Andy Stanley defends his preaching

It would help if those who oppose Stanley would actually cite his statements or the history of his errors. It doesn’t help when accusations are made with no proof, or when someone says, “it would seem, or it seems he is saying, etc.” These are serious charges being made. As for “including membership for unrepentant homosexuals” statement, please give proof of this. It’s one thing to accept for membership someone who has a “same-sex” attraction, but who has repented and begun the Christian life in a battle with his natural tendency, and someone who is a practicing homosexual. Don’t you agree? Would you accept someone into your membership who has repented of his wild lifestyle, even though he must deal with lust and sexual desire as a new Christian? I doubt if you would require more than proof of salvation, public testimony in baptism, and evidence of desiring to be separated from the old life. Am I correct in that assumption?

[jimcarwest]

It would help if those who oppose Stanley would actually cite his statements or the history of his errors. It doesn’t help when accusations are made with no proof, or when someone says, “it would seem, or it seems he is saying, etc.” These are serious charges being made. As for “including membership for unrepentant homosexuals” statement, please give proof of this. It’s one thing to accept for membership someone who has a “same-sex” attraction, but who has repented and begun the Christian life in a battle with his natural tendency, and someone who is a practicing homosexual. Don’t you agree? Would you accept someone into your membership who has repented of his wild lifestyle, even though he must deal with lust and sexual desire as a new Christian? I doubt if you would require more than proof of salvation, public testimony in baptism, and evidence of desiring to be separated from the old life. Am I correct in that assumption.

Jim—just search by the name “Andy Stanley” here to get started. There is actually an example of him admitting known, unrepentant homosexuals into membership, and into service at the church he serves. Your point on not knowing all the sins of a member is well taken, of course.

I should also note that I don’t consider myself an “opponent” of Andy Stanley. I’ve just seen—see the link or search for yourself—some things that are very concerning regarding his theology.

I have had the privilege of dealing with both types of people — those from a Scripture-oriented background, those from the error of Roman Catholicism, and those who were totally from a Scripture-less background. I have found that you have to deal with them differently. It does little good to quote Scripture to an atheist, I have found. My first experience with this occurred in Spain as I led a study with a group of radio/TV artists and employees who all claimed to be either atheist or agnostic. Following the Francis Shaeffer example, I approached the search for truth for several weeks without quoting Scripture but by using natural law, logic, and human experience, which brought us to the point where Scripture could be introduced as a reliable arbiter of truth. Once this was established, it was relatively easy to apply all of Scripture, especially the NT, to argue for and present the claims of Christ and the truth of salvation. The result was that most of the group confessed Christ, and became His followers.

I did Google Stanley and found a lot about the homosexuality issue. I agree with you and others that he is certainly trying to walk a tight rope on this issue, and in doing do, he is making some serious blunders from a Scriptural standpoint. If this were the main topic about Stanley on this blog, I don’t think any of us would disagree. This topic, however, has emerged from the primary topic having to do with Scriptural authority. These are in essence two different topics, although I can see how one can lead to the other. I thought the discussion had to do with whether convincing sinners of the authority of Scripture was essential to bring them to salvation. The Stanley article that was cited showed he does not believe this to be so, and I do agree with him, and have cited my own experience, and I believe there are plenty of examples exist, not only in Scripture, of people being saved without being clear on Scriptural infallibility, inspiration, and authority.

An excellent rebuttal:

3 Nagging Problems with Andy Stanley’s Approach to the Bible

There is a God who created the universe and all that is in it. This God is holy, and we must all answer to Him. Any sin, i.e., a failure to live up to His holy standard of perfection, damns a soul to hell. All men, women, and children fail to live up to that standard and thus all stand condemned before God, and this includes you. God, in His grace, sent Jesus Christ into the world to die as a substitute, paying the price of sin. If you will repent of your sin and trust in Him for forgiveness of your sin, the Lord will forgive you. You will no longer face eternal damnation, but can know that you will be with Christ in heaven for all eternity. Will you repent and trust Christ?

I know that there may be more may need to be said to a lost man or woman, but I’m intentionally being as brief as possible. I didn’t quote directly from the Bible once, but I think most here would say that this gets across most of what is necessary for a gospel witness. But then there is this, where did this message really come from if not the Bible. What other source reveals this message to us? We can deal with natural law, etc., but eventually the message of the gospel as revealed in the Bible must be proclaimed or there is no salvation. The lost sinner can be saved without knowing that the message is from the Bible, but it is the Word that the Spirit uses to bring lost sinners to faith. Our message must accurately express the Word of God or else no one will be saved. Just because I do not give chapter and verse references doesn’t mean that the Bible is not the source of our message. Again, we don’t have to tell people what the source of our message is, but the Bible is and must remain our source.

Stanley claims that his target audience is people who grew up in or around the church and have left the church. It would be interesting to know what kind of church they grew up in and left if they do not know that the message of Christ comes from the Bible, or that those Stanley references when he speaks of the reliable, eyewitnesses like John are biblical figures and authors.

I think nobody is trying to misrepresent AS, but he does have a history of putting things in a way that is easily misunderstood (some widely publicized statements about sexual ethics come to mind)… or perhaps understood. My point is that he seems to be least clear on points where clarity should not be difficult. So it’s puzzling. In this case, there is no trade off whatsoever between the authority of Scripture and the personal dimension of the lives of godly we find in Scripture… nor is there any need to downplay authority in reaching what he id’s as the target audience. If anything, bad previous experiences in churches are often healed by a return to the authority of the Word rather than the authority of men.

Isn’t it just about always the authority of men in some form that messes churches up?

So (a) the strategy is really not a very good one and (b) he’s definitely not saying it well (if his intent is not to diminish the authority of Scripture in ministry practice).