I have been invited to teach at places where I don’t agree with the doctrine. I went because I wanted to preach the truth from the word of God. Someone could have made the same accusations about me, but they would have been dead wrong. I learned to be careful, I don’t know why someone is doing something. I have always been encouraged by Chan. that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says, but i also don’t think he has gone over to the dark side.

I think it’s obvious that while we are to grow in unity as the body of believers, it’s impossible to do so if we allow any bit of heresy in our churches. Because that seed will grow and grow and lead people astray. If a leader is clearly teaching heresy, that brother must be called out (not in a mean or demeaning way, but first in private as delineated in Mat. 18). That’s not to say that we can’t speak with, fellowship with, and work with those who disagree with us on non-essentials of the Christian faith. But we must use wisdom. I do think that grace and humility should win when discussing brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we disagree. I think you are doing that well. Thank you, Mark.

First off, hi! Thanks for taking the time to comment. Sorry for a delayed response.

Ryan can better explain his comments regarding Rob Bell, Jen Hatmaker, John MacArthur, etc., but his point in that post was just to say: all of them are wrong about some things. None of us has a total view on truth, so we’re all going to get some things wrong. And that’s okay.

That’s more or less my point regarding Francis. Guaranteed, if any of the rest of us were in Francis’ shoes, we’d do things differently. And vice versa. But that’s why he’s him. We don’t all agree on everything, and we don’t all have the same sense of what’s appropriate or helpful in a given situation. It was just very discouraging for me to read a few posts from people who are questioning Francis and literally doing the “Farewell Excommunication” thing (I’ll explain in a sec) to him. I still stand by calling that act a jackass move. And I have plenty of my own jackassery, so I’m not above it. I didn’t say much about the other guys (White and Hinn) because I know literally nothing about them first hand, it’s all reports from other people, and also because they weren’t my point at all. To me, the whole thing felt like my musician friends in college and beyond who were Christians, but were getting condemnation from other Christians for playing in bars. As if the environment taints them. As if they couldn’t possibly love God or help anyone while they were in the bar. It seems to me like the exact same uncharitable logic that totally misses the heart of God.

And I think that’s a decent statement regarding where I stand in terms of human dignity vs. theological condemnation. There is, of course, room to disagree and to say so publicly (that’s obviously what I was doing with my post). To me, it’s not IF we disagree it’s HOW we disagree. A friend of mine recently “cautioned” Francis to evaluate his speaking commitments in light of Paul’s instruction in Romans 16:17 not joining those who hold false doctrines. It’s funny because I would have made that same statement not long ago. But if you actually look up and read Romans 16:17, it doesn’t say what he or I had assumed it says. He says, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” He’s warning against divisive people, not doctrinally inaccurate people. I think our inability to see that in Romans 16:17 is exactly the problem.

And finally, I was definitely being kind of jokey by using the term excommunicate. I don’t believe in papal authority and I know Piper doesn’t either. So please don’t take that woodenly literally. But I will say that I think you’re making TOO LITTLE of Piper’s tweet. He was publicly broadcasting his determination that Bell had finally gone too far and was therefore not part of whatever Christian world Piper considers himself part of. He just was. I don’t hate him for doing it, but it’s the exact same impulse as what these other writers were doing, and that’s why they borrowed his title for the article. It’s exclusionary.

Anyway, I hope that clarification helps. Feel free to push back or keep the discussion rolling.

Hi Jen,

Thanks for taking the time to comment. There are definitely things I disagree with Francis Chan about, but I have gained so much from his love for Jesus, his commitment to shaping his life by the Bible and to teaching others to take it seriously, his example of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, his high view of God, etc. I could go on for a long time probably, so maybe it would be helpful if you specified a little bit of what you’re looking for.

I’m actually a little surprised that you singled out ERASING HELL. The reason I say that is most of the criticism Francis is getting right now is coming from the ultra conservative crowd accusing him of promoting liberal doctrines. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that he’s too conservative regarding his position on eternal conscious torment, I assume? Which is a fine position to hold, I’m just wanting to clarify. It also feels like an ad hominem attack for you to say that the book is intellectually low caliber. A couple of thoughts come to mind. First, he co-wrote that particular book with Preston Sprinkle, who has a PHD in New Testament, so it feels lazy to just say that it was written by a dummy. And second, I assume you’re familiar with different target audiences in publishing. There are scholarly level books aimed at scholars which go into far greater nuance (for what it’s worth, Bell’s book did not fit this category either). Then there are popular level books which are aimed at general audiences and thus try to write to high school or perhaps college level audiences. This was their target audience for that.

In any case, I don’t think we need to agree on any of this to love each other. We’re trying to call out the finger pointing and vitriol so we can all walk away from division and towards love. If you’d like to talk about Francis’ views on hell, or my own views on the subject, I’d love to discuss it.

The world would be extremely quiet if we did this. It would be awesome.
“Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few.” Eccl 5:2

My story as well! Holy Spirit works through anyone and any TV station that allows the exaltation of Jesus.

Emmm… whoops, I was conflating two articles. Pt. 3 has to do with this article, Pt. 2 with Ryan’s at https://jackasstheology.com/2019/03/18/the-real-narrow-road/, and Pt. 1 with both.

I would love to press in on three areas and hear your thoughts. I want to be clear, so apologies for any bluntness.

1. Clearly your goal is that we avoid “creating increased division and separation” and “find[ing] a reason to oppose certain people.” Amen! So much of the reaction to Pastor Chan (now and in the past) has been quick to assume, quick to speak, and—quite frankly—mean. We should reject those attitudes! At the same time, we shouldn’t fear to express a thoughtful judgment after hearing someone carefully, weighing their words with the Bible, clinging to the good, and rejecting the bad. That process exonerates Pastor Chan, obviously. But not so the message of prosperity gospel preachers. Having directly read/listened to Bell, Osteen, Hinn, Jakes, and other prosperity preachers, I’m pretty uncomfortable with the title and atmosphere of this post. Their messages teach some pretty major falsehoods and can wreck a woman/man’s spiritual life, including some of my close friends. (Never read Hatmaker or White so I can’t comment there). Putting these four folks on the same level really seems to miss the point that some of them actually contradict first-level gospel matters, while some disagree on third-level matters (like spiritual gifts). It seems problematic for a writer. Why express ambiguity toward a person’s theology if you’re not sure whether the major aspects of that person’s theology would endanger the flock?

2.”A person’s value is not determined by the accuracy of his theology.” YES! I’m sure I’m wrong on any number of levels, and I love that our value stems from God, not us. But I’m not sure this issue is a human dignity issue. One could refuse to speak at a conference to avoid tacitly endorsing another speaker who denies the Trinity (for example), because you don’t want anybody to be swayed toward false teaching. That’s not an issue of dignity. It’s an issue of trying to faithfully preach Christ for people’s worship and salvation. I guess my point is that Pastor Chan could have chosen not to go and that would have been *totally fine.* It’s really not that “he chose human dignity over theological condemnation.” “[T]heological condemnation” of a message and “human dignity” of a person can coexist. As a general truth, you can love someone like hell and “oppose them to their face.” Paul with Peter, Galatians 2.

3. When you wrote, “with a hat tip to John Piper excommunicating Rob Bell,” you used the technical term “excommunicate” to describe that pastor’s twitter post “Farewell Rob Bell.” Christians can 100% disagree on the propriety of publishing such a tweet. (I do!) But using the term “excommunicate” this way is both invalid & misleading. Invalid = pastor/elder/teachers have no authority to excommunicate outside their own flock. I checked, and Pastor Piper’s church’s doctrinal statement agrees. Piper definitely did not intend to excommunicate Bell (as in “Farewell, I remove you from membership in the church / assume you’re unsaved.”). Piper definitely did intend to comment on the content of Bell’s new book, which clarified beliefs that were previously ambiguous (“Farewell, you’ve published that you left core beliefs of Christianity—”simple gospel” issues.”). Therefore, to use “excommunicate” this way is misleading, since it casts Pastor Piper’s actions in an incredibly negative emotional light and implies a level of jackassery that I’m pretty sure was absent. A strong response on core gospel matters is not inherently jackassery, right?

So sorry for writing a book here. Hopefully it is clear, rational, and loving, and if you’ve time I’d love to hear your reply. Shalom, brother.

Hi Darius,

Thanks for taking the time to point out a potential contradiction. I’m not entirely sure I’m seeing your point—would you be willing to clarify? I pointed out I don’t know about Todd White in part to explain why I WASN’T condemning him. Or maybe you’re saying I’m condemning the people who have been condemning Francis Chan? That seems more likely now that I’m typing it. If my tone against them was harsh, I apologize. My intention was to defend a godly man from baseless accusations. I am often a jackass, and not at all better than being contradictory. But I do think it would be helpful to hear from you why you’re upset at me condemning them but not at the original writers condemning Francis.