Andy Stanley, Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2018. 332 pages.
Full disclosure. This book is challenging for me to review for several reasons. First, it was written by Andy Stanley, the extremely popular and influential pastor of North Point Ministries and son of Charles Stanley. Andy Stanley is an excellent communicator, an insightful thinker, and has a passion for connecting the Gospel with people who don’t think they need it.
This review is also a bit of a challenge for me because I had a good friend ask me to read it and let him know what I thought. My friend was troubled by some statements in the book, and he wanted my opinion. Now, I need to tell you, I’ve had my books reviewed and critiqued over the years. I don’t necessarily mind when people disagree with me. But it is annoying when people self-righteously try to “take down” an author and simultaneously prove they are far smarter and more righteous than that author. In the process, the reviewer often demonstrates that they have not fully read the book in question, taken many passages out of context, or set up straw men so they can then deftly strike them down.
So, let me say, I am not attempting to do any of those things! I usually enjoy Stanley’s writing. And, whether or not I always agree with him, he generally makes a compelling case and challenges me to think. In this book, he also makes a number of great points. Finally, his purpose in writing this book is noble: returning the Church to the dynamism with which it began. With that said, let me wade into Stanley’s main arguments and then point out some areas where we disagree.
Stanley’s heart is to lead people to Christ that the typical church misses. Many of these people grew up in church but have given up the faith of their youth. Stanley notes, “I’ve yet to hear a story from anyone who abandoned Christianity based on anything directly related to Christianity—at least the original version, anyway” (18). Stanley also notes that in the early centuries of Christianity, the Church was growing rapidly to the point that it dominated the Roman Empire and its society. He argues that the Christian faith was once “irresistible,” but now it is being easily rejected by growing numbers of Americans. He wonders why the modern version of the Christian faith is so much less compelling than the original. He asks, “What did first-century Christians know that we don’t?” (19).
Stanley’s thesis is that when Jesus came to earth, “He didn’t come to Jerusalem offering a new version of an old thing or an update to an existing thing. He didn’t come to make something better. Jesus was sent by the Father to introduce something entirely new” (20). Stanley argues that with the coming of Jesus, God closed the books on the old covenant, or the Old Testament, and launched something new with the new covenant, or New Testament. Stanley argues that the old covenant was a bilateral suzerainty treaty made between God and the nation of Israel (32). Both sides had obligations to keep, and the people received rewards for keeping their end of the deal.
Stanley argues that the old covenant was made with the nation of Israel. It was not made with Gentiles or individuals. When Jesus came, He ushered in a new covenant that was for us and applied to individuals. Stanley argues that the problem is that Christians today keep mixing and matching their faith with the old and new Covenants, which is causing many of the Church’s problems today. He notes, “. . . our tradition of equating, mixing and matching the two halves of the Bible has caused an Achilles heel for our post reformation, sola scriptura version of faith” (104).
Stanley argues that the Bible as we know it, with 66-books, was not formally adopted by the Church until the fourth century. Thus, for three centuries, the Church flourished without a 66-book Bible. But Stanley suggests that when the Church fathers placed the Old Testament under the same cover as the New Testament, they legitimized everything in the Old Testament and put it on equal footing with the New Testament. He points out examples of Old Testament teachings that, from his perspective, don’t apply to our era. Popular verses such as Jeremiah 29:11 or 2 Chronicles 7:14, he claims, are regularly misused by modern Christians (99). He argues that placing the Ten Commandments in courtrooms is Old Testament (90-91). The wisdom in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes is for the Old Testament.
Stanley notes, “The majority of the people I’ve talked to who’ve abandoned their faith have lost their faith in Jesus because they lost confidence in the Bible. Which part of the Bible? You guessed it—the part that doesn’t apply to or include us—the Old Testament” (110). He adds, “The most shameful and embarrassing chapters in church history were not the result of anything Jesus or the apostle Paul taught. Our most embarrassing, indefensible moments resulted from Christians leveraging the old concepts” (140).
Stanley argues that Paul understood that the old and new covenant is like getting a new cell phone (139). I found this analogy rife with problems. He claims that the moment you get a “new” cell phone, you don’t carry around your “old” cell phone anymore. You may have loved your cell phone and used it to wake you up that morning. But as soon as you have a new one, you set the old one aside. But Stanley has argued that the covenant is not merely an improvement on the old; it is entirely new. Not so with a cell phone. Most of the operating system of your new phone came from what was developed in your old phone. It might be exactly the same. Your apps and contacts and photos may all transfer. There is no doubt your new phone is better and can do far more, but to argue it is entirely different is inaccurate.
Stanley reasons that if you dip back into the Old Testament and apply any of it, then you are obligated to keep all of it. He states, “The moment anyone attempts to smuggle anything into the new, the new becomes old and the smuggler is obligated to embrace all of the old. The smuggler is obligated to slit animal throats and stone adulterers” (143). He adds, “Even a pinch of the old covenant will corrupt the taste and texture of the new covenant” (144). Stanley claims, “Most Jews consider the old covenant outdated and obsolete. But not us Christians. We just can’t seem to let it go” (153). Stanley points out that the Old Testament sacrificial system was forsaken after the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Jewish people assume sacrificing animals is not expected in our day. Yet Christians still believe many of the obligations found in the Old Testament are still obligatory for Christians. He cites Paul in Galatians arguing that the Judaizers who claimed that to be a good Christian you had to keep the Mosaic law were missing the mark. Paul maintained that if you have to keep even one Old Testament law to be saved, then you have to keep all of it. But today, Christians pick and choose from the Old Testament things they assert are still binding on Christians and those that are not.
Stanley raises important issues for the Church today. For example, no modern Christian would assume we must still kill lambs and goats to atone for our sins. But you may still hear sermons on the importance of keeping the Sabbath or tithing. Stanley’s point is that you can’t pick and choose from the Old Testament. Either it all applies or none of it does. He claims, “You get the prosperity gospel, the crusades, anti-Semitism, legalism, exclusivism, judgmentalism, fourteenth-century Catholicism, don’t touch God’s anointedism, God will get ‘emism, and other isms we will bump into in the next section. Pretty much everything that makes us resistible is tethered to some version of blended-model theology” (158). Stanley comes out strongly and claims that Christians need to follow Jesus and the New Testament and view the Old Testament for what it is, a covenant between God and ancient Israel. He declares, “To be clear; Thou shalt not obey the Ten Commandments” (136).
Stanley makes another controversial claim. He argues that the Christian faith is not based on the Bible, because the Bible as we know it with 66 books was not formally adopted and approved until the fourth century A.D. Stanley claims that the Christian faith was based on the resurrection of Jesus. Part of why Stanley emphasizes this point is because he argues that many who attack Christianity try to poke holes in the belief of Adam and Eve, Noah, miracles, or seeming inconsistencies in the Bible. Or, people focus on God telling Joshua to kill everyone in Jericho, right down to the women and children, and they reject the Bible. And, if you reject the Bible, you have to reject Jesus.
Stanley argues that this house-of-cards approach does not destroy the Christian faith. He claims, “But they never claimed their faith was based on the integrity of the documents themselves” (158). Stanley argues that for an atheist to find a supposed “mistake” in the Bible does not refute Christianity, because the Christian faith was flourishing long before it had a 66-book Bible.
While what Stanley says is true, I would tend to argue that the early Church did have Scripture. The Old Testament was available as Scripture and was widely cited by Jesus, Peter, and Paul. The letters of Paul and Peter and John were accepted by the Church as Scripture long before the fourth century. So, to be clear, it was not that the early church simply used their personal testimonies in preaching, teaching, and evangelizing for the first three centuries. They used biblical texts that were revered as Scripture long before the modern version of the 66-book Bible was authorized.
Interestingly, Stanley also argues that Christianity is not based on Jesus’ teachings (295). He states, “Jesus’ teaching wasn’t the driving force of his movement. . . Peter and the boys didn’t choose to stay with Jesus because of what he taught. They chose to stay in spite of what he taught. They hung around because of who he claimed to be” (295). Stanley concludes, “Anyone who lost their faith in Jesus because they lost their faith in the Bible lost their faith unnecessarily” (306). While Jesus’ ultimate claim to be the Messiah was the main reason His disciples followed Him, this statement may also be a bit harsh. Massive crowds listened to Him teach all day, even forgoing meals. People claimed that His teaching was different from the Scribes, because He taught with authority. Ultimately, it is difficult to separate Jesus from His teaching.
Stanley also encourages pastors and Christians to avoid saying, “The Bible says” (301).
He argues that most people today don’t view the Bible as authoritative, so making that statement doesn’t add anything to your argument. Rather, he says you should say, “Jesus said” or “Paul said.” He claims that, technically speaking, the Bible doesn’t say anything. So better to cite the one who said it. In fact, he argues that what Paul said is not inspired because it is in the Bible. Rather, the Bible is inspired because it has the words of inspired people in it. He adds, “We don’t believe because of a book; we believe because of the events that inspired the book” (294). Stanley suggests it would be better to refer to the Old Testament as the “Hebrew Bible” and the New Testament as the “Christian Bible” (280). He cautions that many people wanting to check out the Bible understandably begin at the beginning and are immersed in some pretty tawdry tales in Genesis and Judges long before they get to Jesus. Stanley doesn’t like the Old Testament being the first impression that Jesus-seekers get.
Stanley has a section comparing the vertical and the horizontal. He argues that the old covenant encouraged people to try and get closer to God for what it did for them. He notes, “While seeking greater intimacy with God is a noble pursuit, we would be less than honest if we didn’t admit that the intimacy sought is for the benefit of the seeker” (175). He argues that Jesus put our relationship with others on an equal footing with our relationship with God.
Stanley contends that Jesus gave a much higher ethic in the new covenant than we find in the old. He claims, “The Bible is not the basis of Christian behavior—The basis for Christian behavior is the sacrificial love of Jesus” (205). Stanley unpacks the “one anothers” of the Bible and says we are to ask, “What does God’s love require of me?” (234). He argues, “But to love the way Jesus called us to love requires a complete break with the inspired but retired, beautiful but obsolete, old covenant.” (245) He asserts, “Consequently, you’ll never be closer to the divine than you are when you are in the presence of other Spirit-indwelt people” (249).
Stanley argues that the resurrection is the key to Christianity, not the belief in the inerrant, error-free 66 books of the Bible. He concludes, “‘The Bible says’ doesn’t carry the same weight it once did. Fortunately, first-century church leaders showed us the way forward. They put all their eggs in one basket. The Easter basket” (313). He asks, “Would you be willing to transfer your faith from a book to the events behind the book?” (315).
I would like to comment on several things. First, Stanley has certainly addressed some key issues for the Church. Why is a Church with such a dynamic message and Head in decline across the country today? Why are young people rejecting the Bible? How does the Church respond to those who are offended by the Old Testament God who calls for the immediate death and destruction of His enemies and those who violate certain laws?
Stanley has touched on an important issue. Christians cannot merely pick and choose what they follow from the Old Testament. I recently heard of someone who claimed that you could not be a genuine Christian if you did not keep the Sabbath on the same day it was kept in the Old Testament. Someone else argued you could not be a Christian if you did not observe all of the Jewish festival days. But Stanley is correct in saying that if you must keep part of the Old Testament law, then you must keep it all.
But I believe Stanley is too extreme when he claims that the Old Testament is obsolete and not meant for us. I don’t want to give up Psalm 23! While I believe context is crucial in approaching both the Old and New Testaments, there are two things I find in every Scripture. First, Scripture is fundamentally God-focused. Though it tells stories about carnal, imperfect, even evil people, it ultimately points the reader to God and His mission and ways. With every Scripture you can ask, “What does this reveal to me about God?” Second, Scripture also reveals truths about people. We see ourselves in Scripture. Stanley would disagree. He claims, “The Old Testament is not a biography of God. The Old Testament is a history of the ancient Jews” (161). While some things like the sacrificial system clearly became obsolete due to Jesus’ death on the cross, the Old Testament was preparatory. It was the kindergarten for the New Testament. Why did Jesus have to die on a cruel cross? Fifteen hundred Old Testament years of sacrifices for people’s sins had taught the Jewish people why. Everything Jesus did was based on the Old Testament. Furthermore, God doesn’t change (Mal. 3:6). He is just as holy today as he was in Moses’ time. He hates sin and injustice just as much now as He always has. Times may have changed, but God has not. Therefore, His standards also remain the same. He cares for the oppression of widows and orphans in the Old Testament just as much as in the New. He loves His people in the New Testament just as much as He did in the Old (even if those people are different now). So I disagree that the Old Testament is not for Christians.
Interestingly, in Matthew 5, Jesus repeatedly said, “You have heard it said . . .” Then Jesus would continue, “But I say unto you . . .” He never says, “You have heard it said, thou shalt not kill, but I say unto you, that’s Old Testament! That law is obsolete!” No, Jesus never did away with the law. He took it to another level. Under Jesus, you couldn’t even be angry at your brother. Jesus didn’t cancel the law against adultery. He said you can’t even look lustfully on a woman. Stanley adroitly bypasses this fact. At one point, he cites this issue as if he is going to explain it, but then points to another passage instead (179). Jesus also said, not one jot or tittle of the law would be done away with until all things are accomplished (Matt. 5:18). Stanley would probably say, they were accomplished on the cross. But, in that same passage, Jesus said those who break one of the least of the commands would be least in His kingdom (Matt. 5:19). I am assuming He was establishing His kingdom on the new covenant, yet He did not sweep away everything in the old.
I would also push back on Stanley’s claims that Jesus emphasized a horizontal relationship. Stanley cited the example in Matthew 5:23-24 of Jesus telling the worshipper to leave his sacrifice at the altar and to go be reconciled with an offended brother as proof that Jesus cared more about our relationships with people than our walk with God. But when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He immediately said it was to love God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind. The second was like it, but it was second. At times, I feel like Stanley’s theology is colored by his own experience. He confesses (and I appreciate his candor) that he sought to go deeper with God for the wrong reasons, and it led to judgmentalism. But his experience should not sour everyone who seeks to love God with all their heart. Paul said his all-consuming goal was what? Love his brother? No. It was to know Christ, and everything else in his life was garbage in comparison (Phil. 3:10-14). There are some pretty amazing saints scattered throughout Church history who pursued God with all their hearts, and I doubt if all of them had selfish motives.
What God said throughout the prophets of the Old Testament was that if you truly loved Him, you would love others. Why did Jesus tell the worshipper to go and get reconciled first? Because his broken relationship revealed that he was not yet in a position to worship the true God. Worshipping God was the highest good the person could do, but he could not worship as long as there was sin in his life. Conversely, genuine worship of God will inevitably lead to concern for others. If our worship does not, then we have not worshipped the way God intended.
I generally enjoy Stanley’s humor, but I was a bit troubled by his fictitious conversation between God the Father and Son where the Father tells Jesus He got it wrong with the leaders He left for the Church, and that He should enlist Saul of Tarsus (115). I generally like Andy’s sense of humor, so I hope he was kidding when he said that!
I also felt Stanley revealed his ignorance of revival. He seems to equate revival with mass evangelism and claims some people prefer to sit around praying for revival rather than doing the hard work of evangelizing (92). He says, “But I’m not sitting around praying for revival either . . . Instead of doing what needs to be done, the crowd prays for God to do what he’s already done” (275). This statement reveals a gross misunderstanding of revival. Revival is for God’s people. It can lead to a spiritual awakening or evangelism, but revival involves restoring believers and the Church to the people of God they are supposed to be. I assume Stanley has a similar goal in writing this book. Anyone who has seen what God has done in history once He gets His people into the proper condition, with His heart for people and His kingdom, will long for revival as well.
Stanley also makes this statement: “Christian leaders who elevate the gifts of the Spirit over the fruit of the Spirit, don’t understand the Spirit. A gift is a gift. It’s not necessarily a manifestation of the Spirit of God. The fruits of the Spirit always are” (244). I’d like for him to clarify this declaration. First of all, yes, the gifts of the Spirit ARE a manifestation of the Spirit. What else would they be? If they are ever magnified, it is because the gifts are to be used to build up the body, to be used horizontally as Stanley suggests. And, quite frankly, the Holy Spirit is the gift! The gifts are just the various ways the Holy Spirit manifests Himself as He helps people fulfill their divine assignments.
Finally, boiling down the Christian ethic to asking yourself, “What does God’s love require of me?” may be a great question, but it is also open to a lot of interpretation! Some people have done horrific things in the name of love and God! I think it would have been a strong addition if Stanley had described that the biggest difference between the two covenants was that, in the new covenant, the Holy Spirit was given to enable people to keep it. That, above everything else, is why the new covenant is superior to the old.
I think Stanley raises some great issues and certainly makes the reader think. But, in the end, he throws the baby out with the bath water. He finds difficulties in the Old Testament, so he jettisons it and calls it obsolete.
I think Stanley is wise to focus the Christian apologetic on Jesus and not necessarily try to argue every challenge to obscure passages in the Bible. Ultimately, the Christian faith does hinge on Jesus. And Jesus has proven to be widely popular through the ages.
