If Andy Stanley were the "Evangelical Pope"

[StefanM]

I think of it this way - we had a pastor who came here from a northern state. He tells of giving all the mothers a white rose on mother's day as a sign of appreciation and love. He offended many, and some found it hard to forgive the insult.

Could you explain? Maybe I'm not in tune with the right culture to understand your story.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I will address this one by choice. The first sentence is meant to undermine a person's character and it does exactly that. This whole thing see has gone to emotional mode. And BTW, SG never slandered anyone.

I can see it now. Man convicted of first degree murder by irrefutable evidence. Ppl then claim the prosecuting attorney slandered him. That is how I am being treated by one on here.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I don't think that many people will actually hear these words specifically.

I am referring to our churches solely here. Some churches may...probably many...agree with him, and take that approach. Imagine trying to do missionary work without spotlighting the bible. Eek!!

I will grant you that he has to do a better job of keeping his words under control generally. (We probably all could get better on this one.)

Agree...

I agree with you RE: higher standards. That's why I can say that I wish he had been clearer with his statement. That way, we could more effectively evaluate it and either clearly reject it or not.

Agree...

 

[JonC]

Could you explain? Maybe I'm not in tune with the right culture to understand your story.

The pastor thought the roses would be received with joy as a symbol of his appreciation of those under his pastoral care. But a white rose is traditionally given (here, anyway) when one's mother passes away. He said one thing, however inadequately, that was taken entirely differently.

Andy Stanley has stated that Scripture is not the foundation of our faith. He points instead to Christ. This is on his website, on his church's website, and in at least one sermon (I'm still not a fan, but I did take the time to look up his beliefs). His words probably resounded those teachings to those given in his care, but to us who are not a part of his congregation they may not necessarily speak "Christ-centered". Sometimes I think pastors even try to be controversial (Piper's Christian Hedonism, for example). I don't think that Andy Stanley is obligated to come out and tell the Christian world that he was speaking in context of a Christ-centered focus when it should have been a given (or at least a benefit of the doubt) which is easily affirmed by glancing at what he has stated.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The pastor thought the roses would be received with joy as a symbol of his appreciation of those under his pastoral care. But a white rose is traditionally given (here, anyway) when one's mother passes away. He said one thing, however inadequately, that was taken entirely differently.

Thanks for clarifying. I know I am not the tightest wrapped mummy in the pyramid, but I was clueless to your previous post.

Andy Stanley has stated that Scripture is not the foundation of our faith. He points instead to Christ. This is on his website, on his church's website, and in at least one sermon (I'm still not a fan, but I did take the time to look up his beliefs). His words probably resounded those teachings to those given in his care, but to us who are not a part of his congregation they may not necessarily speak "Christ-centered". Sometimes I think pastors even try to be controversial (Piper's Christian Hedonism, for example). I don't think that Andy Stanley is obligated to come out and tell the Christian world that he was speaking in context of a Christ-centered focus when it should have been a given (or at least a benefit of the doubt) which is easily affirmed by glancing at what he has stated.

Christ is our foundation, I 100% agree. But how do we know about the Christ? The bible he wants the spotlight taken off of.

 

[StefanM]

I am referring to our churches solely here. Some churches may...probably many...agree with him, and take that approach. Imagine trying to do missionary work without spotlighting the bible. Eek!!

Well, I certainly don't plan to share with anyone at my church because it's just not that interesting.

I will say this, though. If a person is saying to focus on Christ as a means of denying the Bible, that's the M.O. of liberalism. Then once the Bible is gone, Christ can be redefined, and the gospel is lost. We end up with a pitiful puddle of what used to be a fountain of truth.

The difference with Stanley is that he mentioned the resurrection. That makes liberalism less likely (albeit still possible, if he redefines resurrection).

 

[JonC]

Don't trust my discernment? Srsly? Where did I err? I used his OWN WORDS. There was an article about him teetering upon g@y-affirmation, and I posted a video about him rejecting the notion of pastors really being shepherds. I correctly pegged him by his OWN WORDS.

What I mean is that I do not trust your discernment to tell me what Stanley means by those words of his you've used. Looking at his website (and one sermon about the topic) he does not seem to mean that we focus on Christ apart from Scripture, but that in Scripture our focus should be on Christ.

Where I disagree is that I find his sermons to be designed to reach the lost but given to the assembly.

 

[JonC]

Christ is our foundation, I 100% agree. But how do we know about the Christ? The bible he wants the spotlight taken off of.

By placing the spotlight on Christ, I don't think that Stanley means looking away from Scripture. I think he means something else entirely. That is my disagreement. I think that we have to give these pastors a bit of benefit of the doubt (maybe even more when they hold perspectives which differ from our own).

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well, I certainly don't plan to share with anyone at my church because it's just not that interesting.

I will say this, though. If a person is saying to focus on Christ as a means of denying the Bible, that's the M.O. of liberalism. Then once the Bible is gone, Christ can be redefined, and the gospel is lost. We end up with a pitiful puddle of what used to be a fountain of truth.

The difference with Stanley is that he mentioned the resurrection. That makes liberalism less likely (albeit still possible, if he redefines resurrection).

I am not talking about us sharing it, per se. But other churches who have members who watch these videos on the net. This can be spread like a flicker to dry stubble.

 

[SovereignGrace]

By placing the spotlight on Christ, I don't think that Stanley means looking away from Scripture. I think he means something else entirely. That is my disagreement. I think that we have to give these pastors a bit of benefit of the doubt (maybe even more when they hold perspectives which differ from our own).

But he said, by his own words, to take the spotlight off the scriptures and to focus upon Christ. You can't have one w/o t'other.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I can see it now. Man convicted of first degree murder by irrefutable evidence. Ppl then claim the prosecuting attorney slandered him. That is how I am being treated by one on here.

I know brother. Hang in there and keep the faith, Jude 1:4

 

[JonC]

But he said, by his own words, to take the spotlight off the scriptures and to focus upon Christ. You can't have one w/o t'other.

But like you said, focusing on Jesus apart from Scripture is impossible. It is probable he means a Christ-centered approach as Christ and the Resurrection is the foundation to which Scripture points. I say probable because this is his explanation on the church website and it makes sense if he is focusing on the lost (which he also affirms to be the case).

 

[SovereignGrace]

I know brother. Hang in there and keep the faith, Jude 1:4

I can see a missionary now.

"Kind lady, have you ever heard of Jesus Christ and what He did for sinners?"

"Why no, can't say that I have. Who is this Guy?"

"Well, ummm....errr....uhhh...ummm..."

 

[SovereignGrace]

But like you said, focusing on Jesus apart from Scripture is impossible. It is probable he means a Christ-centered approach as Christ and the Resurrection is the foundation to which Scripture points. I say probable because this is his explanation on the church website and it makes sense if he is focusing on the lost (which he also affirms to be the case).

But how can you evangelize to the lost w/o focusing on the scriptures?

 

[Internet Theologian]

I can see a missionary now.

"Kind lady, have you ever heard of Jesus Christ and what He did for sinners?"

"Why no, can't say that I have. Who is this guy?"

"Well, ummm....errr....uhhh...ummm..."

Reminds me of this guy who came up to me, and talked about Jesus. He said He is all we need, and we don't need theology. So I asked him to describe Him to me, and he used Scripture. That IS theology I told him. He left kind if humbled and thought provoked.

It all sounds so spiritual, but frankly it is a denial of THE faith delivered to the Saints.

 

[Internet Theologian]

But how can you evangelize to the lost w/o focusing on the scriptures?

Let's not forget it is the Word of God that convicts, not the philosophy or wisdom of men to attempt to, or persuasive words, and this is the attempt of Andy Stanley. There are no if's about it, it is what he is doing.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Reminds me of this guy who came up to me, and talked about Jesus. He said He is all we need, and we don't need theology. So I asked him to describe Him to me, and he used Scripture. That IS theology I told him. He left kind if humbled and thought provoked.

It all sounds so spiritual, but frankly it is a denial of THE faith delivered to the Saints.

There is no excuse for what Mr. Stanley said. If he misquoted, which we are all prone to do, he needs to clarify what he meant. But you can not focus on Christ without spotlighting the bible.


That's akin to driving without watching the road.

#crash

 

[SovereignGrace]

Let's not forget it is the Word of God that convicts, not the philosophy or wisdom of men to attempt to, or persuasive words, and this is the attempt of Andy Stanley. There are no if's about it, it is what he is doing.

Ppl want to invent a snazzy catchphrase...

 

[Internet Theologian]

There is no excuse for what Mr. Stanley said. If he misquoted, which we are all prone to do, he needs to clarify what he meant. But you can not focus on Christ without spotlighting the bible.


That's akin to driving without watching the road.

#crash

Yeah, he needs to recant what he said. Think of the ramifications of his statement and how MANY will now view Scriptures. This will be a convenient quote for them.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Let's not forget it is the Word of God that convicts, not the philosophy or wisdom of men to attempt to, or persuasive words, and this is the attempt of Andy Stanley. There are no if's about it, it is what he is doing.

He also said g@ys need to feel 'safe' in a church. Since when have the local churches started threatening them? He doesn't want to offend them. Thataboy Mr. Stanley. Speak kindly to them as they die eternally lost! Way. To. Go.