The Real Problem with Andy Stanley’s Sermon: A Response to the Argument in Aftermath, Part 3: Not Difficult

Personally, I really like Andy Stanley. I’ve read a few of his books and used a few of his series at different churches. I think he’s done amazing work for the Kingdom of God in Georgia and elsewhere.

When I first saw the headlines about his “OT-unhitching sermon” I first assumed he was either being misunderstood, mischaracterized, or taken out of context. So I ignored it. But then I saw people whose insights I appreciate make criticisms. So I read some sermon quotes from some critical articles.

"[First century] Church leaders unhitched the church from the worldview, value system, and regulations of the Jewish scriptures."

"Peter, James, Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures, and my friends, we must as well."

"Jesus' new covenant, his covenant with the nations, his covenant with you, his covenant with us, can stand on its own two nail-scarred resurrection feet. It does not need propping up by the Jewish scriptures."

To me the quotes were extremely distressing as well as highly inaccurate about apostolic teachings, and I couldn’t see how they could be taken out of context. I thought, “You better rethink that, brother.” Nevertheless, I’ve heard preachers in the past speak about legalistic Judaism and how Jesus came to abolish the Law. Certainly, the ceremonial and sacrificial requirements, as well as the cultural identity markers, are no longer required for followers of Jesus; perhaps Stanley was simply uncharacteristically muddled in his presentation. Perhaps he went off script in his enthusiasm. It’s possible.

A few days passed, and I saw the following comment by a theologian:

“The reactions to Andy Stanley by Rachel Held Evans and many others seems to me largely based on a clickbait headline. If he had said ‘the OT is not directly normative for Christians’ he would have said the same thing. It's a pointless controversy.”

To me the sermon quotes did not indicate a pointless controversy, and they did seem to go further than simple questions about normative practice. However, to clear up the confusion in my own mind, I decided to listen to the entire sermon.

Having now twice listened to the sermon, Aftermath, Part 3: Not Difficult, I must admit that it is far worse than even the pulled quotes indicate. People are rightly upset about Stanley’s disregard of the Old Testament, but, actually, his disregard is a means to a specific end. It’s that end, and the argument he constructs, that is the real, serious problem.

Much of his sermon is a theological train wreck. He obviously has a terrible grasp of the covenant, Israel, the Law, Judaism, and how the Apostles and New Testament writers understood the Old Testament scriptures. However, he is only somewhat more confused than the average pastor is with this stuff. But, far beyond the misconceptions of some popular theology, Stanley confuses the “Law of Moses” with the Old Testament. He appears to confuse the ceremonial and ethnic cultural badges of the Old Testament with the moral rules, especially the sexual morals.

In his teaching on the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, Stanley argues that the conclusion to the question of whether Gentiles should adopt circumcision (and other “works of the law”) was summed up in James’ statement, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19 NIV).

Stanley argues that the Jerusalem Council concluded that Gentiles should not follow the Law of Moses or the Old Testament as a whole. He says the Jerusalem Council was effectively saying to the Gentiles, “You are not accountable to the Ten Commandments.” Stanley then tells his congregants what James is effectively telling them: “You should not obey the Ten Commandments because those aren’t your commandments. Yours are better. And yours are far less complicated.”

Here’s the key thing: no one in the American Church or contemporary evangelicalism is currently advocating that today’s Christians follow circumcision, Jewish dietary laws, ceremonial cleanliness, or any of the other Jewish ethnic traditions involved in the Acts 15 debate. So what are the Jewish, Old Testament rules that Stanley intends his congregants to abandon? Stanley doesn’t really say. He doesn’t specify. He doesn’t give a direct, practical application to his sermon. He leaves it up to the congregation to decide how to specifically apply his teaching. However, he does give a general idea of what he’s thinking about.

Stanley states that the letter from the Council telling Gentiles to avoid foods sacrificed to idols and the eating of blooded animals (15:20, 29) was simply a compromise to keep the peace with the Jews. He then states that the reference in the same verses to abstain from sexual immorality is not tied to Old Testament sexual ethics, while also saying that probably everyone would have a different view of what sexual immorality means. Notice these sermons quotes:

“This is so important: This was a general call to avoid immoral behavior but not immoral behavior as defined by the Old Testament.”

“Paul tied sexual behavior, not to the Old Covenant, not the Ten Commandments, but the one commandment Jesus gave us: You are to treat others as God through Christ has treated you.”

“Paul was explicit about teaching on sexual immorality, but he did not tie it to the Old Testament.

“The old covenant, law of Moses, was not the go-to source regarding sexual behavior for the church.”

“The old covenant, law of Moses, was not the go-to source regarding any behavior for the church.”

Basically, Stanley appears to be saying that New Testament teachings on sexual immorality are not tied to Old Testament conceptions and that sexual immorality should be defined as treating others like Christ has treated you.

Now obviously Stanley’s argument is Scripturally erroneous. The New Testament writers, Jesus, and Paul himself frequently defined Christian morality (sexual and otherwise) by the Old Testament and pointed to the Old Testament Scriptures frequently as a basis. One of the major parts of the New Covenant and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not a rejection of the Law but the Spirit-driven ability to actually do the Law. But I leave it to others to pick apart Stanley’s theology here. My focus is not the merits of the argument but the construction of the argument and the end to which it points. He’s obviously not going of script. You can tell he’s not fumbling about, misstating what he actually means. He is making a deliberately intentioned, scripted argument. And that’s my concern. Here’s how I would sum up his argument:

“‘People are losing faith because of something in or about the Bible, especially the Old Testament.’ We should not make it difficult for people to embrace the Christian Faith. The Apostles and early Christians abandoned the Old Testament rules, including the rules of sexual immorality, to include others; we should do so as well. Instead, our sexual ethics should be based solely on one rule: ‘You are to treat others as God through Christ has treated you.’”

If this correctly summarizes Stanley’s point (and I believe it does), what do you think he is referring to?

Note the following summary Stanley gives concerning Peter’s testimony:

“God is doing something new in the world and we [referring to Peter speaking to first century Jewish Christians] need to be a part of it even if it means letting go of and setting aside the traditions, the *Scripture* [Stanley says with emphasis] we grew up with.”

I think Andy Stanley has left his application unstated but heavily implied.

Again, I really like Stanley. I really tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and consider other interpretations of his sermon. If I have mischaracterized his argument and point, I do apologize; but I really don’t think I have. Regardless, I recommend people listen to the sermon and gauge for themselves if I have been unfair in my critique. If I am right, I hope some learned pastor friends of Stanley’s will pull him aside and offer some loving correction.