Andy Stanley’s Teaching Gets EXPOSED!

Hey guys, Colin here, and welcome back to Fight for Truth, the channel where we bring you Christian commentary

about the things that matter.

In today's video, we're going to be talking about the teaching of Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Church in

Atlanta, Georgia.

Recently, Andy has come under fire, yet again, for comments that he made in a sermon, this time

about homosexuality.

So what we're going to do in this video is take a look and analysis at those comments and compare them to the

Word of God.

But that's not all.

In preparation for this video, I did hours of research into Andy Stanley's teaching, and as it turns out,

we should not be surprised at all that this happened.

In fact, I would make the case that we should have known something like this was bound to happen as a result of Andy

Stanley's view of Scripture.

So please stick around if you want to do a deep dive into the flawed teaching of Andy as we compare it to the

Bible.

First, let's take a look at the recent comments regarding homosexuality that have stirred up some controversy,

if you will.

Watch this.

The gay men and women who grew up in church and the gay men and women who've come to faith in Christ as adults who want to

participate in our church, oh my goodness.

I know 1 Corinthians 6, and I know Leviticus, and I know Romans 1.

It's so interesting to talk about all that stuff.

But just, oh my goodness, a gay man or woman who wants to worship

their heavenly Father, who did not answer the cry of their heart when they were 12

and 13 and 14 and 15.

God said no, and they still love God.

We have some things to learn from a group of men and women who love Jesus that much and who want to worship

with us.

So Andy Stanley praises gay people for wanting to worship and serve God rather than, quote,

following the desires of their heart.

And more than this, Andy stands there shocked as he says, quote, God said no, and they still

love God.

But his emphasis here is all wrong.

It's not impressive for us to love God despite His holy standard.

After all, that's the standard we should have followed all along.

Instead, what's truly incredible, what's truly impressive, is that God would love us and save

us despite our extraordinary sin against Him.

Andy puts the emphasis on how long -suffering gay Christians are when he should be putting the

emphasis on how long -suffering God is.

His emphasis is totally off.

That is what is so off -putting about this video.

But here's the central issue with both his teaching on this and the teaching of many modern evangelicals.

I have seen a distinct and troubling pattern in many modern churches of changing how they treat

homosexual temptation and activity.

I'm sure you've seen this as well.

Indeed, I don't think that Andy would say this about any other sexual sin.

I don't think he would talk about it in this way.

Here's an example.

Could you honestly imagine Andy Stanley saying the exact same thing about adulterers?

Quote, there are men and women who have committed adultery, and God commands them not to do this, and yet they

still love God?

These people are truly incredible and amazing.

Obviously, neither Andy Stanley nor any other big evangelical pastor says things like this

about any sin except homosexuality.

And I can offer you even more evidence defending my claim here.

With the previous clip in mind, take a look at what Andy Stanley says in the next one about white Christian men.

Watch this.

Um, so you just talking about white people for a minute.

You have to offend white people with this topic to get their attention.

You can't it can't be you.

It can't be stated in balanced tones or we don't even hear it because I've

no white person really thinks they're a racist and they don't even think they're prejudice.

We don't.

We just.

And so look at what Andy just said about all white people.

He literally said at the beginning of the clip, I'm talking about white people for a minute here.

And then he goes on saying that you must offend white people intentionally and you must

actively use a harsh tone with them.

In fact, balanced tones won't work, he says, because if you do so, they are so ignorant that

they will not listen to you.

So let's get this straight.

With white people in general, especially white men, says Andy, you need to be intentionally

offensive to them.

But people who call themselves gay Christians in the church, they should be celebrated and praised as

uniquely faithful Christians.

By the way, just so we're clear, being white isn't a sin.

Committing the act of homosexuality is.

That should make Andy's differing responses here even more ludicrous than they already are.

One thing is a sin.

The other thing is a skin color.

And yet, shockingly, Andy Stanley seems to be more harsh on white people than he is on the actual

sin of homosexuality.

Look at the difference in tone here.

We must be harsh with white men.

We have to.

They just won't listen.

But when it comes to gay people, let's put on our seeker -sensitive kid gloves because this is delicate work.

The fact is, I don't think any of the writers of the New or Old Testament would talk about homosexuality

the way that modern evangelical megachurch pastors like Andy Stanley do.

In fact, if you compare their responses to that of Scripture, you'll find that there is an obvious difference.

And that's worth looking into.

Why is it that people who either used to be gay or who currently are gay seem to be getting special treatment,

doctrinally speaking, from the modern church?

My suspicion is that as our woke world has grown to exalt homosexuality, these churches seem to

have adjusted their tone on the topic in order to appease the world as much as possible.

That's the whole seeker -sensitive paradigm.

And by the same token, as the woke world has come to hate so -called racism with a special

passion even when it's completely made up, now all of a sudden Andy Stanley and his fellow megachurch pastors

are very harsh against so -called racism.

Or in this case, just harsh on you for being a white person.

When faced with the evidence here, the obvious conclusion is this.

Andy Stanley's approach seems to be swayed much more by modern woke culture than it is by the

pages of the Bible.

And the proof of that has just been shown to you.

Look at the way he talks about modern so -called racism and really just being white, and then look at how he spoke about

homosexuality.

The responses were night and day.

But of course, this is not how our views should be formed as Christians.

Our views should be rooted in Scripture, not in whatever direction the secular wind happens to be blowing.

But pause there, because this is the sticking point, Scripture, the Word of God.

As I conducted my research, I found that Andy Stanley simply does not have a solid view of the

Bible, and this is why we shouldn't be surprised.

And I can give you plenty of evidence to that effect.

For starters, just after the first clip we watched, look at what Andy Stanley says about the passages of

Scripture that are clear with regards to homosexuality.

Watch this.

Goodness, I know 1 Corinthians 6, and I know Leviticus, and I know Romans 1.

It's so interesting to talk about all that stuff.

And I know the verses.

I know the clobber passages, right?

Now let's establish, these texts of Holy Scripture that Andy is referring to are very clear on the

issue of homosexuality.

We're talking about Romans 1 or Leviticus 18, etc.

And any time we have clear Scripture on a particular topic, it is essential, it is

paramount, that we build our view of that topic using that Scripture.

That's how we can have a biblical worldview.

But rather than emphasizing the importance of these texts or expositing them, Andy Stanley dismisses

them as, quote -unquote, clobber passages.

Because no matter what way you cut it, one thing remains clear.

Andy Stanley has a distinct pattern of treating clear Scripture dismissively with comments like the one

you just saw.

Here is yet another example, this time on the subject of the virgin birth.

Watch this.

If somebody can predict their own death and then their own resurrection, I'm not all that concerned about how they got into the world,

because the whole resurrection thing is so amazing.

And in fact, you should know this, that Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth or even the stories around the birth of

Jesus.

It really hinges on the resurrection of Jesus.

So let's just get something straight.

The virgin birth is a story in the narrative sense, but it is not just a story.

What Andy is talking about is holy inspired Scripture.

Matthew 1 .23 says, quote,.

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.

End quote.

And once again, look at how dismissive Andy Stanley talks about this holy text.

He says he's not all that concerned with how Jesus got into the world.

That's no big deal.

After all, if he predicted his own death and resurrection, the virgin birth is practically irrelevant in demonstrating

the truth of Christianity.

The resurrection, that's where it's really at.

Let me ask a question, ladies and gentlemen.

Is this how Paul would have talked about the virgin birth?

Do you honestly think this is how Peter would have talked about the virgin birth?

And for that matter, can we see one example in all of Scripture of a story like the virgin birth being

spoken of in such a flippant and dismissive way?

I have certainly never seen such an example myself.

And more than this, the virgin birth is just as important as the resurrection.

Why?

Well, because both of these events were predicted in the Old Testament, and they testify to who the

true Messiah is.

The fact is, if one of these predicted events did not occur in the life of Jesus, then the prophets of the Old

Testament are false prophets and Jesus is not the Christ.

The stakes are very high here.

This is what we're talking about.

Isaiah 7 14 says, quote,.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.

Behold, the virgins shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.

End quote.

If this event didn't happen the way he described it, Isaiah is a false prophet.

The very same Isaiah who wrote Isaiah 53.

Verse 9 of that chapter predicts Jesus' death, saying, quote,.

And they made his grave with the wicked.

But then somehow, verse 12 says, quote,.

Yet he bore the sins of many and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Now how can a dead man make consistent intercession for transgressors?

Hebrews 7 25 answers the question, quote,.

He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always

lives to make intercession for them.

End quote.

So what's my point here?

My point is that playing this game, this bizarre game of which Old Testament prophecy is more

important than the other, it's silly, it's foolish, and completely unnecessary.

If he was not born of a virgin, then Jesus was not the promised Messiah.

End of story.

And if you don't think that's important, then you don't have a solid biblical worldview.

Andy Stanley's disregard for the virgin birth is not only illogical, it's unbiblical, and it demonstrates

his low view of God's Word once again.

But trust me, this is not where the evidence ends.

In 2016, Andy Stanley was interviewed by Russell Moore, then the head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Andy was asked what would he do if he was made Pope, hypothetically, of the entire Church.

Here was his response, quote, I would ask preachers, pastors, and student pastors in their

communication to get the spotlight off of the Bible and back on the resurrection,

end quote.

Yes, you heard that properly.

Andy Stanley, a pastor, outright told other pastors that they should take the spotlight, quote,

off of the Bible.

So here's a question.

Is there any writer of Scripture that you can think of who would say something like that about God's Word ever?

I have never encountered a passage that would indicate anything resembling this.

Indeed, none of Andy's comments that we've seen here today are echoed clearly in the pages of God's Word.

Rather, they seem to be based in his seeker -sensitive ministry model.

And by the way, it's worth mentioning, what Andy is talking about here is a self -defeating argument anyways.

You cannot take attention off of the Bible and put it on the resurrection, because the only infallible

account of the resurrection that we have is in the Bible.

To put it bluntly, Andy has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

He's contradicting both the Bible and himself all over the place.

But there is perhaps no greater example of Andy's low view of Scripture than what he said here.

Watch this.

If the Bible is the foundation of our faith, it is all or nothing.

If anything proves that something in the Bible isn't actually, absolutely, historically,

scientifically reliable, uh -oh, the whole thing comes tumbling down, because this version of Christianity

is a house of cards.

And all you have to do is pull out one card and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

Christianity becomes a fragile house of cards that comes tumbling down when people...

So there you have it, folks.

Andy Stanley says that if your faith is founded on the Bible, then what you have is a, quote,

house of cards.

And that house of cards is liable to fall down any minute.

Meanwhile, what did Jesus say about the Bible?

In Matthew 5 .18, Jesus says, quote,

End quote.

Jesus was completely confident in Scripture.

But according to Andy Stanley, a statement like this is nothing but a house of cards.

There's no need to make sweeping statements like this about the Bible, because it's not about the Bible.

It's all about the resurrection, says Andy.

But here's the question.

Is Andy's view of Scripture matching what was given to us by the writers of Scripture?

It doesn't look like it.

For example, in Acts 17, Paul meets the Berean Christians.

We've seen this example before.

But watch what happens in how it relates to Andy's statement.

Verse 11, quote,.

End quote.

So these Jews were praised for comparing Paul's message, which undoubtedly would have included the resurrection,

to the previously inspired Word of God in the Old Testament.

But wait just a minute.

I thought our faith was not founded on the truth of Scripture.

I thought our faith could be easily separated from the Bible and placed entirely on the resurrection of Christ.

After all, it's silly and foolish for any adult to believe things just because the Bible says so.

That's inadequate.

And yet, with all of that, here stand the Berean Jews, unwilling to believe in the resurrection until

they were certain that the Scriptures affirmed Jesus as the Messiah.

And what does Luke, the writer, say here?

Does he say, that will never work in the modern Church?

We need a new, seeker -sensitive approach if we're going to win this new generation.

Nope.

He says these Jews were noble.

They were praiseworthy for what they did.

Andy Stanley says that our faith is not founded in any way on the Word of God.

Yet Isaiah 40 verse 8 says, quote,.

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God will stand forever.

End quote.

That seems like something you can put your confidence in, but not according to Andy Stanley.

And finally, I just want to touch very briefly on what Andy said about the Old Testament because it's really been done to

death.

He said, quote, Peter, James, and Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their

Jewish Scriptures.

And my friends, we must as well.

End quote.

So according to Andy, we're supposed to unhitch from the Old Testament.

Meanwhile, Jesus Himself says in Matthew 5, quote,.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.

I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

End quote.

You see, the Old Testament is not unhitched from the New Covenant.

Rather, the proper relationship is this.

The Old finds its ultimate fulfillment in the New.

And frankly, it is irresponsible to ever say that we should unhitch from any portion of sacred

Scripture.

And once again, Andy Stanley is dangerously off the mark.

So all of this evidence leads us to a particular sound conclusion.

The fact is, the writers of Scripture have a much higher view of God's Word than Andy Stanley does.

That much is clear.

Andy's position is also filled with contradictions, both of the illogical and unbiblical varieties.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why his position on homosexuality is getting so uncomfortable.

Because Andy has a fundamentally low view of Scripture, and it really shows in his teaching.

I could go on quoting example after example, but we'd be here all day because it really is endemic to his preaching.

So maybe I'll make a full -length documentary on this topic in the future.

Go ahead and comment if you'd be interested in that.

Let us know.

I pray that this has been a blessing to you, and please know that this video isn't meant as a sinful attack, but rather as a

Biblical critique.

Please pray for this channel and for anyone discussed in the video.

And if you're looking for teaching resources or trying to find a new church, check out the teaching ministries and church

networks we've linked in the description.

And by God's grace, let's move forward joyfully, holding to the truth of God's Word.

Thank you so much for watching that video.

Please like, subscribe, hit the bell, and subscribe to our Rumble channel.

Link in description.

And before you go, take a look at this list here.

These are the people who make all of the free content you see on this channel possible with their monthly support.

Today's highlighted channel supporter is Teresa B.

If you also want to support this channel, hit the link in the description.

Your support keeps us independent and helps us immensely.

So I hope you'll consider joining the Truth Army today, and until next time, fight for truth.

Thank you and God bless.