He Died for Your Sins and Was Buried He Rose Again and Was Seen Andy Stanley

Nosotros need to always shift our focus more toward Jesus and the resurrection as the core of our faith.

In role i of the interview, Andy Stanley talks well-nigh why he feels we should stop maxim "the Bible says," unpacks the main thrust of his new book Irresistible and why the resurrection is still the well-nigh important aspect of our faith.

Who in history hasn't gotten it incorrect? Where do yous meet this "unblended" Christian theology?

Well, I grew upward with the mix-and-match devotional approach to the Bible like simply nearly everybody else. My problems are the "Goliaths," and I'one thousand a "David," and all that. Noah was faithful, never mind what was floating on the water during the alluvion, and all that. We romanticize Scripture, and sand off all the rough edges. It'southward a whole supposition undergirding how we preach and teach.

When I was in seminary, taking apologetics with Dr. Norm Geisler—who is however one of the staunchest defenders of inerrancy on the planet—he taught us the archetype apologetic method. Information technology's simple:

1. God exists.
2. Miracles are possible.
3. The New Testament documents are reliable accounts of what actually happened.
4. Jesus rose from the expressionless.

That'due south it. That's the whole argument. As a result, even though the Sometime Testament is at the front end of our book, information technology's at the dorsum of our apologetic. The reason nosotros have information technology seriously is considering Jesus took it seriously.

So, you enquire who else got it right? I call back anyone who has built their theology and apologetic on the resurrection. All the weight falls upon the gospel accounts and the epistles. That'south where Christians stake their claim in history and where our faith is most defensible. From that, we reason outward, eventually getting to the Hebrew Scriptures. My point in writing the book is that I desire thoughtful Christians everywhere to readjust their thinking on how they talk almost the Bible, as well as examining what they consider to be the foundation of their faith. Anything less than Jesus isn't good enough. "The Bible says" isn't good enough.

Now, I would be the first to acknowledge that salvation is a mystery. I can't remember a single person I've met who became a Christian because of biblical gymnastics. People turn to Jesus because they reach the stop of themselves, they look up and at camp, or in a sermon, or on the radio, or any, they are given a unproblematic gospel presentation, and something happened inside them. That something had virtually nothing to practice with the Bible. It had to do with a uncomplicated gospel presentation and them crying out to God, who answered that weep. Then over time, they gained an appreciation for the backstory and the story of Jesus.

I don't want to make more of this than I should, simply at the same time, for the average believer this is extremely important.

How and then?

In the historic period of the net, people tin can get all kinds of information and misinformation about the Bible without e'er actually opening one up. In the old days, that just wasn't possible. But today it's all a click abroad. How are they going to react? They need a foundation stiff plenty to weather that. Have we pointed them to one?

OK. How does "new" relate to "irresistible," and then?

Under the "new," we can preach a faith that can be substantiated and authenticated through an consequence in history (the resurrection) coupled with the profound New Testament message that God is love and that he showed that by sending his Son to pay for the sins of the globe to connect with individual sinners—with you. With me. Is that not a compelling bulletin? Of course it is. First century pagans ultimately constitute information technology to be somewhat irresistible, especially in comparison to the fickle pantheon of gods they grew up worshiping. When we compare that message with the alternatives our civilisation presents, information technology'southward no less powerful.

How practise nosotros hear the gospel differently when it's presented this way?

The gospel is simple. I think this approach keeps information technology that way. Paul summarized it perfectly: Christ died on the cross for our sins and was buried. He was raised from the dead and was seen. That's it. Anything outside the good news is unnecessary compared to our presentation of the simple gospel.

We add more in though, right from the start. Not needed. Really, the only people who take those Old Testament stories seriously anyway are Jesus followers. Jesus first, Jonah 2nd, I say. To which my critics shout, "Just Andy, Jesus spoke of Jonah!" Which is exactly my signal. No modern American would take Jonah seriously if it were non for Jesus. Jesus first. Jonah, Noah, Moses and the other OT heroes 2nd. This is the simplicity of our religion.

In your view, does this alter how the church relates to the wider culture?

Yeah. Information technology changes how thoughtful Christians communicate to their friends and family members who have not embraced faith. Information technology changes what we debate about, what nosotros debate and what we feel the need to defend.

The foundation of our faith is not inspired text or a perfect book. When I say things similar that, people think I don't believe we have an inspired text or a perfect book. That's not my bespeak. My bespeak is that we demand to get those obstacles out of the way, accept that ammunition out of the easily of the New Atheists, etc. Anyone who knows church history knows that the tightly defined concepts of inspiration and inerrancy came belatedly in church history.

Dr. Geisler, my teacher, edited the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. But Norm is also the 1 who taught me the classical apologetic method I mentioned higher up. He had priorities.

Nosotros do not need to convince someone of our inerrant biblical text to brand a instance for the message of John 3:16. We know this to exist the case, correct? Near people who put their faith in Christ have neither read the whole Bible or been given a sophisticated agreement of the Bible. Many can't even spell "inerrancy."

One key question here is how the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are connected. As you note, it'south an old debate. Tertullian wrote: "Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Quondam, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as information technology was only in his ability to separate what was previously united." Implication: The early church did not view the collecting Scriptures as divided. They thought of them as role of the same literature. United. Your response?

I think the early on Gentile church got information technology wrong. The church fathers were very brave. But they were non Jewish. Few knew Hebrew. They were persecuted by the Jewish community. Think, the commencement persecution against Christians was led and funded by Jews, not Rome. Christians were taken to Jerusalem for trial. Later, the Jewish customs sided with the Romans in persecuting Christians.

The church allegorized, Christianized and baptized the Jewish scriptures. Their lack of proper contextualization of Jewish texts laid the groundwork for the later on persecution of Jews past the church and the persecution of pagans who would not convert to Christianity. (I give a couple of illustrations of this in the book.)

Let's summarize. Our problem is a "blended" gospel that gets onetime religion (law) all mixed in with new covenant (beloved). But the solution you advocate rejects how Christians have traditionally handled the Hebrew Scriptures in favor of what I might telephone call a "Wow, the OT was nice history, merely allow'south move on" arroyo. That's an option for responding, but non the only one.

Are y'all open to people embracing your deftly named problem while considering alternative solutions?

Yes, I am. But let's be clear—I'yard not suggesting, "That was squeamish, let's move on." I am saying, "Be conscientious with extracting portions of the erstwhile covenant and importing it into the new."

There's a nationalistic worldview that permeates the history of the ancient Jews. It's supposed to be that way. I'k non arguing it was wrong. I think it was necessary and brilliant. But our reading of the Bible trips u.s. hither. About Christians see the Bible as a spiritual guidebook, cover to cover. They become looking for applications and promises to merits, getting fashion out of context. For the most part, no impairment is washed. Just non always.

And what'southward more, the Hebrew Scriptures come alive when understood in their proper context. Neither Jesus nor the apostle Paul expended whatsoever free energy explaining away God's somewhat un-Christian behavior in the Jewish scriptures. It wasn't a problem for them considering information technology wasn't a problem. I encourage readers non to glamorize, sanitize, romanticize or try to harmonize God's one-time covenant beliefs with the new covenant. One led to the other. The old covenant was a necessary means to the new, I believe.

In the book I requite several specific suggestions for how Christians should navigate and leverage the OT texts. Over again, I preached on the story of Joseph just yesterday. Last year I did an entire series on the life of David. I'chiliad non advocating abandoning the OT by any means. I am advocating for putting it where it belongs—at the end of our apologetic.

I remember that we should read it showtime and foremost as history. It is divinely directed history with a divinely directed end. It has a specific historical context. Most of the Jewish scripture—Exodus through Malachi—took place within the context of God's covenant relationship with aboriginal Israel. To drop into the text here and there looking for something to employ is to miss the majesty of the story. God created a remarkable world. Mankind stunk it up. God went to work to remedy the problem. The rest is history.

How is your evolving view changing how you preach? How you lot pastor? How you lot evangelize?

This twelvemonth I spent two hours with about 700 loftier school seniors from our churches talking to them virtually what the Bible is. Earlier they go to college I want them to accept an adult understanding of what the Bible is and to accept a clear understanding of what is the true foundation of their religion.

I've begun to blend a layer of apologetics into just about every message I preach. I've never taught straight up apologetics. It's non necessary—nosotros tin can preach through it, not about information technology. Anchoring the text to the author's story and a specific historical context is function of that process.

Anchoring our faith to the resurrection is part of that process likewise. Reminding our people that nosotros don't believe Jesus rose from the dead simply "because the Bible says so" is part of that procedure. We believe considering Matthew believed. Along with Mark, Luke, Peter, James, John and Paul. Y'all've got to bargain with each 1 of those men and their testimonies separately.

What exercise we gain when nosotros recapture this "new" for the earth?

We gain greater confidence, Paul. It's beautiful.

Our faith becomes more than hands defensible in the marketplace and classroom. We're less threatened by "what else" the Bible says. We realize that science is not an enemy—it's our friend. This arroyo reminds us that God acted in history. The Word actually became flesh. He dwelt amongst us—and those he dwelt amid reliably documented information technology for the balance of u.s.a..

In the book, you talk about the experience of existence on record with sermons, books and more from your past that you might disagree with or nuance differently today. What should leaders have away from your personal journey?

I think Christians should be the most curious people on the planet. In that location'southward never a reason to close our hands around annihilation less than Jesus. Nosotros shouldn't grasp what we own, what we believe, what nosotros beloved, what we're open to God doing in our lives, none of it. Repeatedly, what does Jesus say? "Fearfulness non."

Only when we become afraid and feel threatened, nosotros close our hands, grasping things. Then we close our hearts and close our optics. Finally, nosotros close our minds. I dear this quote from Sam Harris: "We should pay attention to the frontiers of our ignorance."

I want to be a Christian who has his face up to the world, unafraid of what I'm going to find. I don't desire to hesitate to option the rocks upward for fear of all the squiggly things that might be nether my worldview or my theology. I want to be fearless. Part of that for me has been this journeying of understanding what the foundation of my faith actually is. As I have seen some of my students come dorsum from secular classroom experiences, their religion is existence grounded and confirmed with this context, not shaken past new ideas.

That ability to question the nonessentials while holding to Jesus is the marking non of a shaking faith but one that's deeply grounded, isn't information technology?

Absolutely. And I want every Christian to be there. All three of my kids attended secular universities and graduated with their religion intact.

"What does love require of me?" is the key question you say ought to guide Christian life and make our religion irresistible. How do nosotros lead from that question?

That question has been a guiding lite for Sandra and me personally. We've had to navigate some super catchy situations over the years, in ministry, in parenting and in our life in general. Information technology's helped us and our church tremendously.

Now, what many churches hear in that statement is "forget the police, forget morality, forget ethics, forget the Bible, simply go out at that place and do what you feel is love." Actually, though, this is a Jesus question, and information technology's way bigger than that. Jesus shows united states what it looks like to live that question out. Imitating that is the backbone of the Christian life. Jesus said that if nosotros saw him, we saw the Male parent. If we look past Jesus, we're looking by the Father. If nosotros cease short of Jesus, we've stopped short of the Father.

John took abroad from that see of his life that "God is beloved," because he knew that Jesus was beloved. Then what that question actually is, whether nosotros're a veteran pastor or a new Christian, is "What does Jesus require of me?"

That is so much harder than the legalism of blended theology. It closes all the loopholes. Give me x rules? I'll discover a loophole. Only tell me that I must live in light of what dear requires? I may not live up to it, but I can't find a loophole there. It becomes individual, circumstantial. What's true for one child might not be true for another.

And in terms of evangelism, no one in the marketplace or our civilization tin debate with that question.

So, I'll say what love requires of me every bit a Christian, and I'll allow leaders ponder how this looks for them: I am to do for others what God through Christ has done for me. God forgave me—I must forgive. God has pity on me—I must have information technology as well. God bore my burdens—I'm to behave yours. The answer is very specific, for each of u.s.. It's just open ended if you're non asking it, concretely, for you. If y'all offset doing that, it all leaps into focus.

It requires us to grow up then, doesn't it? We need to abound into the epitome of Jesus who was more than a good little law keeper. He had authority.

Paul, over and over, talks almost the "mode" of dearest. All the rest fades away because that.

Thanks for taking the time to wrestle through this. Atomic number 82 us out with your favorite "new" quote from the Old Attestation?

You bet! Genesis one:27: "So God created mankind in his own epitome, in the prototype of God he created them; male and female he created them."

This is remarkable. Imagine this being penned in a world where might made right—and where women had virtually no rights. A world where information technology was causeless the gods created mankind as an afterthought to serve equally slaves. Genesis puts a pale in the basis. Genesis introduces an idea that the world both is still catching upward to, yet takes for granted.

Like Dorothy's ruby slippers, what if the way forwards has been with us the whole fourth dimension? The bulletin of Genesis 1 is that every man, woman and child has intrinsic worth because they are the epitome of God.

This magnificent statement sets the course for all that follows in the whole Bible. I don't know why everyone would not desire the story found in the Old Attestation to exist true. From cosmos to Abraham to God'south involvement with Israel to the introduction of the Messiah—it's the greatest story ever told. And it includes each of us.

The better we tell information technology, the more inviting it is. John who watched his friend die, saw where he was buried, peered into an empty tomb and then had breakfast with his risen Rabbi on the beach—that same John summed it all up perfectly: "God so loved the globe that he gave …"

Well, you know who he gave.

For more: OutreachMagazine/Andy-Stanley »

Learn more than about Andy Stanley's book Irresistible »
Read an extract from Andy Stanley'south volume Irresistible »
Pre-order Irresistible hither »
Mind to a sample of chapter 1 beneath (narrated past Andy Stanley):

Communicator, author and pastor Andy Stanley founded Atlanta-based N Point Ministries in 1995. Today, North Betoken consists of six churches in the Atlanta area and a network of 30 churches around the globe that collectively serve virtually 70,000 people weekly. and author of several books, including Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World (Zondervan, 2018).

Paul J. Pastor is editor-at-large of Outreach, and writer of multiple books on spiritual germination, including The Listening Day series of devotionals (Zeal Books). Instagram: @PaulJPastor. Website: PaulJPastor.com.

diazmustrien.blogspot.com

Source: https://outreachmagazine.com/interviews/33902-andy-stanley-nothing-less-than-jesus-part-2.html