This is in response to an article by Mark Beuving from Jackass Theology. The article is called “Farewell Francis Chan”. Please go read that before reading this post to understand the context.

https://jackasstheology.com/2019/03/15/farewell-francis-chan/amp/

Me and my buddy Monke are searching for a new church to call home. Last Sunday we visited a church in our town where everybody we met in the church firmly assured us that the things taught there were strictly biblical and accurate to the text. It was like they all were given a script to recite to every newcomer. However, upon actually listening to the sermon, if one listened hard enough, they could determine that there wasn’t much Bible in this “biblical” sermon. In fact, I think I heard more about the preacher’s personal life and about other people’s life than any sort of biblical teaching, much less the Gospel. And probably the worst thing I heard come out of the guy’s mouth was that in order to understand the one verse of very few he recited to us, he read a book by Francis Chan and recommended it. Major red flags started waving and all the warning alarms started ringing.

After the service Monke and I did a recap where I shared with him that Francis Chan is a false teacher. He didn’t know that, but was still highly skeptical of anyone who recommends or repeats what was said in a book someone else wrote that is not the Bible. After we parted ways and went back to our respective homes, Monke shoots me a link to an article that defends Francis Chan, and claps back at anyone saying anything bad about him.

That article did not age well. I would argue further that Mark Beuving is full of willful ignorance.

First of all, the fact that Chan associates with false teachers in any capacity says something about his character. The fact that Chan would willingly agree to “share the stage”, as Mark Beuving puts it, with prosperity preachers and other false teachers, should raise massive concerns about his credibility and what he actually believes. The fact that Mark Beuving mentions this in his article and doesn’t share those same concerns as the people he’s trying to criticize should raise big red flags about Mark’s beliefs as well.

Don’t get me started on the arrogance of the phrase “Can you imagine?”

Here’s a question: What was the thing that Chan said about Todd White that was nice? Did it have anything to do about his ministry or theology? If so he’s promoting false teachings which is a big no no. Let me be clear here, Todd White is a false teacher, fake healer, and an unrepentant sinner. There is so much media available about this guy that proves he is dangerous and that he should be avoided at all costs. If Chan’s comment is just that Todd is “nice”, or “a cool person”, that’s a total other thing, which, again, there are enough videos out there that will show you that Todd is not those things. Steve Kozar has an interview on his podcast titled “The Messed Up Church” where he talks with Trevor Parmentier, a guy who originally looked up to Todd White and was confronted with the truth about the gospel and about all of Todd’s teachings being unbiblical. Trevor approached Todd to try and talk to him in a respectable manner, and was met with hostility, unwillingness to even consider that the guy had to say, and even threats… my question still stands: Why omit what was actually said by Chan? Because it was puffing up false teaching, that’s why.

So Chan said ONE nice thing about ONE problematic person? This article is doing a great job at hiding the truth. The problem is that Francis constantly puffs up a great deal of false teachers, even going as far as to threaten people against saying anything negative about guys like Bill Johnson and Mike Bickle, twisting the Bible so much as to say these men were personally sent and appointed by God. YouTube is full of videos exposing this stuff about Chan. There is a flip side to this. Mark also claims that Francis has had years and years of faithful ministry. There are videos of Francis Chan’s sermons from about 15 years ago where he actually teaches some pretty sound doctrine, even about false teachers… about himself nowadays, really. What I see when I watch anything by Francis Chan in the last decade is puffing up himself and others, as well as promoting a man-centered Gospel that includes everything but what the Bible actually teaches.

Mark says he doesn’t know much about Todd White or Benny Hinn. I find there to be an unhealthy level of willful ignorance from anyone involved in Christian media who claims to not know much about guys like Todd White, and especially freaking Benny Hinn, the guy that’s been fleecing people out of their money for literal decades. Again, this article’s author is either refusing to look at the facts about these guys, or is intentionally obfuscating the fact that he knows more than he’s letting on.

Mark brings up TBN, then says if you don’t know what it is, not to worry about it, then goes on to talk MORE about TBN. The comment about John MacArthur being on TBN one time holds no merit if this guy is unwilling to talk about what TBN is and why it’s so bad, because it is run by all the money grubbing “pastors”, which again I believe this guy is hiding the truth about.

Mark is dangerous because he is trying to downplay the ugliness that exists among the celebrity pastors. He, along with guys like “Dr.” Michael Brown, Sam Storms, and the guys over at Remnant Radio, are sly foxes when it comes to obfuscation and dancing around the facts. This is just as dangerous as any blatant false teacher.

I now see what “Jackass Theology” really means. It’s a jackass attempting to do theology, and then he can claim that others are jackasses by admitting he is a jackass himself. However, I would argue against this. If people want to call me a jackass for standing up for the truth, so be it. But I would claim anyone who is avoiding all of the facts and claiming not to know as much as they probably do, deceiving their viewers/readers in the process, is the real jackass.