Francis Chan says he healed deaf boy, girl in rural Myanmar village

Not all applauded. Many (self included) did not.

One would think that the standard of 2 or 3 witnesses should be followed: preferably 2 or 3 doctors and some cell phone videos

I don’t know how these guys get such a following among “solid” evangelicals. They are manipulators whose superficiality ought to be clear to anyone who knows their Bible and has some good theology.

The thing that bothers me is not the claim of miracles—I tend towards cessationismbecause I don’t see many miracles, but don’t believe the door is entirely closed—but rather Chan’s apparent connection of himself to them. It seems to go beyond how Peter and Paul described the things God did through them.

Personally, I do generally appreciate Chan’s ministry, as he does challenge us to see things through Biblical lenses and come to appreciate the amazing person who is Jesus. In this case, though, there is a “huh” moment where I do have some unease and suspicion that this is not entirely on the up & up.

I have appreciated much that Chan has said in the past, but his recent comments concerning the Lord’s supper troubled me. I was admittedly a little “on guard” as I sat and listened to him preach at Moody. I am a “soft cessationist” and certainly don’t limit what God can do. I have just seen and heard enough to be skeptical. Chan is more willing than I am to set aside mid-level theological issues for the sake of unity. I appreciate the need to preach the gospel to unreached people, but I think he discounts the value of preaching the word to established believers. I get the impression that he is looking for something more in his life, and is uncertain what that is.

And where did Chan make those comments? Moody Bible Institute. Need we say more?

I know nothing about Chan. I saw his video about the Lord’s Supper, and I was shocked. He seems theologically clueless. He also seems adrift and rootless. He doesn’t seem like a teacher who any Christian should trust. I think he is unstable and dangerous, and confused. In short, a weirdo.

I have growing concerns over Chan’s recent statements myself…however, I find a declaration of “I know nothing about Chan.” followed by assessing him as “theologically clueless”, “adrift”, “rootless”, unworthy of trust, “unstable”, “dangerous”, “confused” and a “weirdo” — to be well across the pale….WAY beyond, in fact….in the accessment of a fellow believer, brother and pastor who again, according to your own words, you know “nothing about”. It’s graceless and unnecessarily harsh.

The video I saw of Chan was of a weird guy who appeared to have the theological acuity of a cucumber. Based on that, I say he’s not somebody anyone should listen to. Now, I see Chan saying he healed people miraculously. Sure, I believe him …

The guy is a weirdo. I’m not sure why that is controversial or why he merits more charity. If I met a pastor who didn’t understand th he Lord’s Supper and breathlessly told me he’d healed people by laying hands on them, I’d run away and think he was deranged. Few people would fault me! So it is with Chan. He’s just a bizarre guy who makes outlandish claims, who seems to not know very much. I wish him luck on his forthcoming odyssey abroad.

At Moody, Chan apparently expressed dissatisfaction with American evangelicalism. One article explains:

Chan comments on how we are spoiled by so many pastors, thought leaders, and resources flooding our churches, new feeds, and bookstores. Instead of stewarding these things wisely and partnering for the greater good, we compete with each other for brand performance and power of platform.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m about. He caught me. Drat. It’s all about branding … and the Benjamin’s.

Spare me. Yawn. The grass ain’t greener in Hong Kong. People are people. The good ‘ole US of A is a ripe mission field. It’s pure secularism. We’re having an evangelism event at our local library tomorrow, right in the middle of one of the most secular urban centers in America. Yet, Chan feels it’s ok to broad brush evangelicals and claim it’s all selfishness!

Well, I have little sympathy for his critiques. He’ll find the same problems in Hong Kong, they’ll just look a bit different.

[DLCreed]

I have growing concerns over Chan’s recent statements myself…however, I find a declaration of “I know nothing about Chan.” followed by assessing him as “theologically clueless”, “adrift”, “rootless”, unworthy of trust, “unstable”, “dangerous”, “confused” and a “weirdo” — to be well across the pale….WAY beyond, in fact….in the accessment of a fellow believer, brother and pastor who again, according to your own words, you know “nothing about”. It’s graceless and unnecessarily harsh.

DL,

Did you read where Tyler said he knew nothing about Chan EXCEPT he recently watched a video of him teaching on the Lord’s Supper. Now, I have not seen Chan speak on anything myself, but Tyler said this video showed a man who had a vapid theology. Again, it was based on his video about the Lord’s Supper, which Tyler said he viewed. So, he is not basing his report on “nothing”, but more properly “little”. However, in Tyler’s defense, I would hope Master’s Seminary grad could present a reasonably accurate teaching on the Lord’s Supper. If he fails at that, I think that speaks volumes.

[Mark_Smith]

DLCreed wrote:

I have growing concerns over Chan’s recent statements myself…however, I find a declaration of “I know nothing about Chan.” followed by assessing him as “theologically clueless”, “adrift”, “rootless”, unworthy of trust, “unstable”, “dangerous”, “confused” and a “weirdo” — to be well across the pale….WAY beyond, in fact….in the accessment of a fellow believer, brother and pastor who again, according to your own words, you know “nothing about”. It’s graceless and unnecessarily harsh.

I would hope Master’s Seminary grad could present a reasonably accurate teaching on the Lord’s Supper. If he fails at that, I think that speaks volumes.

One ‘crackpot’ view by one TMU grad is but a whisper. #nothingburger news about TMSeminary

not TMS

[Mark_Smith]

Did you read where Tyler said he knew nothing about Chan EXCEPT he recently watched a video of him teaching on the Lord’s Supper.

I read quite well and Tyler did not use the word “EXCEPT”. He made an absolute sentence in the declarative voice and then made a second, contradictory sentence.
Regardless, one of the things that drove me away from the “brand” of fundamentalism that is embraced by many on this site is the kind of excessive and irresponsible harshness Tyler’s over-the-top response embodies. I used to be a master at such verbal acuity myself. The number of people I ever convinced to reconsider their viewpoint by using cheap shots and name-calling (I mean, if we’re going to call names, can we do a bit better than “weirdo”? At least Joe Biden is more creative) is ZERO. Eventually I was convicted about the tactic when confronted by some I was actually hoping to convince on a topic.
Chan IS a Christian brother. He has issued some rather problematic statements of late after years of thought-provoking teaching and writing that was sound and important. Somehow, I think both his proponents and those who have their eyebrows raised would be better served by challenging arguments that address the error rather than just hurling cheap epithets and unfounded insults.
But hey, if you and Tyler think that a Donald Trump style of scorched-earth rhetoric is effective these days for convincing people of spiritual truths, go ahead and knock yourselves out. I am just pointing out that, from my perspective, it’s as weak in efficacy as it is in Christian grace.

Oh please…