Andy Stanley, who has a continual habit of leaving his armor of God in the closet, is making the rounds once more. In this episode, he takes to task the Creeds of Christendom! Now, to assert that Stanley has left his manly card tucked away under his pink undershirts is not to assert that he is not brave. We should note that it takes a stupid kind of bravery to say the things he said about the Creeds.
He does praise the Apostle’s Creed and other creeds as important statements, but then he quickly departs from the whole thing creating myths and treating Church history like a coloring page.
He blames all sorts of things on naughtiness among men and then concludes that the problem with these creeds is that “there is no mention of love.” This sort of precision in language is the precision used by many to forget God. The problem with Stanley is that he is looking for love in all the wrong places. He believes–as a Creed of his own–that all he needs is love while love stares at him with affirmations of “the forgiveness of sins” and the “resurrection of the body.” Stanley can’t see that every action of Jesus is a self-giving act of love whose love leads to following our Lord’s own commandment to love one another.
Stanley wants the version of love that enables him to see his agenda come to pass. He wants desperately to unhitch himself from the Law of God and ultimately join Derek Webb in the skeptical forum.
He fails to see that the Apostle’s Creed was a baptismal creed recited by saints willing to die for Christ; eaten by wild animals in an act of _________. In other words, you recited that creed when you were ready to put on the armor of God and receive the Spirit poured from above in water. It may go back as early as 170 AD…ahem…before Constantine.
And speaking of Constantine, what kind of Emperor, to quote Peter Leithart, would “desacrifice” Rome and thus allow Christians to worship without fear of retribution? What kind of Emperor? There were faults, but I would call that act one of absolute love.
Stanley wants a faith that is no longer sacred, no longer historical, no longer creedal, no longer theological, and no longer whole. He wants a faith disconnected from our Father Abraham. He wants a faith disjointed from Augustine and Luther. Stanley wants a travesty of faith, one that is unrecognized by the Church but a massive appeal to the consciences of BLM supporters and woke apologists. Theologically, Stanley is unhinged, unhitched, and unrecognizable as a minister of the Gospel. And at this stage, that is Stanley’s creed.
