Science and the Bible According to Andy Stanley

Much has been said recently about Andy Stanley's sermon series "Who Needs God?", particularly his comments about the Bible in the third installment; "The Bible Tells Me So". His statements about the foundation of faith in Jesus Christ are very confused and take a classical apologetic approach much to far. Classical apologetics will take a presupposition like the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible and, for the sake of argument, lay that aside. But, Andy Stanley seems to be encouraging the jettisoning of that view in everything but name only. There has been some very good analysis of the problems with his position already. I won't comment on them anymore. See the links below, including one that supports Pastor Stanley.

http://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-bible-foundational-to-christianity-engaging-with-andy-stanley/

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/is-christianity-bookish-faith.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-big-bad-wolf.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/inerrancy-and-general-historical.html

http://crossexamined.org/andy-stanley-right-foundation-christianity-defend/  (defends Andy Stanley)

What I would like to address are his comments in the second part; "Gods of the No Testament". The part I will discuss below starts at about 25 minutes in on the message only version.

http://northpointonline.tv/messages/who-needs-god/gods-of-the-no-testament

In the sermon, Andy rightly attacks people's misconceived notions about who God is. The aptly named "somebody-told-me-so god". In other words, someone along the line told a Christian this is who God is, but in reality that's not correct, such as; "bodyguard god". This god stops at nothing to protect you and supply all your needs according to your whim at the moment. Andy gives other examples of gods that are not real and does a fair job of deconstructing them. Where he falls apart, however, is in "anti-science god". His overarching message is that the details of creation do not constitute the foundation of our faith and we shouldn't abandon God over them. For instance, and this is my example, not his; a hyper-literal reading of the Bible would suggest that the Earth is flat. When someone finds out, after being told that the Earth is flat, that we have scientific and photographic evidence that the Earth is round, they shouldn't abandon God. They should rethink their interpretation of scripture by paying attention to poetic or metaphoric language based on the literary genre of the passage they are reading. So, here, I think Pastor Stanley is correct. However, he quickly ventures into dangerous territory.
His opening remarks about "anti-science god" pit "undeniable science vs. unreliable religion". He also says: "When religion and science conflict, at the end of the day, if you are an honest person, science must win. But the message that we get sometimes, the message you grew up with, and perhaps the reason you just walked away from God, is you grew up with a message that said; "Quit thinking and start believing!". This is very confused. Of course, if you were told to quit thinking, then that is wrong. But, does that mean that you just believe science in every instance where it supposedly conflicts with the Bible? Hardly. I'm not suggesting we ignore the advances of science, but Andy is talking about science as if it is an authoritative and infallible body of knowledge that should never be challenged. Really!? If scientific knowledge is monolithic and infallible, why are there so many competing theories on various topics? Let's take cosmology for instance. Which theory of the universes' origin is undeniable? The standard model, oscillating model, chaotic inflationary model, vacuum fluctuation model, quantum gravity model, or the cyclic ekpyrotic model? The standard model is the generally accepted model of universe origins due to its broad defensibility based on observable evidence, although opinion is somewhat splintered. Guess what? This model fits with a plain reading of Genesis 1 on either a young earth or an old earth view.
Andy continues by saying that "God or science is a false alternative". Three cheers for him! I totally agree. But then he puts his foot in his mouth with a terrible example. Christians are hypocrites for using medicinal science to heal our kids and ignoring science in other areas. We take them to the doctor while we pray in the background. This is some major equivocation concerning "science". Medicinal science is not the same as say, theoretical astrophysics. First of all, the use of antibiotics for instance, does not conflict with anything in the Bible. Praying and taking your kid to the doctor is perfectly OK. There is no command in scripture that says we should only pray to God when someone gets sick. This also ignores the fact that ultimately, God's sovereignty and providence rule that situation anyway, no matter what the doctors do. Secondly, as I said before, Andy is equivocating on the term science. He is putting all things considered science into one big lump and clearly they are not the same. He is using an obviously wrongheaded example, the use of doctors and medicine for sick kids, to say that we, as Christians, should accept all science, even when it conflicts with the Bible. That is a false transference that doesn't logically follow.
Just to make sure we're not confused, Andy says: "The moment your theology conflicts with the discoveries of science, you have a theological problem, not a science problem." And a little later: "We're hypocrites. If we lean into science for our health, why would we reject science in any other capacity?" It is no wonder why Andy views the Bible the way he does. He has an "undeniable" body of science that informs his worldview, including how he reads and interprets the Bible. In my understanding of what his sermon means: he isn't suggesting that we see where our reading of scripture might be wrong in light of science (or vice versa) and then see how we can attempt to make them compatible, like the flat Earth example above (if compatibility, broadly speaking, is possible and I'm not saying that it is in all cases); he is suggesting that we always believe in the science and simply abandon scripture that doesn't fit or reinterpret it to make it fit. This is a very misinformed and confused view of the interplay of science and religion. Look here for a short, but informative article about this topic. As believers in Jesus, I think we are called to read two books. The Bible and the book of nature or what theologians have traditionally called natural revelation. We should always be asking the question: are we, as fallen humanity, reading both correctly?
Andy also seems to be missing the fact that the preaching of the Gospel, combined with the drawing of the Father to Christ and the conviction of the Holy Spirit on an unbeliever, are how God has ordained salvation to be effected. As I have taught in my classes at church, apologetic methods are a secondary tool to the Gospel. In the end, I think Andy Stanley wants to knock down as many barriers as possible to faith in Jesus Christ. I think he is muddying the waters by taking his apologetic method too far. These are noble intentions, but noble intentions don't always produce noble results.

Calling Men to Salvation

One of the major questions that has been argued about for centuries centers around God calling men to himself in order to save them. Does he call everyone? Does he only call the elect? One of the central texts in this debate is Romans 8:29-30:

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Some observations of the text itself are in order first. First, God foreknows people ("those"). Because he foreknows people, he predestined them. Those predestined are the ones called. The calling follows the predestining. Then the called are justified and glorified. Keeping the order of God's work in mind, this raises some issues for two of the major positions on this issue: Arminianism and Molinism. Calvinism already accepts a limited atonement, which means that God only calls the elect. I'll address each of the others in turn.

Arminianism (for a comprehensive look at Arminian theology, see: A Compendium of Christian Theology by William Burt Pope, vol. 2, pg. 335ff)
This system posits that "foreknew" means that God knew beforehand who would choose him and everything else flows from that knowledge. God knew I would pick him, so I was predestined to be like Christ, so he called me, justified me, and glorified me. The problem with this position is that God's foreknowledge in this passage is of "those", i.e. individuals, not decisions. The other issue is with the call. Arminians hold that God calls everyone to salvation. This means that God both wants everyone to be saved and gives everyone that opportunity, even if not everyone accepts the salvation of the Lord and is damned as a result. The issue lies in the text itself based on the order of God's work. If God calls everyone, then he justifies and glorifies everyone. That is universalism (everyone is eventually saved by God's loving will and Christ's atonement) and can't be correct based on other biblical texts (John 3:36 for example). It appears to me that even though Arminians want to affirm a universal call, they cannot. Based on Romans 8:29-30, if God called everyone, everyone would be saved.

Molinism (for a comprehensive look at Molinist theology, see: The Only Wise God by William Lane Craig)
Molinism may not be that well known, but it is gaining some headway among some theologians and Christian philosophers. Molinism posits that God has middle knowledge. This means that God knows what person P would do in circumstance C. If God knows what everyone would do in a given set of circumstances, that gives him the ability to create a world in which he has already taken into account all of his creatures free decisions before he instantiates the world we see now. This is seen as a way to protect the libertarian freedom of humans while also acknowledging the absolute sovereignty of God. So, in the Romans passage, a Molinist would simply say that God's foreknowledge includes middle knowledge and all of humanity's free decisions have been considered. There are two big problems with this philosophy. The first is that we still end up at the same place concerning the call as we did with Arminianism. If God calls everyone, everyone would be saved. Molinists (as far as I know) are not universalists, but, like Arminians, hold that God calls everyone. This means the calling of God can't be for everyone. The second problem is that the Bible does not indicate that God looked at his creatures' free decisions before he created the world. In fact, Ephesians 1:3-14, God chose us "according to the purpose of his will" (v. 5) and "the counsel of his will" (v. 11). That doesn't sound like we had any input when God created the world. It sounds like God, in his divine sovereignty over all things, chose us before he created the world.

The point of this post is to show that all of the major systems of thought concerning the operation of salvation; Arminianism, Molinism, and Calvinism; end up at the same place concerning the calling of men to salvation. That is that God doesn't call everyone. This in itself raise one more issue. Many scriptures indicate that God is calling everyone (such as Acts 2:38-39). It would be silly for Peter to exhort everyone to repent and be baptized if God isn't calling everyone. What gives? In this instance I think that Calvin has it right. There are two calls of God. One, the gospel call, is for everyone. This is simply the preaching of the Gospel to everyone. The second call is called "effective calling". This call is the drawing by the Father of the individual to Christ (John 6:44). Without God's working, no one would come to him, and it is evident in several places (Acts 13:48; 16:14, etc.) that it is God doing the work of salvation in our hearts.

I realize this raises other issues, but I think that's enough for this post. If you hold to any of these systems and want to say that God calls everyone to salvation the same way, you have to explain how that doesn't result in universalism and you have to show that it is in accordance with the clear teaching of scripture. If you can't do those two things, your theory won't work. But, if you can do those two things, I'm open to hearing and discussing your theory.

A New Brand of Evangelicalism

I read a lot of articles and blogs from a variety of viewpoints online. Atheist, Mormon, Catholic; you name it, I'll read it. I like to see what more than just my own group is thinking and teaching about the truth of the reality around us. This also helps me to be aware of buzzwords that certain communities use so I can recognize (at least sometimes, though not all the time) if a writer or speaker identifies with a particular community who is teaching something antithetical to orthodox Christianity. This allows me to beware, though I still try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I thought I would share this article and offer some critique of it. The point of this post isn't to trash these "progressive evangelicals" in a personal way, but to point out that bad thinking about truth, especially with regard to matters of faith, is prevalent and something to be avoided. We should strive to be good critical thinkers. Here a link to the article, though I will quote it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-phipps/progressive-evangelicals_b_11824426.html

Note: everything from the article is in quotation marks. My own comments are not.

"There is a story in three of the four gospels where Jesus stages a protest in the temple during Passover. He releases the animals that were being sold for sacrifice, he overturns the moneychanging tables, and he rebukes the merchants for taking advantage of the poor. The story ends with Jesus shouting, “Tear down this temple, and I’ll rebuild it in three days!"

It seems disingenuous to call Jesus' actions a protest. That has so many connotations in our minds concerning the 60's and the current Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements that to call Jesus' outburst a protest seems to me an attempt at equating him with social justice movements in general. I'll point out that Jesus' mission was of a single purpose, which he addressed right from the get go: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) Christ came to call sinners to repentance and to die for that sin on the cross. Even if we could equate Jesus with social justice causes, which in many cases I don't think you can, that was secondary to his mission. What also strikes me as a mis-characterization is the authors' assertion that Jesus releases the animals. Go read it yourself (Matt 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47); it doesn't say that. It also says nothing of the poor. The money-changers and animal salesmen could have been taking advantage of any socio-economic group, including, but not limited to, the poor. Finally, the author makes things very confusing when he describes the ending of the story. Jesus' quote about the temple is found in John's gospel (2:13-22), but according to this author, this is not the same story because the cleansing of the temple is found in "three of the four gospels". I don't know what to make of this. It's just confusing.

"In John’s gospel, there is a related passage where Jesus explains that “this temple” he was talking about was his own body. He foretells that he will be killed by the Jewish authorities, then rise from the dead three days later. Meaning, everything that formally took place in the temple would soon be available in Jesus himself.

So what happened in the temple? Well, a lot.
- forgiveness of sins through sacrifice

- healing of the sick

- worship

- prayers 

- and most importantly: getting close as one could possibly get to the presence of God."

Again, the author makes things very confusing by saying that the John quote is in "a related passage". It's in the one he quoted from above about tearing down the temple. It's the same story! I don't know what's going on here. I agree with him somewhat about what took place in the temple. The items listed were found in the temple, which would now be found in Jesus. Though, it should be noted that one of Stephen's major points in his speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7) is that God was always working outside of both the temple and the land of Israel even if the Jews didn't or refused to recognize it. Another objection is healing of the sick. This happened other places (for instance: 2 Kings 5 where Elisha heals Naaman by telling him to dip in the Jordan river 7 times). Healing didn't formally take place (whatever that even means) in the temple only.

"The temple was constructed in a series of concentric boxes. At the center of the temple was a room called the “The Inner Court.” This is where the presence of God dwelt. It was the most exclusive room in the ancient Jewish world. Only the high priest had access to this room, and even then only on certain days of the year. The next court was called “The Court Of The Jews.” Only Jewish males had access to this court. Next, was the “The Court Of Women.” Jewish Women, no matter how well they behaved were separated from God by two giant walls. The outer court, where the Jesus staged his protest was called “The Court Of Gentiles.” This is as close as non-Jewish people were allowed to get to the Divine Presence, whether male or female."

The inner court is called the Holy of Holies in the Bible. I'm not sure why the author is renaming it here. The high priest only had access to it one day of the year, not "certain days". Other than that I don't have a problem with this description.

"Humankind’s closeness to God in this culture was limited by one’s ethnicity, gender, and religious pedigree. The Gentiles were kept at a distance. They were the original group of people who “were welcome to attend,” but not “welcome to participate fully” in the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion."

While it is true that the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion were not fully open to everyone, it was widely understood in biblical Judaism that God would make a way for the Gentiles to be saved as well. Jews thought that only Jews had to do the temple rites. They would not have expected or required proselytes (converts to Judaism) to do these things. This is a half-truth that the author is asserting.

"What infuriated Jesus, then? Could it have been the walls that were constructed to keep people separated from one another and from God? Is it possible that he was outraged by all of the segregation taking place in the Name of God?"

What infuriated Jesus was the fact that the temple was holy because it was where God's presence dwelt. The answer to the next questions is, "No." I say this because Jesus wasn't concerned with walls at the temple separating people from God. He was worried about our own sin and evil separating us from God. The last question could be answered in the affirmative, but Jesus never said anything about segregation in the temple, so who knows?

"If you are a Christian, questions like these are still as relevant today for the “people of God” as they were back then. How would Jesus feel about the religious practices of Evangelical Christianity today, were he living among us?

- a church system that STILL qualifies people based on socio-economic status, race, political parties, and gender.

- a system that welcomes those who identify as LGBTQ until they decide that they want to baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity

- a system that suppresses the ordination of women and their God given gifts to serve in Christian leadership

- a system that elevates the pulpit to the stature of The Inner Court."

I'll answer each bullet in turn.
-Does the church do this? Socio-economic status and political parties are not taken into account in any church I've ever been in. Race is tricky. Churches in America are self-segregated. Blacks tend to go to church with blacks while whites go with whites. I don't know why this happens, but it isn't because "white churches" have signs that say "blacks not welcome" or vice-versa. It's just a happenstance of the society we live in. Gender is assigned by God, we can't pick our own gender. Feelings don't determine gender. If he is talking about women as pastors, I'll address that below.
-I think there is a typo in the second bullet. I think it should say "a system that DOESN'T welcome"... We should welcome those who identify as LGBTQ, while also speaking the truth in love by telling them that their lifestyle is sinful and it is their own actions that separate them from God. And now, before someone says "Hey, everyone in church is a sinner, even Christians!" (whoops, too late!). Yes, everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is living in open rebellion to God without repenting. That is the issue. Read 1 John 1:5-10. Both those who proclaim to be Christian, yet "walk in darkness", and those who say they never sin are not of God. If they are not of God, they shouldn't be baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity.
-If you ascribe to Christian complementarianism, you think that women and men have complementary roles given straight from God. In this structure, the man is head of the wife, the leader of both the household and the leadership of the Church. Is this suppression of the ordination of women? If you want to say it that way, yes, it is. But, it's straight from the Bible and therefore, from God. He has to make an argument as to why the historic reading and understanding of the Bible is not correct.
-No church I've ever been in has asserted that the pastorate is the only place where God is at and that everyone must hang on every word or teaching that comes from that leadership. This is just an absurd accusation.

"We are proud to call ourselves Progressive Evangelicals because we do not support this kind of system... and we don’t think that God does either. Were Jesus in some of our churches today, he’d likely be turning over communion tables, dashing offering plates into pieces, baptizing the marginalized, and performing ordination ceremonies for women."

It is ironic to me that they don't want the church qualifying people by political party, but then they clearly identify themselves with a political party. Progressives are squarely in the Democratic party. The "system" they don't support is a cariacture of what Evangelical Christianity actually is. I don't know if Jesus would break stuff in churches. He probably would be upset with some of them though, just as he was with some in the book of Revelation (chs. 2-3). If by marginalized, the author means those living in open sin and rebellion to God, then, no, I disagree 100%. As far as women pastors, I don't think that women can be in leadership positions in the Church based on my reading of scripture, so I don't think Jesus would ordain women. Again, he has to make a case for eagalitarianism rather than complain about "suppression" of women. There are good Christians that make that case. I, and many others, respectfully disagree.

"When we take an honest look at the life of Jesus, we begin to see that tearing down walls is more Christlike than building them. If there is anything solid we can plant our flag in, it is in the example that Jesus left behind for us to emulate- making the innermost rooms of God available to all people. If you are human, you are allowed access."

I agree, we should not build walls to keep people out of churches. However, telling people they are sinners and in need of a savior isn't building a wall, it's the truth. God has made himself available and nothing external the church could do could block the access he has granted. It is the individual who has kept themselves out of "the innermost rooms of God" by not repenting and turning away from sin and towards the only way to the Father, Jesus Christ.

"We long to be Christians that are known for this message about Jesus. The word, “evangelical” literally means “good news.” If the message of our faith doesn’t read like good news to people, perhaps we aren’t evangelical at all. Indeed, we may be something else. Selah."

Again, sin is the issue. We can't ignore people's sin. Jesus called everyone to repentance at the start of his ministry. The good news of Christ doesn't seem that important when there is no bad news (our sin) accompanying it. That is what this author doesn't understand.

The Paradoxical Gospel

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is both a simple and a complex message wherein there lies a paradox that gets to the very nature of who we are as human beings. It is simple in that Paul can give it in one sentence: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,  and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:3-5).
A very simple message indeed. But, at the same time it is very complex. The intricacies of justification as a result of the Gospel are manifold in their action. Christ's blood working through the Holy Spirit on people who "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead" (Rom. 10:9) is efficacious for regeneration, adoption, ongoing sanctification, future glorification and redemption, being empowered to witness, and the list could go on. The Gospel message is also very complex when considering the person and work of Christ. This is abundantly evident when looking at Peter's speech on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell. As the Jews in Jerusalem from the Diaspora heard the "mighty works of God" (Acts 2:11) and then mocked the disciples for being filled with "new wine" (Acts 2:13), Peter stood up and declared that "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36). While this may seem like a simple statement as Peter wraps up his argument, it is hardly that. He cites Joel 2:28-32 to indicate that the Kingdom of God is at hand based on Joel's prophecy that the last days would be when the Spirit was poured out. He cites Psalm 16:8-11 to show that Jesus is the Messiah and was not bound by death. He cites Psalm 110:1 to show that Jesus is the King the Jews have been awaiting. In verse 36, quoted earlier, he says that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. The word Lord in the Greek is kyrios which is how the Septuagint writers translated adonai from Hebrew to Greek. Adonai is the Hebrew word for lord or master and is what the Hebrews said in place of God's personal name. So what we have is the chain from Yahweh (God's personal name) to adonai (lord in Hebrew) to kyrios (lord in Greek). He also calls him Christ which is the equivalent of Messiah, Christ being from the Greek and Messiah being from the Hebrew and both of them meaning "anointed one". Peter is saying that Jesus is God and that he is the long awaited Messiah of the Jews. This is anything but a simple message.
The other part of the Gospel message concerns us as human beings. We have a nature and it isn't a good one. We need saving but we are infinitely not worthy of being saved. You could say that in a way we are worthless to God. He is anything but pleased with our actions that are contrary to his very nature and stand in open rebellion to him. In fact, Psalm 11:5-6 says: "The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. Let him rain coals on the wicked; fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup." That's right, the Lord's soul hates the wicked. He hates the sinner. Destruction is our portion when we are living in disobedience to a holy God. In the book of Romans Paul quotes Psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3 that says: "as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12). Those are universal statements: none, not one, no one, all, not even one. None of us are following God and all of us are worthless.
Yet, at the same time, we are of inestimable value in God's sight even though we rebel against him. We are made in his image (Gen. 1:26-27) and he is concerned with our every need (Matt. 6:25-32). Even though we are his enemies he has sought us out in order to reconcile us to himself through the blood of our Passover lamb, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:6-11). At the end of the book of Hosea, God shows his love for his people, the Israelites who were under a lesser covenant than the one inaugurated in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. God says in Hosea 14:4-7:
"I will heal their apostasy;
I will love them freely,
for my anger has turned from them.
I will be like the dew to Israel;
he shall blossom like the lily;
he shall take root like the trees of Lebanon;
his shoots shall spread out;
his beauty shall be like the olive,
and his fragrance like Lebanon.
They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow;
they shall flourish like the grain;
they shall blossom like the vine;
their fame shall be like the wine of Lebanon."
What beautiful imagery that God uses to show the Israelites how much he loves them even though they had committed "great whoredom" (Hosea 1:2) by turning from the Lord to useless idols. Like the Israelites in Hosea's day, we stand in the same position. Turning away from God at every moment only to have him shower his mercy on us through Jesus Christ. And that is the paradoxical message of the Gospel. The simple but complex person and work of Jesus Christ and the worthlessness of all human beings that God pursues as though we are worth something that can never be valued and for which he paid the ultimate price on the cross:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:16-17)