Sinners & Saints

6 comments so far

1. Sep 17, 2007doug sowers   #

   I am interested in just how you shook up the chicken coup.

2. Sep 17, 2007Rev. Adam Kaloostian   #

   We received some phone calls, emails, etc., from some unhappy folks when this series aired originally over the radio. . .that’s all we’re referring to there. -amk

3. Jul 16, 2008Concerned CC'er   #

   I really think you’ve “swallowed a camel” on this topic brothers. I’ve been affiliated with a Calvary Chapel for nearly six years now and have been studying through the Timothy’s and Corinthians with the local pastor and a few other brothers for over a year now on how to properly structure a church with leadership. Neither my local Calvary Chapel nor its lead pastor have ever promoted the teaching of pastoral authority. Our local church practices scriptural authority (2 Tim 3:16), not pastoral authority. Our pastor (who studied under Chuck Smith and is a product of the “Jesus movement”) is dependant upon the elders of the church and is subject to not only God and the elder leadership, but also to the congregation. I have so many points that I would like to bring up after listening to part I, but let me just limit it to two:

   1. Calvary Chapels are not under authority to any “head” pastor or church. Each church using the Calvary Chapel name is autonomous. Each chapel has its own mission statement, statement of faith, church heirarchy and whatnot. There have been instances where Chuck Smith and other local CC pastors have gotten together and asked certain organizations to cease using the Calvary Chapel label, but they are in no way an authority over any other chapel. Chuck Smith is in no way my “pope” and neither is my local pastor(s).

   2. My opinion is that you are also making a mountain out of a grain of sand over Chuck’s story of how he disassociated himself from one group and started his other fellowship. It would surprise me very much if Chuck thought himself to be anything other than a vessel of God and a servant to His Will. From the teachings that I’ve heard from Chuck and my experience through various conferences and such is that Chuck teaches that each pastoral role is a role based on servanthood, not authority. I have never experienced any sort of dictative philosophy being executed or preached. The comments about being a “hired” employee to businessmen is (in my opinion) nothing more than to say that a position of leadership shouldn’t be contractually obligated or “competed” for. It should be a calling and a place of service based on God’s sovereign Will.

   I’m going to have to stop here for now. Thank you for the opportunity to post and blessings on your mission!

4. Jul 16, 2008Ben Lovelace   #

   I attended a Foursquare Church in Modesto California for may years, I also worked for their District Office for a short time. The attitude Chuck Smith displayed is not uncommon in the Foursquare. We were taught that the church must be Sr. Pastor driven. Everything flowed down from him. The direction and vision for ministry, obviously the teaching. We were tought to be submissive to him, because he was our shepherd. I think since you did this expose on Calvary Chapel, you really need to look at the Foursquare Church and their un-biblical view of church leadership. It all started with Aimee Semple McPhereson or “Sister Aimee” as they call her, the rest is history.

5. Jul 17, 2008seth   #

   I used to attend a Calvary Chapel and there are plenty earnest brothers and sisters there. But I feel that they were being deprived of sound preaching, almost every sermon was geared toward the lost. Also it seems that there was a real lack of understanding when it came to the sacraments and a total neglect of study of the historical Christian Faith. I think that the oldest books in the book store were Andrew Murrays’. There is no doubt that Chuck Smiths doctrinal views were emphasized if not enforced and I that is a shame because many false teachings are put forward in his writings. I pray that God would use faithfull men to expose the problems and spare the flock.

6. Jul 19, 2008Pastor John   #

   I am glad to hear that you have taken the time to listen to our CC pod cast and to consider our concerns. As I mull over your remarks I am struck by how they really don’t fit with the official statements of CC or Chuck Smith.

   For instance, you argue that your local CC and local pastor don’t promote Chuck’s view of pastoral authority. But it is hard to see how you can remain affiliated without doing that, since following the Calvary Chapel Distinctives, written by Chuck, is a requirement for affiliation, and that set of distinctives mandates the view that the pastor is Moses who rules over the people, with the elders are under him. If your local CC doesn’t teach that, wonderful, but then you are not following CC guidelines, and CC guidelines prescribed by Chuck, were the things we were attacking in the show. The S & S broadcast was simply critiquing the official position of CC, not the actual practice of every CC, even though they promised to uphold those distinctives.

   As for your claim that CC’s are not under the authority of any “head” pastor, and that Chuck doesn’t function as a pope, since all CC’s are independent, it really amounts to a distinction without a difference. If Chuck prescribes what you are to believe (and he does), if Chuck requires all CC ministers to listen to his through the Bible series before they can affiliate (and he does), if Chuck decides on the applications for affiliation (and he does), and if Chuck has the unilateral authority to disaffiliate CC’s which aren’t following his rules (and he does), then it iss obvious that Chuck functions as the pope of CC. I realize that word, for obvious reasons, has unsavory connotations, but it is hard to deny that Chuck fulfills a role analogous to the Pope.

   Finally, you seem to think we are making too much of Chuck’s rebellious attitude displayed in his departure from the Corona church. Well, it seems problematic for a guy to claims to be a humble servant of Jesus, and at the same time refuse to take guidance from elders who have been charged with overseeing the church. As long as the elders are not in violation of God’s word, then a pastor is obligated to submit to the elders, or peaceably withdraw. The story of Chuck’s departure is filled with name calling, criticism —-basically charging the elders with worldliness (which is a very serious charge by the way), and manifests a spirit of arrogance. Now, from Chuck’s perspective what he did was o.k. because after all, he is Moses, who hears from the Lord, and who is above everyone else. Its precisely that kind of attitude which we argued was inconsistent with the claim of being a “humble servant” and out of accord with the Biblical model of pastoral submission to elder authority. To us, that is not making a sand castle out of a few grains of sand.

   I hope you will consider these things well. If you do, and you also carefully evaluate CC doctrine and practice in light of the scriptures and the reflection of the church throughout the ages, I am confident you will see that CC manifests a very sectarian spirit and lacks doctrinal depth and balance. We would argue one major reason that is true is because CC is presided over by one man, who is basically untaught, and unwilling to learn from the broader church or the history of the church. It would be surprising, given those circumstances, if CC did not manifest shallowness and doctrinal imbalance, since no one individual has a corner on all the truth.

   Pastor John