Andy Stanley and the Appropriateness of Ambiguity

Is ambiguity ever Ok?  Is it fundamentally wrong to be ambiguous about what's right or wrong?  These questions seem to be lurking under the surface in the dust up over Andy Stanley’s message titled “When Gracie met Truthie.”  Dennis Burk, professor of biblical studies at Boyce College said of Stanley’s sermon, "It was ambiguous at best. It was a total capitulation to the spirit of the age at worst."  Al Mohler said, “he needs to clarify his biblical stance or he's in danger of grieving the spirit”

Modern Discourse

There seems to be an assumed value that ambiguity in and of itself is wrong.  I wonder where this ethic comes from?  Is it instinctual to them or is it a cultural norm?  I believe the style of discourse Stanley’s critics ascribe to take their cues more from the current political style of discourse than they do the style Jesus models.  Currently in our political culture communication has some non-negotiable's:  1. Define what camp you fall into,  2. Demonize anybody who does not fit squarely into your camp,  3.  Apply debate techniques not active listening and 4. Defend/clarify your position at all costs.  I believe this style of discourse is more secularism than it is biblical. 

I listened to Andy Stanley’s message.  He taught the principle that the tension of Grace and Truth sometimes makes things unclear, ambiguous and complicated.  Stanley's message was from the book of John, and he spoke about how messy and seemingly inconsistent Jesus' love was."At times Jesus seems to be forgiving, and at other times he seems to be holding everybody accountable," Stanley said in the sermon. "At times he points out sin and at times it's like he ignores sin altogether... It's what drove people crazy about Jesus. But he was comfortable with it. He was able to minister through it. And we dare not walk away from it."   Jesus was at peace that His seeming inconsistency in dealing with sinners produced a muddled reputation. (Matt 11:19 & Luke 7:34)   Listening to Stanley’s conservative critics, I’m not sure they see Jesus this way.  I’m not sure they’ve dealt with the way Jesus was perceived by his listeners in His context.  

The Sometimes Ambiguous Jesus
Jesus spoke in parables and in Matthew 13:34 he makes the point that “Jesus did not say anything without using parables.”   Why would Jesus indulge in short artistic fictional stories to convey such essential messages? A parable would often end with the refrain “whoever has ears let him hear.” A parable would often include a hidden message that would be accessible to some and confusing to others.  At one point the disciples share their frustration “Why do you speak in parables?” As if to say “Jesus why are you doing this? Your telling stories but nobody is getting your point, can you find a clearer more obvious approach?”   What the disciples did not understand was Jesus was intentionally enticing people into new territory.  Jesus was not offering easy answers and doctrinal points, he was inviting people into an interactive posture.  He said listen with your ears which meant listen to the deeper meaning.  Don’t listen for the literal meaning, seek deeper for meaning that requires a sincere effort of your imagination and a personal investment.  Jesus was also building a reputation for his socializing with tax gathers, prostitutes and sinners. Many were interpreting this behavior as Jesus accepting, affirming, and agreeing with their lifestyle.  Many religious-moral-watchdogs found this tension unacceptable.

Is it ever Ok to be ambiguous?  I believe it is because Jesus sometimes was.  Is it ever O.K. to come across unclear in order to lay the trust-bricks that relationships require?  I believe it is because Jesus sometimes did.  Is it ever O.K. to not give a Yes or No to the “is it a sin” question because the history of the question is so convoluted with agendas?  I believe Jesus sometimes did for the sake of the larger mission and the loaded context of religiosity.  Sure this tension is a harder tightrope to walk.  Some call it the slippery-slope; I call it fighting for balance  This slippery-slope is more an academic construct than it is a functioning theology of engagement. This is the very reason why many are not comfortable with the third way of navigating through culture.  It's much easier to just park firmly in an ideological camp and harp on your doctrinal talking points over and over.  Instead Jesus often models a way of being that is beyond what sin issue is served up to Him.

The Tension in the Center

Much of the conservative backlash to Andy Stanley’s presentation seems to be intoxicated with anxiety by whatever the hot sin issue is at this time.  The sad thing is the church has been playing this dizzying game for so long.  Often Christian leaders jump into the boxing ring dictated by pop culture.  They unknowingly accept the cultural parameters for engagement with a sin issue even though what's often needed is a much wiser and more nuanced conversation than a straight up "its a sin" response. It's at these places that we're tempted to define and defend ourselves based on the phenomenon of these issues.  In the end we drift away from embodying the ethic of Jesus and we look like just another pundit in a debate.   I’m saddened by our reputation being purely defined by what we are against.  Regrettably, drawing line’s in the sand has become the highest value.  I'm sure this kind of “Reactionary Christianity” seems honorable and driven by truth but really in the end it looks less and less like the incarnate God in Jesus.  I’m convinced the reasons we have self-aggrandizing liberal Christianity and entrenched conservative Christianity is because they are assembled out of fear and are not at all comfortable with the awkward tension in the center.  Right now taking a stand is more esteemed over embodying the character of Jesus Christ.

The Third Way

It’s been quite some time since I posted anything. I’ve had a furious 2 months of rehabbing an old house that my family just moved into. Words can’t express the excitement my wife and I have over moving into the city of Syracuse after living out of suitcases for a year.

A year ago my family and 5 others moved to Syracuse to plant Axiom church. Moving into our house this weekend to begin the mission of incarnating the life and love of Jesus in the city is a pivotal step in the life our infant church. This personal landmark causes me to reflect on why I felt compelled to plant Axiom church.
I’ve had a growing rumble in my bones the last few years that there was a third way. This third way grew out of 10+ years of ministering to families in seeker churches, fundamentalist Baptist churches and liberal mainline churches. During those seasons of ministry I devoured book after book on theology and practice. I read stuff from both neo=reformed/Calvinistic camps and stuff from Emergent/ancient future camps. I continually exclaimed under my breath “there must be another way”. In 2001 I began to plow through the scriptures afresh with the intention of establishing a better understanding of the Jewish world and culture; attempting to assemble a new meta-narrative. I started to see things differently. I thought to myself there must be a path that loves the story the bible tells without turning it into a picture of an angry God barking rules at unholy people (neo-reformed) or turning it into a picture of a therapeutic God who only wants us to have a positive self-esteem at the expense of ignoring personal morality (emergent). There must be a third way!

I’ve had a holy discontent that being an authentic Jesus-follower should look like the tension in the center. That tension in the center has been a balance I’ve fought for in my own life while serving in extreme expressions of Christianity. Sometimes I’ve had to bite my lip to stay under the radar. But when I received an invitation from God to plant a church in an unreached city, I knew that it was time to forge this third way. This third way has some distinct principles and factors that guide me.

1. The embrace of submission to authority while elevating the priesthood of all believers. My generation is anti-authority. That spirit kills the character potential that can be formed in allowing those who lead us, to lead us. David modeled the complicated but beautiful discipline of submitting to King Saul; God honored him for it. At the same time the worship of the pastoral office is more paganism than biblical. The addiction to a “word from our pastor” while neglecting the power in the priesthood is crushing the DNA of the body of Christ.

2. The embrace of the Bible as a story instead of textbook. I love, love the bible. I find it to be the most valuable source of nourishment on the earth. It is possible to treasure the bible, believe it comes from God without turning it into a systematic text book. We need to tether our lives to the story God is writing on this earth. But from my perspective the bible has lost its richness and true narrative context in churches and bible colleges because of the way in which it’s been used. The Scriptures have been abused by teachers and layman who slice and dice verses in order to apply them to sins and cultural evils they feel like harping on.

3. The embrace of the whole Gospel instead of a “decision for Christ.” The gospel in evangelism has been reduced to a sinner’s prayer that gives me a personal savior and an entrance into heaven. I find that sad when I compare that to the words of Jesus. Jesus expands the gospel. The gospel is about the Kingdom of God being displayed on this earth. It is about the active welcome of the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in our everyday lives. It is about doing justice on behalf of the oppressed and poor. It is also about the marriage and investment in a community of Jesus-followers. Sure confession of sin is part of the gospel but a quarter of the truth ends up not being the truth at all.

4. The embrace of community as the means to spiritual maturity. In our church cultures spiritual growth has been whittled down to how often you read the bible, how much you pray, and if you are serving a program in the church. I believe we do need to grow up and wean ourselves off of milk. But spiritual maturity is more about our love for others, our emotional health with how we interact with those around us, our selfless attitude towards others and our ongoing plunge into shared life with a community of Jesus followers. According to Jesus this is the route to holiness. It is our commitment to authentic community that progressively forms us into the image Christ.

5. The embrace of the culture (city) instead of hatred and separation from it. Yes we are to live different from the ethics of the world. Our first allegiance is to King Jesus. Still we are to be salt and light on this earth. We are to love this city with its corruptibility and all. We are missionaries that must saturate into this culture and be influencers with our holy love.

6. The embrace that the church is the hope of the world not the Republican Party, not the moral majority and not an elected official. We need to throw ourselves into living out the mission of God through community and let God take care of the rest. If transformation is to take place it will happen from a humble power-under posture not from the apprehension of status, a place of power or the establish of a majority vote.

7. The embrace that God is love. Love is not what God does it is who he is. God is love and all that he does is because of his ridiculous love for humanity. Greater love for humanity not separation from it is an ethic of God’s reign. Love is not lite; it is not for the faint of heart. Love has great demands on those who embrace the all loving God. I know that it’s said that God is a holy God, I agree. I just disagree with their definition of holiness. Jesus redefines holiness when he answers the Pharisees in Mark 12:28.

8. The embrace that we are saved for mission not for consumerism. Church in our culture has become all about consuming; consuming worship experiences, consuming sermons, consuming podcasts, Christianese products and consuming programs for men, kids, singles, youth, mothers with toddlers. We’ve become shoppers looking for the best spiritual stuff that meets our needs. We have ruined our election. Election is primarily about mission; a mission that requires sacrifice, meeting others needs, blessing others, bringing renewal to the local world outside our church walls, inviting others outside our church circles into our love-filled communities and bearing the burden of the poor and abandoned.

9. The embrace of multiplication instead of the mega. There is something attractive about going bigger, growing faster and taking up more space. The diluting of the DNA of the church has much to do with the temptation to grow our church programs, our church buildings and our church staffs. The idea of mega creates a lumbery, professionally run, one-stop shop for all things spiritual. Instead embrace multiplication, decentralization, moving out, going smaller, and a network instead of a multipurpose building. Let the chemistry of the smallness of community determine mission, budgets, events, and teaching.

10. Finally, embrace stealth instead of loud marketing. For too long everything the church did they marketed. If they served the poor they needed to let the town know they were there. Every slick sermon series was promoted as “something you don’t want to miss.” Claiming to have the best children’s program or most relevant worship has been an unquestioned practice. I’m an advocate for stealth. Jesus was stealth. He often spoke in parables that veiled meaning. He often told people to keep his identity quiet. There something supernatural about letting God promote your love-filled community. It’s easy to be duped that “God is moving or God is doing something” because you buy into the hype of you own marketing.

This is the Third Way.