Francis Chan isn't sure what he believes about transubstantiation

Was watching a video from Francis Chan the other day, put on for students at my school to persuade them of the importance of personal Bible study.
After watching, I’m not surprised at him being tempted in this direction. What I kept thinking through the brief video I watched was “This guy has no ecclesiology at all.” His understanding of the church and the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper was horrifically deficient.
The latter weren’t mentioned even once. For the former, he kept going on about how terrible it was that people were just going and listening to “some guy [aka, the pastor] speak about his views on God’s Word,” when they should be doing the work on their own and discussing it in small groups. That’s what church should be, a la Francis Chan.
Very modern. Very democratic. Very unbiblical. He’s the perfect mark for the RCC and EO traditions and their similarly unbiblical — but far richer and more defensible — ecclesiologies.

For all his emphasis on “being biblical”, Chan doesn’t seem to be a very careful exegete. A lot of his sermons amount to reading two verses and then ranting about something he dislikes about American evangelicalism. You can only be biblical if you understand the Bible.

His whole approach to church and Christian living seems very existential to me.

He might be a very sincere guy, but I simply can’t recommend him.

He seems like a very confused man.

[TylerR]

He seems like a very confused man.

I hate to judge a man from afar, but “lack of stability” is the phrase that keeps coming to mind every time I see Francis Chan’s name in the news.