Andy Stanley and Brand-New

[pilgrim42]

Is Andy Stanley going to change the church world with his sermon series on "Brand-New?" I watched the first two sermons and part of the third. Getting rid of the 'Temple Churches" is going to be a challenge.
Hopefully, he isn't going to open the door to "everything goes" theology. The Bible does lay down some serious guidelines for Christian behavior

Hope to hear different views

Ken

 

[mikedsjr]

Well, My view will certainly be different.

19 minutes 15 seconds until a vague scripture section is referenced until he went to his key verse he wanted to really preach. So forget context.

Just the amount of time before he gets to a Scripture reference........I guess Andy Stanley believes this "sermon" is doing church differently i guess. Who cares about Scripture. Its the Andy Stanley show and his words are what are important.

He just wanted to preach on doing church a different way, whether context says that or not. And it doesn't say what he is proclaiming about church. Read the context of Matthew 16 and let me know Jesus was teaching "doing church differently than we do it today" is what we are supposed to get out of the passage. He is correct Matt 16:18 the word "church" doesn't mean a building, but I don't know anyone preaching it means a building.

And maybe someone more knowledgable than i can tell me if I'm wrong, but William Tyndale, which he speaks of at the 20:30 mark, was not burned at the stake for making the word in 16:18 not "church" in his bible. He was burned for printing the Bible in English.


I just listened to the first one. And i didn't critique the entire sermon. I wouldn't even critique the first 19 minutes because he isn't proclaiming God's word, but his own ideas, which the sermon is based on. Clearly not from Scripture.

I guess you can see I'm not a big fan of his....i also think he is an example of what is wrong in Christianity.

 

[pilgrim42]

Well, My view will certainly be different.

19 minutes 15 seconds until a vague scripture section is referenced until he went to his key verse he wanted to really preach. So forget context.

Just the amount of time before he gets to a Scripture reference........I guess Andy Stanley believes this "sermon" is doing church differently i guess. Who cares about Scripture. Its the Andy Stanley show and his words are what are important.

He just wanted to preach on doing church a different way, whether context says that or not. And it doesn't say what he is proclaiming about church. Read the context of Matthew 16 and let me know Jesus was teaching "doing church differently than we do it today" is what we are supposed to get out of the passage. He is correct Matt 16:18 the word "church" doesn't mean a building, but I don't know anyone preaching it means a building.

And maybe someone more knowledgable than i can tell me if I'm wrong, but William Tyndale, which he speaks of at the 20:30 mark, was not burned at the stake for making the word in 16:18 not "church" in his bible. He was burned for printing the Bible in English.


I just listened to the first one. And i didn't critique the entire sermon. I wouldn't even critique the first 19 minutes because he isn't proclaiming God's word, but his own ideas, which the sermon is based on. Clearly not from Scripture.

I guess you can see I'm not a big fan of his....i also think he is an example of what is wrong in Christianity.

I would have to agree with Andy Stanley on some things. He believes that church would appeal to more people if it operated from a standpoint of love instead of a lot of rules and regulations, many which were developed by the "Temple Church" organization.
There is no doubt that we need to filter everything we do through Love, but I also believe that we have to follow all New Testament principles as well.

Ken

 

[Hammster]

Actually, we aren't supposed to make it appealing. We are supposed to preach the gospel, the whole of God's word, and He adds to it.

 

[2win]

Thank you Hamster!!!

 

[USCGrad90]

I'm not too familiar with Andy Stanley, but if his sermon is based more on his ideas than it is scripture - I'm not inclined to spend much time on it. One thing I see becoming an all-too common theme is the church identity being linked to an individual rather than to Christ and the body of believers.

Andy Stanley is the Senior Pastor of 6 churches. Perry Noble is Senior Pastor over 11 "campuses" with 8 more planned. Steven Furtick is a pastor over a church with 15,000 in attendance. Creflo Dollar leads a church with over 30,000. There are many more - but How do these guys serve as a "Pastor" to the members in their church?

My understanding of a "Pastor" is to serve as a shepherd to the church to feed, love, lead, tend, and protect his "flock." My main concern is what has happened to the Priesthood of Believers and how are these churches developing members into ministers for Christ???

These churches/campuses/locations seem to come under the ownership of the guy at the top, rather than belonging to Christ. We see way too many leaders who end up in scandal because they can't manage their life and become too wrapped up in being a leader rather than a servant.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not too familiar with Andy Stanley, but if his sermon is based more on his ideas than it is scripture - I'm not inclined to spend much time on it. One thing I see becoming an all-too common theme is the church identity being linked to an individual rather than to Christ and the body of believers.

Andy Stanley is the Senior Pastor of 6 churches. Perry Noble is Senior Pastor over 11 "campuses" with 8 more planned. Steven Furtick is a pastor over a church with 15,000 in attendance. Creflo Dollar leads a church with over 30,000. There are many more - but How do these guys serve as a "Pastor" to the members in their church?

My understanding of a "Pastor" is to serve as a shepherd to the church to feed, love, lead, tend, and protect his "flock." My main concern is what has happened to the Priesthood of Believers and how are these churches developing members into ministers for Christ???

These churches/campuses/locations seem to come under the ownership of the guy at the top, rather than belonging to Christ. We see way too many leaders who end up in scandal because they can't manage their life and become too wrapped up in being a leader rather than a servant.

Hear, hear.

 

[classicalhero]

From someone on my Facebook feed. This is the primary mission of a church.

 

[pilgrim42]

I'm not too familiar with Andy Stanley, but if his sermon is based more on his ideas than it is scripture - I'm not inclined to spend much time on it. One thing I see becoming an all-too common theme is the church identity being linked to an individual rather than to Christ and the body of believers.

Andy Stanley is the Senior Pastor of 6 churches. Perry Noble is Senior Pastor over 11 "campuses" with 8 more planned. Steven Furtick is a pastor over a church with 15,000 in attendance. Creflo Dollar leads a church with over 30,000. There are many more - but How do these guys serve as a "Pastor" to the members in their church?

My understanding of a "Pastor" is to serve as a shepherd to the church to feed, love, lead, tend, and protect his "flock." My main concern is what has happened to the Priesthood of Believers and how are these churches developing members into ministers for Christ???

These churches/campuses/locations seem to come under the ownership of the guy at the top, rather than belonging to Christ. We see way too many leaders who end up in scandal because they can't manage their life and become too wrapped up in being a leader rather than a servant.

I understand where you are coming from. Pastors of very large churches aren't able to always give "hands on" care to their flock. This is where the under-shephard comes in. Sometimes these are associate pastors or Deacons. As long as the flock is being served by a qualified "minister" then I am not going to condemn.

As far as Andy preaching his own ideas is concerned, I'm not sure that he is doing that. At least he wasn't doing that in the series of sermons I watched.

Some of these super pastors may be dictators. I'm not sure how we determine who is and who isn't. However, I know of pastors of very, very small churches who are also dictators. A pastor can be a good leader and not be a dictator. The Word of God tells us that they are to be servants, not overlords. So, it is wrong regardless of the size of the church. The pastor, or Bishop, sometimes has to use veto power in certain situations, but it should always be done with a very loving attitude.

Ken

 

[JLR1300]

In some ways I like Andy Stanley. However I get a little concerned about 1 Pastor being over several congregations. That is how the Pope slowly developed. In early times some of the Pastors became really important and were seen as Pastors over all the congregations in the entire city... and then later over several cities. Finally the one in Rome became the most important one of all and became the father, poppas or pope to all the others. Do we really want to get that system started again?

 

[mikedsjr]

This thread is IMO the very reason discernment is a necessary occupation in the church. I certainly don't have the time to go through the countless sermons all across the land, nor through major players, like Andy Stanley, and week after week explain with respect and decency to where a preacher preaches improperly, but there are people who do.

The sermon series, IMO, is attacking a straw man. Is there truth of concerns about the church which he brings up? yes, but they have nothing to do with this "Temple" model. That is the straw man:the temple model. And He has a solution to bring down the straw man. It is his solution, because obviously no one has recognized this straw man. Name me the "tear down the Temple Model" sermons cast through history so we can demonstrate it just isn't his own idea. And if there are any others calling for the downfall of the temple model, I'm quite sure we will find a pattern.

 

[pilgrim42]

Nobody in the Baptist movement wants a pope. I think Andy Stanley probably televises his sermons to his satellite locations as some of the other mega churches do. These satellites are viewed as an extension of the mega-church so the pastor is not in the same position as a pope.

In the Early Church there were Bishops who sometimes were over one church and sometimes over several churches. It seems to me that the problem arose when they looked to the Bishop of Rome to speak for the whole church. I'm not sure that Andy is moving toward being in that kind of situation.

Ken