What do you think?
Rate this book
Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World
Once upon a time there existed a version of our faith worth living and dying for, something the world found irresistible. Men and women pursued it at the risk of persecution, job loss, and eviction from their homes, temples, and society.
What if we actually followed their lead? Perhaps it would change how we read the Bible. Maybes it would help us understand our own faith and what we believe. Perhaps we would change the world again.
In Irresistible, pastor and author Andy Stanley shows how distortions of the gospel have left us with an anemic version of Christianity that undermines our credibility and our evangelistic effectiveness. He takes readers on a fascinating journey back in time to recover a faith so rich, so dynamic, so disruptive, that it could not be ignored, marginalized, or eradicated.
Rather than working harder to make Christianity more interesting, we need to recover what once made faith in Jesus irresistible to the world.
What if we actually followed their lead? Perhaps it would change how we read the Bible. Maybes it would help us understand our own faith and what we believe. Perhaps we would change the world again.
In Irresistible, pastor and author Andy Stanley shows how distortions of the gospel have left us with an anemic version of Christianity that undermines our credibility and our evangelistic effectiveness. He takes readers on a fascinating journey back in time to recover a faith so rich, so dynamic, so disruptive, that it could not be ignored, marginalized, or eradicated.
Rather than working harder to make Christianity more interesting, we need to recover what once made faith in Jesus irresistible to the world.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
777 people are currently reading
2162 people want to read
About the author
Andy Stanley
254 books847 followersAndy Stanley is the senior pastor of North Point Community Church, Buckhead Church, and Browns Bridge Community Church. He also founded North Point Ministries, which is a worldwide Christian organization.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 353 reviews
January 4, 2025
I haven't read much of Andy Stanley's material in the past. I've heard a lot of his perspective on making church appealing to the unchurched, and have always been intrigued. So last year I decided to read his Deep & Wide, which I really appreciated for his desire to create irresistible environments in the church. So you would think I would love this book that bears the title Irresistible. However, I think Stanley takes it too far. It's one thing to improve your method, it's quite another to overhaul your message.
Basically, Stanley suggests that the church should "unhitch" her wagon from the Old Testament. His main concern is for post Christian sentiment, egged on by the new atheists. Since many of their stumbling blocks to faith emerge from the Old Testament, Stanley advocates that we move away from it. His words are "make a clean break." Which I find very surprising for an evangelical to even suggest. His statements are shocking, and, honestly, deeply troubling. Especially for a guy who is as informed as he is. Unhitch from the Old Testament? How does someone have the nerve to dismiss something that the church (and Jesus, no less) have always esteemed sacred? I think he has allowed his target audience to dictate far too greatly the content of his message.
Raymond Hull once said, "He who trims himself to suit everyone will soon whittle himself away." Well, that's what I think is happening here. Stanley wants to trim the Bible to suit post-Christian sensibilities, but in doing so he is whittling the Bible away. Namely, the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh) - the very foundation of the New Testament documents! Stanley calls it "backstory," but in reality, I think that's much too tepid. The Old Testament is foundation.
As I was reading through his presentation, I kept thinking of 2 Timothy 3:16 when it says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." And he finally addresses this in chapter 13 (a very critical chapter in understanding his view of inspiration). He agrees that all Scripture is inspired, but not necessarily authoritative; it may all be Scripture, but that does not mean it's equally binding (160). He goes on to say, "If you want to know what someone means by what they say, listen to what else they say" (168). But I think this has a way of pitting Scripture against Scripture, and creating a canon within the canon.
One of the main frustrations I have with Stanley's approach is that he uses the terms "Old Covenant" and "Old Testament" interchangeably. The Old Testament, however, is much more nuanced than Stanley would have us believe. So when he says the Old Testament does not apply anymore, I think it would be better to say the Old Covenant does not apply anymore, namely the Mosaic covenant. Because think about this- Are we dispensing of the Noahic Covenant? Is God liable of flooding the earth again with water? Or should we get rid of the Abrahamic Covenant? I think Galatians (and thus Romans) would unravel at that point. Do we flush the Davidic covenant? Then Jesus does not reign forever, as the Davidic covenant ensures. Then how about the moral aspects of the Mosaic covenant? Does that not correspond with what Jesus upheld in the New? I'm afraid Stanley lumps it all together, and throws the baby out with the bathwater. But, then again, I don't think any of it was bathwater. Therefore, I'm saving it all, and just keeping it all in context.
I can't unhitch from the OT any more than I can unhitch my body from its legs.
Basically, Stanley suggests that the church should "unhitch" her wagon from the Old Testament. His main concern is for post Christian sentiment, egged on by the new atheists. Since many of their stumbling blocks to faith emerge from the Old Testament, Stanley advocates that we move away from it. His words are "make a clean break." Which I find very surprising for an evangelical to even suggest. His statements are shocking, and, honestly, deeply troubling. Especially for a guy who is as informed as he is. Unhitch from the Old Testament? How does someone have the nerve to dismiss something that the church (and Jesus, no less) have always esteemed sacred? I think he has allowed his target audience to dictate far too greatly the content of his message.
Raymond Hull once said, "He who trims himself to suit everyone will soon whittle himself away." Well, that's what I think is happening here. Stanley wants to trim the Bible to suit post-Christian sensibilities, but in doing so he is whittling the Bible away. Namely, the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh) - the very foundation of the New Testament documents! Stanley calls it "backstory," but in reality, I think that's much too tepid. The Old Testament is foundation.
As I was reading through his presentation, I kept thinking of 2 Timothy 3:16 when it says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." And he finally addresses this in chapter 13 (a very critical chapter in understanding his view of inspiration). He agrees that all Scripture is inspired, but not necessarily authoritative; it may all be Scripture, but that does not mean it's equally binding (160). He goes on to say, "If you want to know what someone means by what they say, listen to what else they say" (168). But I think this has a way of pitting Scripture against Scripture, and creating a canon within the canon.
One of the main frustrations I have with Stanley's approach is that he uses the terms "Old Covenant" and "Old Testament" interchangeably. The Old Testament, however, is much more nuanced than Stanley would have us believe. So when he says the Old Testament does not apply anymore, I think it would be better to say the Old Covenant does not apply anymore, namely the Mosaic covenant. Because think about this- Are we dispensing of the Noahic Covenant? Is God liable of flooding the earth again with water? Or should we get rid of the Abrahamic Covenant? I think Galatians (and thus Romans) would unravel at that point. Do we flush the Davidic covenant? Then Jesus does not reign forever, as the Davidic covenant ensures. Then how about the moral aspects of the Mosaic covenant? Does that not correspond with what Jesus upheld in the New? I'm afraid Stanley lumps it all together, and throws the baby out with the bathwater. But, then again, I don't think any of it was bathwater. Therefore, I'm saving it all, and just keeping it all in context.
I can't unhitch from the OT any more than I can unhitch my body from its legs.
October 2, 2018
This is a watershed volume on the foundation of the Christian faith. It may appear controversial to some, but in fact it is simply a return to the earliest version of Christianity, and the easiest version to share and defend. This book raises so many great questions for the church and church leaders. I honestly believe that in 50 years this book will be viewed as a turning point for the evangelical church in the West.
December 27, 2020
I've got two voices in my head as I attempt to rate this book. The first voice belongs to my Dad. He sounds a lot like my Lutheran upbringing. And he's got a lot of very valid critiques--so many, in fact, that I could just camp out there and not look beyond my many frustrations. The second voice belongs to my Mom. She recommended this book to me and I can hear her urging me to give it a try, and could I please focus on the very valid message and not entirely on the presentation I happen to disagree with?
I know this debate because I hear it from them every Sunday. They attend a church heavily (and I mean heavily) influenced by Andy Stanley. So perhaps it should not have surprise me as much as it did that everything I found in Irresistible sounded familiar.
Pro: I did find this book incredibly challenging. It really made me think about the role of the New Testament and how it impacts my life. It made me consider more carefully the new covenant and what it means to cling to the old covenant. And it challenged me to spend more time thinking about how I talk about the Bible and what I mean when I do talk about it.
Con: The writing style of this book comes across incredibly pithy and irreverent. It drove me crazy. I would be struck by a profound, theological point and then he would throw in a glib "conversation" between God the Father and Jesus that just...ugh, no. His determination to break away from Christian traditions (in some cases, for very good reason) kept getting undercut by his complete unwillingness to acknowledge any non-invidious purpose in the tradition. As someone heavily influenced by my Lutheran background, I found this quite alienating. Religious tradition can easily go wrong, no doubt about it. But it can also lead to deeper meaning and faith. Just because one form might not be your cup of tea does not mean it all comes straight from legalism and old covenant.
Pro: Andy Stanley identifies real problems in the way the Western church presents itself and why so many young people leave the church. I appreciate how he emphasizes the Gospel message. Our faith does not depend on 7 day creationism or whether the flood actually happened. It depends on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And if we teach students that their faith depends on knowing all the glib answers to "refuting" evolution, then yeah, maybe we shouldn't be surprised when those students hit college. Because 7-day creationism doesn't save. Only Jesus saves.
Con: Stanley walks a very fine line with Christian doctrine. Sometimes I think he intentionally blurs it. I do think he overall sticks to the inherency of Scripture. But he is so determined to blow up the use of the OT that it can feel...very dismissive. Maybe this ties into the pithiness. But on such grave topics, I would have appreciated a little more depth of analysis.
Pro: One of Stanley's main points if that if reaching the unchurched, we can't talk "churched." Instead of saying "the Bible says..." or even "in the book of Romans, it says..." he encourages people to talk about the writers. "Paul says..." or "Peter wrote..." I think this is actually a helpful tip, but...
Con: For a book all about the Bible, Irresistible does not spend a lot of time referencing Scripture. Mostly this is intentional (see above point.) But it means much of these arguments depend on generalities. And it drove me wild. I kept pulling out my Bible to check if what he was saying was true. Even with the footnotes, though, I found it hard to track what being said on a detailed side. I guess there are pros to big picture speakin', but in something as important as Gospel and doctrine, I struggle with such broad statements.
So there are a few things. Lots of merit. But also a lot of things that distracted from the message...or prevented me from fully grasping it.
I know this debate because I hear it from them every Sunday. They attend a church heavily (and I mean heavily) influenced by Andy Stanley. So perhaps it should not have surprise me as much as it did that everything I found in Irresistible sounded familiar.
Pro: I did find this book incredibly challenging. It really made me think about the role of the New Testament and how it impacts my life. It made me consider more carefully the new covenant and what it means to cling to the old covenant. And it challenged me to spend more time thinking about how I talk about the Bible and what I mean when I do talk about it.
Con: The writing style of this book comes across incredibly pithy and irreverent. It drove me crazy. I would be struck by a profound, theological point and then he would throw in a glib "conversation" between God the Father and Jesus that just...ugh, no. His determination to break away from Christian traditions (in some cases, for very good reason) kept getting undercut by his complete unwillingness to acknowledge any non-invidious purpose in the tradition. As someone heavily influenced by my Lutheran background, I found this quite alienating. Religious tradition can easily go wrong, no doubt about it. But it can also lead to deeper meaning and faith. Just because one form might not be your cup of tea does not mean it all comes straight from legalism and old covenant.
Pro: Andy Stanley identifies real problems in the way the Western church presents itself and why so many young people leave the church. I appreciate how he emphasizes the Gospel message. Our faith does not depend on 7 day creationism or whether the flood actually happened. It depends on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And if we teach students that their faith depends on knowing all the glib answers to "refuting" evolution, then yeah, maybe we shouldn't be surprised when those students hit college. Because 7-day creationism doesn't save. Only Jesus saves.
Con: Stanley walks a very fine line with Christian doctrine. Sometimes I think he intentionally blurs it. I do think he overall sticks to the inherency of Scripture. But he is so determined to blow up the use of the OT that it can feel...very dismissive. Maybe this ties into the pithiness. But on such grave topics, I would have appreciated a little more depth of analysis.
Pro: One of Stanley's main points if that if reaching the unchurched, we can't talk "churched." Instead of saying "the Bible says..." or even "in the book of Romans, it says..." he encourages people to talk about the writers. "Paul says..." or "Peter wrote..." I think this is actually a helpful tip, but...
Con: For a book all about the Bible, Irresistible does not spend a lot of time referencing Scripture. Mostly this is intentional (see above point.) But it means much of these arguments depend on generalities. And it drove me wild. I kept pulling out my Bible to check if what he was saying was true. Even with the footnotes, though, I found it hard to track what being said on a detailed side. I guess there are pros to big picture speakin', but in something as important as Gospel and doctrine, I struggle with such broad statements.
So there are a few things. Lots of merit. But also a lot of things that distracted from the message...or prevented me from fully grasping it.
August 20, 2018
I find this to be a hard book to review, and end up giving it the rare 5th star in an effort to foster conversation about it and its message.
Andy writes in a very informal conversational manner. I can 'hear' him while reading this.
The primary take-away is that we need to change our approach in teaching and preaching away from all things Old Testament [or his terminology, Hebrew Scripture] and focus entirely on Jesus' and the apostles teachings and the event of Jesus' resurrection. It took me the entire book, literally into the final chapter, to get comfortable with aspects of this book. I have always adhered to Tozer's quip: "Nothing less than a whole Bible can make a whole Christian." I believe Andy might disagree. While I will not attempt to flesh out the thinking of the book further, I would encourage it to be widely read and respectfully debated.
Andy writes in a very informal conversational manner. I can 'hear' him while reading this.
The primary take-away is that we need to change our approach in teaching and preaching away from all things Old Testament [or his terminology, Hebrew Scripture] and focus entirely on Jesus' and the apostles teachings and the event of Jesus' resurrection. It took me the entire book, literally into the final chapter, to get comfortable with aspects of this book. I have always adhered to Tozer's quip: "Nothing less than a whole Bible can make a whole Christian." I believe Andy might disagree. While I will not attempt to flesh out the thinking of the book further, I would encourage it to be widely read and respectfully debated.
March 1, 2020
If Bill Hybels and Marcion had an illegitimate love child, he would write a book like this.
July 8, 2022
Short version:
If you sincerley seek God's wisdom and to live for Christ, pick up the Bible and read the whole thing. Understand for yourself that old civil and traditional laws for the Israelites were between God and the Israelites. Learn from that history and God's handling of it. Learn that Jesus' sacrifice removed any need for civil/traditional laws but it did not remove moral laws that we're easily laid out in the 10 Commandments. It refined them under the "Love God first, love your neighbor" commandments. Stanley wants you to believe the 10 Commandments are the actual covenant that are now null and void. They are not. The whole 'old testament' is not the covenant. Don't take my word or Stanley's, read the whole Bible to educate yourself on what was abolished and what was refined.
Long version:
If I had read this book first, I would be convinced to not read the Old Testament. I think I would then find New Testament references to the old law and old prophets as lacking in context. But I wouldn't know any better and would be a confused Christian. When I became a Christian, I eventually said that I can't promote the Bible without knowing the Bible. I read it through, twice, over years. Am I a scholar now? Ha, no but it's hard to promote sincere Christian living without studying both sections. And study them often.
For the most part, the first section of Irresistible was a quick and entertaining read on the history of what you generally know about in the Bible. Stanley seems to give context around things that maybe weren't so obvious or things we just didn't know to pay attention to.
There are many quotable spots in this section as you'll see below and many other spots where I just want to keep footnotes to come back to later and discuss with someone. Later sections aren't as quotable.
I'm not sure how to take Mr. Stanley. Is he being sarcastic or is he being funny? Is he being critical or is he being practical? Is he telling me to avoid all books of the Old Testament or is he telling me to understand the context? As one who has read both sections of the Bible, I believe I understand the author's lessons in this section and am good with them. But just like the Bible, this book may cause non-believers, false believers, and half-hearted believers to stumble if they aren't willing to educate themselves on ALL the scripture. BUT Stanley finally makes it to a point in this book (later sections) where he basically denounces the 10 Commandments.
Criticism and critiquing are well-deserved when anyone that God has called on goes against His will or tried to do things their own way. I'm on the fence so far because I partner with this, that Stanley insinuates the scriptures are contradicting. I've looked at supposed contradictions over the years as they were presented but I've yet to agree that any of them were anything more than two angles of the same event presented by reliable sources. Especially Israel's covenant versus our covenant. Jesus fulfilled the old law so the new law doesn't contradict it. One may preach not eating out when on a tight budget and then eat out every night once becoming more stable. That's not hypocrisy or contradiction, the standards have changed because of a new atmosphere.
It's not a contradiction unless you pick and choose what to read. Now Stanley simply stated "it's not [a non-contradicting book]". He didn't present contradictions in this first section and maybe he means well without calling the scriptures fallible. In fact, he was speaking against someone who said they left the faith because of "proven contradictions". Impressionable and critical minds may find this justifies calling the whole book contradictory but one must read the whole to understand the fulfillment of one to make way for the new. Civil and traditional laws were abolished, but not moral laws (like the 10 Commandments).
In reading this first section, you'll see some great points that are not to be overlooked. The old testament is relevant and to be studied. The new testament is Now and to be lived. I feel at times that Stanley almost has a disdain for the old testament but it's the wording that gets me and probably not the intent. Or is it? I hope no one reads with a highly impressionable mind and mistakes the author's words as a negation of the old testament. It's my understanding that Jesus quoted old laws and prophets in an applicable manner while still educating that He is the New that fulfills the Old. But then you get into the later sections.
I've highlighted more but here are just a couple quotes from section 1 that I liked.
Section 1: Simply Resistible
"New brands rarely sit well with those whose fortunes are tied to the old ones. Those who profit most from the status quo are least inclined to let it go." Pg 22
"Understandably so, Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of Judaism and a replacement for paganism." Pg 23
"The new covenant would fulfill and replace the behavioral, sacrifice-based systems reflected in just about every religion of the ancient world." Pg 23
My own mixed in here: if the people of Israel weren't going to keep their side of the deal then God was under no obligation to keep His, like we see in the suzerain treaty He created with them. But God was not going to back out on his promise to Abraham of making a nation out of him, regardless of the Israelites' actions.
Section 2: All Things New
I agree with the sentiment that we should consider the Sermon on the Mount to be something we post in the courtroom or classroom but I completely understand why people want to put the 10 Commandments back in these areas too. They were removed as an attack on God, not because they were representative of the old covenant and we wanted to represent the new instead. Also, if you look at Romans 13 as an example, the 10 Commandments were being referenced as applicable and then summarized as "love thy neighbor". So I don't think the old testament book as a whole is obsolete, but the old covenant between God and Israel is obsolete because Jesus fulfilled it. There's plenty of time to be spent in the old testament section, being inspired and educated. In all fairness, Stanley has his moments where he reiterates the brilliance of the old covenant and where Israel failed on their end, not God.
There were 12 questions Stanley asked in the 'Not Immune' section that seem way too black-and-white for me where I think it's more grey and deserving of conditional examining.
"Women, servants, foreigners, and children all fared better under Jewish law than did their counterparts in the surrounding nations." Pg 95
In chapter 10, Stanley says that Matthew 28 has Jesus implying that "in the old days, Moses was your guy" when it came to authority but now Jesus is the only authority. I don't take scripture on Moses as him being the authority but as him speaking God's authority. This is where it gets tricky if you haven't studied the text fully. I understand though, that the Jewish put authority on Moses but I don't think this is how Christian teachings generally go, in church, revivals, study groups, or what-not.
I also don't feel Jesus negated the 10 Commandments (those other commandments, as Stanley refers here) by replacing them. He summarized them into a more encompassing manner: love God, love your neighbor. Thou shall not kill, covet, or take, is still a good way to love your neighbor.
If you're not a sincere believer, please skip over the High Above Heaven section. It will only give you a childish image of Jesus. It's meant for humor and to make a point but again, impressionable minds.
A big criticism comes on page 137 of the 'Laying Down the Law' section. "To be clear: Thou shall not covet the Ten Commandments". These commandments were not THE covenant between God and His people. These were, and still are, moral teachings just like the Sermon on the Mount. God's people were hard-headed and needed some pretty clear standards laid out. Loving your neighbor does NOT negate 'do not kill' or 'do not steal'. It reiterates it.
In the same section is the detail of what Stanley just 'made clear': "You have been bought with a price. The Ten Commandments didn't even offer to rent you, much less buy you. [They] never lifted a finger to help you. Worse, [they] sat back and waited for you to screw up. And when you did, they finally spoke up, not to defend you but to condemn you! [...] They demanded you go to a priest and make a sacrifice to purchase atonement for your sin."
The 10 Commandments didn't come alive, God wrote them down and enforced them, using the sacrifices and priests as their avenue for atonement. The priests being the only ones who can petition your atonement and the sacrifices are what have been abolished, not the lessons and standards of the 10 Commandments.
Towards the end of the 11th chapter, Stanley gives himself a pat on the back for a past situation where divine inspiration spoke through him, as he says. A dad didn't want his daughter dating a man of another color. The dad took old scripture out of context and perceived other scripture as something that it was not (why Moses didn't go into the promised land). Stanley apparently convinces this dad to not arrest his daughter but change her heart. Nothing more is said but does Stanley mean change her heart to NOT marry a man of another color? Moses having a dark-skinned wife and his family criticising that caused God to give the criticizers some skin problems of their own, basically saying to get that talk out of their mouth.
There are many good points to discuss from this book but the whole of it seems pretty much to be about abolishing the 10 Commandments, first and foremost. Stanley should have discussed the details of the civil laws and traditions and why they are not applicable compared to moral laws that will always be how we should treat our neighbor and love our God.
Anyways, this has been way too long. You get the jist. In the end though, when someone says "the Bible says", we should not treat it as an acceptance of the civil and traditional laws of the Israelites as our standard of living. We should invoke the name of Jesus more in what He says in the Bible as there is power in His name. "Jesus says", I agree with Stanley, is a great way of stating our convictions but "the Bible says" does not contradict that. Perception.
If you sincerley seek God's wisdom and to live for Christ, pick up the Bible and read the whole thing. Understand for yourself that old civil and traditional laws for the Israelites were between God and the Israelites. Learn from that history and God's handling of it. Learn that Jesus' sacrifice removed any need for civil/traditional laws but it did not remove moral laws that we're easily laid out in the 10 Commandments. It refined them under the "Love God first, love your neighbor" commandments. Stanley wants you to believe the 10 Commandments are the actual covenant that are now null and void. They are not. The whole 'old testament' is not the covenant. Don't take my word or Stanley's, read the whole Bible to educate yourself on what was abolished and what was refined.
Long version:
If I had read this book first, I would be convinced to not read the Old Testament. I think I would then find New Testament references to the old law and old prophets as lacking in context. But I wouldn't know any better and would be a confused Christian. When I became a Christian, I eventually said that I can't promote the Bible without knowing the Bible. I read it through, twice, over years. Am I a scholar now? Ha, no but it's hard to promote sincere Christian living without studying both sections. And study them often.
For the most part, the first section of Irresistible was a quick and entertaining read on the history of what you generally know about in the Bible. Stanley seems to give context around things that maybe weren't so obvious or things we just didn't know to pay attention to.
There are many quotable spots in this section as you'll see below and many other spots where I just want to keep footnotes to come back to later and discuss with someone. Later sections aren't as quotable.
I'm not sure how to take Mr. Stanley. Is he being sarcastic or is he being funny? Is he being critical or is he being practical? Is he telling me to avoid all books of the Old Testament or is he telling me to understand the context? As one who has read both sections of the Bible, I believe I understand the author's lessons in this section and am good with them. But just like the Bible, this book may cause non-believers, false believers, and half-hearted believers to stumble if they aren't willing to educate themselves on ALL the scripture. BUT Stanley finally makes it to a point in this book (later sections) where he basically denounces the 10 Commandments.
Criticism and critiquing are well-deserved when anyone that God has called on goes against His will or tried to do things their own way. I'm on the fence so far because I partner with this, that Stanley insinuates the scriptures are contradicting. I've looked at supposed contradictions over the years as they were presented but I've yet to agree that any of them were anything more than two angles of the same event presented by reliable sources. Especially Israel's covenant versus our covenant. Jesus fulfilled the old law so the new law doesn't contradict it. One may preach not eating out when on a tight budget and then eat out every night once becoming more stable. That's not hypocrisy or contradiction, the standards have changed because of a new atmosphere.
It's not a contradiction unless you pick and choose what to read. Now Stanley simply stated "it's not [a non-contradicting book]". He didn't present contradictions in this first section and maybe he means well without calling the scriptures fallible. In fact, he was speaking against someone who said they left the faith because of "proven contradictions". Impressionable and critical minds may find this justifies calling the whole book contradictory but one must read the whole to understand the fulfillment of one to make way for the new. Civil and traditional laws were abolished, but not moral laws (like the 10 Commandments).
In reading this first section, you'll see some great points that are not to be overlooked. The old testament is relevant and to be studied. The new testament is Now and to be lived. I feel at times that Stanley almost has a disdain for the old testament but it's the wording that gets me and probably not the intent. Or is it? I hope no one reads with a highly impressionable mind and mistakes the author's words as a negation of the old testament. It's my understanding that Jesus quoted old laws and prophets in an applicable manner while still educating that He is the New that fulfills the Old. But then you get into the later sections.
I've highlighted more but here are just a couple quotes from section 1 that I liked.
Section 1: Simply Resistible
"New brands rarely sit well with those whose fortunes are tied to the old ones. Those who profit most from the status quo are least inclined to let it go." Pg 22
"Understandably so, Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of Judaism and a replacement for paganism." Pg 23
"The new covenant would fulfill and replace the behavioral, sacrifice-based systems reflected in just about every religion of the ancient world." Pg 23
My own mixed in here: if the people of Israel weren't going to keep their side of the deal then God was under no obligation to keep His, like we see in the suzerain treaty He created with them. But God was not going to back out on his promise to Abraham of making a nation out of him, regardless of the Israelites' actions.
Section 2: All Things New
I agree with the sentiment that we should consider the Sermon on the Mount to be something we post in the courtroom or classroom but I completely understand why people want to put the 10 Commandments back in these areas too. They were removed as an attack on God, not because they were representative of the old covenant and we wanted to represent the new instead. Also, if you look at Romans 13 as an example, the 10 Commandments were being referenced as applicable and then summarized as "love thy neighbor". So I don't think the old testament book as a whole is obsolete, but the old covenant between God and Israel is obsolete because Jesus fulfilled it. There's plenty of time to be spent in the old testament section, being inspired and educated. In all fairness, Stanley has his moments where he reiterates the brilliance of the old covenant and where Israel failed on their end, not God.
There were 12 questions Stanley asked in the 'Not Immune' section that seem way too black-and-white for me where I think it's more grey and deserving of conditional examining.
"Women, servants, foreigners, and children all fared better under Jewish law than did their counterparts in the surrounding nations." Pg 95
In chapter 10, Stanley says that Matthew 28 has Jesus implying that "in the old days, Moses was your guy" when it came to authority but now Jesus is the only authority. I don't take scripture on Moses as him being the authority but as him speaking God's authority. This is where it gets tricky if you haven't studied the text fully. I understand though, that the Jewish put authority on Moses but I don't think this is how Christian teachings generally go, in church, revivals, study groups, or what-not.
I also don't feel Jesus negated the 10 Commandments (those other commandments, as Stanley refers here) by replacing them. He summarized them into a more encompassing manner: love God, love your neighbor. Thou shall not kill, covet, or take, is still a good way to love your neighbor.
If you're not a sincere believer, please skip over the High Above Heaven section. It will only give you a childish image of Jesus. It's meant for humor and to make a point but again, impressionable minds.
A big criticism comes on page 137 of the 'Laying Down the Law' section. "To be clear: Thou shall not covet the Ten Commandments". These commandments were not THE covenant between God and His people. These were, and still are, moral teachings just like the Sermon on the Mount. God's people were hard-headed and needed some pretty clear standards laid out. Loving your neighbor does NOT negate 'do not kill' or 'do not steal'. It reiterates it.
In the same section is the detail of what Stanley just 'made clear': "You have been bought with a price. The Ten Commandments didn't even offer to rent you, much less buy you. [They] never lifted a finger to help you. Worse, [they] sat back and waited for you to screw up. And when you did, they finally spoke up, not to defend you but to condemn you! [...] They demanded you go to a priest and make a sacrifice to purchase atonement for your sin."
The 10 Commandments didn't come alive, God wrote them down and enforced them, using the sacrifices and priests as their avenue for atonement. The priests being the only ones who can petition your atonement and the sacrifices are what have been abolished, not the lessons and standards of the 10 Commandments.
Towards the end of the 11th chapter, Stanley gives himself a pat on the back for a past situation where divine inspiration spoke through him, as he says. A dad didn't want his daughter dating a man of another color. The dad took old scripture out of context and perceived other scripture as something that it was not (why Moses didn't go into the promised land). Stanley apparently convinces this dad to not arrest his daughter but change her heart. Nothing more is said but does Stanley mean change her heart to NOT marry a man of another color? Moses having a dark-skinned wife and his family criticising that caused God to give the criticizers some skin problems of their own, basically saying to get that talk out of their mouth.
There are many good points to discuss from this book but the whole of it seems pretty much to be about abolishing the 10 Commandments, first and foremost. Stanley should have discussed the details of the civil laws and traditions and why they are not applicable compared to moral laws that will always be how we should treat our neighbor and love our God.
Anyways, this has been way too long. You get the jist. In the end though, when someone says "the Bible says", we should not treat it as an acceptance of the civil and traditional laws of the Israelites as our standard of living. We should invoke the name of Jesus more in what He says in the Bible as there is power in His name. "Jesus says", I agree with Stanley, is a great way of stating our convictions but "the Bible says" does not contradict that. Perception.
February 16, 2022
This book challenged me in many ways as a follower of Jesus. I am still mulling it over in my mind and having a hard time deciding what I feel about it. UPDATE (August 2019): After a great deal of thought and a lengthy and hearty discussion with other believers who read the book, I must say I would hesitate to recommend it. There is a lot I can agree with, but there is also a lot that I believe flies in the face of biblical truth. Yet with that said, I want to live my faith both vertically and horizontally, for if I'm not loving those around me while loving God, then do I really love God?
May 31, 2019
Challenged me in the best way possible... I loved it. Walking away with some definite applications even amongst some things that left me scratching my head.
February 21, 2019
Wow wow wow. This is an incredible book that has the potential to rock The Christian world in a really good way. I hope it does! It totally made me think outside of the box I’ve been in my whole Christian life. Who should read this book? Anyone who is a Christian, anyone who used to be a Christian but for some reason has walked away, and anyone who kind of wants to be a Christ follower but has some hang ups. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but whole heartedly name this one as one of the best Christian books I’ve ever read. Putting on my “to read again someday” list.
October 9, 2018
I have sometimes criticized Stanley’s seeker sensitive methods. To mock one of his book titles, I found him more Wide than Deep.
IRRESISTIBLE changes that.
Stanley believes that many have left the faith unnecessarily because of the error of “blending” the Old and New Covenants, and an “all or nothing” acceptance of the whole Bible, as necessary to the faith.
To summarize, he tries to reorient the Faith, and the Bible around its proper center: Christ Crucified and Resurrected.
This was all the Early Believers had, and perhaps all we need today. Could our mission be renewed and accelerated if “unhitched” from the Hebrew Bible, and the demands of modernistic apologetics?
Stanley offers suggestions for this approach. They’re too radical for most. Opposition is certain. And some theologians may tweet Stanley farewell, many without reading his “biblical” arguments. That would be a mistake.
IRRESISTIBLE changes that.
Stanley believes that many have left the faith unnecessarily because of the error of “blending” the Old and New Covenants, and an “all or nothing” acceptance of the whole Bible, as necessary to the faith.
To summarize, he tries to reorient the Faith, and the Bible around its proper center: Christ Crucified and Resurrected.
This was all the Early Believers had, and perhaps all we need today. Could our mission be renewed and accelerated if “unhitched” from the Hebrew Bible, and the demands of modernistic apologetics?
Stanley offers suggestions for this approach. They’re too radical for most. Opposition is certain. And some theologians may tweet Stanley farewell, many without reading his “biblical” arguments. That would be a mistake.
January 29, 2020
Filled with logical falicies. This book may be novel but in theology novelty is not a good thing. I have read several of his books this is not a ad hominem attack on Andy himself but rather a caution for all of us that new ideas about God are generally not right ideas about God.
To disconnect and minimize the OT as irrelevant, and uninspired for Christians eviscerates rather than separates because they are interconnected and interdependent and are meant to be understood in light of each other centered in Christ.
Also apart from the theological issues which were many, I found the cutesy tone of his writing condescending. I’m sure he meant to be funny and engaging I found it annoying and pedantic.
To disconnect and minimize the OT as irrelevant, and uninspired for Christians eviscerates rather than separates because they are interconnected and interdependent and are meant to be understood in light of each other centered in Christ.
Also apart from the theological issues which were many, I found the cutesy tone of his writing condescending. I’m sure he meant to be funny and engaging I found it annoying and pedantic.
September 25, 2018
This book genuinely challenged me.
January 24, 2019
Heretical in the most generous manner. However, Stanley does provide trenchant criticism of the reigning dead orthodoxy of the Western Church.
January 30, 2022
Unfortunately I was too put off by the writing style to be able to finish the book. I think the topic would be great but I couldn’t get past the annoying, overly quirky way in which it was written. ☹️
May 15, 2019
This book isn't the first title I've read by Andy Stanley, but it's his first on theology. I do believe leadership is a much better area for him. He gives a very poor, muddled effort here. It's no wonder so many evangelical pastors and teachers are upset with him. The first major struggle for the author is distinguishing between the Old Covenant and the Old Testament Scriptures. He uses the terms synonymously, which only creates greater confusion in the new, progressive Bibliology he proposes. The second serious deficiency is an inability to tell the difference between the civil, ceremonial and moral portions of Jewish law. He treats Jewish law as if it is all the same. It isn't. The third problem is that Stanley says the Ten Commandments are no longer needed since Christians are under the New Covenant. Fourth, he even downplays the New Testament, saying the basis for Christians' belief should be the Resurrection. That's understandable for Christians living in that era. For Christians 2,000 years removed however, the basis is the New Testament. It's through the NT that we learn of the Resurrection.
Andy describes some struggles he, his father and his grandfather have all had as pastors. He acknowledges that he may be influenced by their mindsets. Still, he is far off base when it comes to orthodox theology. He's fast approaching a liberal, Progressive Christianity in contrast to the conservative, Biblical faith of his father. He's very passionate about this new message to share with others. "My personal, subjective experience with Jesus is the important thing, not the truth of a crucified and risen Savior, according to the Scriptures." I've enjoyed Andy's preaching and writing in the past, but I simply can't recommend this new, theologically aberrant book. I sincerely hope and pray he comes back to the orthodox fold.
Andy describes some struggles he, his father and his grandfather have all had as pastors. He acknowledges that he may be influenced by their mindsets. Still, he is far off base when it comes to orthodox theology. He's fast approaching a liberal, Progressive Christianity in contrast to the conservative, Biblical faith of his father. He's very passionate about this new message to share with others. "My personal, subjective experience with Jesus is the important thing, not the truth of a crucified and risen Savior, according to the Scriptures." I've enjoyed Andy's preaching and writing in the past, but I simply can't recommend this new, theologically aberrant book. I sincerely hope and pray he comes back to the orthodox fold.
September 15, 2019
I am not certain of Stanley's intentions, but this book simply aiming to appease to a seeker-friendly audience will ultimately lead to supersessionism view and a Biblical heresy.
Here’s the big problem; Stanley believes that God’s revelation and the role of the Jewish people in the Hebrew Bible (Old Covenant), was a means to a global end. This premise leads to a complete misrepresentation of the nature and character of God. Stanley proposes that New Covenant believer needs to “unhitch” from the Old Covenant. He doesn’t explain how the covenants have continuity, and the solution he offers is to simply dismiss all of it in its entirety because it doesn’t tell the story of Jesus. I’m assuming the general term he’s referring to is the law of Moses, but under which he carelessly also includes all of the Old Covenant scriptures. If what he says is true “To love the way Jesus called us to love requires a complete break with the inspired but retired, beautiful but obsolete, the old covenant,” I have this question. When God made a covenant with Israel, but it was only as a means to a different end, then what guarantee do we have that the new covenant isn't a means to yet another end?
Here’s the big problem; Stanley believes that God’s revelation and the role of the Jewish people in the Hebrew Bible (Old Covenant), was a means to a global end. This premise leads to a complete misrepresentation of the nature and character of God. Stanley proposes that New Covenant believer needs to “unhitch” from the Old Covenant. He doesn’t explain how the covenants have continuity, and the solution he offers is to simply dismiss all of it in its entirety because it doesn’t tell the story of Jesus. I’m assuming the general term he’s referring to is the law of Moses, but under which he carelessly also includes all of the Old Covenant scriptures. If what he says is true “To love the way Jesus called us to love requires a complete break with the inspired but retired, beautiful but obsolete, the old covenant,” I have this question. When God made a covenant with Israel, but it was only as a means to a different end, then what guarantee do we have that the new covenant isn't a means to yet another end?
Read
July 21, 2019Stanley means well: his passion to see the church as irresistible as it is on the frontier (both now in places like China or pre-Constantine) is the heartache of any kingdom seeker. But he oversimplifies the cure and, his cure, is like a careless dose of chemo: killing the patient more than curing her. Of course, the Old Covenant is obsolete (Heb 8) and was a threat to the New, as evidenced by the syncretistic gospel in Acts and Galatians. And such syncretistic misuse of the OT continues today, along with the common denominator in all religious systems: conditionality in god-human contracts. But Stanley commits the proverbial problem of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Saying that none of the OT is binding or carries over is more misleading than helpful. It assumes, as well, that the Spirit of God was playing a lesser role in leading the Church than the apostles, church fathers, etc who were constantly going off the rails.
March 19, 2023
Can I give a book a negative # of stars rating on here?! I debated about even sharing that I read this. I felt compelled, however, to post a warning about Andy Stanley's book Irresistible and I struggle to find strong enough words to describe the danger it poses. The teaching found in the treatise is spiritually deadly and teeming with logical fallacies. Stanley's portrayal of God, His apostles, His stories, His intent is positively blasphemous. He told a false version of the Bible and then argued against it, and used fallacious reasoning to do so, in that! I believe this book received rave celebrations by Satan himself.
Stanley's main point is that, since some people claim that the events in the Bible didn't really happen and other people misuse and misinterpret Scripture, we should disregard it. He intimates that events in the Bible didn't actually happen, although he doesn't show a basis for that. In order to make this case, Andy Stanley himself misuses, misinterprets, misrepresents the passages of Scripture he highlights. He portrays each event in Scripture in a blasphemous light and makes up details and characterizations that don't exist anywhere other than in his mind, and therefore, tells a different story than is told by God in Scripture. Stanley progresses through the Bible, saying each section he highlights is a stumbling block (or at least unnecessary) for faith: since the original Covenant is obsolete and people still mis-use it, "un-hitch from the Old Testament"; Christianity is founded on Jesus' resurrection, not a text, and somehow a person doesn't "need to believe in the historicity of an ancient document" to have faith in that; Jesus' command, Love one another, is a better basis for our life than a bunch of commands that people misuse anyway; everyone can figure out that love for others is doing what is good for them and not doing what isn't good, so we don't need the entire New Testament or morality teachings from the Apostles. By the end. the reader is left with an impression that the Bible is unnecessary, and that the only valid piece of information it contains is Jesus' resurrection. But, given that the Bible is unnecessary and invalid within, it makes no sense why the Resurrection can be believed as true, and Stanley didn't give any help with that.
Andy Stanley tried to limit the definition of the Bible to the physical Book we have today. He claims that since it wasn't even collected for hundreds of years, the early Christians didn't cite "the Bible says" on which to base their strong faith in the Resurrection, nor as the basis for the exponential church/spiritual growth, so we don't need to either, and what's more, to do so is a stumbling block for people to have faith. Stanley is wrong! God's people throughout history have had the Bible in some form. Adam and Noah had the Words of God. Moses had the Words of God. The apostle Paul said, "All Scripture is God-breathed." Scripture is the Bible. The Bible is the histories and wisdom and Law that Jesus, and the Jews at his time, relied on for their knowledge and faith in God; the Bible is the letters and histories written about Jesus and the Holy Spirit's message, spreading the word about Jesus' identity, death, burial, and resurrection, which the early Christians shared and read and clung to in the early days of the growth of the church.
Satan wants people to be afraid of challenges to the veracity of the Scriptures. If he can encourage running away from something every time it is challenged, as Stanley teaches to do with Scripture, then he can tear away at a culture's concept of truth. Which leads to where we are today: many people believing there is no Truth to stand on.
But, God is not afraid of the challenges and Christians should not be either. The Scriptures are true, the events within its pages are true; the logic within it and evidence from outside its pages support it. We need to be "prepared to give an answer" and to, as Paul says, "destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God." Stanley says that because someone may claim the events in the Bible aren't true, the answer is to disregard the Bible. NO!! The answer is to teach help people be prepared with the knowledge of the actual evidence of God and His Word!
God says, "
My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." Is 55:11
Stanley's main point is that, since some people claim that the events in the Bible didn't really happen and other people misuse and misinterpret Scripture, we should disregard it. He intimates that events in the Bible didn't actually happen, although he doesn't show a basis for that. In order to make this case, Andy Stanley himself misuses, misinterprets, misrepresents the passages of Scripture he highlights. He portrays each event in Scripture in a blasphemous light and makes up details and characterizations that don't exist anywhere other than in his mind, and therefore, tells a different story than is told by God in Scripture. Stanley progresses through the Bible, saying each section he highlights is a stumbling block (or at least unnecessary) for faith: since the original Covenant is obsolete and people still mis-use it, "un-hitch from the Old Testament"; Christianity is founded on Jesus' resurrection, not a text, and somehow a person doesn't "need to believe in the historicity of an ancient document" to have faith in that; Jesus' command, Love one another, is a better basis for our life than a bunch of commands that people misuse anyway; everyone can figure out that love for others is doing what is good for them and not doing what isn't good, so we don't need the entire New Testament or morality teachings from the Apostles. By the end. the reader is left with an impression that the Bible is unnecessary, and that the only valid piece of information it contains is Jesus' resurrection. But, given that the Bible is unnecessary and invalid within, it makes no sense why the Resurrection can be believed as true, and Stanley didn't give any help with that.
Andy Stanley tried to limit the definition of the Bible to the physical Book we have today. He claims that since it wasn't even collected for hundreds of years, the early Christians didn't cite "the Bible says" on which to base their strong faith in the Resurrection, nor as the basis for the exponential church/spiritual growth, so we don't need to either, and what's more, to do so is a stumbling block for people to have faith. Stanley is wrong! God's people throughout history have had the Bible in some form. Adam and Noah had the Words of God. Moses had the Words of God. The apostle Paul said, "All Scripture is God-breathed." Scripture is the Bible. The Bible is the histories and wisdom and Law that Jesus, and the Jews at his time, relied on for their knowledge and faith in God; the Bible is the letters and histories written about Jesus and the Holy Spirit's message, spreading the word about Jesus' identity, death, burial, and resurrection, which the early Christians shared and read and clung to in the early days of the growth of the church.
Satan wants people to be afraid of challenges to the veracity of the Scriptures. If he can encourage running away from something every time it is challenged, as Stanley teaches to do with Scripture, then he can tear away at a culture's concept of truth. Which leads to where we are today: many people believing there is no Truth to stand on.
But, God is not afraid of the challenges and Christians should not be either. The Scriptures are true, the events within its pages are true; the logic within it and evidence from outside its pages support it. We need to be "prepared to give an answer" and to, as Paul says, "destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God." Stanley says that because someone may claim the events in the Bible aren't true, the answer is to disregard the Bible. NO!! The answer is to teach help people be prepared with the knowledge of the actual evidence of God and His Word!
God says, "
My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." Is 55:11
March 18, 2023
I’m thankful to have buddy read this one with a friend. She was able to bring things to light that I missed and we were able to be appalled together. This is “Christian “ book that I think many ardent atheist would approve of. As the book begins the author beholds his case for why we don’t need to get the Old Testament much attention, we are under a new covenant after all, but wait , there’s more! After repeatedly discounting the importance of the Old Testament, never mind many in the New Testament including Jesus himself referencing it instantly giving fit credibility, he winds up making the claim that we can be Christians without the Bible. All we need are the stories in it! Oooookay. The author likes to make big claims with no source references, which is also highly annoying. Not to mention the flippant way he writes about important issues and events . This is all the way around bad and dangerous to boot. This book is going in the round file.
February 25, 2020
I give Andy credit for writing this book which, as he mentions halfway through it, essentially opposes much of what he taught for the majority of his preaching career. Our society does not seem to create a lot of room for changes of heart and mind. Unfortunately we want to hold people to the initial opinion they formed on a topic, and if they evolve in their thinking they get labeled as a flip-flopper, or wishy-washy. Andy is not that. He shows a lot of courage for publicly stating a view of Scripture that is contrary to what he built his ecclesial empire around throughout the 1990’s and 2000’s.
The book is very much in the Andy Stanley style. You can easily hear him preaching it, which means that it’s approachable, non-threatening, and has humor sprinkled throughout. His analogies make some high-browed biblical scholarship much easier to grasp. Sometimes he sacrifices clarity for cleverness, but that’s his way and it works for the most part.
This idea he proposes—that the Hebrew Bible is not authoritative for followers of Christ—is by no means new. Marcion invited Christians to unhitch themselves from all of their Jewish roots 1950 years ago, and was tagged a heretic for it. This book has already stirred up similar claims of heresy, but Andy is no heretic. Still, his arguments will be received by the average Andy acolyte as novel and controversial, which is too bad because they are neither. I think there are some nuances to the possible relationship between the two Testaments that go unexplored here, but Andy was on a mission and wanted to get his point across. But he might have come off as less scary to evangelicals had he taken the time to flesh out why the Hebrew Bible is important to the lives of Jesus’ disciples (eg. It’s the only book that Jesus and the apostles ever talk about, so maybe we should keep reading it).
In fact, most of what Andy claims about the way Christians ought to view and employ the Bible are the ways that the majority of mainstream church leaders (called “liberal” or “progressive” at best, “heretical” or “godless” at worst by far-right fundamentalist evangelicals) have been teaching people to view and employ it for centuries. My concern is not how close Andy’s book gets to “heresy,” but that the kind of Bible-idolizing Christians that his ministry sustained and perpetuated for so many years has already moved so far to the right that they won’t hear him calling them back to the middle. Andy has been one of the biggest catalysts for the movement of conservative Christianity, so while I welcome his about-face on how to use the Bible, it also feels a bit disingenuous. It would be like a climate-denying leader who spit in the face of decades of climate science and derided environmentalists for being godless liberals all of a sudden started recycling and urged other climate-deniers to join the new and radical movement to save the planet...it’s what others have been doing the whole damn time!
I hope this book will make a positive impact on the conservative community that Andy helped establish, but judging by reviews I’ve read, it won’t. He’s now with the rest of us “liberal (ie godless)” Christian leaders who has lost his way and is on a slippery slope to hell...and he’s taking others with him! But for those individuals who take what he’s saying to heart and actually give it a chance, I believe this book can help them find even deeper meaning and value in the Hebrew Bible and Christian Writings than they did before. Literalism and inerrancy are shallow, boring, and uninspiring expectations for the Bible. If the Bible wanted to be read that way, it would demand it of its readers. Fundamentalism is effective because most people like to be told what to do, aren’t comfortable with real freedom, and want to know that if they just follow the rules there will be a great reward for them and that those who break the rules will be punished eternally. Tribalism, the us-and-them mentality, is as attractive as it’s ever been...it can even get one of the most un-Christlike individuals elected President by Christ’s followers. Unfortunately that’s not at all the character of Christ. Here’s to hoping Andy’s latest book gets this point across, for all of our sakes.
The book is very much in the Andy Stanley style. You can easily hear him preaching it, which means that it’s approachable, non-threatening, and has humor sprinkled throughout. His analogies make some high-browed biblical scholarship much easier to grasp. Sometimes he sacrifices clarity for cleverness, but that’s his way and it works for the most part.
This idea he proposes—that the Hebrew Bible is not authoritative for followers of Christ—is by no means new. Marcion invited Christians to unhitch themselves from all of their Jewish roots 1950 years ago, and was tagged a heretic for it. This book has already stirred up similar claims of heresy, but Andy is no heretic. Still, his arguments will be received by the average Andy acolyte as novel and controversial, which is too bad because they are neither. I think there are some nuances to the possible relationship between the two Testaments that go unexplored here, but Andy was on a mission and wanted to get his point across. But he might have come off as less scary to evangelicals had he taken the time to flesh out why the Hebrew Bible is important to the lives of Jesus’ disciples (eg. It’s the only book that Jesus and the apostles ever talk about, so maybe we should keep reading it).
In fact, most of what Andy claims about the way Christians ought to view and employ the Bible are the ways that the majority of mainstream church leaders (called “liberal” or “progressive” at best, “heretical” or “godless” at worst by far-right fundamentalist evangelicals) have been teaching people to view and employ it for centuries. My concern is not how close Andy’s book gets to “heresy,” but that the kind of Bible-idolizing Christians that his ministry sustained and perpetuated for so many years has already moved so far to the right that they won’t hear him calling them back to the middle. Andy has been one of the biggest catalysts for the movement of conservative Christianity, so while I welcome his about-face on how to use the Bible, it also feels a bit disingenuous. It would be like a climate-denying leader who spit in the face of decades of climate science and derided environmentalists for being godless liberals all of a sudden started recycling and urged other climate-deniers to join the new and radical movement to save the planet...it’s what others have been doing the whole damn time!
I hope this book will make a positive impact on the conservative community that Andy helped establish, but judging by reviews I’ve read, it won’t. He’s now with the rest of us “liberal (ie godless)” Christian leaders who has lost his way and is on a slippery slope to hell...and he’s taking others with him! But for those individuals who take what he’s saying to heart and actually give it a chance, I believe this book can help them find even deeper meaning and value in the Hebrew Bible and Christian Writings than they did before. Literalism and inerrancy are shallow, boring, and uninspiring expectations for the Bible. If the Bible wanted to be read that way, it would demand it of its readers. Fundamentalism is effective because most people like to be told what to do, aren’t comfortable with real freedom, and want to know that if they just follow the rules there will be a great reward for them and that those who break the rules will be punished eternally. Tribalism, the us-and-them mentality, is as attractive as it’s ever been...it can even get one of the most un-Christlike individuals elected President by Christ’s followers. Unfortunately that’s not at all the character of Christ. Here’s to hoping Andy’s latest book gets this point across, for all of our sakes.
February 6, 2019
This is not a good book and I do not recommend it.
The style grates, a glib, patronising humour grates throughout. Maybe not being American didn't help. But the humour style was too cute and showing off for my liking. And it pervaded the book.
Much more importantly is the theological thrust. While the motive of winning more for Christ is noble and good, I felt the argument was against a largely straw man. The dismissal of the Old Testament lacked nuance, lacked cohesion and consistency.
So the New Testament is not better, it is totally and brand new (p20) but later there's a discussion about it being better. Stanley confuses the legalistic and pharisaic approach to the Old Testament with the theology of the Old Testament itself. So he sets up a sharp contrast between covenants that is in the end not fully biblical. He tries to weave what in my mind was a contradictory case that the Old Testament is scripture but has no authority, is just like a history lesson, shouldn't precede the New Testament in our Bibles, and so on. For Stanley it seems that publishing the two testaments together as the Bible has been a terrible error in Christian history.
Stanley doesn't see grace, doesn't understand typology, doesn't see continuity between the testaments. So the OT should be called the Hebrew Bible. It doesn't belong to Christians, isn't binding at all on us.
While there are elements of truth in this, he overstates the case consistently, dumbs down too many ideas, and ignores other sides of the coin. No mention of OT grace, character of God, failure of legalism in OT as well as in NT, too little on ethical 'laws' in NT, very little about vertical love of God in worship and joy in either Testament.
For Stanley Judaism ended in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple, not on the cross!
He claims Solomon domesticated Go din the temple (really? Read 1 Kings 8 again). That if you see Jesus you have seen the Father means 'Jesus is as good as it gets'. Really? That's pathetic to my mind.
He dismisses the OT as being 'not my promises' but fails to see the continuity that Christians are true children of Abraham.
Stanley is anti text-based faith. He hates the idea of 'The Bible says...'. But Christians in my (non American) experience do get the idea that our faith derives from Jesus, the cross and resurrection and that the Bible is an authoritative and inspired record of that. Stanley argues the Bible's books are not equally authoritative, the authors were inspired but not their writings (p302) (Really? Read 2 Timothy 3 again please).
He contrasts the NT ethic of love with OT legalism, failing to understand that love is the driving force of OT ethics also.
Stanley's main beef is that the OT has difficult passages that confuse people and turn them away. So this book is an attempt to sideline and throw out the OT. For evangelism, just use the NT is in effect his view.
Sorry, but Paul and Jesus and the NT in general has a different view of the OT.
Don't bother reading this book.
The style grates, a glib, patronising humour grates throughout. Maybe not being American didn't help. But the humour style was too cute and showing off for my liking. And it pervaded the book.
Much more importantly is the theological thrust. While the motive of winning more for Christ is noble and good, I felt the argument was against a largely straw man. The dismissal of the Old Testament lacked nuance, lacked cohesion and consistency.
So the New Testament is not better, it is totally and brand new (p20) but later there's a discussion about it being better. Stanley confuses the legalistic and pharisaic approach to the Old Testament with the theology of the Old Testament itself. So he sets up a sharp contrast between covenants that is in the end not fully biblical. He tries to weave what in my mind was a contradictory case that the Old Testament is scripture but has no authority, is just like a history lesson, shouldn't precede the New Testament in our Bibles, and so on. For Stanley it seems that publishing the two testaments together as the Bible has been a terrible error in Christian history.
Stanley doesn't see grace, doesn't understand typology, doesn't see continuity between the testaments. So the OT should be called the Hebrew Bible. It doesn't belong to Christians, isn't binding at all on us.
While there are elements of truth in this, he overstates the case consistently, dumbs down too many ideas, and ignores other sides of the coin. No mention of OT grace, character of God, failure of legalism in OT as well as in NT, too little on ethical 'laws' in NT, very little about vertical love of God in worship and joy in either Testament.
For Stanley Judaism ended in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple, not on the cross!
He claims Solomon domesticated Go din the temple (really? Read 1 Kings 8 again). That if you see Jesus you have seen the Father means 'Jesus is as good as it gets'. Really? That's pathetic to my mind.
He dismisses the OT as being 'not my promises' but fails to see the continuity that Christians are true children of Abraham.
Stanley is anti text-based faith. He hates the idea of 'The Bible says...'. But Christians in my (non American) experience do get the idea that our faith derives from Jesus, the cross and resurrection and that the Bible is an authoritative and inspired record of that. Stanley argues the Bible's books are not equally authoritative, the authors were inspired but not their writings (p302) (Really? Read 2 Timothy 3 again please).
He contrasts the NT ethic of love with OT legalism, failing to understand that love is the driving force of OT ethics also.
Stanley's main beef is that the OT has difficult passages that confuse people and turn them away. So this book is an attempt to sideline and throw out the OT. For evangelism, just use the NT is in effect his view.
Sorry, but Paul and Jesus and the NT in general has a different view of the OT.
Don't bother reading this book.
May 15, 2019
This was a really hard book to read. First of all the tone was snarky, sarcastic, and down right childish at times. Second it was hard even to agree on the few things I didn't have a problem with because of the way scripture was handled and the aforementioned tone. So many holes and shaky foundations to Stanley's arguments.
Now I agree that in order to reach the lost we need to get the gospel down to it's irreducible core and contextualize the message. We do not need to burden the lost and the gospel with the unnecessary. This means making sure people understand Jesus and base their acceptance or rejection on Jesus and Jesus alone. There is the core of what I think Stanley it trying to say but his argument is based on one controversial assumption after another.
Now I agree that in order to reach the lost we need to get the gospel down to it's irreducible core and contextualize the message. We do not need to burden the lost and the gospel with the unnecessary. This means making sure people understand Jesus and base their acceptance or rejection on Jesus and Jesus alone. There is the core of what I think Stanley it trying to say but his argument is based on one controversial assumption after another.
January 29, 2019
I’ve enjoyed Stanley’s videos at church for several years. This is the most reasonable, well written Christian based book ever! Our mission is to share the good news of the resurrected Christ and not get bogged down in the “contradictions” of the Hebrew Scriptures. Witty and spot on, I loved the book.
September 21, 2018
Quite possibly the most important book for Christians and Christian leaders in this modern era.
June 11, 2019
Both affirmed and challenged my growing post-Christian era beliefs. The faith we grew up with has matured and I see things different now. Apparently Andy does too.
February 5, 2021
Percibo que la motivación de Andy Stanley al escribir Irresistible es intentar que una generación posmoderna escuche el mensaje de salvación. Para hacer eso él elabora sobre un pensamiento sutilmente peligroso: desengancharse del Antiguo Testamento.
Como ejemplo, él escribe: “Los diez mandamientos no tienen autoridad sobre ti. Ninguna. Para ser claro: no obedecerás los diez mandamientos” (136). Esto no es solo controversial, es sutilmente peligroso.
En su reseña del libro de Stanley, Michael J. Kruger concluye:
“Defender la fe puede resultar una triste ironía. Podemos estar tan ansiosos por oponernos a todos y cada uno de los obstáculos [que impiden a alguien llegar a la fe], que terminamos, sin darnos cuenta, oponiéndonos al cristianismo mismo. Si no tenemos cuidado, podríamos terminar perdiendo exactamente lo que estamos tratando de salvar”.
Recomiendo a cada persona que lee este libro discernimiento y cautela. El Antiguo Testamento es importante, los 10 mandamientos son importantes, los pactos antiguos son importantes.
En la recta final del libro, Stanley pregunta: “¿Estarías dispuesto a desenganchar tu enseñanza de lo que significa seguir a Jesús de todas las cosas del antiguo pacto? ¿Estarías dispuesto a transferir tu fe puesta en un libro y poner tu fe en los eventos que dieron origen al libro?
No podemos desechar o desengancharnos del Antiguo Testamento. Eso negaría nuestra historia, eso negaría la autoridad misma de las Escrituras, niega nuestra fe.
Como ejemplo, él escribe: “Los diez mandamientos no tienen autoridad sobre ti. Ninguna. Para ser claro: no obedecerás los diez mandamientos” (136). Esto no es solo controversial, es sutilmente peligroso.
En su reseña del libro de Stanley, Michael J. Kruger concluye:
“Defender la fe puede resultar una triste ironía. Podemos estar tan ansiosos por oponernos a todos y cada uno de los obstáculos [que impiden a alguien llegar a la fe], que terminamos, sin darnos cuenta, oponiéndonos al cristianismo mismo. Si no tenemos cuidado, podríamos terminar perdiendo exactamente lo que estamos tratando de salvar”.
Recomiendo a cada persona que lee este libro discernimiento y cautela. El Antiguo Testamento es importante, los 10 mandamientos son importantes, los pactos antiguos son importantes.
En la recta final del libro, Stanley pregunta: “¿Estarías dispuesto a desenganchar tu enseñanza de lo que significa seguir a Jesús de todas las cosas del antiguo pacto? ¿Estarías dispuesto a transferir tu fe puesta en un libro y poner tu fe en los eventos que dieron origen al libro?
No podemos desechar o desengancharnos del Antiguo Testamento. Eso negaría nuestra historia, eso negaría la autoridad misma de las Escrituras, niega nuestra fe.
November 25, 2019
The idea behind Irresistible is that there was a time in history when Christianity was exploding. Today, people are walking away from the church and the faith. Stanley says he has the answer.
Stanley shows that the temple was destroyed to show “it was time for the world to grow up and acknowledge the living, portable, for-all-nations God” (23). But later he says “God demonstrated His mobility and authority” (29) in the Old Testament. So is God’s mobility new, or not? Stanley is convinced that mixing of the old and new is what’s driving people away from the church. (25) On page 91 he calls Solomon a pagan king. Was he not anointed by God and chosen to be king? (besides the fact that he was Jewish, Hebrew, and of the line of David). God chose him to build the temple and gave him wisdom, yet disobeying God’s directions on wives and such makes him pagan and obsolete.
Stanley shows that the “Old Testament” can translate “old covenant” equating the two and says it is obsolete--like an old cell phone. An obsolete cell phone gets replaced and disposed of. So we are supposed to be inspired by the Old Testament while disposing of it like an old cell phone? For several pages Stanley attributes the term “obsolete” to “one of the authors” (103) of a book of the Bible but doesn’t say which one. When I looked it up on my own, it’s only in Hebrews, the authorship of which is debated. The “obsolete” is taken out of context referring to the “old covenant” which at the time Hebrews was written was not equated with the entire Old Testament. In Chapter 12, he seems to imply that the Gentile Christians have been misusing the Jewish history to find evidence of Jesus. (155) So those “prophecies of Jesus” referenced in the Old Testament weren’t prophecies? I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt if Stanley was just referring to the law books, but on page 159 he says Exodus through Malachi are fascinating but that’s it. He confirms that there is good info contained in those books but it’s not for us. (166)
In chapter 14 Stanley acknowledges that “the Law and the Prophets hang on” love your God and love your neighbor (183), but later claims that Jesus’ new commandment of “love one another” replaces those. (196) He claims Jesus never played the “god” card (199), yet Jesus says He and the Father are one.
Toward the beginning of the book, Stanley said mixing old with new was driving people away. Toward the end he says the fix is quoting individual authors of the New Testament. He also claims Jews can believe in Jesus without Him being the Messiah. (275) That the creation account doesn’t matter to the faith. That the flood doesn’t matter to the faith.
According to Stanley we should be focusing on the resurrection of Jesus. To corroborate, we have the eyewitness testimony of Matthew, Peter, John, and Paul. Considering they are dead, those accounts are recording in their epistles. Those epistles are in the New Testament. The New Testament is contained in the Bible.
Irresistible is in 4 sections, but I think it should have been 4 separate books. When I agree the Bible has been misinterpreted and misused, I disagree with Stanley’s solution. The only apologetics he refers to is the testimony of the disciples, but there are many more resources for apologetics out there, outside the Bible that the church shouldn’t be afraid to use. There are also alternative ways to read the Old Testament that do not see it as useless, obsolete and doesn’t paint God as vengeful and wrathful.
I gave this 3 stars (though it’s closer to 2.5), but I don’t think I would recommend this to someone else. I bought this book and this is my honest and unbiased review.
Stanley shows that the temple was destroyed to show “it was time for the world to grow up and acknowledge the living, portable, for-all-nations God” (23). But later he says “God demonstrated His mobility and authority” (29) in the Old Testament. So is God’s mobility new, or not? Stanley is convinced that mixing of the old and new is what’s driving people away from the church. (25) On page 91 he calls Solomon a pagan king. Was he not anointed by God and chosen to be king? (besides the fact that he was Jewish, Hebrew, and of the line of David). God chose him to build the temple and gave him wisdom, yet disobeying God’s directions on wives and such makes him pagan and obsolete.
Stanley shows that the “Old Testament” can translate “old covenant” equating the two and says it is obsolete--like an old cell phone. An obsolete cell phone gets replaced and disposed of. So we are supposed to be inspired by the Old Testament while disposing of it like an old cell phone? For several pages Stanley attributes the term “obsolete” to “one of the authors” (103) of a book of the Bible but doesn’t say which one. When I looked it up on my own, it’s only in Hebrews, the authorship of which is debated. The “obsolete” is taken out of context referring to the “old covenant” which at the time Hebrews was written was not equated with the entire Old Testament. In Chapter 12, he seems to imply that the Gentile Christians have been misusing the Jewish history to find evidence of Jesus. (155) So those “prophecies of Jesus” referenced in the Old Testament weren’t prophecies? I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt if Stanley was just referring to the law books, but on page 159 he says Exodus through Malachi are fascinating but that’s it. He confirms that there is good info contained in those books but it’s not for us. (166)
In chapter 14 Stanley acknowledges that “the Law and the Prophets hang on” love your God and love your neighbor (183), but later claims that Jesus’ new commandment of “love one another” replaces those. (196) He claims Jesus never played the “god” card (199), yet Jesus says He and the Father are one.
Toward the beginning of the book, Stanley said mixing old with new was driving people away. Toward the end he says the fix is quoting individual authors of the New Testament. He also claims Jews can believe in Jesus without Him being the Messiah. (275) That the creation account doesn’t matter to the faith. That the flood doesn’t matter to the faith.
According to Stanley we should be focusing on the resurrection of Jesus. To corroborate, we have the eyewitness testimony of Matthew, Peter, John, and Paul. Considering they are dead, those accounts are recording in their epistles. Those epistles are in the New Testament. The New Testament is contained in the Bible.
Irresistible is in 4 sections, but I think it should have been 4 separate books. When I agree the Bible has been misinterpreted and misused, I disagree with Stanley’s solution. The only apologetics he refers to is the testimony of the disciples, but there are many more resources for apologetics out there, outside the Bible that the church shouldn’t be afraid to use. There are also alternative ways to read the Old Testament that do not see it as useless, obsolete and doesn’t paint God as vengeful and wrathful.
I gave this 3 stars (though it’s closer to 2.5), but I don’t think I would recommend this to someone else. I bought this book and this is my honest and unbiased review.
April 14, 2020
Painting broadly, there's two types of Christians I meet: 1) Christians that put the primary emphasis on love, and 2) Christians that put the primary emphasis on rule adherence. The first group uses the 1st/2nd greatest commandments (love God, love others) as the lens through which to understand the how to apply the scriptures. The latter group focuses on a long list of Biblical imperatives, which they believe to be black and white, and in this spirit of certainty and correctness, tend to reserve their love for those who follow the rules (putting rules before people). Author Andy Stanley falls squarely into the first category, and wrote a fine book on the subject. He describes the divide between the two groups as coming from the latter giving undue weight to the Old Testament. I believe this is part of the reason, but far from a complete explanation. However, within his narrow focus, Stanley does a reasonable job. Here's some excerpts, which I've conceptually ordered:
------------------
P156: The Bible is a book organized around two covenants: one between God and ancient Israel and one between God and you! Focus on the second one. The covenant between God and Israel is obsolete. Read it for historical context and inspiration. But don’t try any of that stuff at home!
------------------
P243: "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear" [from Hebrews 8:13]. . . . One author of the Bible is calling the work of another author of the Bible obsolete and outdated.
------------------
P309: Participants in the new covenant are not required to obey most of the commandments found in the first half of their Bibles. Participants in the new covenant are expected to obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant. Namely: As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
------------------
P310: "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." [from John 13:34]. . . Jesus did not leverage his holiness, his personal righteousness, or even his divinely granted moral authority. Jesus leveraged his example—how he loved. Jesus’ love for the men in the room, rather than his authority over the men in the room, is what he leveraged to instruct and inspire the men in the room.
------------------
P326: This next statement would revolutionize the church if we took it as seriously as Paul did: "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." [from Galatians 5:6]
. . .
Notice Paul doesn’t say that the only thing that matters is “faith.” That’s the version of Christianity I grew up with. The faith without love version fuels vertical morality. Faith that doesn’t feel obligated to express itself through love expresses itself through manufactured religious routines. Faith disconnected from love leads to legalism, an eye-to-the-sky, vertical morality that doesn’t concern itself with loving others. Been there. Stayed there way too long.
------------------
P336: So while I’m not always sure what to believe, and while my views on a variety of things continue to mature and change, I almost always know what love requires of me. So do you. How remarkable that our first-century Savior reduced all of life to one trans-generationally relevant, unchangeable command that has the potential to change everything in spite of how things change.
------------------
P245: The generation of church leaders that came along after the apostle Paul ignored his warning against mixing and matching covenants. The church fathers, as they are often referred to, immediately went to work harmonizing the old covenant with the new so as to make it play nice with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They reinterpreted, allegorized, and rebranded them to make them line up with developing Christian thought and theology.
------------------
P249: Little did the brave church fathers know that by lifting the Jewish Scriptures out of their Jewish context and retrofitting them as Christian Scripture, they were laying the foundation for the reintroduction of old covenant style violence and bloodshed. It wouldn’t be long before the violent God of the Old Testament became the violence-affirming God of the church. Combining the covenants paved the way for church support of slavery, anti—Semitism, inquisitions, forced conversions, and a host of other unJesus-like enterprises. If only the early church had heeded Jesus’ and Paul’s instructions. If only they had heeded the decision of the Jerusalem Council. Instead, they rehitched ancient Judaism to the new covenant, thereby granting the old covenant equal authority with the new. This has haunted the church ever since.
------------------
P133: Julius Firmicus Maternus was a fourth-century pagan astrologer . . . Firmicus was a fan of forced conversion. He was convinced the forced converts would thank their enforcers later. Even if later was the afterlife. And how did this pagan-turned—Christian justify this violent and potentially bloody campaign? With Scripture. The Scripture he chose to support his appeal for violence against the pagans came from the lips of Moses. The original context was irrelevant because, after all, Scripture is Scripture. And all Scripture is equally inspired and equally binding.
------------------
P148: The point being, God’s conditional promises to Israel were promises to the nation of Israel, not individuals in the nation and... and not you. You were not, are not, and should be glad you’re not included in that covenant.
The way we present the Bible to children and the way we talk about the Bible in church leaves the impression that it’s an all-skate. It’s all God’s Word for all God’s people for all God’s time. Hopefully you know better. Most folks don’t. Most non-Christians really don’t. Much confusion, not to mention bad theology, stems from our proclivity to cherry-pick, edit, and apply portions of God’s covenant with Israel (or texts referencing God’s covenant with Israel). Walk into any Christian bookstore around graduation time and you’ll see a plethora of graduation cards and gifts printed or engraved with Jeremiah 29:11.
“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
How encouraging. God-fearing graduates can step confidently into the next chapter of their lives assured of prosperity, divine protection, and, hopefully, a job. Maybe. But who is “you”? “For I know the plans I have for you.” You who? Certainly not you, that’s who.
------------------
P229: Yeast is a single-cell fungus. Add a little single-cell fungus to a dense mass of dough and before you know it, you’ve got something completely different than what you started with. Which, of course, was Paul’s point. A little thing can make a big difference. It only takes a small dose of the wrong thing to corrupt the whole thing. Even a pinch of the old covenant will corrupt the taste and texture of the new covenant.
------------------
P250: The Old Testament is used far more than the New Testament to create doubt in the minds of undergrad and graduate students. You may not have noticed, but skeptics and opponents of our faith never say, “The Old Testament teaches.” I wish they would. Instead, they cite “The Bible.” “The Bible teaches . . .” “According to the Bible . . .” Why? Because the church has communicated for centuries that our faith rises and falls on the defensibility of a collection of documents that include the Hebrew Scriptures. For the record, it doesn’t.
------------------
------------------
P156: The Bible is a book organized around two covenants: one between God and ancient Israel and one between God and you! Focus on the second one. The covenant between God and Israel is obsolete. Read it for historical context and inspiration. But don’t try any of that stuff at home!
------------------
P243: "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear" [from Hebrews 8:13]. . . . One author of the Bible is calling the work of another author of the Bible obsolete and outdated.
------------------
P309: Participants in the new covenant are not required to obey most of the commandments found in the first half of their Bibles. Participants in the new covenant are expected to obey the single command Jesus issued as part of his new covenant. Namely: As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
------------------
P310: "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." [from John 13:34]. . . Jesus did not leverage his holiness, his personal righteousness, or even his divinely granted moral authority. Jesus leveraged his example—how he loved. Jesus’ love for the men in the room, rather than his authority over the men in the room, is what he leveraged to instruct and inspire the men in the room.
------------------
P326: This next statement would revolutionize the church if we took it as seriously as Paul did: "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." [from Galatians 5:6]
. . .
Notice Paul doesn’t say that the only thing that matters is “faith.” That’s the version of Christianity I grew up with. The faith without love version fuels vertical morality. Faith that doesn’t feel obligated to express itself through love expresses itself through manufactured religious routines. Faith disconnected from love leads to legalism, an eye-to-the-sky, vertical morality that doesn’t concern itself with loving others. Been there. Stayed there way too long.
------------------
P336: So while I’m not always sure what to believe, and while my views on a variety of things continue to mature and change, I almost always know what love requires of me. So do you. How remarkable that our first-century Savior reduced all of life to one trans-generationally relevant, unchangeable command that has the potential to change everything in spite of how things change.
------------------
P245: The generation of church leaders that came along after the apostle Paul ignored his warning against mixing and matching covenants. The church fathers, as they are often referred to, immediately went to work harmonizing the old covenant with the new so as to make it play nice with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. They reinterpreted, allegorized, and rebranded them to make them line up with developing Christian thought and theology.
------------------
P249: Little did the brave church fathers know that by lifting the Jewish Scriptures out of their Jewish context and retrofitting them as Christian Scripture, they were laying the foundation for the reintroduction of old covenant style violence and bloodshed. It wouldn’t be long before the violent God of the Old Testament became the violence-affirming God of the church. Combining the covenants paved the way for church support of slavery, anti—Semitism, inquisitions, forced conversions, and a host of other unJesus-like enterprises. If only the early church had heeded Jesus’ and Paul’s instructions. If only they had heeded the decision of the Jerusalem Council. Instead, they rehitched ancient Judaism to the new covenant, thereby granting the old covenant equal authority with the new. This has haunted the church ever since.
------------------
P133: Julius Firmicus Maternus was a fourth-century pagan astrologer . . . Firmicus was a fan of forced conversion. He was convinced the forced converts would thank their enforcers later. Even if later was the afterlife. And how did this pagan-turned—Christian justify this violent and potentially bloody campaign? With Scripture. The Scripture he chose to support his appeal for violence against the pagans came from the lips of Moses. The original context was irrelevant because, after all, Scripture is Scripture. And all Scripture is equally inspired and equally binding.
------------------
P148: The point being, God’s conditional promises to Israel were promises to the nation of Israel, not individuals in the nation and... and not you. You were not, are not, and should be glad you’re not included in that covenant.
The way we present the Bible to children and the way we talk about the Bible in church leaves the impression that it’s an all-skate. It’s all God’s Word for all God’s people for all God’s time. Hopefully you know better. Most folks don’t. Most non-Christians really don’t. Much confusion, not to mention bad theology, stems from our proclivity to cherry-pick, edit, and apply portions of God’s covenant with Israel (or texts referencing God’s covenant with Israel). Walk into any Christian bookstore around graduation time and you’ll see a plethora of graduation cards and gifts printed or engraved with Jeremiah 29:11.
“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
How encouraging. God-fearing graduates can step confidently into the next chapter of their lives assured of prosperity, divine protection, and, hopefully, a job. Maybe. But who is “you”? “For I know the plans I have for you.” You who? Certainly not you, that’s who.
------------------
P229: Yeast is a single-cell fungus. Add a little single-cell fungus to a dense mass of dough and before you know it, you’ve got something completely different than what you started with. Which, of course, was Paul’s point. A little thing can make a big difference. It only takes a small dose of the wrong thing to corrupt the whole thing. Even a pinch of the old covenant will corrupt the taste and texture of the new covenant.
------------------
P250: The Old Testament is used far more than the New Testament to create doubt in the minds of undergrad and graduate students. You may not have noticed, but skeptics and opponents of our faith never say, “The Old Testament teaches.” I wish they would. Instead, they cite “The Bible.” “The Bible teaches . . .” “According to the Bible . . .” Why? Because the church has communicated for centuries that our faith rises and falls on the defensibility of a collection of documents that include the Hebrew Scriptures. For the record, it doesn’t.
------------------
October 9, 2018
Andy is on to something here. 'The Bible says so' wasn't good for me and it's not good for the generations who have come behind me. I have loved history all my life. I have always looked at the Bible as a group of books and letters God's people wrote to one another to guide their belief, to stay the course, to connect us to the One and Only as a book of faith, but especially a book of historical experiences. The Christian faith is based on an historical event which is why we have to share it, tell it often. The various authors of the The Book were people of The Way who shared their stories/testimonies not planning for a Bible, but for a means of pointing people to the Christ and His resurrection. What IS good are the connections between actual history, actual events, actual people who were eyewitnesses Andy lays out in chapter after chapter in Irresistible. In the winter of 2018 I went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and walked the ground, touched the stones, breathed the air, felt the water of the Sea of Galilee. The greatest part of the trip was the connection with the people of those Sunday school stories. As Andy shares the history in Irresistible, I'm running to my Bible with a fresh energy, a renewed excitement for the words that are jumping off the pages. Andy wrote 'Jesus was introducing something new' on page 55 and I see this book as encouraging God's people to introduce the Bible in a new way...the old way...through story and real people. I serve in a local Christian church as the director of Children's Ministry. This is a great book for thought, discussion, history, story-telling, connecting the past to the present and onto the future in how we can point little people to the resurrection of Jesus. And isn't the resurrection the tipping point, the clarifier, the deal-maker in following Christ anyway? Yeah...it is! Get the book, then get on board to sharing The Story with the next generation.
July 2, 2019
Interesting
I like Andy Stanley. I didn’t used to, but... people change. Andy is a good dude to read AND listen to if you’re on the fence about religion. In this book, and in several videos I’ve seen, he doesn’t hide his old school upbringing, but he also makes a point to apologize when necessary. He owns his mistakes, and points to ways he learned from them. Rare in a person, let alone a preacher!
His outline and argument for Christianity here is quite brilliant. I can’t say he’s got me convinced entirely, but that’s not the point. The point is HE IS convinced, he explains why, and invites everyone to join him. His main argument is that the Old and New Testaments should be read as separate theologies. He believes the “Old Testament” is nothing more than “The Hebrew Scriptures” and they aren’t necessarily related to Jesus’s message. It’s a deep read, for sure. And not one I’d recommend for the merely curious. This book begs you to look deeper. If not into what Stanley says, at least into something of substance and purpose. I’m grateful to have spent time with this book.
I like Andy Stanley. I didn’t used to, but... people change. Andy is a good dude to read AND listen to if you’re on the fence about religion. In this book, and in several videos I’ve seen, he doesn’t hide his old school upbringing, but he also makes a point to apologize when necessary. He owns his mistakes, and points to ways he learned from them. Rare in a person, let alone a preacher!
His outline and argument for Christianity here is quite brilliant. I can’t say he’s got me convinced entirely, but that’s not the point. The point is HE IS convinced, he explains why, and invites everyone to join him. His main argument is that the Old and New Testaments should be read as separate theologies. He believes the “Old Testament” is nothing more than “The Hebrew Scriptures” and they aren’t necessarily related to Jesus’s message. It’s a deep read, for sure. And not one I’d recommend for the merely curious. This book begs you to look deeper. If not into what Stanley says, at least into something of substance and purpose. I’m grateful to have spent time with this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 353 reviews