The modern Christian church has a complicated relationship with the Old Testament. While some churches try to make it the focus, others abandon it entirely. This topic came to the forefront around a year ago when pastor Andy Stanley released a number of sermons on “Unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament.” A very dramatic title, perhaps even a bit misleading, but we’ll get to that later. Stanley’s sermons caused quite the controversy in the Christian community. Jump ahead to just a few weeks ago, and the conversation returned on the “Unbelievable?” radio show and podcast. Justin Brierly moderated a conversation between Andy Stanley and Jeff Durbin to set the record straight and better hash out this subject. What we got was a remarkable debate of biblical proportions.
1. A Good Clean Fight
Before launching in, I want to say that this was an excellent episode of the show. It had everything you would hope for in a conversation debate. There was real passion on both sides. But they both had something perhaps more important; mutual respect. The character and integrity of the two showed in how they treated each other. The clash was hard and direct, not descending into repeating their own points while ignoring the other person, and yet their respect for each other was still evident. It was a good clean fight all around.
2. Stanley’s Approach: Unhitch?
Stanley’s major point is that our faith and belief is not in the Bible, but in Jesus and his resurrection. True, we may know about that through the Bible, but it’s the event that is important. As he said, “I would like to tether the faith of this generation to the event that created the movement that eventually brought us the Bible.” Essentially his point is that it’s not all about the Bible. There would still be Christianity even if there had been no Bible, because there would be the resurrection. To some this might be controversial and diminishing the value of scripture, it’s hardly unique. Apologists like Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace have made almost the exact same point many times.
Stanley’s point is not that the Old Testament is irrelevant or should be done away with. Instead, he is making a distinction between how we do theology and evangelism. The Old Testament is still essential, but his point is that we change our approach when dealing with non-Christians. There is a growing trend of opposition to Old Testament passages that are difficult. This might be the miraculous events like the Flood or Jonah and the whale, or trying to unpack the Levitical Law. Stanley says to set it aside and acknowledge there are difficulties. He describes how he might talk with someone, “Yes that’s strange, yes that’s odd, no I can’t explain that. But did you know Jesus believed that? I just figure that if somebody can predict their own death and resurrection and pull it off, I just go with whatever that person says.” This is, again, almost exactly what I’ve heard from people like Frank Turek, who rather than argue each individual issue from the Old Testament, keep the focus on Jesus.
3. Durbin’s Response: No Neutrality
I went into this with low expectations but came out pleasantly surprised. Much of Durbin’s argument was that our faith is not based on the event, but on the Bible, because the resurrection only makes sense in the context of the promises of the Old Testament. Thus, trying to unhitch would make the whole process nonsensical. Stanley took a very pragmatic stance saying, “Whatever it takes. Whatever the on-ramp is to faith, I’m all for it. For some people the Old Testament is an on-ramp, and I would of course never discount that.” Durbin didn’t really argue against that but had some concerns on removing the Bible from the method.
Durbin talked about how when we try to argue apart from the Bible, it’s to gain a certain degree of neutrality. Neutrality in the sense that we can do more than just quote the Bible at people and can actually use neutral sources and evidence to make our case. But he argued that, “If we go to unbelievers in our day of whatever stripe and start kicking out evidences at them, we’re assuming a position of neutrality that actually removes our ability to have an effective approach that brings them to the gospel.”
Summary
Who won this debate of Biblical Proportions? In the end, the two largely agreed on the theology, but disagreed on the methods. You could summarize their positions as Stanley saying whatever it takes, and Durbin saying it doesn’t work without the Bible.There’s a lot more depth that they went into, but suffice it to say it’s worth your time. This is an important debate. How much influence the Old Testament has on modern Christians is a big deal, and will have lasting implications for both how we live and how we impact this world. While it might not involve ghostly mayhem or mass hysteria, this is certainly a debate of Biblical proportions.
