Charles, Andy, and millions yet unreached...
But flee from these things, you man of God... - 1Timothy 6:11a
Over and over I warn my sheep to run from the Mad Men of Christian marketing and the Bible peddlers they promote. Don't let them scratch your ears. If godliness is a means of profit, we're in the wrong religion. Rome and Apple do it much better.
Of all these men, few can compete with the tag-team of Charles and Andy Stanley. Charles has the pensioner crowd covered while Andy goes for the boomers and their children. Together they're so successful that church planters everywhere breathe the name "Andy Stanley" with the sort of reverence WWF men show when they snarl "Mark Driscoll."
Andy Stanley gives this summary of his entrepreneurial church planting skills:
I tell my staff everything has a season. One day we're not going to be the coolest church. Nothing is forever.
Then this:
In Touch Ministries sits like a Greek temple on the crest of a hill overlooking the Atlanta skyline. A large American flag stands near its entrance, beside a row of gushing fountains. A mammoth portrait of a smiling Charles Stanley hangs just inside and bears the inscription: "Obey God and leave all the consequences to Him."
Consequences like Greek Temples perched on a hill overlooking Atlanta with a row of gushing fountains...
Then this:
...when First Baptist opened its first satellite church on Easter Sunday 1992, (Charles) appointed Andy as its pastor... In Touch was no longer just a ministry; it was Andy's inheritance.... "I was the heir apparent," Andy says.
But there was a little matter that threatened the family dynasty:
The quiet exit of Anna Stanley from the pews went public in June 1993 when she filed for divorce. Her action caused a sensation in Southern Baptist circles, where divorce is considered a sin by some based on a literal reading of the Bible. Some pastors shunned Charles; others publicly demanded that he step down.
If anyone wanted proof of how brain-dead the Fourth Estate is every time they try to write about "religion," that sentence should do the trick. Two-thousand years of church history unified in condemning the sin of divorce; Protestants and Roman Catholics together on it; and this city rube relegates the sinfulness of divorce to some Southern Baptists who base their condemnation on a literal reading of the Bible. Is there any crime the chattering classes haven't normalized by relegating its condemnation to some Southern Baptists who base their condemnation on a literal reading of the Bible? Adultery? Fornication? Child-murder? Bestiality? Genocide? Sodomy?
[When Charles divorced, he] told opponents calling for his resignation that he answered to a higher authority.
"God said you keep doing what I called you to until I tell you to do something else," he says today. "I got that straight from the Lord. ... I was simply obeying God."
How do you argue with that? Is this a direct violation of the Third Commandment, "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain?" I think so, but no one's asking. No one's even thinking about the Third Commandment today. "God said this." "God told me that." "I was praying and I felt led to..." "Did you hear the one about Buddha, Joseph Smith, and..."
Charles recalls ...his son's church staff asked him to give them the satellite church's property... "They felt like they had their little nook," Charles says now. "They didn't have their little nook. Whose idea was it, No. 1, and who's paying for it, No. 2."
For those as confused as I was, King Charles is saying it was his idea and he was the one footing the bill. Wonderful working relationship between father and son. An eighty year old preacher of the Gospel telling CNN that his son's land and church had been his idea and he had been the one paying for it.
After hearing Hybels, Andy says, church made sense "for the first time in my life." Hybels became his hero. "They were more committed to progress instead of maintaining traditions."
Andy's "progress" includes this story he tells of the time gays and lesbians picketed his father's church:
"We're the church that sings 'Just as I Am' after the sermon, and here we are shunning this group of people because of a lifestyle we disagreed with," he says now.
Sodomy is just "a lifestyle we disagree with."
Is Andy a preacher or a pastor?
(Andy) is an introvert who struggles at times even to make conversation off-stage with members of his church.
And what about the feminist heresy?
(Charles) had defied Southern Baptist theology by saying women should be able to preach.
And now that he's eighty, what does Charles have to say about his divorce and possible remarriage?
"I couldn't be happier," (Charles) says. "I don't really need a wife. God has just filled my life with good things."
And about that pic at the top?
(Charles) recently celebrated his 80th birthday at First Baptist, and was presented with a large photograph depicting Jesus counseling him as he prepared a sermon. Charles painstakingly posed for the photographer, with a professional model playing Jesus.
Dad used to say Reader's Digest only had three articles: "Oh the horror of it!" "Oh the wonder of it!" And "Oh."
The pic and how it came to be?
"Oh the horror of it!"
Let me end with this: I'm proud that my dear wife wrote Charles at the time of his announcement that, despite his divorce, the show would go on. She reminded him he'd said in one of his sermons that he'd stop preaching if he ever got divorced. She told him to keep his promise, stop preaching, and seek to be reconciled to his wife.
Charles never responded.




Comments
Dear Tim,
"If godliness is a means of profit, we're in the wrong religion. Rome and Apple do it much better."
If by "Rome," you mean the Roman Catholic Church, who's currently profiting financially from her? The stakeholders like bishops, priests or members? No. They don't hold the deed to any property that I'm aware of.
To be sure there were 16th century indulgences for sale which, in part, helped to build St. Peter's. Luther was totally correct to point out Tetzel's (et al) grave error. So one could say that a percent of the stone and glass in that great edifice was derived from ill gotten gains. This was certainly a great scandal. My hat's off to Luther for exposing this error!
Whereas, I would suspect an Apple (APPL) stockholder is currently profiting quite handsomely. Their employees are profiting like few others. The principals of their suppliers are even well-to-do.
However, the only real profit I know of from the Catholic Church is that of a spiritual nature.
Therefore an APPL-to-RCC-to-Megachurch comparison is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you agree?
Thanks for your many fine articles and esposes.
Love,
More Lukewarm than cool I suspect.
There is so much wickedness in that story one knows hardly where to begin. Though it does much to bolster my conviction that most self-described Christians in America are unconverted.
You're going to love this: I went to Andy Stanley's church earlier this year while in Atlanta. The church building has two sanctuaries in it, and services that run simultaneously in both. Andy preaches live in one and appears via video in the other. We wound up in the Live-Andy side by accident. I'm not sure what the difference was, probably a different rock band on the other side? Contemporary/traditional?
I have to say that I remember being blessed by the sermon though, and convicted a bit. It was about conflict coming from lustful desires a la James 3:14.
The Stanleys of the world are only increasing. Where are the prophets who will oppose them? Tozer said it well:
"A prophet is one who knows his times and what God is trying to say to the people of his times.
What God says to His church at any given period depends altogether upon her moral and spiritual condition and upon the spiritual need of the hour. Religious leaders who continue mechanically to expound the Scriptures without regard to the current religious situation are no better than the scribes and lawyers of Jesus' day who faithfully parroted the Law without the remotest notion of what was going on around them spiritually. They fed the same diet to all and seemed wholly unaware that there was such a thing as meat in due season. The prophets never made that mistake nor wasted their efforts in that manner. They invariably spoke to the condition of the people of their times.
Today we need prophetic preachers; not preachers of prophecy merely, but preachers with a gift of prophecy. The word of wisdom is missing. We need the gift of discernment again in our pulpits. It is not ability to predict that we need, but the anointed eye, the power of spiritual penetration and interpretation, the ability to appraise the religious scene as viewed from God's position, and to tell us what is actually going on.
There has probably never been another time in the history of the world when so many people knew so much about religious happenings as they do today. The newspapers are eager to print religious news; the secular news magazines devote several pages of each issue to the doings of the church and the synagogue; a number of press associations gather church news and make it available to the religious journals at a small cost. Even the hiring of professional publicity men to plug one or another preacher or religious movement is no longer uncommon; the mails are stuffed with circulars and "releases," while radio and television join to tell the listening public what religious people are doing throughout the world.
Greater publicity for religion may be well and I have no fault to find with it. Surely religion should be the most newsworthy thing on earth, and there may be some small encouragement in the thought that vast numbers of persons want to read about it. What disturbs me is that amidst all the religious hubbub hardly a voice is raised to tell us what God thinks about the whole thing.
Where is the man who can see through the ticker tape and confetti to discover which way the parade is headed, why it started in the first place and, particularly, who is riding up front in the seat of honor?
Not the fact that the churches are unusually active these days, not what religious people are doing, should engage our attention, but why these things are so. The big question is Why? And no one seems to have an answer for it. Not only is there no answer, but scarcely is there anyone to ask the question. It just never occurs to us that such a question remains to be asked. Christian people continue to gossip religious shoptalk with scarcely as much as a puzzled look. The soundness of current Christianity is assumed by the religious masses as was the soundness of Judaism when Christ appeared. People know they are seeing certain activity, but just what it means they do not know, nor have they the faintest idea of where God is or what relation He has toward the whole thing.
What is needed desperately today is prophetic insight. Scholars can interpret the past; it takes prophets to interpret the present. Learning will enable a man to pass judgment on our yesterdays, but it requires a gift of clear seeing to pass sentence on our own day. One hundred years from now historians will know what was taking place religiously in this year of our Lord; but that will be too late for us. We should know right now.
If Christianity is to receive a rejuvenation it must be by other means than any now being used. If the church in the second half of this century is to recover from the injuries she suffered in the first half, there must appear a new type of preacher. The proper, ruler-of-the-synagogue type will never do. Neither will the priestly type of man who carries out his duties, takes his pay and asks no questions, nor the smooth-talking pastoral type who knows how to make the Christian religion acceptable to everyone. All these have been tried and found wanting.
Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will be not one but many) he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment of Christendom. Such a man is likely to be lean, rugged, blunt-spoken and a little bit angry with the world. He will love Christ and the souls of men to the point of willingness to die for the glory of the one and the salvation of the other. But he will fear nothing that breathes with mortal breath."
Rome used to be good at profitmaking. Now she's living off capital. There's a good income in that, though. The beneficiary of a trust fund doesn't own the trust, legally, but he gets the income. The liberal and the Roman churches have lots of wealth, and whoever controls the wealth is the effective owner. The benefit is usually taken in the form of a quiet life, perks, prestige, and security rather than mere bucks, though.
Charles painstakingly posed...with a professional model playing Jesus.
Oh.
"You rebels! Shall we indeed bring water out of this rock?"
Add new comment