Francis Chan: "God Might Kill You If You Criticize Church Leaders"

[Kevin]

I love Francis Chan. But this words reminds me of Witness Lee.

#BeNotDeceived

Bad company..corrupts your good theology!
"Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge." (Prov.14:7)

https://www.themessedupchurch.com/bl...2xp0nu8a06eE1w

[ZNPaaneah]

How do you properly criticize the leaders of the church.

This is a topic that Jesus and Paul covered.

Gossip is condemned.

Accusations against an elder are only to be received if there are at least 2 or preferably 3 witnesses.

Cowardice is also condemned. Rather than talk behind someone's back you should approach that person privately (Matt 18), if they won't hear you then take 2 or 3 more, again privately (Matt 18), only if these efforts fail and you have consensus among 3 or 4 responsible brothers (don't have to be elders or deacons, but shouldn't be novices or new converts) should you then tell it to the church (make it public).

Lawsuits are condemned and prohibited. It is better to simply take a loss and follow the Lord outside the camp.

Know this, your walk, your judgement, standing before the Lord is up to you, not anyone else. "It was pleasing to WL" is not going to be a valid justification for your actions at the judgement seat of Christ. Do not fear those that can cast you out of the assembly, rather fear God who can cast your soul into eternal torment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I love Francis Chan. But this words reminds me of Witness Lee.

#BeNotDeceived

Bad company..corrupts your good theology!
"Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge." (Prov.14:7)

For me, based on the scripture and our years of experience in churches, we have found that criticism must be limited to leaders who are unrighteous and/or abuse others. In other words, can Christians watch their leaders damage the children of God under their care, and still be expected to remain silent? I don't think so. The license to sin and abuse others should never be given to church officials. Being silent only enables them.

My wife and I recently left a church. We watched the elders slowly and occasionally introduce Jewish customs into the church, thinking there was some missing spiritual value in these traditions, good for their church. We disagreed. Since they never violated my previously mentioned standards, we left quietly, and felt no need to publish our views.

For the most part, I would agree that we should not "bash" Christian leaders. Related to the basic truths of His work on the cross, we will never compromise. But regarding teachings like interpretations of prophecy, regulations for our daily living, or diverse practices by churches, ministers should present them as "a healthy way," rather than "the only way."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you properly criticize the leaders of the church.

This is a topic that Jesus and Paul covered.

Gossip is condemned.

Accusations against an elder are only to be received if there are at least 2 or preferably 3 witnesses.

Cowardice is also condemned. Rather than talk behind someone's back you should approach that person privately (Matt 18), if they won't hear you then take 2 or 3 more, again privately (Matt 18), only if these efforts fail and you have consensus among 3 or 4 responsible brothers (don't have to be elders or deacons, but shouldn't be novices or new converts) should you then tell it to the church (make it public).

Lawsuits are condemned and prohibited. It is better to simply take a loss and follow the Lord outside the camp.

Know this, your walk, your judgement, standing before the Lord is up to you, not anyone else. "It was pleasing to WL" is not going to be a valid justification for your actions at the judgement seat of Christ. Do not fear those that can cast you out of the assembly, rather fear God who can cast your soul into eternal torment.

All great points. Thanks.

[Cal]

In general, we should respect people, and leaders should be given (and be worthy of) double honor. Respect leaders while they are your leaders, i.e. while you are a member of their group. If you leave the group, they are no longer your leaders.

However, good sense says there must be a point where you can and even should speak up about another person's bad behavior. Leaders who use fear of judgment from God to force members to submit to them do not deserve followers, nor respect.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do not fear those that can cast you out of the assembly, rather fear God who can cast your soul into eternal torment.

A very good point. The assumption is that if you are excommunicated or quarantined then the assembly is right and you are wrong. But that is not necessarily the case. If may just be a rather messy way of God moving you on to the plans he actually has for you. Maybe you should have already left on your own.

This is why my rule of thumb is if you are a member of a group, try to be supportive and helpful. You may respectfully bring concerns to the leaders, but if they won't hear you, it's decision time. If you can't continue to be supportive, don't think your job is to reform the group. It's usually best just to move on.

The LR denies the option of moving on. Only they have the right to remove a member. The member cannot remove himself. This clearly is a ridiculous violation of the freedom of conscience God has given all of us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

A very good point. The assumption is that if you are excommunicated or quarantined then the assembly is right and you are wrong. But that is not necessarily the case. If may just be a rather messy way of God moving you on to the plans he actually has for you. Maybe you should have already left on your own.

This is why my rule of thumb is if you are a member of a group, try to be supportive and helpful. You may respectfully bring concerns to the leaders, but if they won't hear you, it's decision time. If you can't continue to be supportive, don't think your job is to reform the group. It's usually best just to move on.

The LR denies the option of moving on. Only they have the right to remove a member. The member cannot remove himself. This clearly is a ridiculous violation of the freedom of conscience God has given all of us.

Those in the church in Philadelphia are given the promise that "they will not need to go out anymore". That means they did have to leave the church previously. Likewise, the church in Laodicea the Lord is outside knocking. So once the church becomes very degraded the Lord may no longer be inside. In Thyatira they are rebuked by the Lord because " You tolerate that woman Jezebel".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me, based on the scripture and our years of experience in churches, we have found that criticism must be limited to leaders who are unrighteous and/or abuse others. In other words, can Christians watch their leaders damage the children of God under their care, and still be expected to remain silent? I don't think so. The license to sin and abuse others should never be given to church officials. Being silent only enables them.

Matt 18 -- 6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In general, we should respect people, and leaders should be given (and be worthy of) double honor. Respect leaders while they are your leaders, i.e. while you are a member of their group. If you leave the group, they are no longer your leaders.

However, good sense says there must be a point where you can and even should speak up about another person's bad behavior.

The OT says if we see someone sin and do not speak up then we also will be guilty of that sin. That to me is the point where you should speak up. Is there a sin that I do not want held to my account? If so, speak up. But, follow the proper procedure. You can be right about speaking up, but sin in the way in which you do that.

[seeking1]

I used to listen to a lot of Francis Chan, not anymore. I remember when I first heard this message, it was kind of like "Wow, we should be careful of what we say about leaders". That was until I became aware of who he was actually attempting to defend in this message. John Piper and Mark Driscoll have their own issues for sure but defending Rick Warren with his purpose-driven ecumenism and the false teacher/false prophet Mike Bickle, that was enough for me to reject the ministry of Francis Chan.

[UntoHim]

Good points seeking1.

Frances Chan does have a relatively fruitful ministry, but like any of us, he does have some blind spots. I must say, though, his recommendation of Mike Bickle as some sort of spiritual leader to be highly respected, shows a blind spot that we could drive a mack truck through!

All this being said, most of us with any significant experience with the Local Church of Witness Lee are well aware of the pitfalls in the kind of speaking that Francis Chan did in this message. When taken too far, you end up with the kind of cultish nonsense we see in Nee/Lee's "Deputy Authority" teaching. Before you know it, you have a bunch of sincere, yet deeply deceived, believers running around thinking a piano is going to fall on them, or they're going to get cancer, if they even ask questions concerning the One Ministry with the One Ministry of the Age.
-

[Jo S]

Mike Bickle is one of the big names in the New Apostolic Reformation which I touched on in another thread. Francis Chan does seems to sympathize with the movement given the fact he speaks at many of the NAR conferences.

[Kevin]

This makes me so sad. I really love Francis Chan but he is terrible decieved. Now talking about criticizing Witness Lee's doctrinal errors. Even the slightest disagreement I had way before when I was still in LC. They rebuked me not to speak a word that he erred otherwise I am cursed like Ham's son. It was kinda sort of, "Touch not the anointed MOTA!"

[Cal]

So whom do I follow? Francis Chan or Witness Lee? Is the only difference what kind of piano will fall on me if I make the wrong choice?

[Cal]

We are going through a series on the Ten Commandments at my church. Last week was on honoring father and mother, which our pastor expanded to honoring those in authority. I agree. I don't feel free to trash the President anymore, liberal or conservative. If I'm under someone's authority, be it a mayor, police officer or pastor, I should honor them. If I cannot, then I need to vote with my feet and find someplace else to live, or meet.

Witness Lee does not have authority over me. Neither does Francis Chan. If I choose to meet with Francis Chan's church, then I should honor his authority. But if I don't, he's just another brother to me, and one that may be in error.

This is the danger of considering some people to be modern-day apostles. What is the scope of authority of such "apostles?" For Witness Lee it was global. Universal really, because it seems to reach beyond the grave. And this is what the damage of the LR is rooted in, this feeling that you cannot get out from under their "authority."

I for one cannot see the logic, wisdom or biblical basis of being expected to give a person credit for having such authority. I believe once the first generation of real Apostles were replaced by Scripture, the kind of authority they had passed from the earth. How would you know if someone is an "apostle" now anyway? And what happens when there is disagreement between apostles? It just turns into a death match which in the end no can really win, but just leaves a trail of damage and confusion. That's the history of the LR.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Witness Lee does not have authority over me. Neither does Francis Chan. If I choose to meet with Francis Chan's church, then I should honor his authority. But if I don't, he's just another brother to me, and one that may be in error.

This substitutes an easy question for a hard one.

Easy Question: Can another brother be in error. Yes.

Hard Question: When you hear of a brother preaching in error, whether from another brother who is concerned, via the internet, or via some other method including attending the meeting, what is the proper response? Are you required to confront the brother? If the error is on the internet are you required to responding to that? If you are required based on the verse which says if you see your brother sinning and say nothing then you also will be held accountable, then what is the proper procedure for saying something?

I say this is the hard question not because the Biblical basis for the answer is hard to discern but because being faithful to the Lord's word to us requires faith. It requires taking up your cross and following the Lord. It requires being Antipas, being martyred. But the only way to get to the church in Philadelphia is to be forced out of one of the other churches.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This substitutes an easy question for a hard one.

Easy Question: Can another brother be in error. Yes.

Hard Question: When you hear of a brother preaching in error, whether from another brother who is concerned, via the internet, or via some other method including attending the meeting, what is the proper response? Are you required to confront the brother? If the error is on the internet are you required to responding to that? If you are required based on the verse which says if you see your brother sinning and say nothing then you also will be held accountable, then what is the proper procedure for saying something?

I say this is the hard question not because the Biblical basis for the answer is hard to discern but because being faithful to the Lord's word to us requires faith. It requires taking up your cross and following the Lord. It requires being Antipas, being martyred. But the only way to get to the church in Philadelphia is to be forced out of one of the other churches.

I think all general principles come down to conscience and leading (without Jedi mind tricks!). You brought up earlier that if we don't rebuke someone we might be culpable in his sins. But common sense says we can't rebuke everyone we might think needs attention. We can't right every wrong, just like we can't give to every homeless person in need. I think we should go where the Lord leads us on that kind of thing. Usually people gravitate toward addressing areas that have affected them, as here.

Everyone has to settle for themselves their own conscience the extent of their involvement.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I for one cannot see the logic, wisdom or biblical basis of being expected to give a person credit for having such authority. I believe once the first generation of real Apostles were replaced by Scripture, the kind of authority they had passed from the earth. How would you know if someone is an "apostle" now anyway? And what happens when there is disagreement between apostles? It just turns into a death match which in the end no can really win, but just leaves a trail of damage and confusion. That's the history of the LR.

I think this is the healthy understanding of most Evangelical Christians. The church can give contemporary "gifts" to the body some special honor for their work, whether ministers, evangelists, or scholars. Whenever a man has been elevated to apostolic authority, whether Pope or Oracle or MOTA, the fruit has never been good for the church. I challenge anyone to point out one minister or servant of God whose ministry should be revered as the original Apostles.

The downfall of LSM and the LC's coincided with Lee's elevation to apostolic status as MOTA. Simultaneous to that was Lee's teachings superseding the scripture in importance. Today in the LC's, they read Lee and the Blendeds instead of the actual word of God.

During the quarantines, I was specifically told that "returning to the pure word of God was a tactic of the enemy." How could the Lord, the Head of the body, ever rescue a church which believes that?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

During the quarantines, I was specifically told that "returning to the pure word of God was a tactic of the enemy." How could the Lord, the Head of the body, ever rescue a church which believes that?

That's Catholicism--elevating the words of men to the level of Scripture. After hundreds of years of it, it starts to look really weird.

[Cal]

It's easy to see how the cognitive dissonance produced by fearing retribution from God for questioning the MOTA or some other "apostle" can produce something approaching mental illness in those subjected to it.

It's all so vague. Is he or isn't he? What if he is? Am I supposed to know? (Come on, you know you know!) Do I? Where is the line drawn? What if he is far from perfect? Does a "great ministry" make up for that? (Shut up and submit, or face judgment!) Where's God? (Submit! MOTA is the acting God!)

Help!

Human authority is not supposed to work this way. It compromises the conscience of the believer to such an extent that the problem can only be resolved by mindlessly turning one's life over the the "apostle" or blowing him off completely!

Does God really present that choice to us concerning men? Or is someone else doing it?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cal

It's easy to see how the cognitive dissonance produced by fearing retribution from God for questioning the MOTA or some other "apostle" can produce something approaching mental illness in those subjected to it.

It's all so vague. Is he or isn't he? What if he is? Am I supposed to know? (Come on, you know you know!) Do I? Where is the line drawn? What if he is far from perfect? Does a "great ministry" make up for that? (Shut up and submit, or face judgment!) Where's God? (Submit! MOTA is the acting God!)

Help!

Human authority is not supposed to work this way. It compromises the conscience of the believer to such an extent that the problem can only be resolved by mindlessly turning one's life over the the "apostle" or blowing him off completely!

Does God really present that choice to us concerning men? Or is someone else doing it?

This is a good question, a set of questions really - what happens to your conscience when you're conditioned/trained to be reflexively obedient to a "spiritual authority" that's arguably misbehaving? And, how can you follow the Holy Spirit when your conscience becomes so compromised? And, what spirit are you then following, if it's not the HS?