Chris Rosebrough—Pirate Christian or Pirate?

So you don't see the difference in having a sculpture depicting the passion of Christ and worshipping a golden calf?

Seems clear to me.


Yep seems to me Chris is right about mr Chan.

Re: The second video I couldn't stand to hear the whole thing, but it seems like his major beef was that Chan was so excited about it, and he was like all ho-hum about it... like that's in the Bible. He also treats it as if Chan is saying something and he's like, "Well I just told you that, so why is Chan saying it..." not the exact same words Chan said, but the same gist.... while he is responding to Francis Chan's video. If he has specific qualms with what Chan says it is buried under a bunch of smarmy commentary I can't stand to watch. Also, I have to put up with minutes and minutes of the bearded guy being smart aleck to hear what Chan says to see what the big deal is.


He kind of agrees with the idea that God specifically created us like He did Jeremiah, but then finds fault with Chan expressing the idea also.

Francis Chan probably has a bigger reach than he does. Why does he feel like he needs to attack Francis Chan to fill up time on his YouTube show?

I hadn't seen the first video, but the selective editing, including the cut-off, is extremely annoying. It is hard to know if Chan said something really off or not because he cuts the video off before he finishes his thought. I take it that Chan is talking about us being the temple of the Holy Spirit, not being the Almighty ourselves.

Francis Chan probably has a bigger reach than he does. Why does he feel like he needs to attack Francis Chan to fill up time on his YouTube show?

I don’t know much about Lutherans

They quit thinking about Jesus on the cross dying for their sins & started thinking about themselves.
The older folks who left the church were right.... we should have left it the way it was. The REAL
reason it was changed was because WE changed, & no longer wanted it. We were fooled.

I thought it was because Lutheranism didn't fall far from the RCC tree...

No offence intended toward Dirtman

It just wasn't on Luther list of complaints.

No. Chan clearly said Jesus is both man and God and thats what He is saying about us now.
Chan clearly states that we are both Man and God. Which is rank heresy, and blasphemy

At least there is no pumpkin spice Draino.

I wouldn't have worded it the way Chan did, but he is talking about the believer being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The bearded fellow cuts Chan off mid-thought. Here is a clip where he finishes his thought:

There is no "since in which we are God and man at the same time", even having the Holy Spirit doesnt make that true in any form or fashion.

Also there there is no reason for him to disparage a person for living an "ordinary life". Nor is there cause for him to compare living an ordinary life to "shrinking back".

And he is certainly mischaracterizing the church in Acts as they lived in a communal situation. They were doing that because persecution and at some point there was famine. There is no cause to compare ordinary life of a Christian to living in Egypt. All of that is abuse of the scriptures and also abuse of the conscience of Christians. Chris is right about mr. Chan. His teaching is awful and disparages the normal good work that the normal Christian is called to, as layed out in the letter to the Ephesians.

Chris went through all that in his video but you didnt watch it because actual Biblical exegesis was as you called it "ho-hum".

I would agree that what Chan said was bad, badly worded. His intention and what he is trying to convey probably isn't. He clarifies he is talking about us being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But IMO, he should have clarified the uniqueness of Christ. The divine Logos is different from any of us. But Christians, indwelt by the Spirit of God, share the similarity with Christ in that the Spirit was also given to him. And the scriptures also speak of 'Christ in you the hope of glory."


Where does he say that? What quote are you referring to? That seemed to me to be Rosebrough's 'spin' on what he was saying. Did Francis Chan say that you couldn't serve God by being a father or by being a shoemaker? I didn't hear that? He was busy in ministry and as a husband and father, and wanted to spend time along with the Lord, and he went to pray for four days. How does that turn into Francis Chan being against God working through us in ordinary life? It turns into that through Rosebrough's 'spin' on what Chan supposedly meant, and Rosebrough's facial expressions.

Francis Chan makes everything seem urgent and dramatic. He's an impassioned speaker, but without yelling. That is his speaking style.

The Bible talks about running the race as the one who receives the prize. Isn't that a Biblical perspective to see life through? Does Francis Chan say everyone has to go to India and plant a church among poor, or something like that, to be a Christian?



Don't drink his Koolaid. Why don't you post the actual quotes, or at least minute markers, where Francis Chan actually disparages the normal Christian life? Why do you think it is inappropriate to stir Christians up to be zealous and intentional about pleasing Christ with their lives? Can't someone take that zeal with them as they live as fathers or automechanics in an 'ordinary' Christian life?



Umm. No. He seemed to object to Chan's passionate discussion of the issue because he didn't take a 'ho-hum' approach. I skipped through and listened to the Chan bits, and listen to parts of Rosebrough's smarmy commentary that were unjustified till I got fed up with it, then scanned again. I can't stand to listen to that sort of thing. I've got a short tolerance for Fox News, too, and especially MSNBC. I have a low tolerance for entertaiining people by putting a smart aleck spin on what other people say, or doing so by factually misrepresenting it.

I take issue with criticising a man by spinning innocent things he says into something negative. If you have some quote from Chan where he actually disparages people for being fathers, living a normal life, etc., from those sound bites, show the quotes and we can discuss if what Chan said was actually bad.... not Rosebrough's spin on it.

Not someone I would be listening to. Quenching the Spirit, grieve not the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30) very unwise. Like anyone else hes not here to defend him self so not going to speak anything negative when I could just write and talk to the man. What this is about right? If I like him or not He belongs if he believes in Christ.. he belongs to a GOD.

Not someone I would be listening to. Quenching the Spirit, grieve not the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30) very unwise. Like anyone else hes not here to defend him self so not going to speak anything negative when I could just write and talk to the man. What this is about right? If I like him or not He belongs if he believes in Christ.. he belongs to a GOD.

Rosebrough has a big platform; believe me, if he wanted to defend himself he could, and would.

Writing a letter or email might make you feel better, but it would go in one ear and out the other. He gets critical emails and comments on his videos all the time. Celebrities aren't fazed by this, they're too busy trying to make themselves look good. They feed on it. Guys like Rosebrough already think they know it all. If someone writes criticism, the default position is: That person needs correction.

Whether I like him or not isn't the issue. The issue is weather he's a false teacher. Anyone can say they believe; the Catholic pope says he believes; Joseph Smith said he believed.

I could go into all the reasons that Lutheran is actually farther from romanism than American evangelicalism but appearances are more important than doctrine in a post modernist world.
Besides it would take many posts and more time than I have to give on the matter.

He doesn't have a huge platform and neither is he a celebrity. Anyone can have a podcast and anyone can have a YouTube channel. And he is the pastor of an average Lutheran Church which is not a lucrative position.

Not a Lutheran, by the way. But I believe this comment is spot-on, with what I have seen of evangelicals, and what I have seen of Lutherans.

Exactly. I think the OP may have some sort of issue with the truth Chris Rosebrough has spoken, and is trying to turn the focus onto Chris, rather than accept the truth of what Chris spoke.

What church are you a member of?

I think he really has a problem with old traditional stuff, like vestments and candles and such. But such thing are not commanded nor forbidden so they are up to the congregation. I happen to like the vestments and banners and candles and art work. I find it quite beautiful.

I am Baptist leaning, primarily because of the importance Baptists have traditionally placed on scripture. It's not necessarily true now, though.