Dear Mr. Brown, I've had the opportunity to watch the first three of Andy Stanley's series "Who Needs God," I read you Reflections, and I had some thoughts in response. First, you ask "What exactly did he mean?" What I heard was Andy Stanley making a distinction between the use of the word Bible and referring to the actual written contents of what we refer to as the Bible. I did not hear or see any indication that Andy Stanley held a light view of the Bible's reliability or credibility; in fact, he inserted a lesson in that particular message regarding the basis for our trust in the reliability and credibility of what is written in the Bible. He also clearly and unambiguously stated his position--absolute belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures--numerous times in his article. Second, Andy Stanley speaks of changing approaches with an unchanging mission. In listening to his messages I heard him carefully avoid trigger words while still conveying biblical truth. I saw him respect his listeners and anticipate their open-minded consideration of what he had to say. And I saw him take care to state or illustrate his belief in the integrity and trustworthiness of the documents that are at the foundation of our faith (1) when there might have been misunderstanding by those used to speaking of the Bible in only one way, and (2) in a way that avoided trigger words that could be misunderstood. Our pastor was present in a recent presentation on Millennials by Dr. Jolene Erlacher. They were discussing how one might accommodation change without abdicating truth, and Pastor Dean shared an insight I found really helpful. He said we have to be careful to distinguish practice from principle. For example: We are to not neglect meeting together as believers, we are to make financial provision as a body for those in need and for the spread of the gospel, we are to worship corporately. That's the principle. We meet for 75 minutes on Sunday with corporate worship, an offering, and teaching of the word. That is the practice. It is possible the principle could be accommodated by another form of practice. If we consider how many people work in retail, law enforcement, and the medical fields without Sunday off, then we might accommodate change by adding a Saturday service to increase their opportunity to be part of a worship service. Or the Bible study we have on Wednesday may be intentional in incorporating all these elements so that those unable to attend regular worship services, might still fulfill all the principles laid out for us in God's Word. In a similar way, I see Andy Stanley finding new ways to say foundational things. The truth is the same, the words are different. I think this aligns with Paul intent when he said "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." I don't think anyone would view Paul as having compromised truth, and I do not see Andy Stanley having done so either. Your focus on whether the resurrection is foundational enough to be our only starting point for effectively sharing the gospel was interesting, as I'd just recently attended a presentation by Dr. Frank Turek. His point was that if the resurrection was real, which he was able to logically support (without reference to the Bible), by implication every other tenet of the Christian faith is proven true and reasonable on that basis. What was necessary and communicated through the resurrection of Christ affirms and confirms all of biblical Christian teaching. When you speak of the many different Jesus's in New Testament times, and the need to be able to discern false Christs, gospels and teachers now and in the future, your wording suggests that Andy Stanley is discounting the necessity of biblical teaching. That assumes a position he does not hold (and has carefully clarified). I thought Andy Stanley's point about someone's faith being so bound up in the Bible being unassailably true, that any doubt could bring their faith down like a house of cards, was very interesting. My thought was this: We can have faith in what someone has told or taught us (the very basis for his series) without knowing how that truth is verified and affirmed specifically in Scripture. When something traumatic occurs what we accepted at someone's word is totally inadequate to anchor us through the storm, resulting in a spiritual crisis. We thought we believed the Bible, but we actually believed what someone had TOLD us ABOUT the Bible. We didn't know the contents of the Bible well enough for it to do what God meant it to do. Our faith can be in the IDEAS of the Bible rather than the WORDS of the Bible. In that case Andy Stanley distinguishing between what the word "Bible" conveys as opposed to the discussion and teaching of the WORDS written in the Bible can be very helpful. You spoke of the dangers of believers being moved by the moral relativism of today's society, judging Scriptures by their opinions and feelings rather than judging their opinions and feelings by the Scriptures. I am thankful that Andy Stanley recognized and responded to these very concerns eight years ago. I appreciate the tack and intelligence he uses in addressing challenges and objections, and the grace and truth with which he seeks to help believers who may themselves be blinded by their own misconceptions or preconceptions. And again, Andy Stanley by example and word has clearly stated his position on the authority of Scripture. Lastly, regarding your point about the first century disciples relying on the authority of the Jewish Scriptures. That may have been initially true, but Gentiles quickly began to respond to God's invitation for salvation; especially after the destruction of the Temple as they were scattered throughout the world. So from shortly after 70 AD to 320 AD, the church was mostly Gentiles--who did not have access to the Jewish Scriptures--and it grew in strength and number during hundreds of years of persecution. Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this discussion. After listening to Pastor Stanley's messages, I found myself in considerable disagreement with your Reflections, and appreciate being invited to express those views. His glory above all, Susan