Francis Chan Can Fix This - by Clint Archer

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

I share the dismay of my trench-buddy, Jordan Standridge, about Francis Chan’s new bedfellows, which include Benny Hinn, Todd White, and others in the lunatic fringe of the charismatic plutocracy. These are the ones even open-but-cautious continuationists agree make up the bathwater that needs to be thrown out.

But I’m not quite ready to “farewell” him.

He’s no Rob Bell. (Just compare Chan’s Erasing Hell to Bell’s Love Wins.) And I know that’s not what Jordan meant.

Chan isn’t disappointing us by what he’s teaching on prosperity, but by the dissonance between what he teaches and what he endorses. (Let's see if the author establishes that Chan is endorsing errant doctrine.)

He hasn’t taught heresy himself; he’s just stamped his approval on someone else’s. (The author repeats his assertion. But has Chan spoke approvingly of errant doctrine?)

That can make him look complicit in their nefarious shenanigans. (Weasel word. "Can" is an inference, which allows for the possibility that Chan is not complicit.)

But he can still fix this. (Having failed to document his accusation, the author proceeds to prescribe a solution.)

This isn’t just indictment by association. Merely sharing a platform isn’t the issue in this case. (Actually, others have indeed asserted that Chan's mere presence is a problem.)

Chan publicly declared Todd White to be “a bold man of God” (minute 2:50-3:05) and used his ministry as an example of a “wave of God” as opposed to a “wave of man.” (Is it possible for Todd White to be a bold man of God while simultaneously having flawed doctrine? We think yes. IS the assertion that White is a bold man of God endorsing all his teachings? We think no.)

The veer of Chan’s trajectory has been concerning for a while (increasing mysticism, emotionalism, shock-value antics), (Charges stated but left undocumented.)

but this might be the last chance for an urgent course-correction before doing irreversible damage to his reputation and influence.

I’d like to assume, along with Todd Friel’s generous speculation (minute 1:56-2:04), that Chan is attempting to “move that mess in the right direction.” (No speculation needed. Chan has stated this unequivocally.)

And it could well be a strategic opportunity he’s seizing to rebuke the clucking craziness from within the henhouse. But the problem is he didn’t rebuke, he embraced. (In other words, the author doesn't like Chan's methods. In the author's mindset, Chan is too nice when he should be mean like the author.)

He is now explicitly, not just implicitly, endorsing heretics. (Again a charge not documented.)

A heretic is one whose teaching prevents people from being saved. (Well, no. A heretic is a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. It falls to the author to show us the source of this novel definition, and to prove White is preventing people from being saved. 

In fact, a cursory examination of White's activities clearly indicate people are being saved despite his questionable doctrines. We would go further and say that doctrinal perfection is not a necessary requisite to being able to share the Gospel and see fruit from it.)

Heresy is a doctrine that, if believed, damns the soul. (Again the author asserts but does not document.)

The Prosperity gospel is a heresy. These people are spiritual thugs who bully people for their lunch money.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (We readily acknowledge the truth of this Scripture. And indeed White may fall into this category. But This Scripture does not speak to the fact that  God's gifts and His call are irrevocable. Romans 11:29 White may yet be bearing fruit in spite of his questionable doctrines.)

Chan endorsing a prosperity preacher is like Jesus putting his arm around Caiaphas and saying, “I love this brother and his widow-crushing ways! The legalism of the Pharisees is a wave of God.” (No, it is like Jesus putting His arm around Nathanael and saying, Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.)


Paul didn’t urge us to “be known for what we are for rather than what we are against.” (Oh, pleez. What Paul did or didn't exactly say isn't relevant. We can say what James tells us: 

Ja. 5:19-20 My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

He frequently warned his precious flock of the dangerous influencers in their midst, by name(e.g. 1 Tim 1:19-20; 2 Tim 2:16-17).

There is no way a person can read Matthew 23, the Book of Jude, or the Epistle of 2 Peter, and conclude that the right response to false teachers is to partner with them in their preaching conferences and publicly endorse their ministry. (There is no way a person can read the whole of the NT and not conclude that giving honor is a good thing, attempting to maintain connection with an errant Christian is a good thing, and loving people no matter their flaws is a good thing.)

Prosperity proclamation is quite out of character for Chan. (Indeed, one will not find Chan doing such a thing.)

The Gospel Coalition posted an interview with Chan dated only last month (Feb 11, 2019) titled “What’s wrong with the Prosperity Gospel?” But now he smilingly embraces the very incarnation of mercenary deception—the princes of prosperity preaching—for the whole world to tweet?

It makes no sense. (Only because the author is trying his best to impugn Chan's motives and methods. However, it makes perfect sense to those whose desire is to continue to love while at the same time bring correction. 

It doesn't make sense to those like the author who are content to lob grenades from afar rather than do the hard work of fostering relationship and connection in order to speak into someone's life.)

The New Testament gives specific instruction on how to deal with these types of people:

2 John 9-11 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

False teachers are not “brothers” and there is no way to be equally yoked with them in ministry.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

(Since we're now reduced to dueling Scriptures, how about this one: 

Ga. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.)

The prosperity gospel is a false gospel that wreaks havoc in the lives of desperate people. Just come to Africa and see what a malaise this heresy is among the poverty-stricken.

Prosperity preachers devote their lives to the opposite of what Chan has devoted his. (And the author has not provided us with cause to think Chan has done otherwise.)

Which is why I think he can still fix this, and that he will. I can’t believe he will choose saving face among his new friends and become pertinacious about this and not repeal his endorsements.

What do we do with the trove of his material online?

The same thing the noble-minded Bereans did with Paul’s teachings (Acts 17:11) and the same thing we should do with all we read or hear: compare it to Scripture. As for anything he produces now… I wouldn’t recommend it. Not until we see an unequivocal return to the safe zone of Scripture. Once a person loses their discernment, their teaching can easily become increasingly laced with error.

This hot mess isn’t easy to fix, but it is salvageable by someone with enough humility and commitment to the Bible.

Which is why…

I still think Francis Chan can fix this.

Who among us hasn’t done something we realized in hindsight was silly? (The author finally turns to charity, something sorely lacking up til now.)

It would be a Rehoboam-sized mistake for him to double down on this. It is so clearly a lapse in judgment, so obviously a mistake, that sheepishly admitting the fault and unequivocally retracting it, would be received with a collective sigh of relief from his followers.

It would take some time to reconstruct the trust a spiritual leader needs to be effective, but at least he wouldn’t be throwing away all he’s done so far.

I am in actual, heartfelt prayer for my brother. And I’m eagerly watching his prolific YouTube appearances for the example of transparency we’ve all come to know and love about him.