Time to name names. Andy Stanley.
While Stanley can present the Gospel well at times (see here), he now says we should "unhitch" from the Old Testament because of its apparent inconsistencies, and how it shows a vengeful and wrathful God. It also appears to come from some embarrassment over the sexual ethics and civil penalties commanded there.
Wow.
Kevin DeYoung coyly called him out for rehashing an old heresy, Marcionism, without mentioning Stanley's name.
I think David Prince gets it right when he says,
"Stanley is adapting his message to the changing culture that rejects many of the Bible’s teaching[s] about origins and ethics. He is not offering a new approach to the Bible but rather an old one which positions us as judges who pick and choose what really matters in the Bible. That old approach has a name: it’s called theological liberalism."
Anecdotally, I've noted a shift among megachurches that used to follow Willow Creek's model. With its recent implosion, many are now hitching to Andy Stanley, who is unhitching from the Old Testament. Both seem willing to change the message to be more acceptable to cultural assumptions, instead of preaching the Word of God as it is, and letting it challenge those assumptions. Which is what it is meant to do.
But shouldn't we be willing to go to great lengths to get the message of Jesus out to people?
Well, yes. But if we unhitch from the Old Testament and adopt Stanley's approach, we've changed the message.
This all started two years ago, but Stanley's influence since then seems to be growing. He is a relevant and negative example, on this point at least, of how NOT to bring the Scriptures to the world.
The lesson to learn is clear:
Don't cater to assumptions people make against the Bible and accommodate to that somehow.
While some Scriptures need explaining, we should never be embarrassed about anything in the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment