Andy Stanley’s Poison Pill for the Doctrine of Scripture

Andy Stanley’s comments on Adam and Eve have been making the rounds since they appeared on HereIBlog.com yesterday. In short, Stanley affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve, but not because Genesis says so. Rather, he bases his belief on what Jesus says about Adam and Eve. You can listen to the entire discussion above, but here are the relevant excerpts:

The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history. And the issue is always – Who is Jesus? That’s always the issue. The Scripture is simply a collection of ancient documents that tells us that story…

Here’s why I believe this actually happened. Not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels – Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. And it appears to me that he believed they were actually historical figures. And if he believed they were historical, I believe they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off – I just believe anything they say.

Let me say first of all that I am genuinely grateful that Stanley affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve. In this day and age, that position is under siege, and I don’t want to minimize the importance of Stanley’s affirmation in this regard.    Continue at Denny Burk

IMAGE

Update on the Andy Stanley Conversation

For those of you following the conversation about Andy Stanley’s controversial message, a few remarks by way of update: 

1. Scot McKnight weighed-in today, and he thinks that critics (including yours truly) have improperly put Stanley on a slippery slope. McKnight also highlights a statement I made in an interview with CT last week in which I said this about Stanley’s sermon: “It was ambiguous at best. It was a total capitulation to the spirit of the age at worst.” After reading my remarks, McKnight wonders what my “best” read of the situation is as opposed to my worst read. My “best” read is that Stanley believes in the Bible’s teaching about human sexuality, but for whatever reason muted that belief in his sermon. If that is the case, then the question becomes whether the ambiguity was intentional or unintentional. 

If it was unintentional, certainly he could have clarified the matter by now. The audio of his most recent sermon is not yet available, but The Christian Post’s coverage of the message doesn’t indicate that any clarification was forthcoming. If it was intentional, then for what purpose did he do it? To steer clear of divisive subjects while in the pulpit? To make North Point a more attractive place for homosexuals to attend? Or perhaps he just thought adultery was the only relevant moral question in the story he was telling. Whatever the reason, it is difficult to imagine a good reason for intentionally leaving the impression that adultery is sin while homosexuality may not be.  Continue at Denny Burk

Andy Stanley, the Megachurch, and Homosexuality

The most puzzling and shocking part of the message was the illustration and the account of the homosexual couple, however. The inescapable impression left by the account was that the sin of concern was adultery, but not homosexuality. Stanley clearly and repeatedly stressed the sin of adultery, but then left the reality of the homosexual relationship between the two men unaddressed as sin. To the contrary, he seemed to normalize their relationship. They would be allowed to serve on the host team if both were divorced. The moral status of their relationship seemed to be questioned only in terms of adultery, with no moral judgment on their homosexuality.

Was this intended as a salvo of sorts? The story was so well told and the message so well constructed that there can be little doubt of its meaning. Does this signal the normalization of homosexuality at North Point Community Church? This hardly seems possible, but it appeared to be the implication of the message. Given the volatility of this issue, ambiguity will be replaced by clarity one way or the other, and likely sooner than later…   Read it all at Denny Burk