Francis Chan isn't sure what he believes about transubstantiation

“Chan said it struck him as “almost silly” and even “heretical” to take this view of communion. However, at the urging of his friends and fellow ministry leaders, Hank Hanegraaff and K.P. Yohannan, Chan says he decided to study early church history to discover what they believed about communion, or the Eucharist.” - C. Leaders

Discussion

Was watching a video from Francis Chan the other day, put on for students at my school to persuade them of the importance of personal Bible study.
After watching, I’m not surprised at him being tempted in this direction. What I kept thinking through the brief video I watched was “This guy has no ecclesiology at all.” His understanding of the church and the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper was horrifically deficient.
The latter weren’t mentioned even once. For the former, he kept going on about how terrible it was that people were just going and listening to “some guy [aka, the pastor] speak about his views on God’s Word,” when they should be doing the work on their own and discussing it in small groups. That’s what church should be, a la Francis Chan.
Very modern. Very democratic. Very unbiblical. He’s the perfect mark for the RCC and EO traditions and their similarly unbiblical — but far richer and more defensible — ecclesiologies.

For all his emphasis on “being biblical”, Chan doesn’t seem to be a very careful exegete. A lot of his sermons amount to reading two verses and then ranting about something he dislikes about American evangelicalism. You can only be biblical if you understand the Bible.

His whole approach to church and Christian living seems very existential to me.

He might be a very sincere guy, but I simply can’t recommend him.

Josh Stilwell, associate pastor, Alathea Baptist Church, Des Moines, Iowa.

Fun and Mental

He seems like a very confused man.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.