I see how you framed this. We either (1) Follow the Mosaic Law and beat our slaves
OR
(2) We love one another.
The message being, you have to pick just one!
Slavery is a difficult issue, to be sure. It persisted for far too long, and not because of Jewish Scriptures. But are you aware that Paul told a runaway slave to return to his master? And that he wanted slaves to be obedient to their masters? And that the abolitionist and runaway slave Harriett Tubman was inspired by the Old Testament, being called “the Moses of her people.” Did you know that observant Jews don’t keep slaves these days?
That would make it seem that Jesus is overturning the OT (if you didn’t read anything else).
But, when asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus didn’t come up with a new one. Instead he quoted the OT:
Matthew 22: 34-40 (NIV):
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
In verse 37, Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5.
In verse 39, He is quoting Leviticus 19:18.
I just listened to all three of those sermons. Again. And found them as inspiring as when I first heard them. But I will say this: I think you do have a good point, Beaglelady, that he is somewhat conflating the Judaizers with the entirety of the law and the prophets. I was prepared to hold that tweak against him - thinking that he is too hasty or generalizing if he thinks they were all entirely dismissive of all the law and the prophets. After all, don’t we have apostles (think Philip with the eunuch) using the old testament to help prove to people that Jesus was the Christ? But toward the end of part 3, Andy anticipates these objections and clarifies them with this: The old testament (old covenant) is the back story that God used to bring about the new one. It is important because it is still the history of God’s work with a nation, and how that nation was used to ultimately then become a blessing to all nations.
When I initially did a search for these sermons again, putting in the search phrase: “Andy Stanley old testament unhitched” I was a bit disgusted and amused to see Google produce a virtually unending list of search results along the lines of “Why Andy Stanley got it wrong” or “Andy wants you to throw out the old testament” and all manner of nonsense without (in any of the top few pages) giving a link to the actual sermons-so-maligned so that people should listen and judge for themselves.
Now … I haven’t begun to wade through all his detractors (nor do I intend to, any more than any truth-seeker should feel inclined to conduct a poll in a mob). But I am curious if anybody has a recommendation for some actually valid and well-researched criticism of Andy’s central thesis as put forward in his “Aftermath Series”. Because so far, all I’ve seen from his critics has failed to impress me as anything of substance [much less scriptural authenticity, which Andy shows in spades.] But I realize I haven’t looked too hard yet and so my criticism of his critics is premature - at least it may be to some of them. That is why I’m interested if anybody has any link to thoughtful input that can show where Andy has it wrong.
[In all fairness to Google, a fair number of those search results are links attempting to respond to all the attacks - including some responses from Andy himself … still; the extent of the powder and shot thrown his way and necessitating all the defense is reminiscent of a mob with its ire up!]
He ridicules the Old Testament by quoting a passage (concerning laws of restitution), and everybody giggles. You should buy his books and get him to write for BioLogos.
I am sorry to hear that that appeared offensive. I respect your insight, based on your writings in the past.
I don’t recall clearly the portion referred to, but his comment at the “Aftermath” YouTube site was this:
If you were raised on a version of Christianity that relied on the Bible as the foundation of faith, a version that was eventually dismantled by academia or the realities of life, maybe it’s time for you to change your mind about Jesus. Maybe it’s time for you to consider the version of Christianity that relies on the event of the resurrection of Jesus as its foundation. If you gave up your faith because of something about or in the Bible, maybe you gave up unnecessarily.<
I wonder if he is trying to be sympathetic to those who reject OT from things that are not ethically supported by our current coda. When it comes to the legal minutiae or the mass slaughter of Canaanites, I think that there is reason for empathy–particularly among the disaffected millennials or Gen Xers.
It’s a narrow line one has to walk–the issues are fiery. Thanks.
I think Andy’s message is specifically targeted to those who are leaving the faith because they inherited (and never managed to grow beyond) a flat view of a sort of “untouchable” Bible.
And as such, he goes to great efforts to emphasize the superiority of one part of that collection (the new covenant) over the older larger part of that collection (the law and the prophets). And he is no great innovator in doing so but is simply following the writer of Hebrews and indeed much taught by Paul and the gospel writers.
If one fails to remember his target audience, it is easy to draw the erroneous conclusion that Stanley is trying to “throw out the old testament”. But I would characterize it rather that he is showing the old testament’s subordinate (or superseded) status as compared with the new. When one considers the status of the Gospel good news, this is not necessarily an insult at all! It is no shame on the old covenant to acknowledge that Christ brought us a much better one. The old one had its place and time, and was what was necessary for the ways of that time to prepare them (us) to receive the new one. If there is a criticism to be had of Stanley, I think it would be that in his zeal to showcase this contrast, he downplays some uses of the prophets by the fledgling church as they set themselves to more deeply recall and understand Christ’s life and new covenant and how it comes to fruition out of the soil of their existing history. Stanley is not in any way throwing out the O.T. Indeed he continues to learn and teach from it. He’s only exhorting us not to confuse it with the new good news that we now have in Christ which is accomplishing and has accomplished for us what the law never could. So he exhorts those young (and shaky) Christians who find the O.T. so problematic to concentrate instead on the new covenant … the better one. That is to be their foundation of their faith … not Genesis … not an ‘inerrant Bible’ … but Christ and Christ alone.
I think the one standing criticism of Stanley that I could here mount would be this: that as one grows in the faith and deepens their study and knowledge of their predecessors of faith - those testimonies found in scripture, they will eventually want to include that broader ‘old covenant’ history in their studies lest they remain impoverished of the history that is offered there. If the world mocks or scorns it as a defective thing that is supposed to be an embarrassment to the Christian, then the answer of those mature enough to face these criticisms ought probably involve deep knowledge of and exposure to the things so-criticized rather than ignorance of them. While Stanley would probably agree, his immediate encouragement here (if one stops at this) would not seem to move one beyond the ignorance stage. But so as long as it is recognized that such a new believer does eventually need to grow, and should not remain ignorant of the history of his own faith, (and I imagine Stanley would agree) then I think such an exhortation can be well-placed.
Along with James, we should not multiply the difficulties for seekers who are seeking and in need of Christ.
I found it interesting that his family friend, Norm Geisler, an extremely conservative scholar (now passed away), encouraged him to publicly explain his case to as to better avoid scandal. (at least, that was in one of his talks).
I was focused on his message, and it was clearly meant as a cheap shot. But his congregation is huge. I suppose he preaches in one place while his sermon is shown live to the other campuses?
Do you realize that replacement theology is anti-Semitic? That the New Testament is built upon the Old Testament? That God’s covenant with Abraham and Israel is forever?
What then do we do with the difficult passages of the New Testament? Some of them are truly horrific. I can point them out to you if you want. There are also many passages that have been used to justify anti-Semitism.
And speaking of multiplying difficulties for seekers… Christ crucified, preached by Paul, was difficult for Paul to shop around, and he even said so. And Muslims don’t believe that God would allow one of his prophets to be killed in such a shameful death, so the crucifixtion should be de-emplasized to get into that market.
Even Jesus himself did his part to make his message, well, not exactly * Irresistible*. In John 6 Jesus tells his followers that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. How did that go over?
John 6:66 “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.”
Even the cable channels wouldn’t touch this.
If considering the O.T. as an “old covenant” and the N.T. as the “new one” must be lumped in with antisemitism, then I guess all of Christianity would have to be considered so (on your terms). But I’m not antisemitic, not a holocaust denier, not against Jewish peoples in any way or form. They are my brothers and sisters too. So whoever is feeding you these scare tactic terms and fear mongering stuff, I would drop those sources like a hot-potato if I were you. They aren’t doing you any favors.
You’re exactly right that Christ and what he challenges us to do (pick up our crosses, to die to ourselves, no less!) is the one huge stumbling block! And it does quite well enough scaring people away all on its own - meaning we have absolutely no business adding yet more stumbling blocks to what is already a hard climb for the growing disciple.