Andy Stanley’s Subtle Liberalization

Those with more liberal theology tend to be more secretive about it while those with more conservative theology tend to be very open and straightforward about it, and this has been the case for quite some  time. The “liberal theologians” of Jesus’ day were the Sadducees. I have read that they would often hide their views from those outside their inner circle, effecting a slow liberalization of the people they influenced. 

Which  reminds me of Andy Stanley. He seems to be making a concerted effort to slowly introduce a new, liberal theology into his historically conservative congregation. And he does so by attempting  to baby step them towards his views while not being truly open about what those views are. As such, he can convert as much of his congregation to his position by boiling the proverbial frog. I’ve seen this sort of thing happen a number of times over the years. A prominent Christian privately compromises on some very important issues such that his theology has some big problems. But, since his following has a large number of Christians who believe those things, he introduces his new compromised teachings slowly and strategically. The goal is to lose as few followers as possible while introducing these new teachings. At a minimum, he needs to keep enough of the congregation to continue functioning financially and to keep from being ousted as a pastor. Andy Stanley, who not only pastors tens of thousands but has also become a coach for pastors around the world, seems to be consciously aware of this process. He has taught other pastors not to change theology too quickly for their congregations in an attempt to retain as many people as possible as you shift to different teachings than your church has historically known.¹

Whilst the  Sadducees denied the resurrection, liberal theologians are rarely so straightforward about such offenses. Instead, the Sadducees could say that they affirmed a kind of resurrection in the fact that your children and grandchildren live on after you die. This is a poetic way of treating the topic. But it didn’t stop the Holy Spirit from describing them as, “the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection,” (Mt 22:23) because redefining the resurrection in such a way was a denial of it. It reminds me of guys like John Dominic Crossan, the famous liberal scholar who denied that he denied the resurrection. He taught that while Jesus didn’t physically rise from the dead it was still true that he metaphorically resurrected. Being able to wax poetic about the deep and powerful meaning of the metaphor of Christ’s resurrection allowed Crossan to appeal to the hearts of many. He could even teach a whole sermon about how amazing and important the resurrection of Jesus is. If he was very careful with his words the majority of his hearers wouldn’t even notice his heretical theology. Andy Stanley, while he definitely affirms the literal resurrection of Christ, has a number of other teachings that are increasingly problematic.

So what exactly does Stanley believe?  Well, he has for instance taught his congregation that Christianity needs to “unhitch from the Old Testament.” In some instances, he makes it sound like he just doesn’t want to complicate evangelism with having to answer a thousand hard questions about the Old Testament, which seems somewhat reasonable. When I’m trying to lead someone to Jesus, I don’t want to have distractions on secondary questions clogging up the conversation. But in reality  it’s more than that. If you listen very carefully, you’ll see that Andy isn’t just recommending a strategy for keeping an evangelistic conversation on track but is actually teaching the church that we should not have a confident belief in the Old Testament as the word of God. Oh, he may affirm that it is the word of God in a similar way that Crossan affirms the resurrection of Jesus, but with a meaning very different than the true one. It seems to me that Stanley, rather than merely wanting to avoid distractions during evangelism, sees the Old Testament as presenting a picture of God which  he  wants to reject outright. 

I recall reading his book Irresistible and found that it was chock full of this sort of thing. In it, he makes various efforts to increase evangelism, which may even have some degree of success, but which are ultimately anchored in false thinking and unbiblical ideas. Evangelism, or perhaps I should say numbers, are the bait that lures in well-meaning Christians and church leaders, but the hook is wrong teaching. I’ve even  seen Andy respond to criticism of the hook as though people are criticizing the bait, thereby drawing a picture of his critics as being opposed to evangelism, and that they are the reason why people are leaving the church. 

Much more can be said about his teaching, his waffling on LGBT issues, his commitment to pragmatism to the degree that it is greatly impacting his theology, or even his laudable desire to reach those outside the church (though what he will eventually reach them with is a bit uncertain). But in all of this, it certainly seems to me like there are frogs in the pot and the heat is rising.. My recommendation is that Christians unhitch from Andy Stanley before things get even worse. While we don’t want to become paranoid, Christians would be wise to recognize the direction in which their leaders are moving them and should consider  whether continuing to follow such  leaders is continuing to follow Christ.

¹ https://x.com /ryanvisconti/status/1618498477838962688