I had a few reasons to read Andy Stanley’s book, Irresistible. First, I’m preparing to
write at least two more books on the Old Testament. (I’ve already written on the
book of Joshua. I plan to write on Daniel and Abraham in the near future.) So,
I wanted to see what he had to say about the Old Testament—to see if it would
change my plans or my approach.
Second, the book has been controversial, but the
reviews have seemed like other examples where the work is being
mischaracterized. In Christian circles, I’ve seen this with authors ranging
from Joel Osteen to Dallas Willard. Sometimes, it’s laziness—reviewers who
obviously haven’t even read the book. Other times, it’s misunderstandings
fueled by legalism and a blinkered view of how God works—that devolves into
self-righteousness. Other times, reviewers are cranks who seem to struggle with
envy. (And sometimes, it’s just a good target for some amusing satire—as here
with the
Babylon Bee.) If Stanley is wrong, I want to write a legitimate critique;
if he’s right, I want to defend him; if he’s wrong but the other reviews are
slanderous, I want to take care of both!
In a word, I enjoyed Irresistible quite a bit. It will change some of the ways I think
and talk about the Bible. I think Stanley’s book is especially valuable for
those who have an up-front role in a church, as they consider how to describe
the Bible publicly. But it has value for all church leaders and anyone who
actively shares their faith with seekers. That said, I think Stanley is sloppy
in a few ways that lead to some unnecessary trouble. Given the topic, he could
count on taking some flak (even without those slips), but I was sorry to see
him and his editor volunteer for more.
The
problem in a nutshell: We often miss the
glory of the New Covenant (NC); we forget (or don’t know) that the Old Covenant
(OC) is obsolete; we don’t really understand that the NC trumps the OC; and
this leads to confusion for Christians and non-Christians about the Old
Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT).
One of the problems in writing a book like this (or
a review on it!) is trying to distinguish between the OT and the OC—in a way
that doesn’t lose readers. (Wait! Wait! Don’t leave!) Stanley’s chief concern
is the continuing impact of the OC, but this stems from a shoddy approach to the
OT. But, everyone uses the OT in their language and relatively few know about
the OC (a big part of the underlying problem). So, if you want to hold onto
readers, the OT is a much better hook than the OC. But this also leads to
confusion about Stanley’s goals and recommendations that I’ll discuss later.
For now, let’s make sure you understand the OC and the NC. If you need a refresher or a
primer, click
here.
What does Stanley say about all of this? He
describes the challenge that Jesus faced in respecting the OC while ushering in
the NC (105). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus surprised them with “You have
heard X, but…”. Stanley says Jesus “butted his way through” these parts of the
Law (106). With other parts, Jesus extended the moral norms in the Law (108).
As for “fulfilling” the Law, Stanley says that “the term means to bring to a
designated end”. He compares it to finishing a homework assignment—not
abolishing the Law, but making the covenant and the religious rituals obsolete
(109).
In a word, Christ initiated a new covenant (“fulfill
and replace the behavioral, sacrifice-based systems” [23]) and a new command (“the
governing behavioral ethic” [24]) for members of his new international
“movement” (23-24, 71) of those who are living by “The Way” (19, 77). Stanley also
notes that the Great Commission has no references to Moses or the Law—the key
“authorities” pre-Jesus (113). We are to focus on the commandments of Jesus, not
Moses (114). The NC was to be “in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old
way of the written code.” (138) “We don’t visit the Temple. We are the Temple.”
(138)
All of this continues to play out in the Early
Church. The Jew/Gentile drama ranges from Peter/Cornelius in Acts 9-10 to Paul’s
conversion and ministry in Acts 8ff. “There were virtually no mission efforts
focused on Gentiles until Paul…” (121) But he was “discounting” the Law with
his “errant, anti-Moses theology.” (121) This leads to the first “missionary”
effort out of the church in Jerusalem—ironically, to “undermine the credibility
of the first bona fide Christian missionary.” (121)
Acts 15 (and Galatians) describes this encounter—perhaps
the most important moment in Church history. In the end, Stanley notes the
irony that “Jews weren’t expected to be accommodating to Gentiles moving in
their direction…Gentiles were asked to be accommodating to Jews moving in their
direction.” (140)
Old
Covenant (OC) vs. New Covenant (NC)
The writer of Hebrews is most helpful here. Three
powerful verses in chapter 8 serve as bookends for his use of the key OT-NC
passage in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
“But the ministry Jesus
has received is as superior to [that of Moses and the priests] as the covenant
of which he is mediator is superior
to the old one, and it is founded on better
promises. If there had been nothing wrong
with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another…By
calling this covenant ‘new’, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”
Especially if this is new for you, let the key words
sink in: the NC is superior and founded on better promises; the OC had
something wrong with it and is now obsolete. A “soon” transition was
promised—and the move from “obsolete and aging” to “disappear” would become
painfully obvious with the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem on
August 6 in 70 AD.
At least partially tongue-in-cheek, Stanley suggests
re-naming it the “Obsolete Testament”. (140) But he is clear that obsolete is
not the same as “bad”. The OC was good but temporary (135). When we use a term
like “old”, it can mean obsolete or outdated. He uses a helpful pair of
examples to explain the difference: the OC is old like a rotary phone is to a
cell phone; but the OC is not old like the Constitution, since it is still
binding rather than archaic (139). The Law was a nanny—who still has wise
counsel at times, but whose role has been outgrown by new (adult) circumstances
(143). In a word, the OC is not your covenant (159).
Stanley is also not saying that the OC was “flawed.
Just the opposite. When understood in its ancient context, it was brilliant!” (95)
The OC was superior to existing civil/religious law and it offered
revolutionary protections to the most vulnerable in society (96). But it was only
with Israel and temporary (96). It was conditional and with a nation not
individuals per se (98). And the NC is far closer to God’s covenant with
Abraham than Moses (100). So if we’re going to make an OT reference to
covenant, we should focus on God’s unconditional promises to Abraham—to be a
blessing to all nations.
Mix
and Match
This gets us to the thesis of Stanley’s book and its
connection to the title, Irresistible.
“I’m convinced it’s the mixing, blending, and integration of the old with the
new that makes the modern church so resistible.” (25) The Church has a history
of combining and blending (155-156). But the OC and the NC are only sequential,
not blendable (143, 154). And this mixing the OC/OT with the NC/NT leads to a
range of problems.
First, a focus on the Law necessarily leads to an
emphasis on “sin avoidance” (see: Stanley’s intro to Pt. 3)—what Dallas Willard
called “sin management”. A Christ-transformed, Spirit-empowered life is not so
much about avoiding sins of commission, but actively and lovingly interacting
with a difficult world. Too often, Christians are satisfied with checking a few
low-end virtue boxes—and knowing that they haven’t checked some “big” sin
boxes—a mindset that is implicitly based on the OC.
Second, a focus on the Law inexorably leads to
self-righteousness and various forms of legalism (94). The blessings/obedience
and curses/disobedience formula/principle laid out by God for Israel in the
OC/OT easily lends itself to various versions of the prosperity gospel
(95)—from health/wealth to measuring church success by bodies, buildings,
budgets and baptisms. Stanley also points to popular verses such as Jeremiah
29:11 and II Chronicles 7:14 which are frqeuently ripped from their context,
misinterpreted, and misapplied (99-100)!
Third, Christians often rail against a range of
evils inappropriately. The subjects of our anger are too wide—when the ministry
of Jesus and I Corinthians 5:9-13 indicate a much greater focus inside the
church than outside. The objects of our anger are too broad—when we can only biblically motivate anger against sin
in the Church and clear injustices in the World (when direct and significant
harm is done to others, particularly the vulnerable). And the exhibitions of
our anger are too deep—more in line with the “fire and brimstone” style that is
much more dominant in the OT. (If you want a terrific book on anger, check out
Garret Keizer’s The Enigma of Anger:
Essays on a Sometimes Deadly Sin.)
Sure, there are aspects of anger in the NT—and there
are times for it today. (As the bumper sticker says: “If you’re not angry,
you’re not paying attention.” See, e.g., Matthew 23, Acts 5, Galatians 1:8-9, Revelation
6ff.) But when one relies on the OT—and misunderstands its applicability—it’s
easy to miss that God’s wrath is mostly directed at sin and idolatry in Israel
and gross injustices by pagan countries. In contrast, the proper, dominant NC
response to sin is not anger, but a broken heart (253). Too often, we’re angry
at the wrong people, the wrong things—and improperly angry, on top of that. Ironically,
we should be angrier at ourselves and those in the Church when sinful anger
causes so much damage to God’s Kingdom!
Fourth, a focus on the OC distorts political
agendas. Stanley asks why some evangelicals are so keen to post the 10
Commandments in public—and why not the Sermon on the Mount instead (90)? The
example is a silly error that points to larger concerns. Much of the pursuit of
government solutions—on the Left and especially on the Right—is driven by an OC
approach. The Right is more concerned about pagans obeying the Law than an
approach that would emulate Jesus. Many on the Left are concerned about the
poor, but then advocate government-based solutions which are inconsistent with
the NC and the loving, get-one-hands-dirty ministry of Jesus. Instead, the
easiest biblical agenda for government is to limit oppression by the
government, cronies, and private actions—and from there, for individuals and the
Church to focus on ministering to others, as Jesus did. (See: my book Turn Neither to the Right nor to the Left
and a much shorter journal article in Journalof Markets and Morality.)
Finally and most important, an OC-based approach
usually holds the “vertical” and “horizontal” out of balance (chapter 14). In
the best case scenario, the vertical is warped and people still do a decent job
with the horizontal. Worst-case: the warped vertical leads to apathy or
unloving behavior toward the horizontal. But starting in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy—and then extended and redirected by Jesus—the second of the two
great Commandments are a matter of sequence not importance (182). In fact, a
robust understanding of what God wanted through the Law would still take you to
a balanced form of the vertical and horizontal. “All the Law and the Prophets
hang on these two commandments.” (Mt 22:40) In Chapter 15, Stanley discusses
the “new command” and imagines the crowd’s initial disappointment that they
would get another rule to follow. But instead of adding, Jesus was merely
combining and synthesizing the Old.
From there, Stanley revisits Jesus’ exchange with
the lawyer and Jesus’ effort to redefine “neighbor” in a way that emphasized
the extent to which God values the horizontal. (See: Buechner’s
definition of neighbor.) Stanley reminds us how surprised the audience
would have been to hear that the Samaritan was the hero of the story: “most of
Jesus’ audience assumed imaginary Samaritans were behind the robbery.” (188)
And then this little gem when Jesus said, “the next day”: the Samaritan spent
“an entire night caring for a Jew?” (188) Inconceivable! And then, of course,
the lawyer can’t even name the Samaritan’s ethnicity at the end (190).
All of this mixing and matching is confusing for the
average layperson in the Church—and perhaps worse for the outsider who is
paying attention. We motivate something because it’s in “the Bible”, but they
don’t know how to handle the OT. As such, the OT ends up unnecessarily causing
the vast bulk of people’s questions about “the Bible” (157).
This leads to our contemporary challenges with
seekers and skeptics. “De-churched people” walked away from their version of
the faith—but to them, it’s not their version, but the version (268). At
present, people say to Jesus, “I like you; I just don’t want to be around your
body.” (17; invoking I Corinthians 12) They
left over “things that have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus or his New
Covenant.” (274)
We can’t fix or avoid all of that, but what can we
do? “Unchurched people may not be interested in church, but they certainly want
to be one anothered.” (274) Fortunately, “most post-Christians still have a
crush on Jesus.” (274) “How has the church responded” to our post-Christian
times? “Skinny jeans and moving lights” (272). Fine, I guess, but the focus
should be “do no harm” (through legalism and confusion), walk in the Spirit,
and practice the “one anothers”.
Why
should we be obedient?
A focus on the law also leads to the wrong
motivations for correct behavior. As Stanley notes: We’re not supposed to “not commit adultery because the Ten
Commandments instruct us not to commit adultery…Hopefully, you won’t run out
and commit adultery. Jesus wouldn’t like that…” (136-137) People poke at the
idea of “WWJD?”, but the question will typically get you much closer to both
ethical conduct than a reliance on government policy and the Law.
We should “obey” because we worship a benevolent and
omniscient Father who sent His Son to die for bozos like us. And if He loves us
that much and knows what’s best for us, then we’re morons if we disobey.
Likewise, when others fail to follow a loving and competent Father, anger may
be appropriate if they’re dramatically hurting innocents. But otherwise, the
preferred response is pity and love—“for they know not what they do.”
Stanley notes that, in John 13:34, Jesus leverages
his own example of love to encourage them to follow Him. He doesn’t command
them, allude to His authority, invoke his deity, or point to his holiness (198).
He served them throughout His ministry, at the Last Supper, and finally, “staged
a demonstration of love that took everybody’s breath away, including his own.”
(200)
In chapter 16, Stanley turns to Paul’s focus on the
“one anothers”. How does he motivate our love for others? Not through the Law,
Moses, the Scriptures, or “the Bible says”. Instead, our love should be
inspired by “just as in Christ God forgave you.” (203) Stanley notes that “in
Christ Jesus” is “Paul’s shorthand for NC”—as circumcision was shorthand for
the OC (206). “The only that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”
(Gal 5:6) Not circumcision. Not faith without love. And not love without faith
(206-207). Or consider this key verse from Paul a chapter later: "Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal 6:2; I Cor 9:21)
“Paul doesn’t leverage the old covenant…he leverages
the believer’s inclusion in Jesus’ new covenant.” (204) Sometimes people will
ask “if I don’t, will I go to Hell?” Well, no, but someone might. Our standard
is not how our behavior impacts our eternal destination or experience, but
whether it’s loving to others. Stanley concludes: “What is the basis of
Christian behavior? The Bible? No…the sacrificial love of Jesus. We don’t love
because the Bible tells us to love. We love because God the Father through
Christ the Son has loved us.” (205)
I was with a friend a few weeks ago at an adoption
group meeting at church. He reflected on our time together in my Sunday night
Bible study. He said he was sure he learned a lot about the Bible from me. But
the most impactful thing he experienced in that Bible study was the first night
we brought baby Zach with us. The life, ministry, and death of Jesus constantly
remind us that it’s the everyday and extraordinary demonstrations of love that
move the world.
Be
careful with the OT: avoid it and/or do it properly
First, understand the arc of the Bible’s story.
Stanley’s big picture version is: 1.) God’s plans for Abraham (chapter 2); 2.)
the role of the Temple—as not really the plan, but ok (ch. 3-4); and from
there, 3.) Jesus is greater than the Temple—an amazing claim to Jewish ears at
the time (chapter 5). This leads to the “new movement” (chapter 6) and a “new
agreement”/NC (chapter 7).
Second, understand the OT for what it is. Foremost, it
is the history of “God’s activity in connection to one particular people group”
(160) As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity: God "selected one particular people and spent several
centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was-- that there was
only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the
Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process."
So, we can “learn a great deal about God” through
the OT (161). But we need to recognize that the events are filtered through
Jewish history and the OC. Another problem: Much of the OT is “the law and the prophets”.
This makes for difficult reading and study, but it can be valuable for those
who understand the context and put in the work (161). And of great interest to
Christians, the OT is “the backstory for the Christian faith…the context for
the introduction of the Savior of the World” (161).
Third, teach and be clear about genre—in particular,
the immense differences between law, narrative, psalms, etc. Related to this,
the OT has much more variety than the NT—and so, relinquishing the OT (or
downplaying it) also has a tremendous cost. If you avoid the OT, you lose its
amazingly rich narratives—a huge loss in a post-modern culture that so heavily
emphasizes the role of story. The OT also has key moments in Jewish and world history,
including the profound failure of the Jews to live up to the OC—setting the
table for the NC. The OT has Psalms, robust teaching on the role of suffering
in life and faith (e.g., Habakkuk, Lamentations, and Job), an abundance of poetry
(which speaks so well to certain people), the “wisdom” literature (imagine “the
Bible” without Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon!), God's staggering love for us (Hosea), and the OT's amazing prophecies, and
the prophetic voice that speaks on behalf of God-- in defense of the vulnerable,
and as critiques of society and those who claim to follow God (in books like
Haggai and Amos). Or to put it most generally and succinctly, the OT is where we learn the most about our amazing God, the Father.
Stanley notes our advice to new Christians—that we
steer them away from the OT (103). But really, we do the same with the NT. We
tell folks to read John or Luke; we don’t tell them to crush Hebrews, memorize
Job, or get lost in Revelation. Stanley is right to caution us about the OT, but
this is not simply “an OT problem”. As we disciple people, we should teach them
how to handle all of the NT—and the OT.
Fourth, we need to be more careful with how we
describe the “OT”. What should we do? “Jesus treated the Hebrew Scriptures as
authoritative. Paul insisted they were God-breathed. Peter believed Jewish
writers were carried along by the Holy Spirit (II Pet 1:21). But they never claimed
their faith was based on…” the OT (158). “Scripture” does not equal binding
(160, 202). Inspired does not imply “authority over us.” (160) The OT is “equally
inspired” but not “equally applicable.” (103)
What
to (quit) doing about it
Stanley sprinkles suggestions throughout, but the
greatest concentration of ideas is in chapter 13. First, avoid saying “the
Bible says”, since it implies that the OT and NT are equal in authority and
applicability. Stanley notes that “testament” can be translated “covenant”
(97). He wrestles with renaming the OT—perhaps the Jewish Scriptures or the
Hebrew Bible (280). “God didn’t name the OT. Neither did Jesus…Jesus referred
to the Jewish Scriptures as the Law and the Prophets. So did Paul.” (281)
Stanley traces the original naming of “Old” to
Melito of Sardis (282-283). And as David Novak notes in First Things, Jews
have a NT as well—the Talmud. “Christians and Jews accept the OT/HB as
interpreted by Second Temple Jewish theology to be their foundational
revelation.” So, maybe “old” does work for both Christians and Jews.
Stanley also suggests that our Bibles might be
better starting with the NT—and Luke in particular (284). I don’t know if these
suggestions have any possibility of being incorporated. But at minimum, it’s a
useful exercise to remind us that the ordering of the books and the naming of
its parts is not fixed or itself part of the Gospel.
Second, Stanley notes that “supporting our faith
with ‘the Bible says’ communicates that the foundation of our faith is the
Bible…[and] insinuates that the roots of our faith go no deeper than the 4th
century decision to combine first-century documents with the Jewish
Scriptures.” (301) He recommends using “Jesus taught” or “Paul says” instead.
Stanley observes that “this approach automatically reduces resistance.” (304)
Another irony: For all of our emphasis on the Bible,
it’s still rarely read despite its supposed truth and value—and church leaders
rarely make more than passing efforts to (effectively) encourage it for their
people (93). Fortunately, as Stanley notes: “The foundation of our faith is not
an inspired book. While the texts included in our NT play an important role in
helping understand what it means to follow Jesus, they are not the reason we
follow. We don’t believe because of a book; we believe because of the event
that inspired the book…the Bible did not create Christianity. Christianity
created the Bible…Faith in Jesus existed for decades before the Bible…” (294) We
inherited a text-based faith…Once upon a time, our faith was event-based.”
(299) In sum, “resurrection is the horse. The Bible is the cart…” (299)
Third, resist the temptation to “resolve” the OT and
Jesus/apostles: “neither Jesus nor the apostle Paul felt the need to do so. We
shouldn’t either.” (162) This reminds me of Carle Zimmerman’s work on families
in general and “trustee” families in particular. Family structure was quite different
in the OT because it was a different world—and that’s fine. As Stanley notes,
“The OT is a saga of an ancient people struggling to survive in a world where
food was scarce, enemies were real, and death was just a minor infection
away…ancient history with a divine purpose.” (162) So, we shouldn’t see its
examples of family as normative, especially in comparison to the teachings of
Jesus and the apostles. (For a scholarly effort to recast and diminish the role
of the OT to Christianity, see: LSS in First Things.)
Stanley doesn’t see all of this as a call to drop
the OT but to treat it with care: “The apostles appropriately leveraged the OT
to make their case to their Jewish brothers and sisters. But they typically did
not leverage the Jewish Scriptures to make their case to the Gentile world.
When preaching to the Gentiles, they leveraged a more recent development. The resurrection.
We should follow their example.” (278-279) “The Gentile world…became enamored
with Jewish Scriptures after they became enamored with a particular Jew.” (299)
Provocative
and useful, but some quibbles
Please be clear: Stanley doesn’t say to get rid of the
OT or “discount [its] importance” (69). If one reads him comprehensibly and
charitably, this wouldn’t be missed. That said, his language is not careful
enough at times. He uses the phrase “letting go” of the OT (71), which implies
getting rid of it. His combo of “unhitch” and “unleash” (e.g., 72, 315) is cute
and memorable, but the former is too strong in implying that we drop the OT and
leave it behind. “Unleash” is in the subtitle. I’d guess that he wanted to run
with that concept/picture—and it’s a good one!—but then sacrificed too much by
choosing “unhitch” as its cute and memorable partner.
Second, Stanley is not careful enough, especially
early-on, in delineating aspects of
the OT (in particular, the Law and the OC) from the entire OT. For example, he describes “keeping the law” as “about
half” of the combined Scriptures (130), equating the OC with the OT. It’s not
until p. 153—when he clarifies “at least three books”—before the reader
probably finally understands that it’s not the OT per se, but a reliance on the
OC and the Law that is problematic.
Third, Stanley only lightly alludes to the punchline
in the first half of the book. This is tough on readers who are being sold a
new paradigm—or ironically, a return to an old paradigm. It’s not until chapter
13 that he fully develops this—too long for such a provocative thesis. (Similarly,
folks might criticize him as too thorough or repetitive, but this approach was probably
necessary with given the paradigm shift he seeks.)
Fourth, Stanley overestimates the decline of
(biblical) Christianity and underestimates the impact of Christianity
historically, in radically different cultural context of early Church vs.
cultural Christianity in America today—and other ways in which Christianity has
permeated society.
The irony in these quibbles is that his most
difficult audience is comprised of those most prone to misread and
misunderstand him. Sure, cranks will complain because he’s a popular preacher
of a mega-church. Others will read the book too casually or run with their
comments based on hearsay about the book. But some will get confused (or give
up), in trying to understand what is difficult for them. It’s a shame that this
last set is unnecessarily large, given what could have been edited better.
Two
(much) larger problems of omission
First, Stanley’s comments have clear implications for
preaching and evangelism—in particular, what casual Christians and seekers
hear. But there’s not nearly enough here about the role of discipleship in
working through these issues. Of course, this is a general problem for
churches—maybe, especially for popular preachers, who are most tempted to
depend far too much on Sunday AM for spiritual formation. Granted, the need for
discipleship is implied: those who would read a book like this are most likely
to be disciples—and persuading them on these matters could lead to a
significant shift. (And for that, I’m immensely thankful.) But a coherent
effort to make disciples and disciple-makers would allow us to have our cake
and eat it too—handling the OT with care, without discarding it or causing
trouble with it. And look to his title: “Irresistible” does not equate to nice,
well-behaved church attenders, but transformed, Spirit-filled apprentices of
Jesus
Second, all of these problems are perhaps inevitable
if the OC/NC is taught frequently and well—and if the role of the Holy Spirit
is under-played—out of allergy, ignorance, or an attraction to the Law. Of
course, distorted understanding of the Spirit feeds this. But the answer is not
getting rid of the OT. Instead, we should focus on the NC and the Spirit-filled
life as a crucial part of the big picture of God’s redemptive work with
humanity through Jesus and the NC. While Stanley addresses this indirectly, a
more effective approach would have been to emphasize the positive concept of
the NC and the Spirit-filled life, more than pounding the OC.
