Following on from chookwatcher’s recent discredited attack on Christine Caine via their friend Bud, he once again references Bud as, this time, he gets stuck into Andy Stanley, Pastor of one of the largest churches in the US.
Here’s Bud’s fantasised claim against Andy:
‘In the Andy Stanley Bible, Jesus is not seen using the words “sin” or “woe,” as in “woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” They’ve been edited out for ease of cultural compliance, it seems. And never, ever, EVER tell someone they are in “sin.” Not a popular move, if you wanna be relative … or popular.’
‘But “talking about it,” to Stanley, doesn’t mean calling sin, sin. He’s just not that sort of pastor, you see. Sin is such a theological sort of word, anyway, so cut him some slack, I guess. Clearly not every “pastor” upholds biblical standards, either … so there.’
So, is Bud telling the truth, or has he just fabricated a rumour on which to hang a premise? Does Andy Stanley avoid, like the plague, talking about sin, or even mentioning the word ‘sin’ as Bud and chookwatcher claim?
Had chookwatcher, who reproduced Bud’s accusations in full, bothered to check out Andy Stanley, by, say, googling ‘Andy Stanley on sin’, as I did a few minutes ago, he would have come up with the following recent video of Andy Stanley doing pretty decent job of telling people what sin is, it’s origins, what God has done about sin, how it happens, and how to be redeemed from sin through faith in Christ.
Why not watch for yourselves.
Yes, indeed. Andy Stanley has an excellent teaching on the origins and result of sin, and how we can escape the power of it. And he uses the word ‘sin’ on numerous occasions.
So Bud, once again, is shown to be someone who has an opinion, loves a rant, but isn’t too crash hot at doing the research that backs up his pet theories.
And, once again, it shows that chookwatcher is too ready to reproduce, without checking his sources, critical clap-trap for the sake of spreading a negative rumour.
One wonders, after exposing Bud and chookwatcher once again, how they can be taken seriously as discernment critics.