Francis Chan fostered indelible confusion last week in evangelical circles. Recognizing his immense clout among modern Christendom, Chan went on to challenge the protestant understanding of the Lord’s Supper as he presented an apology for transubstantiation. This is the doctrine that holds the real substance of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper elements; the bread becomes his body, the wine becomes his blood. A priest is then making a literal sacrifice of Jesus for the grace of those in the church; for this reason, many are now asserting that Chan is only a few steps from entering the Roman church as he posits that the Mass (the taking of this grace meal) is to be centrally emphasized in the church.

WATCH HERE:

Three issues arise from this unwarranted attention: 

First, Chan is making an argument that the Lord’s Table should be the focus of the church, not any particular man or pulpit. Yet, Chan is placing his own “figurative” or “symbolic” presence squarely in the limelight. Reformation history dictates that the Bible is what is important, preached even above the man bringing the sermon. From where do we understand the Lord’s Supper? The only Protestant means for defending a doctrine pertaining to this meal is Scripture. That is not to say that the Lord’s Supper is less valued than the Bible, but its importance is realized through Divine Testimony. Chan is not making any groundbreaking point, but one argued about since the early church.

Second, where is this coming from? Chan makes the odd statement that he did not know about transubstantiation, consubstantiation, the Reformed view, or the remembrance view of the Lord’s Supper. This is baffling to me as a fellow seminarian: Chan states the idea of a symbolic or figurative view of the Lord’s Supper has only been around since the Reformation. Chan presenting such ideas before evangelical Christians is excruciatingly detrimental. Not only are these arguments errant, but for those who know better, we cannot help but be pained to know that no one taught Chan concerning the most important meal the church takes together at least once a month. I will not get into the details about the differing doctrines, but let it be said that even Catholics would contend their doctrine of transubstantiation was argued against by churchmen throughout history (for more on this see another response to Chan). Chan has evidently divorced himself from church history. I think of the important work of Berengar of Tours (d. 1088) who argued against transubstantiation long before the Reformation as one instance of the progressive interpretation of the Eucharist. Before him, there were plenty of others. This is a symptom of something far more nefarious in the evangelical world: forgetfulness.

Third, the reason many are advancing the notion that Chan will likely become Catholic is Chan’s sudden conflation of church history, or at least taking and emphasizing tradition, with scriptural authority. It is the same issue many find in their own churches, “we can’t change things because we’ve always done them this way!” That is no argument from Scripture; it’s tradition! Both Protestants and Catholics would agree that the Roman church holds a view that Scripture and Rome’s Tradition are equally authoritative; when questions arise, the Church decrees what the Scripture should mean. Again, both would agree that Protestants have stripped themselves of the church tradition by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, God’s Word alone. Chan is dangerously siding with the idea that church tradition interprets Scripture, foregoing further detective work in his newly discovered doctrine.

Transubstantiation, where Christ’s substance enters the elements to be sacrificed each Sunday by holy priests so parishioners might eat of the sacrifice, thereby earning grace from the Mother Church, was indeed a doctrine practiced almost universally for a lengthy bit of history (transubstantiation was affirmed during the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, until the Reforming churches split from Rome starting in 1517), but such a doctrine was argued against almost once a century until the Protestant Reformation. But duration does not equate with Divine Testimony. Chan is taking a step back from Semper Reformanda, “always be reforming;” that is, in accordance with what Scripture dictates and not what history has contorted. We do not sacrifice Christ each week at mass (Hebrews 7:27; 10:11-14). Chan is mistaken, not just in historical theology, but in his understanding of God’s Word on this point. His problem comes from ignorance of church history and of the logical implications of his new-found position. 

Christian history is a progressive movement to more correctly interpret the canon of Scripture. We are not better than the early church fathers. Augustine was reforming (d. 430). Ratramnus was reforming (d. 868). Berengar was reforming (d. 1088). Heinrich Bullinger was reforming (d. 1575). Let’s not miss the purpose of studying our own history before we set up a symbolic pulpit and feed our people uninformed claims about the gospel meal.