Andy Stanley and the Theological Atmosphere of Evangelicalism

Note: If you're not aware of the recent things that have come out concerning Andy Stanley's views about the Bible and homosexuality, you probably won't get this post. https://youtu.be/E8KlhMPrTPs  

https://youtu.be/e1BChE9SRWw

I used to listen to Andy Stanley every Sunday he got the pulpit from his dad. He's a great speaker. Very gifted. Very charismatic. And in no way is he qualified to be in ministry. And that's all Evangelicalism's fault. Evangelical compromises concerning the nature of the church, its reduction of Christianity to a generic belief in Jesus or an affirmation of a few creeds, the qualifications of an elder/pastor, and its capitulation of a biblical teleology of sexuality to the teleology of the sexual revolution. And these are actually all related when it comes to Andy Stanley and those teaching like him.

All of these have created the situation in which we find ourselves with the modern Megachurch movement and their pastors who walk on, or over, the line between orthodoxy and apostasy. Evangelicalism has a tradition rooted in false religion, and this wicked tradition is made up of the above characteristics. This is the air that Andy Stanley and those of us who grew up in Evangelicalism breathe.

1. The revivalistic mentality of evangelicalism, where one becomes a Christian by giving their assent to Jesus, confirming their assent by a prayer rather than a full understanding of becoming a disciple of Christ through baptism and submission to the teaching of the Bible through membership in an orthodox church, has led evangelicals to prioritize the unbeliever over the believer in their church services. 

It was once communicated to me that what is really important is to try and get people saved because every last one of the Christians in the assembly are already saved. If they don't get fed, it's not as bad as someone going to hell, so that must take priority in the message.

Since this is the case, eventually, this led to the removal of anything that might offend the unbeliever, like calling him to repentance and calling out specific sins that seem judgmental by those individuals or our culture at large.

Hence, you get beliefs by people like Andy concerning the unhitching of the Old Testament from the New, or even unhitching all of the Bible from the central message concerning the resurrection of Christ. The point is to try and get assent first and then bring in anything that may trip up the unbeliever later. That way, they can still be Christians even if they reject those other things.

In contrast to this, biblical Christianity views salvation as a salvation, not just from hell or a bad life, but from sin. To make someone a Christian is to make them a disciple of Christ, baptizing and teaching them all that Christ has commanded, which includes the Old Testament and the New. In other words, someone who becomes a believer should be told what he is being commanded to submit to when we say to him that Jesus is Lord. This means that whatever he will hear from the Word of God is taught by the Lord and he is giving his life over to submit to that joyfully. 

This means that the church is for believers. It exists to make them disciples by teaching them all that Christ commanded, but what is taught there is not in conflict with someone who might have the need to be saved, as the teaching of the Word of God is a part of what he must submit to. If he is offended and won't become a Christian because of what the Word of God says then he is not becoming a Christian simply because he prays a prayer and is ignorant of what it says. The Word of God is simply exposing that he is still not a Christian. 

2. Since it is mainly about getting people out of hell by getting them to assent to the basics, churches have largely reduced Christianity to the assent of one or just a few creeds. As long as they accept Jesus or as long as they accept these five fundamentals/essentials, they're good to go, so there is no reason to divide over other issues by offending other people. Hence, there is no need to teach on anything that might be offensive in the Bible, like hell or specific sins, unless the culture also thinks those things are sin (like racism or not being kind) or those offensive things are taught in a very non-offensive way, like teaching them as personal opinions with which one can disagree or walking on eggshells and being very apologetic while one is teaching them.

In contrast to this, God causes the sinner to repent of his sin by convicting him of his sin by the preaching of the whole counsel of God, whether believer or unbeliever alike. There is no need to reduce the offense because it is through the offense that a man is saved. But repentance is often not a part of the evangelical message above, and if it is, it is often just reduced itself by telling the sinner that he merely needs to think differently about Jesus rather than actually turn from specific sins in his life. 

Evangelicalism's desire to have unity at the expense of truth and good is rooted in the misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian. There are essentials and non-essentials but they are not shelters in which the rebellious unbeliever or complacent believer can find comfort. The distinction exists so that we may love one another and tolerate other views while we continue to grow and critique anything that is not under the submission of Christ.

3. The distortion of the purpose of the church and the reduction of Christianity to simple messages and doctrines that are meant to get the unbelieving or "unchurched" people "saved" through non-offensive persuasion has led to the tendency in evangelicalism to seek after good speakers who are charismatic, i.e., likeable personalities, who keep people's attention and seem more like life coaches over actually qualified teachers who can teach sound doctrine and refute those who contradict, i.e. theologians and biblical scholars. 

This compromise simply multiplies the problem because our churches are now filled with pastors who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to theological or biblical issues, and yet, they set the tone for the entirety of evangelicalism. "My pastor said" now becomes the hallmark for every bad idea and wicked practice because people think their pastors are authorities who know when they are simply glorified laymen who have read a few books, have hyped up degrees, are worldly famous, and/or are simply able to turn a phrase to thunderous applause. 

This has led to the fact that the average evangelical pastor cannot discern what is true and what isn't in the midst of so many arguments concerning biblical texts and theological/ethical issues. He's just guessing like any layman who reads a commentary or a book, and his conclusions are largely based on his personal opinions shaped by his culture, religious or secular rather than exegesis and sacred logic.

4. Modern evangelicalism's adoption of the teleology of sex born out of the paganism of the sexual revolution, and apostasy from the Christian teleology taught by the Bible and the church for thousands of years has confused the modern pastor who is incapable of discerning who is right concerning issues like homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, etc. 

If the primary purpose of sex can be non-procreative in marriage then why is homosexual marriage wrong? If marriage between a man and a woman existed in the past to raise children, and children are not a necessary component of why we have sex then why exactly does one need to be married to have sex today? If sexual immorality is not any worse than other sins, and maybe a lesser evil than the horrible sins of being mean or judgmental, then it seems tolerable to suggest that homosexuals be allowed to be in good standing in the church and even let them partake in ministries, even if their lifestyles are not ideal. Afterall, evangelical churches let divorced and remarried people exist in the church without a word of condemnation, so the law of finding hypocrisy in others dictates that when we do something wrong it allows us to do more wrong. But most evangelicals don't even know why homosexuality is wrong, and that is because they practice the very things they condemn and don't know why their own practices are wrong. Hence, if someone like Andy Stanley approves of non-procreative sex and disordered relationships on a heterosexual scale why would he condemn other sexual activity that has the same end?

Couple all of this with the view that none of it is essential anyway and the foremost purpose of the church is to save unbelievers by coercing them to believe in some way, and offensive teaching has this opposite effect, then we can see why Andy Stanley's church and teaching looks the way it does. He is simply breathing out what he has been breathing in. 

But Andy Stanley is a warning, one of many. God keeps giving this warning to evangelicalism and it keeps missing it. Numerous examples can be cited. The compromise keeps getting further and further, and yet, its leaders still seem to be incapable of identifying the roots of it.