The veil was slightly pulled back at one point in the video (not sure of the time), when Andy mentioned a string of social issues as well as creation-6day, Calvinism, and i think taking issue with God’s punishment in the OT.
My thoughts resemble a lot of your thoughts. On this point, it was actually interesting what he mentioned as 'issues' and the way he phrased it. To me and my husband, it was an odd tone that he took as if they were a series of non-salvific issues that the church is currently wrestling through; they were: "young earth creation or not, Calvinism or not, homosexuality or not..."
And that was an odd thing to add because, plainly, one of these things is not like the other...
Benefit of the doubt, perhaps he just wasn't being clear and was more trying to just list hot-button things. But the way he said it made it seem like these were just incidentals that we can't agree on (and I wouldn't say they are entirely inconsequential, but I certainly would put creation views and wholly taking on Calvinism or not as secondary issues to the Gospel that do not impede it), yet he specifically dropped in homosexuality as if it was just another secondary issue we were muddling through as the church. So that was an odd touch.
Additional thoughts:
Stanley is so focused on trying to reinvent the wheel for a 'new generation' that he seems to escape even the basic practicalities and understanding of how the Scriptures were formed. (Has he not taken an old/new testament 101 class? Does he really think the church got together at a council in the early centuries AD and once-for-all brought everything together into the Bible at a magical brainstorm session??
Because that didn't happen.) I just didn't even understand what his understanding of the formation of canon even was. He also seemed to be completely oblivious to or disconnected from the cultural situation of the early church, that many of the early Christians, including some apostles themselves, were well-learned Jews who saw the revelation of Christ as the answer to old testament prophecy. I think Durbin did a better job toward the end drawing out how the early church would have seen Christ as that fulfillment, rather than a divorce, from the Jewish (old testament) scriptures.
It's sad, because I sympathize with Stanley's initial concerns, which I think are the genuine concerns of many pastors right now in America, of frankly the detachment and misunderstanding of the common people to the things of Scripture and the Gospel. But, in his focus on being novel, I think he routes himself around people and traditions that have already been having this discussion, and have helpful frameworks to think about these things (I think about how I could have answered many of his concerns myself by referring to the Westminster Confession and teasing out those ideas). He's trying be innovative and cool, but it's treading into wrongful territory. And, in a twist of irony, I think his insistence on having only the one evidentialist grounding for one's faith may cause many young people (his target audience) to seriously question the grounds of their faith.
