Featured If Andy Stanley were the "Evangelical Pope"

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 11pm Pacific.

 

Speaking of me (not Stanley here), if I said those words then what I would mean is focusing on the Subject of Scripture rather than Scripture itself. In other words, as I went through Scripture I would be casting the spotlight on Christ and determining what this said of Him. In terms of evangelism, I actually think we need to focus on Christ and not Scripture (here I mean focusing on Christ through Scripture rather than the Bible being the ends).

With Stanley, I believe he is simply saying that Scripture focuses on Christ and that is where our eyes should be.

On a more theological bent, however, there are the ideas of Karl Barth and even the teachings (false teachings) of Brian McLaren in therms of dismissing Scripture and looking beyond. So I absolutely understand taking caution here. I just don't think we should automatically denounce the man (especially when he seems to clarify his meaning as our foundation being Christ and the Resurrection...which is biblical).

So I understand and appreciate your caution, but I believe your conclusion premature. He was confronted not so long ago for denouncing small churches and in his apology said something along the lines that he was even offended by what he said. Sometimes people misspeak. Sometimes they speak poorly. Sometimes they mean one thing which is taken as another. And sometimes they are just plain wrong. I believe we give Christians the benefit of the doubt when it exists and I see plenty of room on this topic to extend that benefit to Stanley.

 

Yes. That is what I understand Andy Stanley to be saying here.

 

Me personally? Sometimes I spotlight Scripture to highlight aspects of biblical history, sometimes to deal with issues in our lives (e.g., to focus on the sovereignty of God over situations we go through, to focus on running to the Father in repentance....even the "fallow ground" sermon I recently mentioned).

Stanley outlined his goal in preaching (one that I disagreed, but which provides his quote context). I would focus on Christ and the resurrection (the gospel) and not Scripture (in terms of those things I mentioned) if my intent at that time was reaching the lost. There is no sense in teaching Scripture to lost people when what they need is the gospel. I hope my meaning is clear in that statement, but to clarify - if your goal is evangelism focus on Christ.

 

I look at it this way, I could criticize (and probably rightly so) every preacher who has answered the call to fill a pulpit (except maybe TCassidy). We are all men, and we are all flawed. I remember Paul Washer saying that when people criticize him they are probably right. I remember two times he apologized for things he had said. While I like Spurgeon and CS Lewis, I can also point to errors with the men. Believe it or not, not even Karl Barth lived a perfect life (that was a joke...let it go ).

We need to deal with the doctrines that are taught, but I do not know why we seem to have a need to go out of our way to attack other people. Andy Stanley is not my responsibility and I am not his. We all have better things to do (America's Got Talent comes on tonight....I think) than to do our best to destroy the reputation of a preacher.