How should Christians respond to Andy Stanley and other false teachers?

Before we begin Part II, the manner in which this writer and others are publicly and forcefully challenging Andy Stanley and his false teachings should be examined. Many Christians disagree with these actions and quickly quote Matthew 18:15-17 as the proper biblical way by which Christians ought to deal with such presumed errors.

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. [Matthew 18:15-17. NIV]

Matthew never meant these verses to be used in addressing and dealing with false teachers. First, these verses deal with fellow disciples (brothers and sisters in Christ). Second, these verses deal with personal offences, grievances, or misunderstandings between two Christians. Neither applies when dealing with false teachers.

False teachers are not brothers and sisters in Christ but wolves in sheep’s clothing, and the Bible is plain as to how these people are to be dealt with. The above verses are about personal disputes between two Christians, but false teachers attack the very Word of God with their teachings in the same way Satan deceived Eve in the Garden. The following verses should be applied when confronting false teachers.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! [Galatians 1:8. NIV]

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. [Ephesians 5:11. NIV]

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. [2 John 1:10-11. NIV]

Jesus and His disciples dealt with heretics immediately, publicly, and severely. To do otherwise is to compromise the Word and accommodate the heretic and his teachings. Many in the modern evangelical church tolerate these false teachers and their work because they fly the flag of a false ecumenicalism. Therefore, false teachers are often accommodated and allowed to remain in the church.

Irresistible – Andy Stanley’s new covenant teachings[1]

Stanley spends the first thirteen chapters of his book denigrating the Old Testament and unhitching it from the New Testament.

Careless mixing and matching of old and new covenant values and imperatives make the current version of our faith unnecessarily resistible. This is why I insist that most of what makes us resistible are thing we should have been resisting all along. [p. 95] [emphasis in original]

According to Stanley, the rules and regulations (the Law and the Prophets) in the Old Testament are the things Christians must resist in order to make way for the irresistible Jesus of the New Testament. But Stanley also finds much in the New Testament that he thinks should be resisted.

He spends the last eleven chapters introducing “a new guiding ethical framework for the new covenant of Christ which has a new commandment that forms the new ethical framework for new covenant people. A framework that is far less complicated, but far more demanding.” [p. 170] [emphasis in original] Again, Stanley believes that those resistible parts of the Old Testament ways of doing things that have crept into the New Testament must be eliminated or at the least ignored.

Participants in the new covenant are not required to obey most of the commandments found in the first half of their Bibles (i.e., the Old Testament). Participants in the new covenant (i.e., the New Testament) are expected to obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant. Namely: As I have loved you, so you must love one another. [p. 196] [emphasis added]

Conspicuously absent from Jesus’ new-command instructions was an overt reference to his divine right to require such allegiance and obedience. [p. 198] [emphasis added]

Paraphrasing the words of another famous Church Growth movement leader,[2] Stanley is cutting the sinner some slack in the NT when it comes to that OT thing called sin. Stanley admits that Paul’s letters were often packed with exceedingly precise instructions as to how Christians should conduct themselves inside and outside the body of Christ, i.e., the Church. But according to Stanley, Paul explains away the importance of those instructions when writing to the Corinthian church. Paul supposedly admitted “that one of his applications is completely his idea. He goes out of his way to ensure nobody gives Jesus credit for what is his unique contribution.” [pp. 201-202] But Stanley’s interpretation is astounding when one considers the implications for the inerrancy of God’s Word. It would mean that Paul’s words in the NT have less standing than Christ’s words and needn’t be thought as constraining on the lifestyles of the Corinthians. Put another way, if the words of the NT are printed in red, they have greater authority and supposedly are more inspired than the words printed in black, especially if those words in black sound too much like those Old Testament “Thou shalt” and “thou shalt nots.”

Stanley’s justification of love over truth

Stanley justifies his teachings about the New Testament by calling Christians to a “horizontal morality” as opposed to the traditional “vertical morality.”

In the stream of Christianity I grew up in, sin avoidance was pretty much our guiding light…The whole thing was vertical. I was far more concerned about how my behavior affected my standing with God than I was about how my behavior affected anybody else. After all, the Bible says pleasing God is more important than pleasing people. [pp. 173-174]

At this point Stanley with a deft interpretational sleight of hand transforms the Old Testament vertical morality to a New Testament horizontal morality. He begins with Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisee regarding the greatest commandment.

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” [Matthew 22:35-40. NIV]

Stanley explains that the second commandment was not subordinate to the first but merely second in sequence. He says that for first century Jews loving God meant obeying his commands, but in the new covenant, loving Jesus is loving your neighbor. He has essentially shifted vertical morality to horizontal morality. [pp. 182-183] However, in doing so, Stanley sweeps aside many of the moral attributes of God.

We get a better insight into the meaning of Stanley’s substitution of horizontal morality for vertical morality by understanding that morality is more than a list of do’s and don’ts. A few synonyms are helpful in understanding the meaning of morality: principles, standards, goodness, decency, honesty, integrity, virtue, and perhaps most important, godliness or godlikeness. Has Stanley’s shift from vertical morality to horizontal morality redefined the meaning of morality itself? In a word, yes. Quoting Stanley, “Jesus issued his new commandment as a replacement for everything in the existing list. Including the Big Ten. Just as his new covenant fulfilled and replaced the old covenant, Jesus’ new commandment fulfills and replaces the old commandments.” [p. 196] [emphasis in original]

Essentially, Stanley is saying that those Old Testament definitions of morality that reflect the nature of God are no longer valid and therefore God must have changed. However, James tells us that God is unchangeable with regard to His attributes, His perfection, or His purpose for humankind. “ Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” [James 1:17. NIV] [emphasis added]

To summarize, Stanley’s New Testament theology places love above truth and virtually everything else in the New Testament. To prove his point Stanley quotes 1 John 2:10 but let’s also include the preceding verse.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. [1 John 2:9-10. NIV]

Based on this verse Stanley says, “That is remarkable. According to John, who got it straight from Jesus, if we love well, all is well. Period. That’s it. Love well and you’re in the light.” [p. 227] But Stanley’s “Period” is misplaced. It dismisses or ignores verses 15 through17 which commands his disciples to not love the world.

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [1 John 2:15-17. NIV] [emphasis added]

A complete reading of the 1 John 2 refutes Stanley’s statement that if Christians love well, all is well. The remaining verses of 1 John 2 show that other requirements (i.e., not loving the world) must be met in order to be in the light. Even though Christians love well, if they love the world the Father is not in them, they are not in the light, and all is not well. Once again Andy Stanley is revealed as being a false teacher.

Stanley’s gospel of cheap grace

Stanley’s dismisses vertical morality, but also substantially dismisses horizontal morality except for a Christian loving others well. Recall the excerpt from Stanley’s book quoted in Part I: “The new covenant would fulfill and replace the behavioral, sacrifice-based systems reflected in just about every religion of the ancient world. His new command would serve as the governing behavioral ethic for members of his new movement.” [p. 24] [emphasis added]

What is this new behavioral ethic? Stanley wrote that “Participants in the new covenant are expected to obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant. Namely: As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” [p. 196] [emphasis in original] Stanley is saying that love is of sole importance, but this essentially sweeps away all other behavioral admonishments found in both the OT and NT and replaces them with “if we love well, all is well. Period.” When one reads Stanley’s book from cover to cover, it is plain to see that his new covenant model is not new but merely the latest and most virulent mutation of cheap grace that substantially eliminates all of the “behavioral” commandments found in the New Testament.

In America many evangelical churches have become apostate by abandoning any pretense of adherence to the gospel message. Biblical truths are twisted, mocked, or dismissed altogether. Others champion a social gospel or preach a gospel of health, wealth, happiness, harmony, and cheap grace in place of the cross and death to self. Eighty years ago, Bonhoeffer described “cheap grace.”

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[3]

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.[4]

Cheap grace is the end product of preaching the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love which attempts to redefine, hide, or deny sin but does not eradicate it. Rather, it makes a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin. Cheap grace makes the shedding of Christ’s blood at Calvary irrelevant for man’s redemption.

The preaching of nonjudgmental love occurs because the world’s definitions of love and tolerance have invaded the church and compromised the gospel message. As a result, the message of many churches is that God’s nonjudgmental love is so vast that he will overlook sin for a season if not altogether ignore it if one will only acknowledge Him. The new definitions of love and tolerance require unconditional acceptance of the sinner and is presumed superior to the biblical approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.[5]

But the world’s definitions of love and tolerance are contrary to the very nature of God because he cannot tolerate sin. God is both loving and just, and if His love is conformed to the world’s definition of nonjudgmental love and tolerance, then he is cannot be both loving and just.

In this article the writer has attempted to expose Andy Stanley’s false teaching. If what has been written is correct, then Christians must follow Paul’s command written to the Ephesians and have nothing to do with his “fruitless deeds of darkness.” [Ephesians 5:11. NIV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources

[1] All page numbers in this article refer to Andy Stanley’s book: Andy Stanley, Irresistible – Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018).
[2] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), p. 216.
[3] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117- 118.
[4] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, “Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV,” January 9, 2015, culturewarrior.net