Unhitched? A Review of Andy Stanley and Jeff Durbin’s Discussion on Unbelievable Radio Program

This is a guest post by Matthew Risher. Mr. Risher is a PhD student preparing for ministry in Kansas City. Enjoy his insights on an important conversation in modern evangelicalism!

Introduction

On May 31, 2019 the Unbelievable Radio Program hosted a conversion about the usefulness of the Old Testament for the modern Christian. The two guests on the program were Andy Stanley and Jeff Durbin. The moderator of the discussion was the show’s host Justin Brierley. The issue, discussed for about 90 minutes, could prove to be a critical one for the coming generation of Christians: what should Christians do with the Old Testament and even the Bible in an increasing secular age?

(You can view the Unbelievable Radio Program by clicking here)

The topic arose after a sermon clip went viral of Stanley saying that Christians need to “unhitch” from the Old Testament. Several months after the sermon, Stanley released the book Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World. Much of the discussion revolved around the content of the book.

Andy Stanley is Senior Pastor at North Point Community Church and a well know speaker and author. Stanley earned his Master of Divinity at Dallas Theological Seminary. Among his books are Visioneering: God’s Blueprint for Developing and Maintaining Personal Vision and Deep and Wide.

Jeff Durbin is pastor at Apologia Church in Tempe Arizona and host of Apologia Radio. Formerly, Durbin was a world class Martial Artist (as stated in the episode). Durbin is known for his street preaching and involvement in the End Abortion Now movement. Durbin is quickly rising in popularity among reformed groups and is seen as a strong voice for defending the Scriptures.

Summary of Discussion

The Unbelievable Radio episode began cordially and with some laughs during the introduction. The first third of the radio program centered around Stanley and his explanation of his use of the term “unhitch” when referring to the Old Testament. As Stanley explained, he does not advocate for the removal of the Old Testament from the Bible. Rather, he claims that the New Covenant Christian is no longer under the Covenant at Sinai. Stanley seems to be coming from the perspective of a New Covenant theologian. This explanation is followed up by the purpose of writing his recent book Irresistible. Stanley is advocating for people to hitch their faith to the event of the resurrection.

As Stanley sees it, the next generation is vulnerable to skeptics who attack the Bible. Therefore, it is problematic to tether the faith of the next generation to the Bible because – according to Stanley – even the early church did not do that. Rather, it is necessary that the faith of the next generation be tethered to the event of the resurrection. As Stanley puts it, the Bible can be seen as a “house of cards.” If any one book of the Bible is seen as contradictory or problematic, the whole structure falls down. Though he does claim to hold to inerrancy, Stanley desires to look at the Bible primarily as a historically reliable document rather than an inerrant document.

The conversation remained relatively peaceful until the 42nd minute. This was a key moment in the conversation. From the 41st minute to the 44th minute, the conversation took a turn. It was at this moment that the conversation began to intensify and Stanley began to repeatedly interrupt Durbin’s rebuttal. The conversation turned to the foundation of the faith. Stanley advocated for the event of the resurrection as the foundation of faith. Durbin advocated for the written revelation as the foundation of faith. As Durbin proclaimed that miracles must be tested by previous revelation (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), Stanley interrupted to give the historical account of what occurred after the resurrection on the road to Emmaus.

Durbin responded to remind Stanley that the men on the road to Emmaus were chastised by Jesus for being slow to believe what was written in the Law and the Prophets. To this, Stanley claimed to not understand the connection Durbin was making. Yet Stanley became increasingly hostile to the points Durbin would make for the rest of the interview. At the 43:25 mark, Stanley asked Durbin what the foundation of his faith was. Durbin replied, rather authoritatively, “the Word of the Living God.” What followed was a noticeable pause and then Stanley saying, “okay” in a slightly sarcastic tone.

The interview remained on the topic of the foundation for faith. The host Justin Brierley did well to keep tempers from flaring and to ask relatively neutral questions. The next section of this review will be a critique of both Stanley and Durbin. To be fair, both men will have one positive aspect they brought to the conversation. This will be followed by two critiques.

Critique

Stanley aimed to defend his book and teaching. Durbin sought to question and refute Stanley’s position. As a man with convictions, my biases must be made known to help the reader better understand this section. First of all, I am a frequent viewer of the Apologia YouTube channel. I also share with Durbin a presuppositional approach to apologetics. I did not go into the radio show with a high esteem for Andy Stanley. After listening, I have come to understand Stanley better. I do not fully agree with much of what he believes and does. However, I am and will be more gracious to him moving forward.

Andy Stanley

One of the points that Stanley clearly articulated was that something extraordinary happened in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. This is true. This event was the most earth-shattering event in the history of the world. Stanley passionately advocates that Jesus is to be trusted because of his resurrection. Stanley desires people to come to faith and seeks to remove obstacles that will prevent people from believing in Jesus. I would agree with Stanley that there is much newness in the New Covenant. I also appreciated his emphasis that as Christians we are called to follow the Law of Christ because it is a greater law than that of Moses.

One of the greatest weaknesses to Stanley’s teaching is his downplaying of Scripture. Stanley does not reject Scripture but does practically downplay the authority of the Word of God. At one point Stanley makes an odd comment about the Bible never saying that Jesus rose from the dead. He went on to explain that Paul says Jesus rose from the dead, and John does, but the Bible never says it. This is a clear attempt to downplay the authority of Scripture. By reducing the claims of the Bible to the human authors only, Stanley is – I believe unintentionally – removing the divine author and the authority of what is stated.

Second, Stanley’s position is that he is reducing the totality of the Bible to the resurrection of Jesus. At one point he says, “the most important thing is, who is Jesus?” In principle, I agree with this statement. However, without the Scripture revealing who Jesus is, what Jesus are we talking about? The Mormon Jesus? The Jesus in Islam? To reduce the Bible to one event is to strip away pages and chapters of the glory of God manifested throughout history. Overall these two elements make Stanley’s arguments weak and uninteresting.

Jeff Durbin

The greatest strength one could have is to stand on the authority of Scripture. Durbin was clear and dogmatic about the foundation of his faith. Durbin consistently appealed to the text of Scripture to make his points. His handling of the text of Scripture was superb and thought provoking. Durbin both defended his position from Scripture and attacked Stanley’s positions from Scripture.

One of the critiques that can be made against Durbin was the missed opportunity to dig into the topic of Stanley’s view of man. Durbin asserted that the Scriptures declare natural man’s position of hostility toward God. Man is not neutral. It would have been beneficial for Durbin to ask Stanley about his doctrine of the natural man. One of the dividing lines between Stanley and Durbin is this issue, and yet this issue was not brought to light to a sufficient degree.

Further, Durbin failed to respond to two particular comments. Granted, there is only so much that can be said. Stanley clearly asked what to do with the Sabbath, yet Durbin never addressed that question. Stanley also made an odd comment about being able to keep all 10 commandments and still be a terrible husband. This was another missed opportunity to point out the illogical approach to the Law that Stanley advocates for.

Conclusion & Three Reflections

Overall the radio program was a helpful conversation. The ongoing debate will center on ‘what is the foundation of a person’s faith?’ Stanley will advocate for the event of the resurrection. Durbin will advocate for the Word of God. I join with Durbin in declaring the necessity of grounding our faith in the Word of the Living God. We must train Christians to be able to answer the questions about the Bible and not to shy away from the difficult passages. Culture will attack the Scriptures, but we are called to be defenders of the Word. God’s glory is most manifested in his Son and his Son is revealed in the pages of Scripture; we must do our part to affirm his glory.

Andy Stanley is not a Marcionite. Despite the attacks against him, Stanley does hold to and believe that the Old Testament is the Word of God. Stanley teaches from the Old Testament and believes that the God of the Old Testament is the same God as that of the New Testament.

Andy Stanley’s teaching will lead to shallow Christianity. It is dangerous to downplay Scripture. Every book of the Bible reveals the depths of the cross. Reducing the message of the Bible down to the event of the resurrection will lead to a kiddie pool of Corinthian-like Christians.

Andy Stanley needs prayer and private conversations. The greatest thing one can do for Andy Stanley is to pray for him. It will not be profitable to blast him on social media. If you desire to help correct his teaching, prayerfully send him private messages through email or his social media accounts. Lovingly care for this man in a way you would want to be cared for.

Matthew Risher is a PhD student at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri. He currently serves in part-time preaching ministry as he studies systematic theology, plays soccer, and spends time with his wife, Bethany (Daniel’s sister!)