Monday, February 23, 2015

Yes, this is a quiz

Charisma Magazine (not recommended) interviewed Francis Chan last year on the publication of his new marriage book, "You and Me Forever".





Here is the trailer with Chan and his wife Lisa announcing the book. It is not a long trailer, just 2 minutes or so. If you watch it, perhaps something will strike you, like it did me. I'm sure there are many things that may strike you, but I'm thinking of one particular thing that jumped out at me.

Let me know what you think in the comments. After a while I'll put my answer in the comments, depending on response.

:)

25 comments :

  1. "There isn't a resource on this.... so we are providing one" was what jumped out. "The Bible is insufficient, so we are going to help."
    Chris M


    ReplyDelete
  2. Okay, I'll take a few shots at this. :P

    First of all, marriage is not forever, scripturally speaking. Matthew 22:30 - "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

    Second, I personally do not view biblical marriage as "you and me," in the sense there are only two people involved, but rather Christ is the center (so it would be three not two).

    I'm a little unclear as to how the 1 Cor. 7:35 reference that Pastor Chan makes to being undistracted can be pulled into a book about making marriage a mission (as Lisa calls it). I don't really find anywhere that says marriage IS a "mission." Actually Paul says that there's no question that marriage will be a distraction because each person will be focused on the other's interests (1 Cor. 7:33-34). I'm willing to stand corrected if there IS scripture about this.

    I didn't understand what Lisa meant by saying that there are no resources out there to prevent people from making marriage just about each other. But it seems what they are trying to do is not have people think of marriage as "what's in it for me, how can I be most satisfied, most happy, how can I get what I want out of marriage?" and rather have them think of marriage as a way of serving the Lord?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd say they really twist the Scripture to support their false idea of the purpose of marriage. But then again, this comes from a guy who thinks false prophet Mike Bickle is a great guy, who supports Roman Catholicism, and who claimed God asked him to write this current book!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol, well I guess there's no much more to say lol. It's really sad but also helpful for Christians who believe it is vital to discern, especially these days, to really look at these "teachers" associates an you can already know who to avoid...I agree with what John MacArthur said years ago (30+ years ago), Satan does most of his work in the church, in false religious systems and false religious systems that masquerade as Christian (Roman Catholic Church) twisting and distorting truth, while the flesh takes care of sins like sex, drunkenness, murder, lying etc. Satan attacks the word and authority of God (and out of it comes these false movements, doctrines and teachers) , he showed his hand in the garden and also when he tested Jesus, it was all about what God said and pulling man from the words of God, casting doubt on the character and motives of God.

      Delete
  4. Well, I don't feel like I'm probably 'on the mark' so to speak, but two things caught my attention. Firstly, marriage isn't "forever" so that seemed like an odd title to the book. Marriage is for a lifetime, but there is no marriage in heaven. Secondly, the Corinthians verse isn't talking to married people, Paul was saying that if you weren't married already, possibly it would be better to remain single so you could give all of your focus to the Lord, and not be tied down with earthly responsibility. I don't think you can apply that verse to what married couples should be doing, as that isn't being true to the original intent. Marriage has its own role, and if you are married you need to follow the pattern the Lord has set for married couples, mutually submitting and being the picture of Christ and His bride. Don't know if that is what you're getting at, but I felt like they were just looking for something "new" to market.....not necessarily a needed perspective. To be fair, I am always skeptical of famous Christians out of the shoot so I go into it leery already.
    Jennifer

    ReplyDelete
  5. ....nothing inherently wrong in the words themselves.

    But then there was a vague reference to "100% of the profits will go to 'so many different projects' " -- the fact that that was introduced *as a selling point* for the book seems to imply that it was thrown out there to appeal to social-gospel adherents.

    Did I 'get it?'

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks everyone!! I LOVED, LOVED, LOVED your insights! I had completely missed the fact that marriage isn't forever. I also missed about the profits. ChrisM I was irked by the 'not having a resource' too, and I was VERY irked by the "marriage so you can do missions" mindset. I almost wrote about it. I love Jennifer O' s comment and thanks Glenn, yes, it's a high probability that they would twist scriptures.

    I was struck in the first few seconds that Mrs Chan would interrupt and correct her husband, in public, on video, to declare that she wanted to introduce HERSELF.

    It might seem like a small thing, but given the fact that they wrote a whole curriculum to show how marriage is done, submission and respect, etc, the fact that she corrected her husband in front of others and for the sole purpose of making sure to establish her separate identity publicly, seemed an ironic twist to the proceedings.

    The fact that Chan kept the incident IN the trailer shows how low his discernment levels have descended. It just struck me.

    Thanks everyone for playing!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The marriage being forever thing makes me think of mormons.

      Delete
    2. I'll have to bookmark this page for use in getting to know Christian single ladies. If they pick up on that, without reading the comments, that's a 5-star "Prata rating" :D And it would show that she has a superbly well developed mind on the subject of growing in sanctification with respect to submission in marriage.

      Thanks a lot for the conversation starter. :)

      Delete
    3. Aw, Adam, don't do that. If you meet a single Christian lady, don't do a 'gotcha', but gently lead her into truth. Remember, I'm 54 years old, and at my age have accumulated spiritual truth and experience in studying the bible and have seen lots of Christian and secular marriages. And don't rate her, but love her.

      Delete
    4. not a "gotcha," promise. I'm far more easygoing in practice than on paper. The amount of thought I put into romance just means I won't be easily swept away by emotions; I won't let myself get hung up on ideals and wanting a certain measure of perfection that isn't attainable. After all, the primary emphasis of a couple's interaction should, it seems, since we're basing it on Christ's love for us, be grace--unmerited favor, and so I won't let myself fantasize about 'the perfect woman'. Instead, I'm busy thinking about ways to love and sanctify my wife in spite of her inevitable shortcomings. And on the flip side, I will never entertain a lady's opinion that I 'deserve' her. (Just added this in case someone reading thought this was too heavy on judging the woman and implying I'm perfect. lol, not so.)

      Delete
  7. I was just going to write that she wanted to introduce herself but you beat me to it. I guess it also struck me that he said, "Oh my Gosh." A couple of years ago OMGs and OMGoshes didn't faze me but now I don't like either of them. God is holy and I only attribute my sensitivity to these phrases as a result of his sanctifying work in my heart. I am weary of the next best book/spin on marriage by celebrity pastors. I listened hard to the trailer and basically I had no idea what they were even talking about. Why does everything have to be new? Are we really better at marriage and uncovering great revelations on marriage than generations past?
    I guess he said that it is all based on Bible passages but how the scriptures are handled will be telling.
    Melissa

    ReplyDelete
  8. They never mentioned the name of Jesus. Not even once. That bugs me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They don't define marriage either, I was waiting...I got the idea all marriage (same sex marriage) might be the same? I was also waiting for them to tell about all the great organizations the book sale profits were going to..very vague...they didn't mention any organization the proceeds will go to. They do seem to like each other..which is pretty awesome.
    I'm not to familiar with them, but I did catch that Mrs. chan wanted to introduce herself..it didn't bother me because, even though the spiritual leader of the house should be the husband, it's rarely so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I understand what Elizabeth's issue with that was. It's not so much in this case that her interruption was a violation of Christian male headship -- it was that the *motive* for it was, while subtle, a desire to be publicly identified as a separate operating entity from her husband. If our identity is in Christ, we should always want to direct attention from us to him, and if the husband is symbolically representing Christ in his relationship with his wife, then his wife should be more preoccupied with identifying *with* her husband and directing attention from her to him (or at least them as a unity), more so than not.

      So Elizabeth's keen psychology (in the Biblical sense: knowledge of the spirit) sense picked up on that Chan's wife was acting out of a sinful desire to have glory and attention given to her.

      It seems innocent, it seems cute. It might be between man and wife. But in privacy, Chan should've pointed out that her behavior indicates underlying issues where she has room and need for spiritual growth. And Elizabeth further advanced the notion that since it's his responsibility to sanctify his wife in this sense, he should have known better than to include it in the video clip as a 'cute' thing, because it's still sinful.

      It's tempting to not see it as serious. But that is how sin takes root. After all, as the atheists are prone to point out, the first sin was only a "mere" disobedience, and that of eating a simple fruit! But we know better.

      Anyway, gonna wrap this up and hope I didn't derail anyone's thought process. :)

      Delete
    2. WOW, Adam!! YES! That's it, exactly. Thank you for stating it so perfectly. You read my mind and expressed the spiritual truth excellently. Everybody, re-read Adam's comment because that is what I was driving at.

      Delete
  10. Love everyone's comments.I found several things wrong which everyone for the most part has pointed out. What bothers me mainly is how they don't stay true to Scripture when it comes to marriage. They want to shoehorn their own fanciful ideas for marriage and redefine what it truly means

    ReplyDelete
  11. About the "forever" part.....no problem with that since we say it all the time in love songs and on valentine cards. We say "I love you to the moon and back" and it never happens. Just sweet words to a loved one, and we all know what they mean.

    About the Mrs. "interrupting".... Rather, I thought it showed they didn't have their script together and weren't prepared with who was going to say what. It wasted video time and was too cutesy. So if we're talking about male leadership, he should have had the script in place (and he didn't) and it was distracting.

    Having said all that, I don't plan to buy the book anyway! Not impressed. I'm 70+ and I can whine. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Definitely noticed her interruption, also how most of the time the setting looked like they were sitting in a jail cell. A minor thing that caught my eye was his weirdly long hands and how he kept putting them on her legs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Robin, way too much touchy feely stuff. Just not necessary, and it didn't add anything. Rather, it detracted.

      Delete
  13. I suspect everything about this was scripted, including Lisa's interruption. I watched it without sound, and the precise camera shots make me think nothing was done by chance here. Maybe she has a certain independent and sassy image she wants to portray? (I don't know anything about her so maybe this is her personality.)

    I don't usually pay this much attention to a book trailer! haha But I think this discussion is interesting.
    Chris M

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have found all the comments interesting.
    Here is my brief take as a single 55 year old man - and a saint.

    I have never followed the teachings or ministry of Francis Chan, but I can not trust him when he has shared the platform with Rick Warren and other enemies of Biblical TRUTH. This goes for anyone else whom continues to share platforms and roundtable type discussions with documented apostates! I have previously endorsed in some form or fashion various ministry leaders, just to realize later that they were false teachers/preachers and had to retract, and to speak out against them and their false doctrines. I have even heard well respected and doctrinally sound Christian leaders quote someone favorably in years past, but now retract their favorable historic quotes by calling them out as the heretics that they are!




    A partial list of speakers which shows Francis Chan and Rick Warren both speakers at the same conference just last year. YES, the other names on the list concerns me too! If one were to spend time researching you will find that many of these same men end up connecting with one another once again.

    MONDAY, JUNE 9, 6:30 P.M. 2014 URL: http://www.bpnews.net/42442/sbc-pastors-conference-2014-schedule

    Rick Warren, author, senior pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, Calif.
    James MacDonald, author, senior pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Rolling Meadows, Ill.
    Francis Chan, author, founder, Eternity Bible College

    Consider this on Francis Chan;

    Excerpt

    As far as Francis Chan is concerned, who often speaks at Passion conferences6, his spiritual radar is so jammed that he’s even gushed his admiration for New Apostolic Reformation false “Apostle/Prophet” Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer as you’ll see in Francis Chan Declares, “I Love Mike Bickle Of IHOP.”

    The sad fact is, spiritual wingnuts just don’t come any easier to spot than the warped and toxic Mike Bickle.7 So, here’s my question: Why would I want to try and learn about God’s glory from men like Rick Warren, Francis Chan, and James MacDonald, when it’s pretty clear that their teachings and discernment are so far off target?

    Read the full article here: http://apprising.org/2014/03/06/sbc-pastors-conference-2014-with-rick-warren-francis-chan-and-james-macdonald/


    In TRUTH and in Christian Love,
    Rick Buffington
    Metro Atlanta

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mine is long, have to write in 2 parts

    My Critique: I realize I’m late into the conversation, yet I have pondered this for days. Note I watched the trailer only ONCE with no intentions to watch it again. “Too downright GIDDY” for me! They are sooo ~ let’s slobber all over each other ~ oh-so-happily “in love” (said with sarcasm)
    I have only very recently heard of Francis Chan & can say from my research, I am no fan. Let’s see how long the “forever love” lasts if left behind – during the extreme famine, they’ll be dining on each other instead of gazing into each other’s’ eyes with huge smiles on their faces. That’s not a judgment call, however IF a false preacher, then yes, will be left behind at the rapture.

    But on with the show: in my humble (yes, prayed about) opinion, I think you guys are making way too big a deal out of THIS PARTICULAR DEMONSTARTION of the “submission” thing and let me tell you I’ve been around the block not once, but hundreds of times, with over 30 years racked up on the marriage odometer. Sometimes being overly zealous on thinking HOW a perfect marriage should work out, it’s easy to wanna’ point out the submission word yet overlook the LOVE your wife as the weaker vessel part. No one, no one, absolutely NO ONE is to “lord” it over you!!! That’s in the Bible!! NOT EVEN YOUR HUSBAND.

    If my husband never “allowed” me to speak or to express a thought, I’d be long gone! Or ladies who are wishing to get married, if he does that to you BEFORE the wedding, then please do not even get married!!! There are far worse things than being single and that is to be with the WRONG person!!!

    Contrary to popular belief, there ARE “strong” women in the Bible.

    If you guys think I have it all wrong on the submission issue – then just how far should we carry it? Should we all be dressed like Amish women, in long skirts and dresses with BONNETS on our heads, too? That’s also in the New Testament, that women are to wear a head covering when they pray.

    Or do we take it as far as muslims? The women must sit with women, faces and bodies covered, constantly serve the men, walk behind them, and just accept a beating whenever he so chooses?

    At any rate, just because Lisa Chan spoke up to say who she was (if you’ll notice, it garnished a huge smile from her husband, not a slap down!!) I just don’t see anything wrong with that. In fact, I didn’t even “catch” that till you guys mentioned it!

    WHAT DID bother me, was not the “small” thing (per other commentator here) but the big thing where he kept putting his hand on her leg….. okay, I get it, they are married, but is that appropriate display for all the world to look at? To me, it was the “body language” of “you belong to me” and “I’m welcome to… huh-huh-hmmm… any time I want”. My mother told me when I was a teenager to never allow a (dating) man to do that to me, or get away from him, because it only meant on thing. You’ll notice during the short trailer that at one point, Lisa put her OWN hand on her OWN leg, as though to keep his hand off her (again, body language) but gotta’ say THIS is what bothered me about it more than anything.

    And then, too, as previously mentioned, the proceeds from all books to “all these organizations”….. begs, WHICH organizations?? Why not mention them by name??

    I’ve got the shield up for all the rotten tomatoes. Of course, I believe in obedience to the Word of God! But there is always the “human factor” of actually living it; and, too, we can go way overboard into legalism which I’m afraid too often this particular honed-in-on subject can bring up.

    PART 2 coming up....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That’s also in the New Testament, that women are to wear a head covering when they pray."

      Yes, it's called hair.

      "13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. "
      ~ 1 Cor 11

      QED

      Delete
  16. Hi Reva,

    Thanks for your comment. I'm not publishing part 2 because it was more off-topic with personal stories of you and others, and also it made the whole thing very long. I think your part 1 covered it.

    That said, one thing I did not appreciate about part 2 was the equivalency you put of wifely submission and domestic abuse. That is a dead horse and it's dead and very dead. Also the mention of submissive wives being servants. Dead.

    You definitely have a wrong idea about what Godly submission is. First of all, the husband loves the wife as his own flesh. Eph 5:21 is a general call of submission for both the husband and the wife. The wife submits to the husband.

    Submission does NOT mean a wife is never "allowed to speak or to express a thought". Please.

    Submission does NOT mean "we all be dressed like Amish women, in long skirts and dresses with BONNETS on our heads". Please, that's just insulting now.

    And your statement, "Or do we take it as far as muslims? The women must sit with women, faces and bodies covered, constantly serve the men, walk behind them, and just accept a beating whenever he so chooses" is simply beyond comprehension. I know you were exaggerating to make a point, but the things you wrote in part 1 and part 2 are non-Christian tropes we have been beaten over the head with with for many centuries, and for you, a Christian woman to bring them up as if they were legitimate is nonsensical. I'll offer you some good perspectives on what submission actually is, at the end.

    In fact, the pastor submits to the Spirit. The congregation submits to the pastor and each other. Children submit to parents. There is a LOT of submission going on, and that is because JESUS submitted to God. In humility. There is nothing wrong with submission and there is everything right with it. Jesus modeled it for us and we are to take each portion of scripture related to us for our age, gender and marital status (singles and widows too) to heart.

    Wives are called upon to display their symbolic submission of the church to its Head, Jesus Christ, by displaying their actual submission to their own husbands. It is a fact, Reva.

    Eph 5:31 says the husband and wife are one flesh, so yes, there is a problem with a wife who makes an interrupting point to retain, reclaim, and proclaim an identity she is supposed to have willingly given up at the marriage ceremony. Yes, I realize it was a small thing but symbolically it is something that is repeated in many ways in every day throughout Christendom. Marriage as an institution dies by a thousand paper cuts like Lisa's as much as it does in one fell swoop. It shows a heart that is off-center where the one-flesh, submission, and respect scriptures come in

    Submission is a godly and beautiful thing, it has NOTHING to do with being a doormat, a servant, or a recipient of domestic abuse. Yes these things happen, but Godly submission is taken advantage of by overly authoritarian pastors, shrill wives, disobedient children, church members who take turning the other cheek too far...misinterpretation happens, but the fact that some husbands or wives misinterpret the submission portions of scripture does not diminish the facts one bit. Wives are to submit to husbands.

    Paul and the Marriage relationship, S. Lewis Johnson, sermon with transcript. http://sljinstitute.net/pauls-epistles/ephesians/paul-and-marriage-relationship/

    Submission and the Christian husband, bible..org. https://bible.org/seriespage/22-submission-christian-husband-ephesians-521-32

    WIves, Marriage & SUbmission, essay. http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ061912/Wives-Marriage-and-Submission

    ReplyDelete