A friend recently sent me this video of a sermon clip from Francis Chan (see below). I must say, I was appalled at the gross misrepresentation both of Church history and of Protestantism. This video makes it sound as though Chan will defect to Rome before too long.
Here is my response I sent to my friend:
Here is my response I sent to my friend:
I watched that video you posted of Francis Chan, and I have to say, I was rather disappointed to find such a gross misrepresentation both of Church history and of Protestant doctrine. It is simply not true that for 1500 years the Church saw the Lord's Supper as the actual body and blood of Christ. There wasn't even unity on the matter. And it can, in my opinion, be strongly argued that such nonsense was not even largely developed and taught in the first few centuries of the Church, if not longer. In fact, transubstantiation was not even dogmatized until the Council of Trent in 1551 [CORRECTION EDIT: Fourth Lateran Council in 1215], after that 1500 years was over!
As to his comments about the Reformation, while it is true that SOME Protestants (not even a majority) viewed the Lord's Supper as "merely a symbol" (Calvin didn't and Luther most certainly didn't), the reason the pulpit replaced the altar is not because "talented speakers" is what the Protestant Church is now all about. That he said such I found to be frankly slanderous. No, the reasons that the pulpit replaced the altar were 1) the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox presentation and doctrine of the Lord's Supper is both blasphemy and idolatry, and 2) the prominence of the preaching and teaching of the Word in Scripture. As William Cunningham said, "In the New Testament, certainly, the sacraments do not occupy any very prominent place." The Reformation was simply seeking to get back to that, and to eradicate the obvious witchcraft that is commonly called transubstantiation.
Lastly, it is simply a fallacy to say that just because the Lord's Supper is not at the center of the room does not mean Jesus isn't. In fact, such a statement already presupposes transubstantiation. The fact is, Jesus (at least in our church) is preached faithfully and mightily every single Lord's Day. He is there.
The problem with Chan is that his "radical" approach to Christianity has no end for him. Something is always wrong, not being done well enough, or distorted. It's almost like social justice warriors—things will never ACTUALLY be good enough for them. Otherwise, they would have no self-identified purpose for living, if they can't rail against something. That's why it hasn't ended with racism, but has moved on to economics, and then homosexuality, and now mutilating children's genitals. It has no end.
The truth is with a lot of these non-denominational evangelical types (no offense, seriously) a lot of the problems they describe in "the Church" are really just issues within their own movement; none of what they describe is a problem in more historically confessional churches. In my church, for example, we do not at all view the Lord's Supper as "merely a symbol." And if you ever sit through one of our Lord's Supper services (which are frequent), you never get the sense that what we are doing is anything but the most serious partaking of the body and blood of Jesus as a unified Body—a unity which rests upon Jesus' death as its very basis.
I pray Chan doesn't apostatize to Rome or the East, but it sounds like he is well on his way. When one's approach to Christianity is always "radical" but never rooted (ironic, because "radix" in Latin means "root") theologically and historically, this is the kind of waffling we should expect—and mourn.
As to his comments about the Reformation, while it is true that SOME Protestants (not even a majority) viewed the Lord's Supper as "merely a symbol" (Calvin didn't and Luther most certainly didn't), the reason the pulpit replaced the altar is not because "talented speakers" is what the Protestant Church is now all about. That he said such I found to be frankly slanderous. No, the reasons that the pulpit replaced the altar were 1) the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox presentation and doctrine of the Lord's Supper is both blasphemy and idolatry, and 2) the prominence of the preaching and teaching of the Word in Scripture. As William Cunningham said, "In the New Testament, certainly, the sacraments do not occupy any very prominent place." The Reformation was simply seeking to get back to that, and to eradicate the obvious witchcraft that is commonly called transubstantiation.
Lastly, it is simply a fallacy to say that just because the Lord's Supper is not at the center of the room does not mean Jesus isn't. In fact, such a statement already presupposes transubstantiation. The fact is, Jesus (at least in our church) is preached faithfully and mightily every single Lord's Day. He is there.
The problem with Chan is that his "radical" approach to Christianity has no end for him. Something is always wrong, not being done well enough, or distorted. It's almost like social justice warriors—things will never ACTUALLY be good enough for them. Otherwise, they would have no self-identified purpose for living, if they can't rail against something. That's why it hasn't ended with racism, but has moved on to economics, and then homosexuality, and now mutilating children's genitals. It has no end.
The truth is with a lot of these non-denominational evangelical types (no offense, seriously) a lot of the problems they describe in "the Church" are really just issues within their own movement; none of what they describe is a problem in more historically confessional churches. In my church, for example, we do not at all view the Lord's Supper as "merely a symbol." And if you ever sit through one of our Lord's Supper services (which are frequent), you never get the sense that what we are doing is anything but the most serious partaking of the body and blood of Jesus as a unified Body—a unity which rests upon Jesus' death as its very basis.
I pray Chan doesn't apostatize to Rome or the East, but it sounds like he is well on his way. When one's approach to Christianity is always "radical" but never rooted (ironic, because "radix" in Latin means "root") theologically and historically, this is the kind of waffling we should expect—and mourn.
Last edited:
, 
, 
, or 
at this...
