# I dare you to pray this: (video)



## Lincolnshire Paul (May 30, 2010)

To be honest, it kind of shocked me.
What do my PB brothers think?

[video=youtube;E2oi6y292kE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2oi6y292kE&feature=related[/video]

(A real counter-cultural statement we've been taught from Childhood to not follow)


----------



## Michael Doyle (May 30, 2010)

Ask Francis Chan...are you willing to read scripture in its full context? That would be my question to him. As true as the scripture is, it is also common in scripture to find many things the author seeks from the Lord, not given just to these two things. Are you willing to pray this, Lord, I know it was all by grace that I have been saved, but help me not to add to the gospel that which Christ has fulfilled. While our works are required, let me rest in the works of Christ and by faith, might my repentance be fruitful and by faith may my sanctification be in you and flow from the grace given.

Let us not add to God`s grace that which is already been fulfilled lest we nullify the works of Christ but let us, by faith, trust in him and our works flow through and from faith in love.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 30, 2010)

Lincolnshire Paul said:


> To be honest, it kind of shocked me.
> What do my PB brothers think?
> 
> [video=youtube;E2oi6y292kE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2oi6y292kE&feature=related[/video]
> ...


 
I think he's developing an entire philosophy of possessions from a foolishly absolutized reading of a single verse without regard for either the genre of the passage or everything else that the Bible teaches on the subject. For example, Proverbs 13:22 says, "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous." First of all, it would be impossible for this verse to be true if this guy's interpretation of Prov 30:8-9 is true (because he thinks it is asking to forsake savings and instead live paycheck to paycheck). Second, if I applied his hermeneutic to Prov 13:22 and thereby absolutized it, I'd say that if you _aren't_ so wealthy that you can leave wealth to your grandchildren, then you aren't a good man. But that would be as unreasonable an interpretation as is his take on Prov 30:8-9. That is the kind of danger that we get into when we develop a position off of one verse.
But then again, in the video he states that he just read it and was "just" thinking about it... often times our initial readings can lead to hasty conclusions. The folly was for him to post his video as if this reflects a mature and well-studied position of his.


----------



## Kiwigirl (May 30, 2010)

Excellent response.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 31, 2010)

Kiwigirl said:


> Excellent response.



Aw, thanks!


----------



## Andres (May 31, 2010)

I would like to preface what I am about to say with this: I don't know very much about Francis Chan. What little I do know, I know I don't agree with him. With that being said, I don't see to big a problem with the video/prayer except towards the very end of the video because that's where I think he errs. I think it's important to hear that the prayer asks God not to give us any less or any more than we need. I think (and I believe Chan is guilty also) that most people who hear that prayer only hear the part about God not giving us any _more _than we need. Of course this automatically offends our sensibilities because, as Americans, our lives are practically filled with excess. When we realize that the prayer said no less or no more then that equates to God giving us exactly what we need in life. Is this not exactly what He has always promised He would do, to provide for our needs? Is this not all we can ever really expect - to have our needs met? 
As I mentioned I do think Chan errs towards the end of the video when he mentions emptying savings accounts, retirement, etc. He goes to the extreme here and I personally don't view savings as excess, but rather wise stewardship in that its preparation for future needs. So with that being said, yes, I would pray the prayer because it's basically already what I always pray - that God would provide for me and my family (not giving me less than I need) all the while guarding my heart from greed and the evils or riches (not giving me more than I need).


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 31, 2010)

I wonder where he would want people to empty their savings/retirement into? If they spend it all then they are living in excess, if they continue to save it then they are not trusting God. Hmmm? I wonder if the church could use all that extra money?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 31, 2010)

On its face, this is a valuable encouragement to many.


----------



## smhbbag (May 31, 2010)

Go the ant, you sluggard! Just as God gives food to the ant each day and expects him to live manna to manna, so should we.

Oh wait, I guess that's kind of backwards.

I've often thought along these lines - when I'm employed, God is providing not just for me now, but for my future. If I am hungry and penniless in a year, it may sometimes be healthy to say: "God gave me my daily bread for today....last year. And I spent it too soon."

Just like God always gives me a way of escape from sin, but that best way of escape may have been earlier in the morning, when reading scripture or praying (instead of sleeping) could have kept me from the evil in the first place.


----------



## asc (Jun 1, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> I think he's developing an entire philosophy of possessions from a foolishly absolutized reading of a single verse without regard for either the genre of the passage or everything else that the Bible teaches on the subject. For example, Proverbs 13:22 says, "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous." First of all, it would be impossible for this verse to be true if this guy's interpretation of Prov 30:8-9 is true (because he thinks it is asking to forsake savings and instead live paycheck to paycheck). Second, if I applied his hermeneutic to Prov 13:22 and thereby absolutized it, I'd say that if you _aren't_ so wealthy that you can leave wealth to your grandchildren, then you aren't a good man. But that would be as unreasonable an interpretation as is his take on Prov 30:8-9. That is the kind of danger that we get into when we develop a position off of one verse.
> But then again, in the video he states that he just read it and was "just" thinking about it... often times our initial readings can lead to hasty conclusions. The folly was for him to post his video as if this reflects a mature and well-studied position of his.


 
I don't know much about the speaker, but I thought it was thought provoking. I don't think you should go overboard and say he's developing an "entire philosophy" of possessions based on 3 verses, as its only a 2 minute clip taken while he's in the middle of an airplane flight with his kid. I didn't take from it he's saying it's the right step for everyone, everywhere, at all times. But I think he's saying, it maybe a good prayer for some people who maybe too dependent on their wealth or too caught up in the pursuit of wealth.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 1, 2010)

asc said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I think he's developing an entire philosophy of possessions from a foolishly absolutized reading of a single verse without regard for either the genre of the passage or everything else that the Bible teaches on the subject. For example, Proverbs 13:22 says, "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous." First of all, it would be impossible for this verse to be true if this guy's interpretation of Prov 30:8-9 is true (because he thinks it is asking to forsake savings and instead live paycheck to paycheck). Second, if I applied his hermeneutic to Prov 13:22 and thereby absolutized it, I'd say that if you _aren't_ so wealthy that you can leave wealth to your grandchildren, then you aren't a good man. But that would be as unreasonable an interpretation as is his take on Prov 30:8-9. That is the kind of danger that we get into when we develop a position off of one verse.
> ...


 
First, you weren't listening to him. You "heard" what you want. He specifically talked about living paycheck to paycheck. Second, at the end of my post I said that what his folly was was to go and post this, as you say, "2 minute clip in the middle of an airplane flight." It is one thing to say it hastily, another to go and put it out there for the world to see.


----------



## asc (Jun 1, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> First, you weren't listening to him. You "heard" what you want.


 
This seems unnecessarily personal.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 1, 2010)

I thought it a bit forceful too Alex. Perhaps Ben misunderstood.

A problem that many don't face is that proverbs are, well, proverbial. They are not absolute. They are principles to help guide our thoughts. In light of this, all of us should rather desire "barely enough" over excess or even poverty if that is what will most conducive to godliness in our lives. Most of us can't handle wealth and the pursuit of God. We become consumed with our possessions and the management of them to the detriment of our walks. It is the rare man who can keep his focus on the pursuit of Christ when entrusted with wealth. This is quite evident in the cultural Christianity of our day and even more so in the prosperity gospel.

Perhaps a complementary prayer would be, "Lord, please provide whatever will promote the most godliness in my character and bring whatever glorifies You most into my life, regardless of the ramifications." Are most of us willing to pray this?


----------



## MRC (Jun 1, 2010)

asc said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I think he's developing an entire philosophy of possessions from a foolishly absolutized reading of a single verse without regard for either the genre of the passage or everything else that the Bible teaches on the subject. For example, Proverbs 13:22 says, "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous." First of all, it would be impossible for this verse to be true if this guy's interpretation of Prov 30:8-9 is true (because he thinks it is asking to forsake savings and instead live paycheck to paycheck). Second, if I applied his hermeneutic to Prov 13:22 and thereby absolutized it, I'd say that if you _aren't_ so wealthy that you can leave wealth to your grandchildren, then you aren't a good man. But that would be as unreasonable an interpretation as is his take on Prov 30:8-9. That is the kind of danger that we get into when we develop a position off of one verse.
> ...



I think the poster's intention by this comment is to point out the prevalency of quick and shallow teachings "off the top my head" that is such an issue in mainstream evangelicalism. The speaker may be well intentioned, but could easily be discouraging a thoughtful, purposeful reflection and study of what the Word says regarding money and possession in its entirety to those that might not know any better. Christians today have taken to the idea of openning up the bible, reading what they see and deriving life-defining theology from that. This is not how theology ought to be done, and teachers of the Word ought not to encourage such a shallow and flippant approach to God's Revelation.


----------



## tjm3383 (Jun 19, 2010)

I'm a bit late to this thread but I would have to say that I thought the video was pretty good. Christians are too caught up in the world today and specifically American Christians. We put all our faith into the economy, our jobs, our college education, our retirement, and yes our savings accounts. We need to be eternally minded and if these things or anything becomes what we are putting our hope and trust in then we need to pray that God will remove these from our life because they are causing us to sin. Francis Chan is not forming a new philosophy, he is simply bringing out something that is consistant throughout Scripture and that is that we are not of this world and we must be about the business of the Kingdom.


----------

