What does everyone think of him or know of him? My small group is going to have a study by him. I read where he does teach or has taught heresy of the Marcionite variety
I know only what I read about him on the web. First search link after Stanley's own website was this one: https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/beware_of_andy_stanley.php He is the son of Charles Stanley, who is a very engaging teacher (I've listened to Charles quite a few times and most of his teaching seemed sound, other than 'once-saved-always-saved'), but that is no guarantee about the son. (edit) : This piece seems quite thoughtfully written... https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...ems-with-andy-stanleys-approach-to-the-bible/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Stanley https://andystanley.com/ https://northpointministries.org/
I think most inerrantist bible believers are Marcianites to some degree or other. They pick and choose which books of the Bible to read, study and take notice of and avoid some, as if they didn't exist, if they don't fit too well into their own literalist religious assumptions. Many concentrate on books in the Bible after John's Gospel and ignore anything coming before it because parables and Old Testament stuff , (with the notable exception of Genesis chapters 1 to 5), can't be used for formulating doctrine for such concrete thinking disciples. .
This was quite good. Definitely well worth reading. The whole thing is rather disconcerting. While Christianity shrinks in America, these “seeker” places - which seemingly have next to nothing to do with historic Christianity - continue to grow. (BTW, why do they all seem to refer to their congregations by the rather strange word “plants”? And why do new ones need to be “planted” (instead of just “started”)? Aren’t there enough choices out there already? Aside from appearing to be growth for growth’s sake, the terminology itself seems rather cult-like.)
Planting referred to metaphorically quite a lot in scripture? Num.24:6, Ps.1:3, 1 Cor.3:6. The term 'church plants' is by no means new or used only by this 'new kid on the block'. The church marches on and time will tell if this 'new' initiative will bear fruit, and of what kind it shall be. .
Yes, I understand the metaphor. I’m simply not accustomed to that terminology in this context, having avoided the “seeker” phenomenon like the plague most of my life. From my background, it sounds odd and cultish, to say nothing of the fact that a number of these places are run by people who have never received ordination of any kind. They’re literally just making up their own crowd-sourced religion from scratch and calling it “Christianity”.
Isn't that basically what happened from the beginning until the 'Church' registered the brand name, claimed Apostolic Succession and tried to crush any competition though? Who started the Church in Rome. (Note, not the church of Rome). It wasn't Paul and probably not Peter either. No evidence that it was established originally by anyone other than ordinary disciples of Jesus Christ. After all that is what Christ told us all to go and do. Matt.28:19-20. What is the 'seeker phenomenon', something American? Never heard of it? .
We can only speculate as to who actually started started the church at Rome. What we do know is that by the time that community enters the annals of recorded history, 'regular order' had already been established and the local church there was integrated into the broader network of churches already established elsewhere. One of the many problems I have with the "church growth" movement is the assumption that there is any need to found new churches at all in large urban areas, a proposition that seems unwarranted when one considers the myriad of choices already available. Why not simply join an existing church and try to attract people to that? It seems to me that the obsession with "planting" churches has more to do with a desire not to be subject to any kind of broader discipline or have any binding connection to the rest of Christianity (e.g., creeds, confessions, liturgy, etc.), than anything else.
Knowing my rector (who is an archdeacon btw), I am certain that he would never permit a study by Andy Stanley to be utilized in our parish.