Not long ago, author
Andy Stanley dropped a hermeneutical bomb on the Christian world. The summary
of his proposal: "It's time to unhitch...from the Old Testament..."
Defending his position against the backlash later, Stanley replied that critics
didn't listen to his message series in its entirety. Apparently, they took a
few quotations out of context and didn't give his entire message an opportunity
to speak. But isn't this exactly what Stanley is proposing we do with the
Bible? Isn't he suggesting we only take part of its message as our guidance?
Stanley points out that some atheistic authors and
unbelievers use difficult passages from the Old Testament to discount Christianity. But I have to ask, should the Church's response be to discount the Bible, too? Listeners of Stanley's "Aftermath" series might get the impression
that he considers the Old Testament as wobbly as the atheists do. Stanley
quotes Harris and Dawkins repeatedly, remarking on one of Dawkins' disparaging
statements about God: "That's a great line, isn't it? I mean...I don't
believe it. But that's a great line."1 Then he makes up a conversation on
behalf of Peter the disciple of Jesus. Note that. The atheists get quoted
verbatim. Peter gets paraphrased in what I consider a gross misrepresentation. Here's that example from part 1 of the series:
Stanley explains, “If you were to ask Peter, ‘What’s the
foundation…where do you find your hope…' He wouldn’t have quoted a verse from
the Old Testament…he wouldn’t have quoted a verse at all…”
But this is exactly what
Peter does on the day of Pentecost. He quotes the Word of God.
He references David, Psalms, the prophets, Joel. When asked about the
supernatural events the Church experienced on the day of Pentecost, Peter
quoted Scripture. He gave as point of reference a reason for what was seen and
heard that day. And it was based upon Old Testament prophecies and writings.
"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet
Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour
out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream
dreams..." - Peter, on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2:16-17
Stanley's explanation within his series is that "our experience is based
on a relationship with Jesus not on a book." He goes to some length to
explain that the early Church didn't have the Bible we have. True. But they
certainly had Scripture. And they linked their experience and
relationship with Jesus to what they knew from Scripture. This
Scripture is the very part that Stanley proposes unhitching from in the quest to move toward "reclaiming the new." Here's the brief promo copy of his new book, based in part on the Aftermath series: "Today we preach, teach, write, and communicate as if nothing has changed. As if 'The Bible says it' still settles it. It's time to hit the pause button on much of what we're doing and consider the faith modeled by our first-century brothers and sisters who had no official Bible, no status, and humanly speaking, little chance of survival."
On the surface,
Stanley's book "Irresistible" presents an idea that the Church believes in. That is, we believe that a return to the faith, doctrine,
and methods of the Church in Acts is key to what we need today. However, beneath the surface of the book there's a proposal for a dangerous move: discounting
the Old Testament or seeing it as a disconnected part from the New Testament.
Doing so removes so many "ancient landmarks" that help us understand
what the first century Church was really experiencing at Pentecost and
throughout the New Testament record. Peter understood this connection and it's
clearly why he pointed out the link between the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
and the prophecy of Joel. "This is that." Paul understood the
connection and repeatedly pointed out the Old Testament types and shadows and
their parallels to the Church.
"Unhitching"
from the Old Testament is not just a matter of cutting away the books of
Genesis through Malachi. Readers who find those books "troublesome"
will find themselves in trouble when they get to the New Testament. There they
will quickly discover that the first book, first chapter, first verse
immediately launches into references to the Old Testament. And those references
are not just to historical markers, but to people who are important in the role
of helping us understand the Who and what of Jesus Christ! Will proponents of
unhitching recommend we get rid of every reference to the Old Testament? Some
already have. If so, there will be conversations deleted that came right from
the mouth of Jesus. There will be entire chapters that will have to be altered,
since Paul quoted and referenced so much of the Old Testament in his writings.
Of course, the adversary knows that removing so much of the Bible will
eventually prompt the removal or diminishing of all the rest. We see this
already in too many places.
Let's endeavor to say,
as Paul said, "...I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel
of God." (Acts 20:27) Let's take this precious book called the Bible in
its entirety. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter
1:21) Those are words worth holding on to.
Let's stay hitched!
Defending his position against the backlash later, Stanley replied that critics didn't listen to his message series in its entirety. Apparently, they took a few quotations out of context and didn't give his entire message an opportunity to speak. But isn't this exactly what Stanley is proposing we do with the Bible? Isn't he suggesting we only take part of its message as our guidance?
Stanley points out that some atheistic authors and unbelievers use difficult passages from the Old Testament to discount Christianity. But I have to ask, should the Church's response be to discount the Bible, too? Listeners of Stanley's "Aftermath" series might get the impression that he considers the Old Testament as wobbly as the atheists do. Stanley quotes Harris and Dawkins repeatedly, remarking on one of Dawkins' disparaging statements about God: "That's a great line, isn't it? I mean...I don't believe it. But that's a great line."1 Then he makes up a conversation on behalf of Peter the disciple of Jesus. Note that. The atheists get quoted verbatim. Peter gets paraphrased in what I consider a gross misrepresentation. Here's that example from part 1 of the series:
Stanley's explanation within his series is that "our experience is based on a relationship with Jesus not on a book." He goes to some length to explain that the early Church didn't have the Bible we have. True. But they certainly had Scripture. And they linked their experience and relationship with Jesus to what they knew from Scripture. This Scripture is the very part that Stanley proposes unhitching from in the quest to move toward "reclaiming the new." Here's the brief promo copy of his new book, based in part on the Aftermath series: "Today we preach, teach, write, and communicate as if nothing has changed. As if 'The Bible says it' still settles it. It's time to hit the pause button on much of what we're doing and consider the faith modeled by our first-century brothers and sisters who had no official Bible, no status, and humanly speaking, little chance of survival."
Notes:
I communicated with Andy Stanley prior to sharing this article to convey to him my intent behind the commentary you've just read. I believe this is the Biblical mandate; to go to the person first to air a grievance before taking it elsewhere. I also want to note what I expressed to Andy regarding his books and ministry: I have been reading Andy Stanley's books for almost 15 years, and utilized some of his books and resources when my wife and I planted the first church we started in our city. Books like Visioneering, Can We Do That?, Choosing to Cheat; It Came from Within, were all instrumental in my early years as a pastor. I read them and I shared them with others. The above article is not an opposition to all of Andy's work. It is, however, in direct opposition to his views as expressed about the Old Testament and the place it ought to have in the life of Christians.
1 The Dawkins quote was, in part: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving..." I'll stop there, but the infamous quote doesn't warrant compliment, by any means.
