It was less than 50 years ago (October 1978) that the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was written. The authors met for the purpose of composing a clear statement on the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. This was in response to the increasing theological liberalism of the day. The enemy of our souls continually seeks to undermine the authority and sufficiency of God’s Word. It is under attack in our day as well. This may not surprise you. What is my point? Andy Stanley, Lead Pastor of Northpoint Church in Georgia, and others like him are seeking to normalize LGBTQ+ behavior and desire in evangelicalism. To do so, one must reject the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The Word of God clearly teaches that all LGBTQ+ behavior and desire is sinful. So, how do you normalize sinful behavior and desire?
First, you take advantage of people’s poor grasp of theology. The shallow understanding of doctrine that many in the evangelical church possess makes them susceptible to false doctrine. This allows Andy (and others like him) to claim he believes in a biblical sexual ethic but that adhering to such an ethic is not realistic for everyone. As a result, Andy claims his theology is biblical (in his own estimation) but his practice is different because he handles such situations in a pastoral way. So, theology is one thing but pastoral response is another? We have a problem. The pastoral practice and response should be in accordance with the teaching and standard of Scripture. The very idea that the theological and the pastoral are in conflict with each other confirms that something is fundamentally wrong. Those who fall prey to Andy’s teaching are those who think repentance and obedience are optional in Christianity. They are not optional. Repentance and sanctification are not necessary for Andy’s brand of Christianity. This is cheap grace. It is an easy believism that is foreign to N.T. Christianity.
Andy doesn’t really hold to a biblical sexual ethic or an orthodox theology, though he claims he does. Why should he? Didn’t he declare that Christianity was not based upon Scripture anyway? Well, at least not based on the N.T. Scriptures, because Andy already “unhitched” the O.T. Scriptures from his “Christianity” at an earlier time. Andy confidently asserted that Christianity was based upon the resurrection alone, not the Bible. Wait… Isn’t the Bible our primary source for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Yes. It is. So, what are you left with as the authority for life and practice? You are left with Andy’s extra-biblical wisdom and principles. What is the standard of truth and morality? There is no fixed standard. When you reject the authority and sufficiency of Scripture you will end up in such a place.
Secondly, Andy is a clever communicator. He presents their approach to LGBTQ+ behavior and desire as being the most loving approach. Really, it is what Jesus would have done. Interesting. Was it realistic for the woman caught in adultery to stop living in sin (John 8:11)? What about the invalid that Jesus healed in John 5:1-17? Jesus commanded him, “Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you” (John 5:14). Was it realistic to require such a thing? The Scriptures require repentance in order to come to Christ by faith (Acts 20:21). Christ cannot be Savior without him also being Lord. Andy’s clever, winsome, approach is not in line with Scripture. So, it really cannot be more loving and pastoral because it lies to the hearer. It offers an unbiblical message and an unbiblical Christianity, which is no Christianity at all. Andy’s approach and rhetoric have added to the Scriptures and also taken away from them at the same time (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).
Thirdly, Andy presents himself as a winsome messenger, who really just wants to draw non-believers to faith. He is on record saying that he would rather offend believers than offend non-believers. This projects a heart for the lost but in reality, it is something less. Rather, it presumes it is always right or better to offend believers and it is always wrong or worse to offend non-believers. What does Scripture have to say about such an approach? Scripture says that the gospel is offensive to the unbeliever (1 Cor. 1:18-25; 2:1-16; 2 Cor. 2:14-17). Paul and his co-workers, “refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word” (2 Cor. 4:2b). Andy’s approach demonstrates a rejection of an orthodox biblical hamartiology and soteriology. He demonstrates his rejection of other doctrines of orthodoxy elsewhere in his other teaching. This is the post-modern version of the Jeffersonian Bible. Remove or reinterpret the portions of Scripture that are not palatable to your modern sensibilities. They have made themselves out to be more loving and merciful than God. This is blasphemy with a smile and a winsome tone. Joe Rigney’s article entitled, “The Enticing Sin of Empathy” is helpful here.[1] A second helpful resource is James Woods’ article, “How I Evolved On Tim Keller.”[2]
Compromise regarding biblical truth is always dangerous. May the Lord enable local church Pastors to hold fast to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. May he empower them to faithfully exposit the whole counsel of God to the saints, grounding them in sound doctrine and equipping them for ministry week after week. May God’s people recognize and reject doctrinal error. May they hold fast to the gospel and sound doctrine. Finally, may the Lord grant repentance to Andy (and others) who have forsaken the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, which leads to perversions of Christianity.
[1] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-enticing-sin-of-empathy
[2] https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2022/05/how-i-evolved-on-tim-keller