Miracles and missionaries

1. This post is occasioned by the controversy surrounding Francis Chan's recent healing claims. But that's just a launchpad to address a broader issue. I'm discussing general principles that may not apply to that particular situation.

2. I'm reading high-profile cessationists who have a new criterion for reported miracles: unless it's caught on camera, it isn't credible. With the profusion of cellphone cameras, we should demand photographic evidence for reported miracles before we lend them credence. Eyewitness testimony is inadequate.

3. I'm all for empirical verification of miracles where that's available and feasible. But to demote testimonial evidence degrades biblical miracles.

4. From what I've read, miracles are more likely to happen in a virgin mission field, to help the Christian faith get a foothold. I also think it likely that God does more for those who have less and less for those who have more. Take folk who don't have access to advanced medical care.

5. There are different kinds of missionaries and different kinds of missionary settings. In some countries, Christianity is technically legal, but in reality Christian expression is persecuted.

In some countries, Christianity is legal but conversion is illegal. By the same token, Christianity is legal in some countries but evangelization is illegal.

This creates an underground church where native Christians and Christian missionaries practice a degree of anonymity to evade detection from hostile authorities. At the risk of stating the obvious, in closed country the authorities can use cellphone camera images to identify and apprehend Christians and missionaries. Consider the use of facial recognition technology in China. 

6. There are different kinds of missionaries. For instance, there are white-American missionaries who do temporary junkets to Third-World countries. They stick out compared to the native population. In addition, there are white-American missionaries who live in the host country.

Then you have minority-American missionaries of the same race/ethnicity as the host country. For some, these are temporary junkets. Others take up full-time residence.

They can pass for natives. It's easier for them to avoid detection from hostile authorities. Finally, you have native missionaries. 

7. But it many cases it's necessary for the missionary, Christians on the ground, and unreached people, to maintain their anonymity. In some situations, cellphone cameras will be a deterrent to missionary activity, because it exposes the identity of the participants. 

This includes prospective converts who might be open to conversion, but they're not prepared to take the risk of arrest, if their face shows up in a gov't database at a Christian gathering, and flags them to be "disappeared". So there's a disincentive to missionaries, Christians, and prospective converts blowing their cover. 

I'm just stating the obvious, and I'm struck by the naïveté of some cessationist critics. There are situations where it's reasonable to request medical verification. But we must make allowance for impediments and deterrents on the ground. We need to take the setting into account, and judge reported miracles on a contextual, case-by-case basis. 

Counterfeit miracles

Like I said last night. I have friends who are there that never see this happen. Additionally, a missionary chimed in last night to say the exact same thing. They actually warn the people there against folks like Chan.

— Fredman (@Fred_Butler) February 13, 2020

1. Fred Butler doesn't stop to consider that the Burmese missionaries he happens to know or interact with may not necessarily be representative of Burmese missionaries in general.

2. What if there are missionaries who have in fact witnessed miracles but Butler doesn't know or interact with them? After all, how likely is someone who is a dyed-in-the-wool cessationist as Butler is likely to interact with missionaries who aren't like-minded cessationists?

3. Or is Butler suggesting it would come down to a "my missionary friends" vs. "your missionary friends" debate over the possibility of miracles? Yet wouldn't Butler simply dismiss counter-testimony open to miracles if it's strictly an issue of testimonial evidence?

4. Indeed, based on what I've seen from Butler, he readily accepts testimonial evidence from missionaries who "never see" miracles occur (as he does here), but he dismisses testimonial evidence to the contrary. If so, I would presume that's because Butler believes the default position is the negative position. That the negative position is the default position unless the positive position can be justified. In our case, the negative position is the claim that no miracles occur today.

However, that would lead to an extreme skepticism if the position is consistently applied. For example, how do we know we have physical bodies? If the default position is the negative position, then we are not justified to believe we have physical bodies unless it can be proven that we do have physical bodies. But one can always argue that it's possible we are brains-in-a-vat and hence without physical bodies. That perhaps what we experience is entirely computer generated but we can't tell the difference from what's computer generated and reality itself. Sure, it's absurd to believe we are brains-in-a-vat, but can the possibility be completely ruled out? If not, and if the negative position is the default position, then we are not justified to believe we have physical bodies.

If the presumption that the default position is the negative position is only applicable to miracles, then (as it stands) that would seem to be special pleading.

5. Why does testimonial evidence about miracles have to be solely from Christian missionaries? Why can't testimonial evidence about miracles be from non-Christians? Even heretics?

After all, the Bible itself includes accounts of pagans and heretics working miracles. For example, Jannes and Jambres. Likewise Balaam. And Acts 8 records that many people paid attention to Simon Magus "because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic" (Acts 8:11). Presumably Simon Magus wasn't merely doing cheap parlor tricks.

Now, I don't think Francis Chan is a heretic. However, let's suppose he is. If so, why couldn't a heretic work genuine healing miracles?

6. There's also a unique danger to the cessationist Christian. If, for instance, a cessationist Christian came across a bona fide miracle, say a healing miracle, but the miracle was worked by a pagan (e.g. an African witch doctor), then it could potentially challenge the cessationist Christian's faith in a way that it wouldn't challenge the faith of the Christian who believes pagans could work healing miracles.

However, if the cessationist Christian accepts that the dark side can work miracles through people (e.g. healing miracles, making accurate prophecies), but believes God doesn't work miracles through people today, then why not? God allows the dark side to work miracles, but God binds himself or his people from performing miracles?

7. Not to mention, on certain interpretations of Revelation, or on certain eschatological beliefs, the beast and the false prophet can work miracles. The beast is resurrected. The false prophet calls down fire from heaven like Elijah did with the prophets of Baal. The false prophet can breathe breath into an image to make it come alive. And so on. The false prophet does all this in order to "deceive those who dwell on earth". See Rev 13.

I don't know Butler's eschatological beliefs, or more to the point how he would interpret Revelation, but if he believes the beast and the false prophet can work genuine miracles, why exclude the possibility that non-Christians such as heretics can work miracles too? Is miracle-working only possible in a future eschatological period? Why think people could work miracles only before the biblical canon was completed and after we reach a future eschatological period but not in-between?

Or would these so-called miracles in Revelation only have the appearance of the miraculous, but in truth they're non-miraculous scientific or technological marvels that the beast and false prophet made to appear to be miracles? (By the way, is cessationist miracle detection akin to atheistic design detection of the Dawkins variety? There's always a naturally explicable reason for the appearance of the miraculous.)

8. As an aside, in general, I prefer to use the name Burma rather than Myanmar.

Burma is the name for the nation under British rule as well as after its independence when the nation was a democracy. However Myanmar is the name the militarily-controlled and dictatorial socialist government has designated for the nation.

To my knowledge, the UK doesn't recognize Myanmar as the official name of the nation. Neither does the US, though the US sometimes straddles the fence by using both Burma and Myanmar at the same time, viz. "Burma (Myanmar)" or "Myanmar (Burma)". Most nations in the United Nations do recognize Myanmar as the official name, but I wouldn't recognize the UN's recognition, let alone its authority on this (and many other matters)!

To be fair, a colonial name based on the majority ethnic group (i.e. Burmans) isn't necessarily ideal either. However, I'd accept Myanmar if the people were able to have a free and fair vote and elected to change the name to Myanmar (or maybe more likely Myanmaa which is somewhat closer to the true pronunciation).

Deaf to reason

There are many other similar cases on YouTube of people hearing for the first time thanks to medical science and technology (e.g. cochlear implants).

However, what if I were to take the extreme skepticism of some cessationists and apply it to such cases?

I could say the video has been doctored.

I could say it's a conspiracy by physicians, nurses, audiologists, and even the mainstream news to fake the evidence. After all, we know all about fake news in politics, so why couldn't there be tons of fake news everywhere? A faked moon landing! A flat earth! Deep fakes of all sorts of people!

I could say they're all just actors hired to play a part. I could say they're still actors hired to play a part years after the fact. And even if we were to meet them in person and ask them, we can't believe them, because their own testimonies could be doubted.

I could say the medical documentation and their medical history has been fabricated.

I could discount the possibility of hearing by physicians, researchers, and other medical experts, because they're part of "Big Ear". For one thing, they stand to gain financially by doing surgical procedures.

I could say they're all shady people so why should we trust shady people? Cf. John 9:16.

I could say, how do we know the deaf person was really deaf in the first place? Maybe they could hear the entire time! It's not as if I can literally see any physical changes in the ears! Furthermore, medical imaging and lab tests can be counterfeited.

Of course, all this would be quite unreasonable, to say the least. But that's the kind of standard some cessationists would apply to medical evidence and testimonies involving miracles.

I'm not at all suggesting we move to the other extreme. It'd be naive if we always accepted every single report at face value. At best, we'd be gullible dupes. However, there's a reasonable middle ground to be found.

Caught on camera

In reaction to Francis Chan's recently claim that he healed some people, it's striking to see cessationists like Justin Peters and Fred Butler invent a new standard for accepting a reported miracle: it must be caught on camera! If we take that seriously, as if plain old eyewitness testimony is untrustworthy, that instantly impugns the credibility of all biblical miracles. 

I'd add, at the risk of stating the obvious, that not all medical conditions are visible to a cellphone camera. Deafness is invisible. Many diseases are invisible, or only detectable via scanning internal anatomy, or lab work. 

Furthermore, unless they were expecting a miracle, there's no reason they'd have cameras running in advance to capture the event as it happened. 

Finally, if you're going to be that skeptical, it's also possible to fabricate photographic evidence. 

Credulous Christians and knee-jerk skeptics

Recently I posted a report about Francis Chan healing the sick:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/francis-chan-says-he-healed-deaf-boy-girl-in-rural-myanmar-village-my-faith-was-at-another-level.html

I didn't vouch for his claims, but I think they merit respectful consideration. On Twitter, JMac's righthand man, Phil Johnson, chimed in on the same report:

The miracles of Jesus and the apostles were routinely public, undeniable, & well-attested by multiple eyewitnesses. Even Jesus’ most determined adversaries couldn’t argue that the miracles were faked. They therefore raised doubts about the source of his power (Mt. 12:24).

Miracles such as those done by Jesus and the apostles are NOT occurring in charismatic circles today. Simple honesty SHOULD compel even the most doctrinaire continuationists to admit that no one today is doing what the apostles did in Acts 5:12; 9:33-42; 19:11-12; etc.

Yet unverified and unverifiable claims are routinely made by charismatics. Tales are regularly told that, when investigated, turn out to be false.

That’s why spiritually sane people don’t automatically swallow stories like the one Francis Chan told last week at Moody.

When someone tells a fantastic tale like “Everyone I touched was healed!”—asking for evidence is NOT sinful unbelief. (Especially when the person telling the tale is a theological drifter.)

Jesus commanded us to have that flavor of skepticism. Mt 24:24; Lk 21:8.

Yes, I saw it: Francis Chan going full faith healer at Moody Bible Institute’s Founder’s Week—on the platform of Moody Church.

I used to live in that part of Chicago. There’s a hospital close by with a full ward of terminally ill children. Do you think he’ll pay them a visit?

Several issues:

1. There's some history between Francis Chan and JMac's outfit. Francis is their most famous and popular graduate. But he's become a disappointment and embarrassment to them, so they disassociate themselves from his ministry

2. I agree with Phil that there's lots of chicanery in the charismatic movement.

3. I agree with him that we should ask for evidence and not "automatically swallow" every report. 

4. Speaking for myself, I find Francis's recent testimony credible. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe it. There's a difference between saying something is believable and saying you believe it. I think it's more than possibly true. Plausible or probable without its being compelling or altogether convincing. I'm very open to what he said. 

I'd like to have more background information about the folks he allegedly healed. Where these persistent, clearly-identified conditions? What about follow-up studies?

5. That said, Francis's testimony is evidence. Prima facie evidence in its own right. And there were multiple reported witnesses. To be sure, that's different than have separate accounts by different witnesses. It would be useful to hear from other members of his team. It would be useful to interview the folks who were said to be healed. Or their friends and relatives. 

6. Francis is somewhat lacking in theological judgment. That doesn't disqualify him as an eyewitness. There is the danger of gullibility. Maybe he's too eager to see divine signs. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss his firsthand report out of hand. 

7. As William James classically stated, there are two opposite errors to avoid:

“Believe truth!” “Shun error!”—these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may color differently our whole intellectual life. We may regard the chase for truth as paramount, and the avoidance of error as secondary; or we may, on the other hand, treat the avoidance of error as more imperative, and let truth take its chance. Clifford, in the instructive passage which I have quoted, exhorts us to the latter course. Believe nothing, he tells us, keep your mind in suspense for ever, rather than by closing it on insufficient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies. You, on the other hand, may think that the risk of being in error is a very small matter when compared with the blessings of real knowledge, and be ready to be duped many times in your investigation rather than postpone indefinitely the chance of guessing true...For my own part, I have also a horror of being duped. But I can believe that worse things than being duped may happen to a man in this world...

8. Although Francis may be credulous to a fault, Phil and Jmac are incredulous to a fault. Phil isn't consistently skeptical. He's oblivious to his own double standard. Debunkers like Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Paul Kurtz (to name a few) don't think NT miracles are undeniable. It's not as if we can use modern scanning technology to diagnose the preexisting medical conditions of individuals in the Gospels and Acts. We don't have case-histories, or before and after scans. We don't have identifiable skeletal remains to examine. 

Many dominical healings involve possession and exorcisms, but certainly possession and exorcism can sometimes be faked or misdiagnosed. And that's even assuming the Gospels and Acts are trustworthy accounts,     which skeptics deny. Phil is playing with a double-bladed sword.

9. Did Jesus visit leper colonies and cure all the lepers? For that matter, isn't Jesus still alive? But he doesn't pop into cancer wards to heal everyone in sight. It's reckless when cessationists like Phil raise objections which, if taken seriously, discredit biblical miracles.

Indeed, well-documented modern miracles lend credibility to biblical miracles. They don't only happen in old stories. 

10. Phil's objection is circular: "Miracles such as those done by Jesus and the apostles are NOT occurring in charismatic circles today…When someone tells a fantastic tale like “Everyone I touched was healed!”

On the one hand, Phil seems to be saying that when Jesus and the apostles healed people, everyone they touched was healed–yet that's a "fantastic tale" if someone today makes the same claim. What makes that a fantastic tale now but not back then?

And how does he know that "Miracles such as those done by Jesus and the apostles are NOT occurring in charismatic circles today"? His denial seems to amount to the claim that they can't be happening today because miracles like that don't happen today. I don't believe it because I know that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore, and I know that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore because it only happened in the past. 

But that's circular. It begs the question. What would count as evidence that it still happens? If it still happens, we'd expect to hear reports of it happening. Which is, in fact, what's going on. 

Phil's attitude is like saying we know a species went extinct because there are no contemporary sightings of the species. As such, we should discount all contemporary sightings because we know the species went extinct. All contemporary reports must be false. 

I'm by no means suggesting that we accept every reported miracle. But I do object to Phil's blanket preemptive dismissal. To reject every report is just as mindless as accepting every report. 

11. I believe Phil's paradigm of a healer is that God delegates the ability to heal. That's an autonomous ability which a healer can perform on anyone at any time at any place. Hence the taunt about failing to clear out a cancer ward.

But that's a very mechanical view of healing. What if God occasionally empowers a Christian to lay on hands and heal. It's not a permanent or even regular endowment, but  temporary endowment. It might only be once or twice in the lifetime of the Christian. BTW, we have examples of that in the OT, where the Spirit of God temporarily enables someone to do something extraordinary or supernatural. 

Proof of miraculous healing doesn't require a 100% success rate. The only proof necessary is a patient with a naturally incurable condition who is cured by the intervention of a Christian who, let us say, prays over them. 

Power evangelism

Interesting if true:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/francis-chan-says-he-healed-deaf-boy-girl-in-rural-myanmar-village-my-faith-was-at-another-level.html

https://relevantmagazine.com/podcast/francis-chan-says-every-person-he-touched-in-myanmar-was-healed/

Francis Chan at the Catholic Ecumenical Track

I watched the talk Francis Chan's recently gave to a Catholic group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zudQWKCFEBk&t=737s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER883Nr3O-0

This is, of course, right on the heels of a sermon in which he was regurgitating Catholic talking-points. A few random observations:

1. Pastor Francis made a number of good observations about Christian piety, unrelated to Catholicism. He usually has some good things to say. I don't think he should be written off. We get different things from different people. He has his own niche. 

2. I can't foresee the future, but I think it's unlikely that he will convert to Rome. He resists being pigeonholed. He's theologically eclectic. I think he views Catholicism as just another box. He may believe it has a few things that evangelicals can learn from or benefit from, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person to pulls a package off the shelf and goes by that label. He's more independent. What he did in speaking to the Catholic group was more a case of retranslating their piety into his own priorities. 

3. If the viewer was hoping that he'd clarify his position on Catholicism, his discussion was a disappointment. If you don't feel competent or comfortable with offering a public assessment of Catholic theology, don't accept an invitation to speak to a Catholic audience. The Catholic church is far and away the largest ostensibly Christian denomination. Many unbelievers reject Christianity because they identify Christianity with Roman Catholicism, which they think has discredited itself. 

So we can't avoid evaluating what Rome has to offer. We must present constructive alternatives. Pastor Francis doesn't have to be an expert on Catholicism to have a broadly informed, considered position. A basic way to clarify your own position is to understand opposing positions. That often provides a necessary point of contrast. 

6. Pastor Francis seems to think there's a generic, Christocentric piety which Catholics and evangelicals can share in common. He fails to appreciate that devout Catholics detour their pious impulses into the Rosary, eucharistic adoration, reading Catholic saints and mystics. It's going to be a distinctive Catholic-oriented piety. He failed to explain to the Catholic audience where to look for Jesus. How to cultivate fellowship with God. 

7. He acts like refusing to fellowship with Catholics is tantamount to "hating" Catholics, and falls under our Lord's condemnation of those who refuse to love the brethren. But that's terribly confused. 

8. He acts like you can tell who a real Christian is just by looking into their eyes. How well they emote about Jesus. 

9. Pastor Francis distinguishes between Christians who are "in love with Jesus" and those who aren't. He seems to think it's possible or even necessary for a Christian to be in love with Jesus all the time, and he treats that as what demarcates true followers of Jesus from self-deluded churchgoers. 

It's true that some Christians started out very zealous, but their fervor faded over time. There are different reasons for that. A superficial conversion experience. Or boredom caused by thin theology. After a while they think they've heard it all. There's nothing new or fresh. They stagnate rather than grow. 

However, you also have Christians where the zeal has dried out, but the commitment remains. The juice is gone, yet they faithfully persevere. That's actually a better test of Christian fidelity than when they were motivated by gushing fervor. It's like a marriage where the passion is gone but commitment remains. The couple will see it through to the end, even if the emotional dividends are gone. Endurance is a mark of true Christian faith. 

10. Pastor Francis's ideal is the persecuted church. The underground church. But there's a problem with making that the paradigm. 

i) For one thing, his ideal suffers from internal tension. On the one hand he thinks persecution and suffering for the cause of Christ are what promote genuine church growth. But that model only works if Christians remain a persecuted minority. On the other hand, once church growth crosses a threshold, the church becomes worldly, losing its purity and vision. 

So he doesn't seem to think the Gospel can or should spread beyond a certain point, because true Christian piety requires a dominant culture that oppresses the Christian faith and movement. He can't decide if church growth is good or bad. It's good so long as remains underground, but it can't stay underground if there are too many converts. At that point it's too big to be hidden. 

ii) Apropos (i), Pastor Francis seems to define genuine faith or saving faith in terms of heroic faith. The cult of martyrdom. A martyrdom mystique. He doesn't seem to have a model for how or whether it's possible to be a Christian in ordinary times. Can a faithful Christian have a normal family life? Or must true Christians live on the lam, under constant threat from the authorities? 

Has it occurred to Pastor Chan that there's a sense in which it's easier to be a martyr than a lifelong Christian? Martyrdom can be an escape from the daily demands of the Christian faith. Early release from the humdrum, the frustrations, and disappointments. 

iii) He seems to lack much appreciation for the fact that God calls different Christians to different lives of service. For instance, the church needs theologians and Bible scholars. But that requires some breathing space, where Christians aren't constantly under the gun. Where they can pursue education and research, teach and write. 

11. Instead of guilt-tripping Christians who don't suffer horribly for their faith, Pastor Francis should encourage them to make generous use of their blessings for the benefit of others. That's why God has given some Christians greater opportunities than others. On the one hand we need the purifying experience of the persecuted church. On the other hand, we also need the experience of believers in countries where Christianity is legal, where there's the affluence to cultivate Bible scholarship. Seminaries, Christian colleges, and Christian K-12. These two dynamics cross-pollinate.  

12. Pastor Francis suffers from an occupational hazard of gifted preachers. This holds true for talented performers in general. If you're a gifted public speaker, you acquire a reputation as a gifted public speaker. That in turn can make you self-conscious because there's now an expectation to live up to. That's not confined to preachers. Great performers like Laurence Olivier, Franco Corelli, and Vladimir Horowitz developed stage fright because the expectations were so high. Will you dazzle the audience? Will you say something unforgettable every time you step stage? 

One reason preachers should cultivate a text-oriented preaching style is to avoid becoming self-conscious. You stay in the text. And you bring the congregation into the text. You bring the congregation into the world of the narrative. Help them visualize what the Bible is describing, and draw analogies with their own experience. That's easier when preaching from biblical narratives, but the Bible is also chock-full of metaphors. It's good for a preacher to develop the metaphors. Draw a picture in the mind's eye of the congregation. Expand the metaphor into an extended theological parable. 

If a preacher stays in the text, and draws the congregation into the text, he's less likely to think about how he's coming across. He's not thinking about himself and the image he's projecting. Rather, he's projecting the world of the text. 

Is a Bird in the Chan worth two in the bush?

Michael F. Bird

@mbird12

Okay, those bagging Francis Chan for having a high view of the Lord supper, mostly nondenominational and low church Evangelicals, regard catholicity as a swearword and have a view of the sacraments that is mere memorialism heading into christological docetism.

i) Have you ever noticed the alleged parallel between having a high view of the Eucharist and having a high view of Mary? That's compared to having a "low" view. Of course, the adjective "low" generally has pejorative connotations. So the debate is rhetorically front-loaded. 

But it's all a question of context. For instance, is it better to have a high view or low view of Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Benny Hinn? 

ii) How does having a "mere memorialist" view of a Christian rite head into christological doceism? Is the Son reincarnated in every consecrated wafer? Is every consecrated wafer a separate incarnation of God? 

How is it docetic to differentiate a ceremony from what is symbolizes? Is it docetic to differentiate a Christian cross from the event of Christ's crucifixion? Is it docetic to differentiate a Christmas service from the actual Incarnation? Is it docetic to differentiate an Easter service from what happened 2000 years ago? 

Does Michael Bird think the communion wine is in fact the hemoglobin of Jesus? If not, then he's playing a bait-n-switch. 

iii) BTW, even on the reflexively reviled Zwinglian view, the communion elements aren't mere bread and wine. In terms of their composition, they're just bread and wine. But when used in a communion service, they're not mere bread and wine because in that context they've been assigned a particular religious function. They acquire a significance in that setting which they don't have on the dinner table. The significance of an action is often context-dependent. The same action may have a variable-significance according to the setting. Take the difference between an erotic kiss and a platonic kiss. 

Paul declares that the Lord's supper is a "participation" (κοινωνία) in Jesus' body and blood. You cannot participate in what is not real or not present. See 1 Cor 10:15-16!

The worshipers participate in something real by participating in the rite. It's a real rite. The ceremony is present. 

And the ceremony commemorates their actual participation in the sacrifice of Christ because they have a share in the redemptive death of Christ by virtue of vicarious atonement. He redeemed them by his blood. 

Some evangelicals believe in the doctrine of the real absence of Jesus, wherever Jesus is, he's nowhere near the bread and the wine, better to leave Jesus' presence outside the celebration, or else we might turn Catholic.

Cute but willfully equivocal. Ordinarily, Jesus isn't physically present in a worship service. It is, of course, possible for Jesus to appear to people in dreams and visions. And it's possible for Jesus to appear to be physically present with them. To occupy their time and space. The paradigm-cases are the post-Resurrection appearances in the NT, but Jesus can do that in the course of church history he and when he wants to. 

But by virtue of the Ascension, Jesus is normally absent on earth. Worshipers aren't excluding Jesus from the celebration. He hasn't been banished or evicted. Rather, he physically absents himself. We can't summon him against his will. We live between the Ascension and the Parousia. Most of the time, Jesus isn't here, although we can make allowance for occasional Christophanies in church history. But that's unpredictable and unexpected. 

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP9roQQwzsA

I didn't know that for the first 1500 years of church history, everyone saw it as the literal body and blood of Christ. And it wasn't until 500 years ago that someone popularized the thought that it's just a symbol and nothing more.

It was at that same time that for the first time someone put a pulpit in the front of the gathering. Because before that it was always the body and blood of Christ that was central to the gatherings. For 1500 years it was never one guy and his pulpit being the center of the church. It was the body and blood of Christ, and even the leaders just saw themselves as partakers.

Because the church is more divided than at anytime in history…and for a thousand years there was just one church. We're so used to growing up in a time when literally there are over 30,000 Christian denominations right now. Yet for the first thousand years there was just one. 

What's interesting is that communion was at the center of the room every time they gathered. And it wasn't a pulpit where a guy preached.

There was something about taking communion out of the center of the church and replace it a gifted speaker. But the Body itself needs to be back in the center of the church. 

1. Francis Chan is a wonderful Christian leader. To some degree this is an extension of what he's been thinking and saying for years. He's a celebrity preacher who's conflicted about his success. He feels guilty about being the center of attention. It's a dilemma that he constantly struggles with. 

2. I'm always struck by the fallacious appeal to circular consensus. If people are only taught one thing, then that's what they're apt to believe. If they're not exposed to alternatives, then that fosters groupthink. If they don't have access to the primary sources, if theological dissent is punished, then what they believe is likely to echo what they were taught. That's what happens when the flow of information is tightly controlled. There's nothing probative, nothing of evidentiary value, about that sociological phenomenon. It creates no presumption that the status quo is true. It's no different from the fact that most Buddhists hail from Buddhist cultures, Muslims from Muslim cultures, Hindus from Hindu cultures. That so many people are impressed by appeal to circular consensus reflects a lack of critical discernment.

3. The reason the Renaissance and Reformation spawned theological diversity, contributing to the breakup of the medieval synthesis, is because it provided a marketplace of ideas. Back when there was a state religion and national churches, when the Cuius regio, eius religio policy was the rule, when the religious establishment had a monopoly, that deliberately cultivated and reinforced status quo thinking because theological competition was banned. But when access to the primary sources expanded, when literacy expanded, when the educated class expanded, when the laity would read whatever the clergy could read, that challenged the status quo, that challenged the preexisting consensus. 

4. Pastor Chan confuses church architecture with original Christian worship. The first Christians didn't worship in churches, in the sense of buildings designed for Christian worship. They worshipped out of doors or in private homes. The development of church architecture had to await the legal stabilization of the Christian faith. 

5. In liturgical churches, the Eucharist is separated from the life of the body. Separated from celebrants gathered in corporate fellowship and worship. In liturgical churches, the Host or reserved sacrament often occupies the tabernacle in a deserted church. So the centrality of the Eucharist is depersonalized and detached from the living worshipping community. An architectural centrality in an empty sanctuary. 

According to the Real Presence, Jesus is present in the consecrated communion elements even if the entire human race went extinct. There'd be no Christians on earth. The whole planet would be a cemetery. But Jesus remains present in the tabernacle. It's an idiosyncratic concept of communion where the "body and blood of Christ" is said to be found in abandoned churches, after all the worshipers were wiped out by the neutron bombs, leaving buildings and physical remains intact. A communion of skeletons. 

6. And during a communion service, it isn't just the altar or communion table that's front and center. The theology of the real presence necessitates the priesthood. So it's one or more priests (and acolytes) front and center. 

7. Was the eucharist central to NT worship? Consider Paul's classic statement: "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up" (1 Cor 14:26). Doesn't seem like any one thing is central to the worship service. The worship service includes a celebration of the eucharist (1 Cor 11), but Paul doesn't rank that above other activities. 

8. Then we're treated to the fiction of the undivided church. Before the Photian schism, there was just one church. Everyone attended the same church. Really? 

With all due respect, Pastor Chan needs to think more deeply about his ecclesiology. There was never one institutional church. There were local and regional churches, often embroiled in turf wars. Does Pastor Chan seriously think that before the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the pope, there was just one church, the one church, and his action made the difference? Does Pastor Chan think that's what makes there to be one church? One undivided church? Is the unity of Christ's church determined by the actions of popes and ecumenical patriarchs? Are the actions of Greek Orthodox bishops and Roman Catholic bishops constitutive of the church as a unity or disunity? 

The unity of the church is grounded in the headship of Christ, the agency of the Holy Spirit, and fidelity to God's word. The unity of the church is independent of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox authority structures. That's unless you buy into a particular ecclesiology which I doubt Pastor Chan subscribes to. Seems to me he's been taken in by some catchy, superficial slogans, without considering the theological paradigm in which those are embedded. And if he really is moving in that direction, then he's lost his bearings. 

Justin & Rachel

Francis Chan shares an answered prayer:

Several other answered prayers:

Dealing with death

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGysXj6-Tbo

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/do-you-think-about-your-death

Teaching teachers to teach

Francis Chan has talked about this on a number of occasions: 

https://www.charismamag.com/video/35243-francis-chan-my-church-saved-100-people-and-that-s-a-failure

There's definitely some truth to what he's saying, but it needs to be more qualified:

i) From what I've seen, he left a very "successful" megachurch because he has a heart for urban evangelism. I suspect that's due in part to the fact that he has a hard scrabble background, growing up in the Bay Area, and goes back there to rescue people who mirror the lost condition he was once in. He favors a grass roots model of the church. He thinks we're more likely to see God in action when we take risks by prioritizing Christian mission over financial security. And he has some great testimonies about God's special providence.

ii) There's a paradox about Francis Chan. On the one hand, he's embarrassed by his popularity. On the other hand, it's because he's popular that people listen to his message. It's like he's telling listens to stop listening to him! It ties him in knots. 

I appreciate his humility. He's not a huckster like too many Televangelists. And I think he's found the right niche for his particular talents. He's doing what he does best. 

However, I think his philosophy of ministry is defective. It would be a mistake to extrapolate from his example.

iii) Apropos (ii), he's too self-conscious about his popular appeal. He doesn't think he deserves it. 

But even though that's a tribute to his modesty, and he's to be commended for his capacity for self-criticism, a minister who happens to be popular shouldn't feel guilty about his popularity, so long as his message is solid. Fact is, some men (and women) are more winsome public speakers than others. That doesn't make them more deserving in the sense of making them more virtuous or holy. But instead of fretting over their popular appeal, they should take advantage of that to reach more people for the Gospel. That's not something to bemoan. 

Even if some people listen to them for the wrong reason, due to the cult of celebrity, they can still benefit from what you have to say. And you can be their gateway to others. You can point them to other good resources. 

iv) On the one hand, it's true that some Christians and churchgoers are overly dependent on their pastor or some Televangelist. They cling to their every word. Many Christians need to broaden their data-base. 

On the other hand, the church is comprised of different kinds of people, with different abilities. Due to natural aptitude and formal eduction (or self-education), some Christians have a much better grasp of biblical theology than others. Every Christian is not cut out to be a philosopher, theologian, or Bible scholar. There's nothing wrong with a degree of intellectual indebtedness to others. Even Christians in one field of specialization are indebted to Christians in other fields of specialization. For instance, OT scholars are indebted to NT scholars and vice versa. No particular Christian, however gifted or knowledgeable, is one-stop shopping. We need a varied diet. Have more than one item on the menu. 

Shoe-leather evangelism

Recently I've been listening to some Francis Chan clips on YouTube. I should preface my comments by saying my knowledge of Francis is quite cursory, so it's entirely possible that what I've seen and read doesn't reflect a representative sample, in which case my observations may be off-the-mark. Those who are more conversant with his ministry than me can correct or supplement my observations:

i) He strikes me as one of those communicators, like Jeremiah, St. Paul, and some of the Psalmists, who wears his heart on his sleeve. That makes him very engaging.

ii) Apropos (i), some preachers have a textual or doctrinal emphasis, whereas he seems to have an existential emphasis. Up to a point that's good. We're supposed to internalize the Gospel. Become what we believe. There's a danger, in theology and apologetics, where orthodoxy can be a substitute for application. 

The church needs different kinds of preachers. Preachers like Francis fill a necessary niche.  

iii) Apropos (i-ii), from what I've seen, he likes to use personal anecdotes as sermon illustrations. That's very engaging. Everyone likes to hear a good story. It can be edifying and inspirational. 

That said, over-reliance on personal anecdotes can be hazardous. That might contribute to pastoral burnout. 

If you keep dipping into the well of your personal experience for sermon illustrations, it won't be long before the dipper scrapes bottom. Each individual only has so many fresh, exciting anecdotes to share. In general, life is fairly mundane.

To vary the metaphor, over-reliance on personal anecdotes is like self-cannibalism. If you over-use your own experience, it's like feeding off of yourself, because you only have so much to spare. 

Imagine being stranded on a desert island. There's nothing to eat. To forestall starvation, you begin consuming "expendable" parts of your own body. You have ten fingers. Ten toes. Two arms. Two legs. How much of yourself can you consume and still survive?

I'm not saying for a fact that he has that problem. Perhaps his experience is sufficiently varied that he doesn't run dry. But there is a risk, if a preacher feels the need to spice up his sermons with new, thrilling personal anecdotes, that he will eat himself alive (as it were).

iv) Apropos (iii), Francis has a particular skill set. It would be a mistake for a greenhorn preacher to imitate Francis. As a natural public speaker, he can pull things off that somebody without his talent can't get away with.  

v) Apropos (iv), because the church has many members, the strengths and weakness of one member ought to be balanced out by the strengths and weaknesses of other members. Everyone has limitations. Don't try to be more than you are. Rather, make the most of whatever you are. 

vi) Apropos (v), Francis can reach many people in some demographic groups that old square white guys like John Piper, John MacArthur, and Charles Stanley can't. We need the variety.

vii) From what I've seen, Francis seems to have an appetite for modern miracles. And he has some striking anecdotes of special providence. For instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0L9VX-AJFQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxr6n7PPsMY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQR6kszYWVI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcFMGKLTI5k

That's encouraging. There is, though, the danger of becoming deflated if you feel that you need to witness a new miracle every so often. Like, "Okay, God, that was sensational! But that's so last week. What have you done lately?" 

viii) Apropos (vii), the church needs people like Francis to shake things up. Keep devotional life from becoming too mechanical, perfunctory, complacent, set in our ways.

On the other hand, a large part of perseverance, of spiritual maturity, is coping with the hum drum of so much we have to do. Life can be grueling enough without having Olympic expectations. It's an achievement just to get across the finish line. 

ix) Francis has been criticized for quitting a megachurch that he started. I think one reason he quit is that he has a heart for personal evangelism. He feels a duty to connect with people face-to-face and one-on-one. That's not something the senior pastor of a megachurch has time for. The pastor to parishioner ratio prohibits much individualized ministry. That's delegated to associate pastors who do visitation and small-group ministry.

I can understand if Francis felt his church outgrew his sense of vocation. He wanted to get back to shoe-leather evangelism. And he has a knack for that. Can you imagine John MacArthur or Charles Stanley doing street evangelism in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco? Likewise, Francis recently addressed a high school audience. Even though he's already 50, he's naturally in his element with that demographic. 

And it seems to recharge his batteries. Gives him a chance to see God at work, transforming individuals. 

x) Francis became uneasy with his celebrity. In part, I think he felt unworthy. People were coming just to hear him.

And it's true that, ideally, people should come for the message, not the messenger. If, however, the messenger is what draws them to the messenger, then I don't think a preacher should feel guilty about their motivations. 

There a paradox about great actors and speakers: they have a natural talent, but once they get a reputation, it's hard for them not to become self-conscious of their talent. Instead of just doing what made them famous before they became famous, there's a temptation to live up to their reputation. They may lose some of the focus and spontaneity  that made the popular in the first place. 

For instance, Laurence Olivier was widely regarded as the greatest actor of his generation. Yet he got to a point in his career when he suffered from crippling stage fright. How can the world's greatest actor suffer from stage right, you ask? By having that hanging over your head every time you walk out on stage.   

It's a greater challenge for conscientious preachers, since their aim is not to impress an audience. They don't want to be the center of attention. They don't want to be the object of adulation. It's a dilemma for great preachers. They should just accept the fact that God is using them as instruments. God usually works through creaturely media. And he created the medium. 

Crazy Love

FYI: Francis Chan's book Crazy Love is available for free over at christianaudio.



HT: Justin Taylor.