Chan’s Letters to the Church
Chan is an interesting guy. He comes off as someone who truly, deeply cares about people getting to know Jesus. At times, this truly, deeply comes off as outright militant, which for me can be a turn-off. The question for me is whether I am looking at this the wrong way.
The following is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement. It is just a place where I am putting my thoughts, and also a battlefield where I will wrestle with some of Chan’s concepts.
Pros/Stuff I vibe with:
Chan frequently talks about "What the Bible is really saying" and “Are we really living our lives that way?"
He is not scared of calling out the lukewarmness of Christians.
He wants to know if we are really making disciples.
He questions whether or not believers are as involved in the community as they should be.
He loathes feeling comfortable versus doing what Jesus asked us to do.
Maybe he is meaning to be prophetic. (not procedural)
There have been many instances of times in the OT in which prophets called people out on their stuff. This is a good thing. They pumped up being repentant and showed people where they had gone sideways.
Maybe he is just asking hard questions
Are churched prioritizing what they want over the mission of the church? Maybe we all need to get our heads out.
Is using the OT church all that bad of an example??
I don’t know how we do it, but maybe we should all take a hard look at whether or not today’s church resembles the church in scripture.
He is not wrong that the church has become a consumable for many (me?)
We attend Sunday ready to rock out and enjoy spending time with God. We should be more like a family and a community of people who want to share our walks with Christ.
He calls for personal responsibility
He is not a hypocrite - seems like he did most of the stuff he wants other people to do.
His book causes people to take long, hard looks at what their church is doing.
Chan is asking whether we are the passionate, devoted, mission-focused church that Jesus wanted.
Cons/Stuff I don’t agree with/am not sure about:
Chan oversimplifies to a large extent.
Everything seems to come down to house churches in the NT and modern churches.
This feels unfair. The early church had plenty of conflict, leadership issues, and whether or not people were following the bible correctly. (Ephesians) Large modern churches are not inherently unable to do this. They can be biblical, passionate, and faithful - effective. A church’s size/structure/format doesn’t seem like it should automatically mean they are spiritually weak.
Chan seems to romanticize the early church
Looking online, I found lots of issues with the early church. Divisions - 1 Corinthians. False teaching - Galatians. Leadership disputes - Paul. Lots of moral failures. Seems to me that Chan focuses on only the strengths of the early church. This creates an unrealistic comparison.
His tone comes off urgent at best, and confrontational at worst.
You will see Chan’s passion at number one on the Pros/Stuff I Vibe With list. BUT he can make it seem that the church is compromised, which is not going to attract new Christians. BTW - I do not see why the attraction of new people can ever be seen as a bad thing. (Chan would ask about why they are attracted, but we will look at that in a little bit.) It’s like he is saying that traditional churches are all missing the real point of Jesus - I do not see how that could be true.
Churches are all so different.
Rural church vs. Urban. What about churches that are in the mission field? Small church vs. Megachurches. Every single one of these can be biblical and do it right.
His ideas on leadership are…interesting.
Chan - Every believer and church member must be contributing, have shared authority (I would love to see that go over at an FCC Elders meeting), and gatherings just happen on their own, organic, not regularized meeting times. Doesn’t this make the role of pastors inconsequential? Theological accountability is tough. And no one would know who is in charge.
How are we supposed to do all of this?
Gatherings are not communal, as the entire body does not meet together. How do you tell people not to come and go find a house church? Are we going to take churches of 500-5000 to this house church model? If so, how do we do that?
How do you maintain accountability as well as make sure that the correct teachings are being delivered/studied?
Chan makes it sound like were not really supposed to have fun, but be more in awe of what is going on at church.
I struggle with the idea that we do not want to use other things, whatever they might be, to make people come to church. I feel like it is placing a limit on God - maybe the bounce house is what got them there to start, but His glory is hard to dismiss.
I thought there were lots of scriptures that speak of the fact that we are not what brings people to Christ. So I dug around while I was supposed to be working at school:
John 6:44: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day".
John 6:65: Jesus reaffirms that no one can come unless it is "granted him from the Father".
John 6:45: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me".
1 Corinthians 3:6-7: Paul explains that while people may plant or water, "God that giveth the increase".
Isaiah 41:9: God declares that He has chosen, called, and not rejected His people.
Biblical scholar, I am not, but this seems to me to be that it is not up to us. So why does it matter why they come to church? If we need to make balloon animals to make people get a peek into all of the amazing things that come with a walk with Christ, shouldn’t we?
Maybe it’s not Jesus exactly that gets people to come at first, but it will undoubtedly be why people stay.=
