If Andy Stanley were the "Evangelical Pope"

[Baptist Believer]

He didn't merely say focus on Jesus and the resurrection, he said this after being dismissive toward Scripture.

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.

Any minister who suggests not focusing on Scripture is apostate.

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

'I would ask pastors (&c) to get the spotlight off of the Bible...'

I don't care what he says after this.

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.

The other issue is his telling what he believes to be 'dead churches' to sell their buildings and give their monies to church planters.

The size of a church does not determine whether it is alive or dead.

Yes, I agree.

His broad brushing and general dismissiveness of small churches and Scripture is the epitome of arrogance.

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."

He has many other troubling beliefs as well.

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Brother, when he says, "Take the focus OFF of scriptures...", I don't think there's a debate here. How can you focus only on Jesus if you don't focus on the scriptures?

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)

You may "interpret" that he is talking about taking the focus off of the debate about the Bible being inerrant and sufficient, but that isn't what he literally said.

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.

And because this isn't the first time nor the second time nor even the third time that Andy Stanley has caused confusion about his beliefs about the foundation of God's Word, maybe it's time to have this discussion.

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.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Which 'Jesus'? Describe Him to me, and don't use any Scriptures in doing so.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

He wants us to use the authority of the power of the resurrection instead of trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

And how do we know about and understand the power of the resurrection if not from the scriptures "which are able to make you wise unto salvation?"

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

When Jesus was physically present, of course, but as He is no longer physically present we must rely on His great gift to mankind, His Self-revelation, the written word.

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

I agree. Let's read/hear it all and place it in the proper context.

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

I would have to know the greater context, and research his other statements on the same subject. As of yet I find it premature to condemn him as an apostate, but he is either moving in that direction or has made some serious errors in articulating what he believes.

This reminds me of the "blood of Christ" controversy surrounding John MacArthur about 20 years ago. He tended to make unclear statements, then when trying to clarify his stance he just made things worse. It took him 20 years to convince his detractors he was not a "blood denying apostate." And even so there are still some who trot out the old horse every time his name is mentioned.

 

[Baptist Believer]

And how do we know about and understand the power of the resurrection if not from the scriptures "which are able to make you wise unto salvation?"

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."​

When Jesus was physically present, of course, but as He is no longer physically present we must rely on His great gift to mankind, His Self-revelation, the written word.

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 agree. Let's read/hear it all and place it in the proper context.

I would have to know the greater context, and research his other statements on the same subject. As of yet I find it premature to condemn him as an apostate, but he is either moving in that direction or has made some serious errors in articulating what he believes.

This reminds me of the "blood of Christ" controversy surrounding John MacArthur about 20 years ago. He tended to make unclear statements, then when trying to clarify his stance he just made things worse. It took him 20 years to convince his detractors he was not a "blood denying apostate." And even so there are still some who trot out the old horse every time his name is mentioned.

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

 

[TCassidy]

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

And what is this gospel we communicate? Could it be 1 Corinthians 15? 3 "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

Jesus is quite present with His people.

Yes, we all know that, and is not, of course, the point.

I don't know why a physical presence is somehow a deal breaker.

Because, when the 12 were walking with Jesus and had a question they would just ask Him and He would explain it to them. We see this over and over again during Jesus's earthly ministry.

But today we can't get a direct answer. We get an indirect answer. From His words as recorded in the bible.

And Peter seemed to be of the opinion that the written word is not only sufficient, but actually superior. 2 Peter 1:19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."

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?

And how do we know what John 5:39-40 says? Oh, yes! We read it in the bible!

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.

And nobody in this discussion has fallen into such error. And, therefore, it is a straw man argument.

We are too slow to listen and understand, and far too quick to condemn and dismiss.

I agree. I understand that. I even understand that your statement, "Jesus is quite present with His people" implied I did not know that or believe that which, of course, is nonsense. But perhaps the author was too quick to condemn or dismiss?

Not to mention "is the point that Jesus made any less valid just because He may not be standing before us" which, of course, is a charge nobody has even brought up let alone clearly stated. I don't remember writing or seeing someone else write that Jesus' statement was invalid because we find it in the bible. In fact, the exact opposite seems to have been the point. We know it is valid because it is recorded in God's word, the bible (unless, of course, some poor soul has fallen for the "Jesus Seminar" nonsense).

 

[StefanM]

I would have to know the greater context, and research his other statements on the same subject. As of yet I find it premature to condemn him as an apostate, but he is either moving in that direction or has made some serious errors in articulating what he believes.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

But, of course, that is not the issue. The bible itself puts the spotlight on the resurrection. But without the bible we wouldn't know about the resurrection.

But Christ's position as Lord does mean that he should receive the primary attention.

And how do we do that?

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, 17 that each person who belongs to God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Without Christ and his resurrection, Scripture would be pointless.

And without scripture we would not know of Christ and His resurrection.

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

And how do you support your statement? You quote scripture!

I think there's more than a decent chance that Andy Stanley is going for this train of thought rather than apostasy.

That is certainly possible. That is why I am awaiting clarification.

I could be wrong.

So could I. So could he.

It wouldn't be the first time, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

So am I.

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

I would hope he would take the time to clarifiy his position. That might serve to make the entire issue moot.

 

[kyredneck]

Then again......you do not see the preaching of the word as the normal God ordained means bringing salvation either.

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.

 

[kyredneck]

sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

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

 

[Iconoclast]

Baptist Believer,

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.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

 

[Iconoclast]

Do you believe that Andy Stanley was advocating ditching Scripture, or do you think that perhaps he had another intent...perhaps something along the lines of focusing on Christ through Scripture rather than the "Biblical narrative" itself?

What I'm asking is if Stanley actually denied the gospel or if his wording opened the door for others to take advantage of his statements. I've listened to a few of his messages and read a little of him (he's not really my "cup of tea"). So while he may not be my pick, I also believe that we will answer for times when our voices turn against Christ (by opposing God's work through other pastors, by wrongfully denouncing servants who belong to God...not us, etc.).

Basically, the little I do know of the pastor seems to contradict the way some are painting him here and I'd appreciate your insight.

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

Etymology and definition[edit]
The term is derived from Matthew 4:19 from the New Testament, in which Jesus tells two fishermen that he will make them "fishers of men".[3] Cult leader David Berg extrapolated from this that women in his movement should be "flirty fishers" (also called "bait" or "fisherwomen"): the targeted men were called "fish". The cult published several documents with exact instructions. Flirty Fishing was defined as using sex appeal for proselytizing. If masturbation, oral, or penetrative sex ensued, this was termed as "loving sexually"[4] and also counted as a "deep witness", meaning that the "bait" earned more brownie points within the group than by mere flirting. Berg noted that Flirty Fishing did not necessarily entail intercourse, but that this was by far the most efficient method of proselytizing.[5]

Within the Family of God[edit]
Impact on members[edit]
Women who objected to being what the cult itself bluntly described as "God's whores" or "hookers for Jesus" were admonished not to "let self and pride enter in"[6] and reminded that their body did not really belong to them as according to 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 it had been "bought" (by Jesus through his crucifixion) "with a price".[7] After an initial phase, male members no longer partook in this drive, partially because of the cult's dismissive stance towards homosexuality, but also because Berg thought it did not "pay off financially".[4] Many of the Flirty Fishers had boyfriends, were married, or had children. In Family publications, Flirty Fishers and Escort Servicers (see below) frequently reported that they found their work hard, dangerous, and exhausting.

ESing[edit]
The financial benefit of Flirty Fishing soon led to a further degeneration of the practice from mere flirting into "loving sexually" to "escort servicing" (ESing)—described as "making FFing pay" by Berg—in which female cult members would work as regular call girls for escort agencies or freelance, and merely "witness" (proselytize) to their clients when the occasion offered itself.[8]

Effects[edit]
The Children of God practiced Flirty Fishing and Escort Servicing from 1974 until 1987, when it was officially abandoned, in part because of the AIDS epidemic. As the women were expected to keep exact records of their "fruits" (successes), a 1988 statistic showed that more than 223,000 men had been "fished" since 1978[9]—and that FFing had nevertheless continued into 1988. As the cult generally discourages birth control, the practice also resulted in numerous pregnancies, the offspring of which were termed Jesus babies by the organ

see pt2

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC δοῦλος,
PT2;

Do you believe that Andy Stanley was advocating ditching Scripture, or do you think that perhaps he had another intent...perhaps something along the lines of focusing on Christ through Scripture rather than the "Biblical narrative" itself?

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.

What I'm asking is if Stanley actually denied the gospel

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.

or if his wording opened the door for others to take advantage of his statements

.
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.

I've listened to a few of his messages and read a little of him (he's not really my "cup of tea").

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.

So while he may not be my pick, I also believe that we will answer for times when our voices turn against Christ (by opposing God's work through other pastors, by wrongfully denouncing servants who belong to God...not us, etc.).

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.

Basically, the little I do know of the pastor seems to contradict the way some are painting him here and I'd appreciate your insight.

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 ????

 

[JonC]

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

I have never heard of "flirty fishing", but that is essentially what many well meaning Christians are doing. We were never called to be like the world in order to get people to attend our assemblies. In fact, I cannot find one verse of Scripture which presents the purpose of the assembly to be evangelism. I read quite a bit about fellowship, corporate worship, equipping the saints, taking care of one another, etc....but it seems that this assembly reaches the lost when they go out and as they are going they disciple. My disagreement with "flirty fishing" and it's contemporary counterparts goes far beyond the method and into the mentality. The church is supposed to be a light seen, not hidden in culture. We are to be salt, not flavorless flakes scattered among a flavorless culture. I agree with you here.

There are several reasons that I personally would not choose Andy Stanley as a mentor or pastor. Before we even get to the debate about becoming like the culture to attract the culture my disagreement is that this is not the purpose of the local assembly (this is one point where I disagree with what Stanley and many other godly men). But that does not change the fact others are ascribing to the pastor an intent that is absent from his words.

I agree with Stanley insofar as I understand his comments to be a plea towards Christ-centered teaching. He never says "trash the Bible" but instead seems to indicate we focus on Christ through Scripture. I also understand his comment to be that it is not Scripture itself that forms our authority but the God behind those words (or that revelation)...and again I agree. He argued against trying to make people love God in favor of presenting them with the gospel ("matchmaker" illustration) and relying on God to do the work. And once again, I agree with Stanley. And finally he indicated that the role of preaching (here I understand the context to be as pastor) held the priority of reaching the lost. And on that point I disagree with Stanley (adopting the culture is just a fruit of that idea which I believe to be an error).

 

[Internet Theologian]

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

No, it's not the problem whatsoever. Let's not just pretend that because of what I said, that I didn't hear him out, OK?

I listened to all he had to say, the entire context, and nothing he says undoes the position he holds to about taking the spotlight of of the Scriptures.

 

[Internet Theologian]

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.....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.

That's it, it's not only this one statement, or his disrespectful and arrogant statement on small churches. It is the big picture about him, his past positions, decisions. You have to combine all of this together to get the big picture of him, and this is by combining all the snapshots along the way. Ans this is a proper way to assess and debate him, by looking at ones history, track record, consistencies, inconcistencies, &c.

BTW, when a person is embracing sodomy and that lifestyle, they have already taken the spotlight off of Scripture and have placed the spotlight upon themselves.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

 

[StefanM]

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.