Andy Stanley

[Iconoclast]

http://www.dennyburk.com/andy-stanley-the-megachurch-and-homosexuality/

saw this on facebook....does not look good. WARNING...listening to this is sickening

listen at the 22-27 minute mark......can you believe this?????

This is an abomonation.Singing Christmas carols together???? 33-35 minute mark....he is clueless....indefensible

 

[12strings]

I just heard about this through Al Mohler's blog. I would hope Stanley will at least give some sort of response to the concerns people are raising. He should clearly state where he stands.

-Andy (not "stanley') :laugh:

 

[annsni]

I agree - I'd like to know more information because sometimes there is a focus to the story and while there is a lot more info there, it is not given because of the point that they want to make. I'm sure there will be a response to this soon.

 

[freeatlast]

Iconoclast, I would be interested in knowing what his father thinks of this. regardless that is so sad, :tear: I think this shows just how serious the trouble is that the church is in today. If this was some small church that only touched a few lives it would be bad enough, but our failure and compromising hearts have brought us to this. We need to pray as Daniel prayed asking God to forgive us for what we have done.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I saw this and then read about it on Mohler's blog. I am hoping that it was just an illustration gone terribly wrong but with no correction or clarification, it does seem bad.

All too often the mega churches are given a pass on theology because they "reach so many people". It's too bad because that is just an ends justifies the means. But, if this accurately portrays his beliefs, both the ends and the means are wrong.

 

[Amy.G]

Hey, this is great news! If you can't give or won't give up your sin, it's ok, "God loves you". If your sin has ripped lives apart, it's ok! God loves you!

:BangHead:

 

[webdog]

I'm wondering if either Mohler or iconoclast have reached out to Stanley in private first before publicly posting this, as is the biblical model.

It's also a sin to do what has been done by both Mohler and iconoclast. The irony from the blog is all the "if" and "it seems"...

 

[Jerome]

Another son of an SBC-President-megachurch-pastor brought up this issue last year:

Huffington Post 6/25/11 'Evangelicals and the New Wave of Gay Acceptance' by Jonathan Merritt

One of those he interviewed actually said the church has:

lied about the nature of homosexuality

and

practiced. . .a form of homophobia

 

[Amy.G]

I'm wondering if either Mohler or iconoclast have reached out to Stanley in private first before publicly posting this, as is the biblical model.

It's also a sin to do what has been done by both Mohler and iconoclast. The irony from the blog is all the "if" and "it seems"...

Andy Stanley recorded his message for the public to hear. Why don't you ask him?

 

[Van]

Any time we deviate from what we believe is the instruction of God, we commit adultery. God used the illustration of Gomer and his wife to illustrate the adultery of Israel.

And if we find fault with someone who nullifies this passage or that, but think it ok for us to nullify some other passage to fit our doctrine, what does that say about us.

The same nullification tools used to make God's condemnation of homosexual behavior to no effect have been used to ordain ladies, and push other doctrines that confict with the plain reading of the text.

 

[annsni]

I'm wondering if either Mohler or iconoclast have reached out to Stanley in private first before publicly posting this, as is the biblical model.

It's also a sin to do what has been done by both Mohler and iconoclast. The irony from the blog is all the "if" and "it seems"...

I don't believe that is correct. If one is personally offended then yes, it should be done in private. However this is not a personal offense but is the potential of false teaching. That should be dealt with in public since the teaching was public. I do agree that Stanley should be addressed and he needs to respond to what will be many questions and I'm sure he will. But I don't see these sorts of things as a Matthew 18 application.

 

[annsni]

Here is a good article discussing the issue of Matthew 18 and public debate:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/03/four-reasons-why-public-critiq.php

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm wondering if either Mohler or iconoclast have reached out to Stanley in private first before publicly posting this, as is the biblical model.

It's also a sin to do what has been done by both Mohler and iconoclast. The irony from the blog is all the "if" and "it seems"...

This is a public message,broadcast by the church....This is as repulsive as Joel Osteen on Larry King......denying Jesus is the only way.
I am not a member of that local church,or I would have disrupted it publically right on the spot, rather than sings christmas carols with fornicating sodomites and adulterers.

The if and it seems are trying to allow for them to repent of this garbage.

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a good article discussing the issue of Matthew 18 and public debate:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/03/four-reasons-why-public-critiq.php

Good article.....yes...I found this on facebook.....it shows why churches are going down.....

Webdog felt good trying to invoke Mt 18......when the elders of the church should have used Mt 18 to seek to correct this adulterous sodomite..before his sin infected any more of the local body. Then they welcome in the unrepentant adulterer....with tea and cookies....just wonderful:love2:

 

[webdog]

I don't believe that is correct. If one is personally offended then yes, it should be done in private. However this is not a personal offense but is the potential of false teaching. That should be dealt with in public since the teaching was public. I do agree that Stanley should be addressed and he needs to respond to what will be many questions and I'm sure he will. But I don't see these sorts of things as a Matthew 18 application.

How can a potential false teaching be dealt with in public without going directly to the source first? When this happens we get what we see here, a lot of "it seems" dialogue that is nothing more than erecting strawmen.

I also think the scope of Matthew is much broader than the article linked. Any false doctrine hould personally offend us, hence I believe it is warranted to go to the source first instead of spreading potential slander and gossip.

 

[Iconoclast]

How can a potential false teaching be dealt with in public without going directly to the source first? When this happens we get what we see here, a lot of "it seems" dialogue that is nothing more than erecting strawmen.

I also think the scope of Matthew is much broader than the article linked. Any false doctrine hould personally offend us, hence I believe it is warranted to go to the source first instead of spreading potential slander and gossip.

Posting the message directly ...is not gossip or slander....he woman/wife was left unprotected by the church failing to exercise Mt 18...on him..

"potential"false teaching??? everyone should have stood up and walked out.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://www.dennyburk.com/andy-stanley-the-megachurch-and-homosexuality/

saw this on facebook....does not look good. WARNING...listening to this is sickening

listen at the 22-27 minute mark......can you believe this?????

This is an abomonation.Singing Christmas carols together???? 33-35 minute mark....he is clueless....indefensible

What the heck...is this guy for real?

 

[webdog]

Posting the message directly ...is not gossip or slander....he woman/wife was left unprotected by the church failing to exercise Mt 18...on him..

what are you talking about?

"potential"false teaching??? everyone should have stood up and walked out.

so now the "it seems he was saying..." has turned into "he definitely is teachin..." without hearing from him first

 

[Iconoclast]

what are you talking about?

so now the "it seems he was saying..." has turned into "he definitely is teachin..." without hearing from him first

Webdog.....on the link[in the op]....they post the actual sermon and video...I listened to it......download it.....if you can...listen to all of it...or times sake you can listen from about 22 minutes to the 35 minute mark:thumbsup:


This is when good people..are guilty of loving..."too much"....listen to it,then you will see what I mean:thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

Webdog.....on the link[in the op]....they post the actual sermon and video...I listened to it......download it.....if you can...listen to all of it...or times sake you can listen from about 22 minutes to the 35 minute mark:thumbsup:


This is when good people..are guilty of loving..."too much"....listen to it,then you will see what I mean:thumbsup:

Why assume i didn't listen to it? I in fact did, and can see where these perceptions "can" be formed from...but until it is clarified what "it seems" he was saying I'm not jumping on the bandwagon just yet. Now, if he comes out and says that his only problem was the adultery and not the homosexuality, I will also publicly refute his argument and reasoning. Too much reading between the lines and not giving the benefit of the doubt first until proven guilty. Guarantee this would not be the case if Piper or MacArthur said the identical words.