Featured If Andy Stanley were the "Evangelical Pope"

You must be watching a different video or simply reading the running caustic commentary under his words. He was not "dismissive" toward scripture. He wants Christians to refocus upon Jesus and the resurrection. He wants us to use the authority of the power of the resurrection instead of trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

Jesus taught that an error of the Pharisees was to focus on the scriptures as the priority and not recognize His presence before them:

John 5:39-40
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

 

Well, that's the problem, isn't it?

Not many things can follow those words and be aligned with the Christian faith, except for what he actually said. But since you won't move past those words to hear the complete thought, you will condemn him.

Yes, I agree.

I would want to have more of a conversation with him (or at least have some context for this statement - we are clearly only seeing a tiny part of a much longer conversation that may put everything said here in a different light - before I would publicly condemn him as "apostate."

I'm guessing this is where the real issue lies.

I don't follow Andy Stanley. I know he is the son of Charles Stanley and had issues with his father, but has gained a strong following. I don't have a bias either way toward him, although I am not a huge fan of his father.

But from what has been presented in this video, I don't think there is any basis for condemning him.

 

He actually said:

“I would ask preachers and pastors, and student pastors, in their communication to get the spotlight off the Bible and back on the resurrection, um, let’s get people’s attention back on Jesus as soon as possible; that the issue for us is always ‘Who is Jesus?’ ‘Did He rise from the dead?’ And that we would leverage the authority we have in the resurrection, as opposed to scripture – not that I don’t believe scripture is inspired – in terms of reaching this culture."​

1.) He's talking about our communication as preachers and pastors, not individuals.
2.) He's not saying ignore scripture, just not turn the spotlight on it over Jesus and the resurrection.
3.) He wants us to focus on the authority of the resurrection (like the New Testament church)

Yes, that is my interpretation. I think it is probably valid since he is the son of Charles Stanley and grew up in the thick of a decades long movement in the Southern Baptist Convention (with his father as a leader) that focused on the inerrancy and sufficiency of scripture, almost to the exclusion of everything else. What he literally said is quoted above.

Well I wasn't confused about what he said, but the person who wrote the running commentary wanted to "translate" what he said to make it quite inflammatory.

Andy Stanley may be a full-blown apostate, but nothing in this video indicates that to me. Moreover, if this is a typical sample of the so-called evidence against him, then I think a lot of people owe Mr. Stanley an apology and need to publicly repent of their words.

 

False premise. Nowhere in Stanley's comments did he recommend ignoring scripture.

However, we could know Jesus apart from scripture through the testimony of Christians throughout the ages. Jesus is in the process of revealing Himself to people even now, and Christians should have a relationship with Jesus - as a present reality in their lives - that is not completely mediated through scripture.

If all the Bibles were destroyed today and it was somehow impossible for us to recreate the text from the memories of the church in a written way, the church would not die. We are and would be sustained by the Triune God.

 

Since he is talking about communication of the gospel, not the use of the scriptures, your point is moot.

“I would ask preachers and pastors, and student pastors, in their communication to get the spotlight off the Bible and back on the resurrection, um, let’s get people’s attention back on Jesus as soon as possible; that the issue for us is always ‘Who is Jesus?’ ‘Did He rise from the dead?’ And that we would leverage the authority we have in the resurrection, as opposed to scripture – not that I don’t believe scripture is inspired – in terms of reaching this culture."​

Jesus is quite present with His people. I don't know why a physical presence is somehow a deal breaker. But to think about the meaning of John 5:39-40, is the point that Jesus made any less valid just because He may not be standing before us? We must not fall into the error of thinking that knowledge of the scriptures give us eternal life - that's not just talking about a heavenly destination, but daily life as well.

I absolutely agree with this perspective. We are too slow to listen and understand, and far too quick to condemn and dismiss.

 

I generally agree with the thrust of your statement, but I do find it hard to believe that someone wanting to put the spotlight on the resurrection is moving in the direction of apostasy, based on that statement.

The Bible is the Word of God. It is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. It contains everything we need to know for salvation and Christian living.

But the Bible testifies about someone. And that someone is Jesus Christ. Christ is Lord of all, including the Scriptures. That doesn't make the Scriptures less true by any means. Christ affirmed Scripture's validity. But Christ's position as Lord does mean that he should receive the primary attention.

Taking the "spotlight" off of something does not mean rejection. It's a matter of relative emphasis. Yes, the Bible is absolutely essential for the Christian for many reasons, but Jesus is the sine qua non. Without Christ and his resurrection, Scripture would be pointless.

Paul himself said that the resurrection is unequivocally essential to the gospel, to the point that faith in Christ would be "futile" without it.

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Cor. 15:12-19 (NKJV), emphasis mine.

I think there's more than a decent chance that Andy Stanley is going for this train of thought rather than apostasy. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think if he had a bit more time available, he would have explained things a bit more clearly.

 

That's not true:

18 for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God, 1 Cor 1 YLT

The gospel saves, every day. It delivers us from a myriad of error. It is a great deliverance, an ongoing affair for our entire lives. But the gospel doesn't bring about the birth.

 

??? What's that got to do with the birth of Jn 3:8?

 

Baptist Believer,

God has given the scriptures to regulate and protect His church. Your statement is off track.
Which Jesus would we learn about by hearsay?
Would Mary be the co-mediatrix?
Would jesus be ISSA....the muslim prophet?
Would jesus be satans half brother as Mormons tell us?

If you do not begin with and maintain scripture as the only rule of faith and practice you are not God's minister.

 

He said I would ask pastors and the people to get the spotlight off the bible,and put in on the resurrection.....is that what this is?
yo fellas...are you ready to do this???? the right stuff...love the way you turn me on....
http://blog.northpoint.org/90s-opener/

for more entertainment click on the link for 90's opener, then look up summer in the 60's

 

Hello JonC,

Let me say this to begin. I am so thankful that God is completely sovereign in salvation.
God is able to work despite our weakness and personal failings. I would that many people would come to a saving knowledge of the lord Jesus Christ through any of these faulty means.
With this kind of church....my thoughts would be that someone is there....Quantumfaith perhaps, and some others like him who can come alongside people who visit and somehow supply some degree of saving truth to that person despite the worldly spectacle that takes place there.
I am old enough to remember this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirty_Fishing

 

JonC δοῦλος,
PT2;

At best....I think it was a poorly worded statement for sure. That being said....it betrays a despising of biblical doctrine which comes to us as a whole unit.....

The stated goal of this place is to appeal to the unchurched...he remarks for example that the "unchurched" get confused by our church language.
This statement by itself might be worthy of discussion. Can churches error by majoring on minors, or forgetting to consider others , where they are in their broken lives....yes
When I get approached by a prostitute at the truckstop or checking into a motel....I do not ask her for her view on infra / or supra lapsarianism. We discuss....God's word, God's wrath revealed from heaven in scripture, God's word as what we will answer to if we do not repent,etc.

Lol...I could see it now...Hey honey are you dating tonight??? Well that depends on where you stand on the findings of the synod of Dort!
So while I do not look to defend pragmatic approaches to scripture and God's kingdom, I do pay attention to the fact that some churches are dead, and boring, if the people attending are not in vital union and obedience to the risen Lord.
I just do not think we have to settle for either or.

Those being critical I do not think are saying he denied the gospel. If I am reading everyone correctly.....they are reacting to yet another on a series of troubling statements.
ScarlettO picked up on this pretty quickly.....
Others are looking behind the poor wording and combining it with his poor track record in this past year or two......the sodomite issue, the if your in a small church you are sinning statements, his....we are doing church all wrong kind of hubris that comes across.
I do not lose any sleep over him, or his ministry....I leave him to God's judgment.
What I do is to learn a bit about it so if I meet a devotee out here, face to face, I will be cautious as how I approach interacting with them, know ing that most likely they are not really grounded doctrinally and are most likely in danger.

.
Poor wording for sure.....not well thought out, wrong ,....but I cannot judge his motives. That belongs to God. he is evidently a well known figure,and many ask him what do you think, what do you say about this or that.....so there is more opportunity for him to mis -speak.....or be exposed.

same here....I think QF actually introduced me to this ministry here on BB...QF also answered and gave reasons for his support and participation....it was informative.
I looked at a small sample, voiced my objections and concerns, but as I recall he said he was aware of what was at issue....so...I leave it there, unless these public eruptions of troubling teachings, statements come forth.

We all will give an account to God. That is two edged sword. There are times we should speak up and object also...to not do so can be just as sinful as if we turn against a true servant.

If he does all this to get attention , or is sincere....I do not know.
On a cautious note...I notice in church history that most cults, and cult leaders started out sincere, trying to improve something they perceived as a fault in the church.....but they had the solution......they had a new cart to offer to God, strange fire, lev 10....
regulative principle...what is that ????

 

Andy said he would ask pastors and preachers to take the spotlight off the bible and put the focus on Jesus and His resurrection? How do you put focus on Jesus and His resurrection? How do we know these to be true, both Jesus and His resurrection? By the bible Mr. Stanley wants to take the spotlight off of. This is a self-defeating stance.

 

A spotlight is a point of emphasis. Something outside the spotlight isn't necessarily unimportant.

For this instance, the Bible points us to Jesus. The Bible is indispensable, but Jesus is Lord and worthy of worship.

To run with the analogy a bit aside, the Bible IS the spotlight in that it draws us to Jesus, where our eyes should be fixed. We couldn't see him without the spotlight, but we always remember that the spotlight is the means, not the end.