Chan is amazing. I totally respect him for following the Spirit, and his heart - even when its the unexpected thing to do.

Look at the faces of the other 2 at the table, they cant even imagine doing what he's doing, but Chan doesnt care. His plan is obviously based in his own personal conviction and he has the guts to follow it.

When did we get to the place where we simply can't wrap our minds around someone following the Spirit and being obedient? (which, in case we haven't seen in scripture, doesn't always make the most logical sense)

Sad.

I really appreciate the spirit of exploration and understanding in this discussion.

One thought about Pastor Mark's question regarding whether Chan would leave his church due to a spirit of discontent... I think that belies too high a reliance on building a church around a central leader. I think he'd be on board with developing other leaders, but I think some of the disconnect comes with Mark's model bumping into Chan's model where the central leader is not as essential.

Good things can be done with a central leader, but I think that Chan's approach can be a very helpful corrective in some cases.

I have no doubt Chan's being called of God to move on (I have a hard enough time figuring out what God wants to do in my life, let alone what He wants to do in someone else's life). I've been the pastor at the church I serve for 35 years now (came fresh out of seminary) and I feel much of my ministry has been "tweeking" things, and that's OK with me (most of the time). Being a pilgrim in one place as I lead God's people has required patience and persistence. God sometimes calls His people to go to new places to do new things but sometimes He calls us to do new things in the same place and that's where "tweeking" comes in. Guess I'm a tweeker.

I think there is danger of pride in both extremes, and that Driscoll makes a valid point. A leader can become proud when he/she experiences success (measured by the world's standard: publicity, possessions, power, prestige). Or a leader can use those things to quietly and humbly further the Gospel. Likewise, a leader can become proud because of what he/she has given up, how large a check he has written, what poverty stricken village he has visited, or do those things humbly and quietly. Addiction to attention can cause us to do all sorts of things both positive and negative to keep that flow of approval coming. So in one sense, if that addiction is initially fed by success, after success to the highest level what next? Perhaps it is to go to the other extreme to get that attention. I don't think Chan is knowingly doing this or aware of such motivation if it exists. He is an amazing example. I do think Driscoll is being a good friend in raising the issues in his blunt and forthright way. He discusses it in the realm of our pursuit of sanctification, and I admire Chan for being willing to hold open hands to God. But when we do that, we have to take whatever He places in our hands and use them for His glory and to further His kingdom. I pray for all three of these young men because pride is the greatest pitfall of any leader. Pride can occur at either extreme and with it the addiction to attention/the need to be noticed. I think helping others when possible should be something one does without fanfare, even anonymously so that the glory fully goes to God. We have a tendency to testify of our outreach to the point that God is shoved into the back seat. Leadership is not easy. Moses was the most humble man on earth and yet...

The central point for me was when Chan corrects Driscol's point on seeking out suffering. I think this is where many people that critique social ministry or cross cultural ministry get it wrong. Chan is not trying to go out to save himself, he is not seeking out suffering to show his own holiness. But he does understand that if we live in an insolated world, if we do not come in contact with the poor and the downtrodden, then we cannot love what we do not know.

Driscoll earlier asks if Chan can't just do a satellite church and keep doing what he is doing. Chan says no, I tried it, but I cannot be with the people to love them if I am split between two places.

I think the basic deal is that God created both these men with different gifts and they will have different challenges. I thought this was a fairly health interaction and that Driscoll's questions, while not always getting the real point, were still valid and loving.

This is all so obvious to me.

Driscoll and Harris are using smoke and mirrors to try and say, "Chan, you are crazy, why would you give up all that fame you built? Now you are starting to make us feel guilty!"

Chan is saying, "Guys, I've come to a fundamentally reframed understanding of the radical nature of the call to discipleship and I can no longer do the dog and pony show."

The moxy and hubris of Driscoll is so thick.

I was about to comment, but then read Sam's comment (above). Nuff said.

Here are two guys who just can't (won't?) get beyond their religious preconceptions, while Chan is courageously attempting to do just that. Religion is largely built upon simplistic black and white thinking, and this video presents two prime examples.

I agree that there was all kinds of interesting tension in this conversation. I think Francis Chan really stumbled in explaining his decision. He could have boiled it down very simply: "I'm following Jesus's call on my life."

The Jesus that calls Mark Driscoll to his current situation is the same Jesus that can call Francis Chan to leave a large ministry for something uncharted.

To Driscoll's point question about sanctification: It's not any man's place to question the motives of another. We can question judgement all day long, but we must allow God to deal with motives.

If Driscoll wasn't setting Chan up with questions that simply gave voice to blogging critics - if Driscoll was actually voicing his own thoughts then it's a perfect illustration of the crossroads we are at in these days.

We've figured out how to draw a crowd, build an empire and live comfortably as cross carrying servants of Jesus. Why give that up?

I appreciate Driscoll's candor at the same time I am saddened by it.

I don't see Chan stumbling. I see him taking steps to follow Jesus to the best of his understanding without having the agenda or plan of where this all leads.

I've listened to some Chan, read a little and personally I prefer Driscoll. But I'd much rather live in community and work beside Chan.

Not that Chan asked or Driscoll cares.

The guy just wants to go. Big deal. Let it go.

Sam - Amen to that..
"Chan is saying, "Guys, I've come to a fundamentally reframed understanding of the radical nature of the call to discipleship and I can no longer do the dog and pony show."
The moxy and hubris of Driscoll is so thick."

Jesus calls us all to make disciples. Some tradition driven leaders can't get it through their heads that giving weekly Bible lectures with no mutuality that creates perpetual dependency and no full reproduction is not making disciples or teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. It does not matter that godly men in the past did the pulpit/pew routine and some of God's work was accomplished. It's time to throw off the huge hindrance of the intelligent shepherd and dumb sheep routines for the "new and living way" - believers "spurring one another on to love and good works" and "encouraging one another" and all the more because the day is approaching. This is what it means to "hold on to the faith we profess." Let's be transformers not tweakers. Praise God Francis is done with tweaking.

To me, Chans an example of what all of us should be - followers/disciples of Christ - listeners to the HS... Chan, if you read this, write me. I feel compelled to speak with you as a brother! ~blessings, Teresa

I applaud Chan, but not at the expense of Driscoll and Joshua Harris. This seems to me a staged conversation with friends... not that the questions were know ahead of time but the plan was to ask tough questions.

Sam, I think you read into Chan's words something he isn't saying so you can make a comment about driscoll.

I guess what first pops up for me... I'm not hearing Francis, nor I guess the others, say, "I have heard God tell me to leave"... or stay. I'm not hearing them say anything about the Spirit guiding them.

I hear about convictions, and interpretations of scripture... but I'm not hearing him say anything about the voice of God. Leaving, making a huge personal decision, is for a Christian leader a golden opportunity to mentor the Church in how following Christ is done... can't imagine making these decisions without hearing God's voice in it.

Not that I'm suggesting he HASN'T heard from God... but in this video, there's no real talk of it.... a absence that seems conspicuous given the point of making the video.

Sheer... So Gamaliel had seen someone lame form birth healed, was around for the Resurrection of Christ, the birth of the church and saw literally thousands upon thousands of people save and wonders it these guys are from God? Sound's like his answer is more wrapped in a preservation of status quo rather than wisdom from God.

I think Harris and Driscoll both support Chan but wanted to ask hard questions for the benefit of others. Just my opinion.

I appreciate that Driscoll and Harris asked Chan tough questions. Isn't that what the body of Christ is supposed to do...help eachother explore our motives and thinking behind our decisions and actions? I'm glad that Driscoll and Harris had the courage to ask their friend tough questions, and that Chan showed humility in his answers, as well as being sure of the path he is being called to.

Very refreshing to hear one of these guys say, "It's not about me, and it has been too much about me, so I'm taking myself out of the center." Reminds me of another guy who said, "He must increase. I must decrease."

Something seems inauthentic about this. The banter is very unsettling.

Driscoll's question "Is he any good?" about the guy taking over preaching for Francis smacks of elitism.

This was such an odd exchange.

Robert - Good point. The question goes beyond smacking of elitism. It is elitism. This a very common and frequent element in institutionalized forms of leadership that they try to disguise as best their flesh can. It is a tragic reality that will always flow from their sacerdotal-ized system. I think, this is a big part of what Chan is seeking to exit, among many other corrupt elements. He used other words to describe it. He was being very easy on these questioning brothers.

Francis, I love your heart, and your hearing is great. That graciousness and humility is a jewel. You don't need to know everything in advance about the journey ahead, only that it is where Jesus is taking you and yours. That, along with this growing godly discontent that highlight the vibrant beauty and sovereignty of God outside our churches walls and systems, is probably echoed by way more people than you might expect.

Following Christ step by step for real will often lead us away from the institution called Church.

"It's a dream come true..."

Not a devised strategy for personal or professional success. He wants to touch and be touched by the reality of those Christ came to hang out with the most.

Pursuing poverty, or pursuing the reality of Christ in the poor? Are we what we build? What does letting God shake what we have built look like, and what if it crumbles to powder because as we reach for simplicity in Christ?

I think that anyone who takes a good look at how much their spiritual life depends on the cues provided by cultural Christianity or even emergent moves, it is my opinion they will come to a sort of crossroads where they may feel they need to start over again in a sense, hit the ground running behind Jesus and "leave it all behind." To be able to do so for many will bring a fresh revelation beyond anything they may otherwise expect or long for from weekly sermons and teachings.

That's the Christianity we need, the one that identifies with the poor and broken, carrying within the treasure of Christ, richness and glory to impart LIFE.

That's also why people consume so many books and media content: we're on a search for true authenticity and passion, with the fruit of holiness and grace being evident. True holiness comes from Christ, and isn't our own. We pursue Christ, not holiness as taught by men if it leads us away from the weak and helpless.

Jesus clearly expresses He wants to know us, so we got to let ourselves be known by Him, searched, our love and resolve tested, follow Him where He leads, even if we go at it alone, not out of opinionated independence, but because most around us think we're foolish, unable to discern the wind of the Spirit as He speaks to us personally.

Come on guys, walk out, join in, get down... :)

I look forward to seeing what God leads our brother Francis in to doing. The things he speaks of, as going on in his head, as he has become better acquainted with the Scriptures, must find expression in practical ministry - and it's that expression I look forward to hearing further about. May our Lord truly bless brother Chan and bring glory to Himself through what unfolds in the days ahead.

I love Chan's heart, if you've read 'Crazy Love' then you already know the answers to the questions Driscoll and Harris asked. Chan has struggled with this decision for a long time. I suspect he still wakes up sometimes and asks himself "what have I done", but wouldn't you if you had left behind what the world would call a "successful" church and moved towards the unknown? In his book he makes this statement, "There is something wrong when our lives make sense to non-believers". I think his actions confound many people. The American church is consumed with comfort and safety. Francis is stepping away from that. Something about that is attractive and genuine. Why am I (we) so interested?? Because I (we) long for a genuine and authentic faith. I appreciate the waves this "boat-rocking" is making.

In his book Craxy Love on page 19 I believe he says it all. "We all know something's wrong."

Maybe, just maybe, all don't know!

There is a time for asking questions, but never with accusing body language and sarcastic tone. The questions felt agenda driven, not authentic or loving. I also don't see the point of asking the questions after the fact. Now is the time for love, support and prayer. I learn a lot from Driscoll and Harris, but I respect and am drawn to follow the example of Francis Chan. Both in how he responds to his brothers in Christ and how He follows Jesus.

I got to say that was a pretty silly talk, interview, etc. I think Chan probably just wanted a challenge.

Mr. Chan is probably a victim of success in leadership. Being a pastor and never having suffered that particular affliction I think I understand where he is coming from. When serving Christ demands sacrifice, commitment, hard long hours of first secular work to pay the bills and then spiritual work sans remuneration it gets really simple. The motive of self gratification/profit simply doesn't exist. Faithfully, serving in this context is all about taking up the cross, i.e., self sacrifice. You know are doing the work out of obedience to God's call and not for personal gain or fame. When he says he wants to return to simplicity, I get it. Although, I must confess it would be nice to have some of the fruits of success he is choosing to set aside. Just my carnal nature shining through.

I think it was a good discussion and all 3 came across well, yet demonstrating their well-known personalities. It is an interesting situation that they wanted to work through in their minds.

Some here seem to be reading to much negativity into the conversation.

I experience the same "frustration". I often grow weary of the "American christian culture". Honestly, I feel the "tweaking" is nothing more than 'undoing' mindsets that Jesus never desired for those who followed Him. Following Jesus should look like a "crazy love" and it should look "radical" compared to the world around us. I am not against mega churches, great communicators, book deals, more venues (video or otherwise), etc., etc. But those things ARE NOT THE MODEL to follow. If God chooses to bless like that, its His will. Have fun and enjoy it, but like Francis said, be willing to let go of it to help others...just sayin!

The conversation and interaction was clearly 3 brothers in ministry talking about issues close to their hearts. The blog comments...not so much! Wow, talk about looking for hidden agendas. Since we tend to look for the sins we are guilty of, it makes me wonder how much some of these poster's operate by manipulation?

Serving in an itinerant system, I understand Chan's impulse. Sometimes, you need a fresh setting to uncover God's next thing for you as a leader. And sometimes, a church needs a new pastor to take its next step- a step that may be quite different than continued mega-sizing.

Granted, moving for the sake of moving isn't a good idea and too much pastoral shuffling can be (and historically has been) detrimental. But this doesn't sound arbitrary on Chan's point. It sounds to me like he gets it.

Pastor Chan is being obedient. He is leaving a worldly model of success in the church, however good it may be, for something much better, God's plan for his life. Don't confuse the world's model of success with fulfilling God's plan for your life. It is about closeness to God, and being where He wants you to be, no matter how big or small it appears to be to anyone else. Time will tell how his leaving affects his church; Jesus will take care of that. Pastor Chan is leading, not leaving. Jesus did not tweak, His changes were huge; tweaking only enables.

Mark asks a question implying that sanctification is through simplicity, poverty and suffering.
Is It?
Somehow I doubt that sanctification is achieved through the means of simplicity, poverty and suffering.
If so, then everyone in poor third world countries is heaven bound and everyone in rich first world countries is hell bound.

My guess is that sanctification is achieved through obedience to scripture and living a life for Jesus, irrespective of Mark's concept of sanctification that sounds vaguely like a Catholic Monastary interpretation of sanctification.

Chan's right to follow the leading of the Spirit. Would I if I were in his shoes? That's a question that non can answer unless we ARE in his shoes. My prayer is that I would follow the Spirit of Christ wherever I sensed leading. As for Driscoll, he's the 'coo-coo for Coco Puffs'....fight clubs to the church being 'chickified' should send us all running.

Correction, Driscoll did not indicate that he believed that sanctification is through simplicity, poverty and suffering. He indicated that Chan believes this and that is why he is leaving. I did not get the impression that Driscoll believes this at all.

Ephesians 4 - pastor/teachers. evangelists, prophets, apostles . . . why do we think everyone has to be a long-term pastor? how long did Paul stay in one place? the Body needs ALL the leadership gifts and will bless each according to wiring and giftedness. I know exactly what Chan is experiencing when he says "somethings not quite right." I sense it seep in my soul - the church in america is doing a piss-poor job of making disciples - sold out - willing to die for the faith followers.

What would happen to "the church/churches" if all leaders received and were obedient to a call similar to Chan's? The kingdom advance would be immediate, exponential, transformational would reverberate around the world.

This is like watching Jesus stand before the Sanhedrin. It's kind of funny when you think about it - man and his court is passing judgement on God and God is allowing it all to play out in front of your eyes - so you can see it. In stark contrast are the systems and institutions of man and the ways of God.

Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Or - if you can't accept that - how about this Jim Elliott quote:

A man is no fool to give up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.

I don't like the idea of Chan staying on at the church he is leaving. The reason is because it could cause trouble for the new Senior Pastor. I can see the scenario now. The new SP preaches a series and asks the church to do something. There is going to be a certain group of folks who will go to Chan and either complain or ask for his leadership.

One more thought here on this piece. Is it possible Francis Chan is the kind of a guy who loves to start churches, but has trouble with the maintenance that an already established church entails? I'm sure y'all (country pastor here) talk a lot about gift mix. I've known pastors who were good at maintenance and those who were good at evangelizing and growing a church from small numbers to larger ones. I suppose all of us have to work on knowing who we are so God can use us in the best place possible.

I've been listening to this conversation (off and on) for a couple of months now. Change is difficult. I just turned in my resignation letter as Asst. to the President for a faith-based Christian non-profit. Very VERY hard decision. Harder still, I DON'T know what's next...a return to the secular arena (I hope not)? a shift to another Christian org? accepting a yet-to-be-created-role here? I honestly don't know. Yet. Appreciate your prayers.

This video reveals an aspect of Francis Chan that he struggles with, but can't bring definition to. He seems to place more emphasis on Christian living than Christ Himself. His discontentment is rooted in his situation, but that is exactly the opposite of where Paul encouraged us to find our contentment. Are we morally obligated to feed the poor, help the oppressed, live non-material lives? Yes! But, those things we do because of what Christ did for us, and because the Holy Spirit is doing them through us. We must preach Christ, someone to believe in, not just things for people to do.

I guess it's just that Francis Chan knows for sure that God is in the process of restoring His Church and there are things about it that's revealed to him and he just realizes that in order to pursue them he simply has to start from the beginning, as he mentioned, instead of tweaking it here and there all the time with the Simi Cornerstone Church. And he's very right that, in essence, if he continues to stay there then everything that happens at Cornerstone will center more around Francis Chan instead of Christ.

The church was never meant to be a one-man-show kind of a thing, which is very common with the mega-churches all around the world, especially in the USA. But I really wonder what Mark Driscoll meant when he asked about who's going to preach and inquiring if he'd be good (in preaching). I don't see that when I read 1st Cor 14:26. There's no single person here staging a drama with some eloquent speech and oratory skill. That was invented by the Roman emperor Constantine.
Reuben