculation of the Christian ideal”⁶. However, he noted that this compromise is doubly evil because it is almost always unacknowledged⁶. Modern progressive leaders do not frame their shift toward affirmation as a capitulation to the culture; rather, they take pride in it as a higher moral achievement, masking the defeat of the essential gospel behind the language of expanded love and grace⁶.

The Sect-to-Church Typology and the Middle Class

A crucial component of Niebuhr’s analysis, drawing on the earlier work of Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch, is the “Sect-to-Church” typology¹⁰. In sociological terms, a “sect” is a religious group that maintains high tension with its surrounding environment⁸. Sects enforce strict boundaries, demand behavioral purity (functioning as bounded sets), and view themselves as distinct from the secular world⁸. Historically, sects are often comprised of the lower, disenfranchised, or marginalized classes who have little to lose in terms of societal prestige⁴⁴.

However, as the members of a sect achieve upward mobility, become educated, and transition into the middle or upper-middle class, their sociological needs radically change⁸. They no longer wish to be alienated from the dominant culture; they want their children to attend elite universities, and they seek respectability in professional environments. Consequently, the sect evolves into a “church”—an institution that seeks accommodation, lowers its tension with the secular environment, and relaxes its strict behavioral boundaries to achieve social harmony⁷.

The middle-class environment, particularly in progressive urban settings, heavily promotes this secularization⁷. According to Niebuhr, the psychology of the middle class dictates a religion that screens out the abrasive, exclusionary demands of strict orthodoxy in favor of personal kindliness, tolerance, and institutional philanthropy⁹. As Niebuhr pointed out, this results in the “religion of the successful,” which frequently amounts to a “sham spirituality” and a “cultivated blindness” that betrays the rigorous demands of the cross⁴⁷. Middle-class congregations strategically adjust their religious practices to ensure they are acceptable to relevant outsiders, systematically abandoning the “tension-related characteristics” that cause social friction and limit secular opportunities for their members⁸.

Applying Niebuhr to the Modern Parachurch Crisis

When applying Niebuhr’s sociological framework to the modern evangelical parachurch, the current crisis over human sexuality becomes entirely predictable.

For much of the 20th century, evangelicalism functioned sociologically as a sect—maintaining high tension with the secularizing world through strict boundary markers regarding biblical inerrancy, personal salvation, and traditional morality⁴⁴. However, as the evangelical movement grew immensely wealthy, educated, and heavily entrenched in urban middle-class and upper-middle-class environments (the exact demographics targeted and cultivated by groups like Young Life and InterVarsity), the social cost of maintaining “sect-like” high tension became unbearable for many of its leaders and constituents³⁶.

Today, the single greatest source of tension between the evangelical church and the secular, progressive urban culture is orthodox sexual ethics. To a highly educated, urban, middle-class congregation or campus ministry in Seattle or Los Angeles, holding a traditional view on LGBTQ+ issues results in extreme social stigmatization. It threatens their professional reputations, their access to secular institutions, their funding, and their self-image as benevolent, enlightened citizens⁸.

Therefore, according to Niebuhr’s pattern, these institutions are fated to undergo a process of accommodation⁶. They must find a way to abandon the tension-inducing boundary markers (traditional sexual ethics) in order to achieve peace and integration with their surrounding caste (progressive urbanites)⁶.

However, they cannot simply abandon the Bible entirely without losing their internal organizational identity. As Niebuhr noted, the church must discover “convenient ambiguities” to justify its compromise⁶. The institution needs a sophisticated theological mechanism to facilitate this sociological accommodation.

Sociological Characteristic	Sect Dynamics (Traditional Orthodoxy)	Church Dynamics (Accommodated / Affirming)
Cultural Tension	High. Willingness to endure social stigma for biblical fidelity.	Low. Strong desire for social respectability and cultural harmony.
Demographic Trend	Often historically marginalized, lower/working-class, or highly counter-cultural.	Educated, urban, upwardly mobile, middle-class to affluent.
Boundary Definition	Strict. Defined by intrinsic behaviors and historic theological creeds (Bounded Set).	Fluid. Defined by subjective values, empathy, and “directional” orientation (Centered Set).
Primary Danger	Legalism, isolationism, and loss of missional empathy.	Secularization, moral relativism, and the loss of distinct Christian witness.

The Synthesis: Centered Set as the Vehicle for Middle-Class Secularization

This brings the analysis to its most profound insight regarding the current ideological landscape: Centered set theology is the precise theological vehicle used to execute Niebuhrian sociological accommodation.

When urban evangelical leaders face crushing sociological pressure to conform to progressive sexual ethics, they require a framework that permits capitulation while maintaining a veneer of spiritual fidelity. Centered set theory, stripped of its cross-cultural missiological context, serves this exact purpose flawlessly.

By declaring that the church or the parachurch organization is now a “centered set,” the leader achieves two monumental sociological victories simultaneously:

1. Lowering Tension with the Secular Culture: By abolishing the bounded set, the organization no longer enforces exclusionary ethical boundaries regarding sexuality⁴. Same-sex couples can be welcomed into membership, leadership, and employment²⁰. The organization ceases to be a social pariah in the progressive city. It aligns with the middle-class values of tolerance, inclusion, and “personal kindliness,” effectively erasing the severe tension that plagued its members and leaders⁸.
2. Maintaining the Evangelical Identity: By retaining the language of the “center”—insisting that Jesus, the Gospel, and missional love remain the focus—the leader protects themselves against immediate accusations of theological liberalism¹². The vocabulary of the centered set sounds deeply spiritual, highly academic, and inherently graceful¹¹. It brilliantly masks the reality of secularization behind the language of missiology.

This synthesis explains why the centered set is disproportionately championed by educated, urban pastors and parachurch leaders³⁰. The tension Colby Martin describes between his traditional “head” and his empathetic “heart” is the visceral, psychological experience of Niebuhrian sociological tension³⁴. Martin’s resolution of this tension—seeking inclusive spaces while attempting to hold onto faith—is the quintessential middle-class accommodation³⁴. The “heart” (the sociological desire for harmony with neighbors and culture) ultimately overrides the “head” (the bounded-set constraints of Scripture)³⁴.

The Third Way and the centered-set approach to sexual ethics are championed by the progressive movement as a brilliant, grace-filled achievement—a higher, more enlightened way to practice Christianity². However, as Niebuhr’s sociological lens reveals, it is ultimately a defeat⁶. It is not a triumph of biblical exegesis, but rather the surrender of the church’s unique ethical witness to the overwhelming cultural power of the progressive, secular caste⁶.

Strategic Conclusions for Evangelical Parachurch Leaders

The analysis of the ex-evangelical and pro-LGBTQ+ movement yields vital insights for parachurch leaders committed to a traditional, historical view of marriage, sexuality, and gender identity.

First, leaders must recognize that the push toward LGBTQ+ affirmation within their ranks is rarely driven by sudden breakthroughs in biblical exegesis. Rather, it is fundamentally a sociological phenomenon. It is driven by the crushing weight of cultural tension experienced by staff, volunteers, and students operating in highly progressive, urban, and academic environments. The desire to adopt an affirming stance is, at its core, a Niebuhrian desire to reduce tension and achieve accommodation with the dominant cultural caste.

Second, traditional leaders must be deeply vigilant regarding the theological vocabulary utilized within their organizations. The concept of the “centered set,” while originally a valid and highly useful missiological tool for assessing cross-cultural conversion in foreign contexts, has been thoroughly weaponized in the West. When staff members, board members, or regional leaders begin utilizing centered set or “Third Way” terminology specifically to address internal policies on human sexuality, it must be recognized for what it functionally is: a sophisticated mechanism designed to dismantle orthodox boundaries without appearing to do so.

Parachurch organizations operating on secular university campuses or in urban centers will inevitably face the temptation to secularize to preserve access, funding, and prestige. To survive this pressure, traditional organizations must consciously resist the middle-class impulse to trade the offense of the cross for cultural respectability. They must reclaim the validity of the bounded set regarding ethical orthodoxy, clearly defining the behavioral markers of Christian discipleship, while simultaneously cultivating a culture of immense grace, hospitality, and pastoral care for those struggling within those boundaries.

True Christian mission does not require the abolition of ethical boundaries to achieve cultural relevance; it requires the courage to maintain those boundaries while inviting a fractured world to cross them.

This report was generated by Google Gemini Deep Research using the prompt: “Conduct research on 1. how the ex-evangelical, pro-LGBTQ movement has utilized the concept of centered set to justify their switch to a pro-LGBTQ stance. 2. how many of the leaders of this movement were in highly progressive cities and contexts where there were the strongest pressures to secularize and how their shift in stance follows the secularization pattern was explained by H. Richard Niebuhr in his book The Social Sources of Denominationalism. You are writing for an evangelical audience of parachurch leaders that holds a traditional view towards marriage, sexuality and gender identity.” It was reviewed by Dr. Andrew Sears for accuracy.

Works cited

1. What is Anchor Bay Church’s Posture toward LGBTQ Inclusion?, https://www.anchorbaychurch.org/blog-1/lgbtqia
2. Information Pages — Anchor Bay Church, https://www.anchorbaychurch.org/blog-1
3. FAQ – Q Christian Fellowship, https://www.qchristian.org/faq
4. The Centered Set Church, https://www.cornerstonewestchester.com/post/the-centered-set-church
5. H. Richard Niebuhr – Wikiquote, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._Richard_Niebuhr
6. The Social Forces of Denominationalism – Justice of God, https://justiceofgod.com/2022/01/22/the-social-forces-of-denominationalism/
7. Religion and Class in America: Culture, History, and Politics – Brill, https://brill.com/downloadpdf/edcollbook/title/14585.pdf
8. When Sects Become Middle Class: Impression Management among, https://academic.oup.com/socrel/article-pdf/78/3/318/20627042/srx030.pdf
9. Secularization and Its Discontents 9781472549341 … – dokumen.pub, https://dokumen.pub/secularization-and-its-discontents-9781472549341-9781441155436-9781441127853.html
10. MEGA-CHURCH OR MEGA-SECT – DASH (Harvard), https://dash.harvard.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/72e848a0-83d1-4309-bac3-89411d77d78b/content
11. How do we decide whether someone is a Christian?, https://sendublog.com/2018/01/22/how-do-we-decide-whether-someone-is-a-christian/
12. A Centered-Set Or A Confessional Church? | The Heidelblog, https://heidelblog.net/2024/10/a-centered-set-or-a-confessional-church/
13. Communicating Jacques Ellul’s Thought Using Paul Hiebert’s, https://nathan-hunt-vnvd.squarespace.com/s/Ellul-Hiebert-paper-for-website.pdf
14. A Centered-Set Paradigm for Being Church – Direction Journal, https://directionjournal.org/54/1/centered-set-paradigm.html
15. Are you bounded, fuzzy or centered? – Anabaptist World, https://anabaptistworld.org/are-you-bounded-fuzzy-or-centered/
16. GUEST~POST: Centered-Set Thinking – Note 2.0, https://reimaginenetwork.ning.com/notes/guest-post-centered-set-thinking
17. Bounded Set vs. Centered Set Thinking – Veritas, https://veritas.community/past-sermons/2013/03/13/bounded-set-vs-centered-set-thinking
18. Bellwethers of a New American Christianity? Sallie McFague, Rob, https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2019/11/20/bellwethers/
19. A Centered-Set View of Christian Missions, https://munsonmissions.org/2023/06/16/a-centered-set-view-of-christian-missions/
20. Welcoming, Inclusive, or Affirming? – Q Christian Fellowship, https://www.qchristian.org/blog/welcoming-inclusive-or-affirming
21. Project Seeks Collaborative Cohorts to Work Across Differences, https://www.thebanner.org/news/2024/03/project-seeks-collaborative-cohorts-to-work-across-differences
22. Pastor Danny Cortez on the aftermath of becoming LGBT affirming, https://religionnews.com/2014/11/13/pastor-danny-cortez-aftermath-becoming-lgbt-affirming-dismissed-sbc/
23. The Third Way – SPU Faculty Action, https://scholars.spu.edu/spufacultyaction/the-third-way/
24. Baptist Briefs: California convention expels ‘Third Way’ church, https://baptiststandard.com/news/baptists/baptist-briefs-california-convention-expels-third-way-church/
25. Potential Worldview and Behavioral Transformation within the, https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=dmin
26. To Gay-Affirming Christians Who Dismiss The “Third Way” – Patheos, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2014/10/to-gay-affirming-christians-who-dismiss-the-third-way/
27. Pro-gay pastor attends White House event – Biblical Recorder, https://www.brnow.org/news/Pro-gay-pastor-attends-White-House-event/
28. Southern Baptists confront a ‘third way’ on homosexuality and sin, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/06/09/southern-baptists-confront-a-third-way-on-homosexuality-and-sin/
29. What I Learned from the Better Together Convening of Concerned, https://reformedjournal.com/2024/10/21/what-i-learned-from-the-better-together-convening-of-concerned-congregations/
30. MidrashNYC posting – FOREFRONT CHURCH, https://www.forefrontnyc.com/midrashnycposting
31. Seattle’s Most Influential People of 2015, https://seattlemag.com/love-and-wisdom/seattles-most-influential-people-2015/
32. The Ironic Charisma of Irreligious Megachurch | PDF | Evangelicalism, https://www.scribd.com/document/742260661/Advancing-Studies-in-Religion-6-Peter-J-Schuurman-The-Subversive-Evangelical-The-Ironic-Charisma-of-an-Irreligious-Megachurch-McGill-Queen-s-Un
33. Third-way pastor says most churches unsafe for LGBT individuals, https://baptistnews.com/article/third-way-pastor-says-most-churches-unsafe-for-lgbt-individuals/
34. Unclobber Chapter Summary | Colby Martin – Bookey, https://www.bookey.app/book/unclobber
35. Colby Martin, https://www.colbymartinonline.com/
36. The Handbook of Religion and Communication 1119671604, https://dokumen.pub/the-handbook-of-religion-and-communication-1119671604-9781119671602.html
37. InterVarsity’s “A Theological Summary on Human Sexuality” – vialogue, https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/intervarsitys-a-theological-summary-on-human-sexuality-critique-and-commentary/
38. Intrepid Storytelling | My Podcast Data, https://www.mypodcastdata.com/podcast/show/intrepid-storytelling-intrepidstorytelling-gZ4qvfDb
39. February 2015 – THINKING OUT LOUD – jasonbwatson, https://jasonbwatson.com/2015/02/
40. Generation Greta: Too Afraid To Live – The American Conservative, https://www.theamericanconservative.com/generation-greta-too-afraid-to-live-ryan-meeks-religion-orthodoxy-climate-change/
41. Curious with Jake Heilbrunn – Apple Podcasts, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/curious-with-jake-heilbrunn/id1479197026
42. A Biblical Direction Submitted to Dr. David L. Kitch – Scholars Crossing, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4717&context=doctoral
43. CQOD—Niebuhr: the sociology of denominations, https://www.cqod.com/index-09-10-16.html
44. (PDF) Social Class – ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301801173_Social_Class
45. U.S. White Catholic Church Attendance in the Late 20th Century, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=sociologyfacpub
46. Between Pentecostalism and the Crisis of Denominationalism, by, https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-5-between-pentecostalism-and-the-crisis-of-denominationalism-by-paul-freston/
47. The Spiritual and Cultural Ethos of Unitarian Universalism, https://www.uua.org/leaderlab/learning-center/governance/polity/spiritual-cultural-ethos