This is in response to the page by Doug Gilliland raising certain questions of varying degrees of validity about Calvary Chapel and its affiliates. I will, as an unofficial response from a congregant in a Calvary Chapel affiliate, having sat under Calvary Chapel-esque teaching for the entire duration of my Christian walk, answer to my personal satisfaction the questions that Mr. Gilliland raises. Whether he chooses to accept these answers is quite another story entirely. However, these answers are now a matter of public record.
Whereas I as an independent saint who fellowships within the Calvary Chapel framework have always considered CC to be denominational on the basis of the overwhelming commonality amongst those fellowships affiliated with CC Costa Mesa, I can both understand the leadership's hesitancy at being termed a denomination and can offer a plausible rationale to it's not being able to be strictly called a denomination by pointing out the fact that it has never incorporated itself as such. The Southern Baptist Convention -- for instance -- is purposefully denominational, both billing itself as such and having actively incorporated itself likewise, whereas Calvary Chapel's denominational characteristics [unity around a set of universally accepted doctrinal distinctives; some form of ecclesiastical structure; intentional commonality of fellowship; etc.] are inevitable once more than one local body begin to associate closely and take on a common goal, vision, heritage, and mode.
One has stated once in the newsgroup alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel that the set of doctrinal distinctives which CC adheres to is narrower than that of mainline denominations, which I would firmly disagree with. In my experience, Calvary Chapel permits a far wider range of thought on secondary doctrinal issues than -- for instance -- the Christian Reformed Church or the Presbyterian Church in America.
Return to Index
Probably for the same reason the cross does not physically appear on a great many other church buildings. We are Christians, not idolaters; as such we worship a living God, not a mere symbol. [In passing I would note that the best symbol I have personally ever seen employed on a Christian building is that used by the Christian Reformed Church. They use a cross superimposed on an equilateral triangle, thus symbolizing Jesus Christ, the God Made Flesh, Second Person of the Holy Triunity.]
Doug makes the excellent point that the symbol of the cross is a stumblingblock. However, I would correct him by stating that it is not the SYMBOL of a cross -- many, many porn stars and punk rock "artists" wear crosses on their very persons -- but rather the MESSAGE of the cross, which is the stumblingblock.
My personal opinion is that the practice of Horizon Christian Fellowship -- a Calvary Chapel affiliate -- is best: Not a cross, but the Name "Jesus" on the back wall behind the podium.
Return to Index
I personally take the situation at hand to determine whether or not I will refer to Christianity as a religion. Usually, I too differentiate between "religion" -- as the world sees it -- and "relationship," as God envisions it. True religion IS relationship rather than trying to earn enough spiritual brownie points. Hence when Whitefield, Edwards, Wesley, Calvin, Bunyan, Tyndale, and other great saints of the past refer to "religion" they are in fact referring to this dynamic relationship RATHER THAN THE HORRIBLE COUNTERFEIT MODERNLY BEING PASSED OFF AS "RELIGION." And in an effort to be very careful to distinguish concepts, Calvary Chapel and others -- including most Pentecostal and charismatic Christians, and a good number of noncharismatics [such as Swindoll, Stanley, MacArthur, and Lucado] -- generally will use the term "relationship" in place of the horribly abused "religion."
Return to Index
Doug incorrectly asserts that CC kicked out the Vineyard. This represents something of an inaccuracy. What actually occurred was this: The Vineyard began with a Calvary Chapel home fellowship in southern California. This fellowship was prophetically given the name "Vineyard," and when they became large enough they formed their own church, Vineyard Christian Fellowship, a Calvary Chapel affiliate. Mrs. Wimber began fellowshipping there after becoming disillusioned with their old denomination [Society of Friends, aka "Quakers"] after becoming charismatic in pneumatology. Mr. Wimber had left the Friends church, and was also disillusioned. After much encouragement, he eventually agreed to come and pastor this Calvary Chapel affiliate, which he did for a while before moving on to another Calvary Chapel.
Mr. Wimber began to develop a different vision than that of Chuck Smith; and whereas Chuck was content to allow John to pursue that vision [the vision was a program of aggressive evangelism which, once the Vineyard broke away, became wildly successful until recent years for the AVC] on his own, but John wanted the entire Calvary Chapel movement to "catch the fire." Also about this time, Chuck and others became concerned with the overemphasis on signs and wonders in those churches directly affiliated with Mr. Wimber. John had been counselled and asked to tone things down.
Then came that fateful Calvary Chapel pastors' conference in Twin Peaks. In the middle of it, John and a sizeable number of CC pastors left in the midst of great tension -- Mr. Stipe was one of these, as well as a friend of mine who pastored a Vineyard on the east coast before becoming convinced just recently that the Vineyard was all wet and realigned his affiliation from Vineyard to CC -- and thus the Vineyard was born as a separate entity from Calvary Chapel.
Chuck at that point was not going to "boot" either Mr. Wimber or the Vineyard in general; they left of their own accord for what may well be honest convictions -- though the present fruit of the Vineyard movement mitigates sharply against that, in my opinion.
No form of church government is going to be perfect; but I am personally very leery of congregational or presbyterian forms of government, since the very real possibility exists of perpetuating false doctrine or heteropraxy because the congregation or elders don't want to hear the Truth.
Regardless, CC's system of church government is valid.
Return to Index
Vineyards tend to have a similar model of government. While I was involved in the Vineyard movement, I had a point of contention with my pastor over the recent [very recent, at that time] outbreak of the Tornado -- gosh, there I go again; I mean "Toronto" -- "Blessing". I wanted to know his Scriptural justification for allowing that nonsense into the church. He set aside some time for me to hear my concerns [he handled the entire situation, in my opinion, very very well], and then asked to defend his reasoning. We discussed for a while, and parted ways amicably [though I did not leave that particular fellowship for another year or so; it's not the manifestations that bug me, but rather the utter, 100% lack of concern for sound doctrine, the focusing on the manifestations themselves, and the absolute nonexistence of Scriptural discernment associated with the Tornado -- er, "Toronto" -- "Blessing" which concerned me and eventually caused me to leave the Vineyard and return to Calvary Chapel].
They are accountable in so far as they expect you to check them and what they teach out; they are not accountable in that you cannot vote them out for stepping on your toes. If I disagree sharply enough, I leave the fellowship and find one I can more readily agree with. I cannot force the fellowship to conform to my particular views, or muzzle the pastor in the pulpit because he's making me uncomfortable in the preaching of the Truth.
Return to Index
Return to Index
I, for instance, am prewrath, premillennial in eschatology. I believe that this view not only best represents the clear evidence of Scripture, but is also important for Christian maturity and a proper Christian paradigm. So whereas I recognize that -- for instance -- postmillennialism and amillennialism both lie within the pale of historic orthodoxy, and therefore cannot divide with my less accurate brethren over this issue, I will neither teach it nor can I in good conscience allow it to be taught from the pulpit of a church I pastored. Were I to be true to my convictions -- which by God's grace I try to be -- I could not condone the dissemination of error from my pulpit. Error that does not have the power to damn; but error nonetheless. I am in that regard "dogmatic," if you will; I prefer to refer to it as "being committed to objective, unalterable Truth."
That having been said, the answer to the question is "yes" on a handful of very important nonessentials. One, Calvary Chapel rightly rejects 5-point Calvinism. We also reject Word-Faith-ism. We reject erroneous eschatologies, such as a- or postmillennialism.
I note with some sadness Doug's use of the word "excommunication." I am not sure he is aware of what that term means, how it was carried out, and the full theological ramifications of it. "Excommunication" is a term that is used to describe the highest form of Church discipline. In excommunication the errant saint is cast outside the fellowship -- "delivered unto Satan," is the Scriptural phrase -- and this in order to get him to come to his senses and repent of gross heterodoxy or heteropraxy. In Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox circles, it also included the grave sentence of eternal death [for to both parties you cannot be truly saved unless you are part of the "True" Church -- though both allow for what the Catholics call "invincible ignorance."]. It is incorrect to use either the term "excommunicated" or "disfellowshipped" in either case mentioned by Doug; rather, these individuals were walking a path upon which Calvary was not, and so were moved along, in much the same way that an Arminian Presbyterian [an oxymoron if I've ever seen one] would be similarly "moved along." There is no unity there on important secondaries. They would still be brethren, but brethren who disagree sharply and diametrically on important nonessentials.
Return to Index
Return to Index
On a practical level, however, they "work for" [or "are held accountable by"] the senior pastor of that particular congregation.
It is not uncommon for assistants to move on to form their own fellowships, and this not always under the blessings of the seniors. This is the case of Leo Gionovetti, pastor of Mission Valley Christian Fellowship. Leo was Mike MacIntosh's [Horizon] assistant for a good number of years, but for one reason or another he abruptly left and formed MVCF.
Another example is that of Horizon East County. The pastor of HEC rejected Young Earth Cosmology -- which I and the rest of Calvary Chapel affirm -- and a few other particulars of Mike MacIntosh's style. He therefore left and formed HEC. Incidentally, now HEC and HCF enjoy a cooperative, friendly relationship, and HEC enjoys full CC affiliate status. [Also, HEC is decidedly "NIV-Almost-Only." They'll accept the NASB, and think the KJV is all wet. I almost agree with them.]
If a senior pastor is teaching heterodoxy, that pastor is generally removed from being a Calvary Chapel pastor. I have never heard of this ever happening, however; the only removals were because the pastor was not walking with Calvary Chapel, but was going another course, and therefore was let go. Hence the Vineyard [though the "letting go" in this case came from the Vineyard's side and not CC's].
Return to Index
Pretty much, that is the CC model. You are to hold the pastor accountable. If the pastor is teaching something wrong, go confront him. If he refuses to hear you, leave the fellowship.
Return to Index
Return to Index
As far as getting "nonsectarian" names, this just happens naturally in a nondenominational denomination. Hence Harvest, Horizon, Living Waters Fellowship [in Detroit], etc.
Return to Index
Though most Calvary Chapel pastors happen to be KJV-Superior-ists, CC in general is hardly KJV-Only. Greg Laurie, heir-apparent of the Calvary Chapel movement, loves the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and NLT. In fact, at his recent Harvest Crusades, the New Believers' New Testament that is handed out is NLT.
Mike MacIntosh, a protégé of Chuck Smith's, is an NKJV supporter. I myself waffle between NKJV and NASB.
Essentially, the point is that though the KJV is preferred among most CC's, this is hardly a monolithic preference. Now, compare that with the attitudes of true KJV-Only-ists, like a particular Bible "teacher" in the Pensacola region, and you see the vast difference betwixt the twain. A true, died-in-the-wool KJV-Only-ist would go apoplectic if you even happened to glance at an NIV...
Return to Index
In answer to the question, Calvary Chapel neither supports nor seeks to destroy denominations as such. In fact, a good many CC's have good relations with denominational churches. Horizon Honolulu, for instance, maintains good relations with First Assembly of Honolulu. Horizon San Diego often invites Messianic rabbis from the area.
Then there's the salient fact that -- again -- Calvary Chapels are usually involved in the Promise Keepers movement, which is by nature transdenominational.
CC tends to be less adamant about other denominations than do those very denominations. Presbyterians, for instance -- who are 5-point Calvinists by their very Reformed nature -- don't get along too well with Methodists -- who are Wesleyan Arminians.
Return to Index
Now, whereas I am not in complete agreement with the concept of having tried to kill the newsgroup -- it provides me with an excellent medium through which to answer, for instance, these questions -- I fully understand the desire for a moderated space in which to fellowship. There are plenty of other areas where one could have gone for debate.
Return to Index
Return to Index
When one reads the excerpts that Doug presents, one is left a mite mystified as to how one can construe a suggestion of a strong, hope-filled possibility with an actual prediction. Doug's friends who "left the faith" [not a possibility if they ever truly were "in" the faith -- but that is the subject of another response] after the close of 1981 were more than a bit creative in assigning something to Mr. Smith's words that were not there in the original.
Mr. Smith is decidedly dispensational in eschatology. Doug will have to admit that dispensationalism lies well within the pale of historic orthodoxy, as much as his own Covenantalist theology is. One of the aspects of dispensational theology is the Scriptural teaching of the "imminent Return" of Y'Shua to snatch away His Church [aka, the Rapture]. Almost all dispensationalists believe that the Second Coming will occur within this generation, or very, very shortly thereafter. This not only is a thoroughly orthodox position, but -- they would argue -- is the Scripturally orthodox position, on the basis of Hebrews 9:28 among others, where we are counseled as Christians to "eagerly await" His parousia. I -- being a modified dispensationalist -- would tend to agree, and would look seriously askance at postmillennialism, and downright dolefully at amillennialism.
Because of the various prophecies surrounding the Second Coming and the Rapture, I myself am seriously prone to believe that my Lord is returning well within my lifetime, and that produces in me the great desire for holy living -- which is the direct outgrowth of prewrath premillennialism, which is why we hold that this particular eschatology is the correct one, and important enough to insist upon within the parameters of the Calvary Chapel Movement -- but that is the subject of response #7.
Return to Index
The essence of both the Rapture and the glorified body of the saint is that of a restoration [Acts 3:21]. Though I would tend to agree with Doug that the noncontinuity theory is somewhat lacking, I must admit that it is at least plausible. Allow me to explain.
Though the case can be strongly made that there is complete continuity between the saint's mortal and immortal bodies on the basis that Y'Shua -- Who is the "firstborn of the dead" -- had 100% continuity, there comes a point where the continuity must, of a necessity, break down. If a saint has been dead for -- oh, say, six thousand years, then there can be no direct continuity whatsoever. His component parts and elements have been dispersed and subsequently have become part of other creatures and even perhaps other individuals. Ole' Bob's planted next to a cornfield after he kicks the bucket. Some 100-odd years later, after both his body and his casket have completely deteriorated, Jenny Jones eats some corn that was planted near ole' Bob's grave. That corn contains elements once belonging to ole' Bob's mortal frame. Those elements become inextricably part of Jenny Jones' body, until it is ejected during the normal course of excretive activity. When Y'Shua orders His archangel to blow the trumpet at midnight over the city of Jerusalem, and the dead in Him rise first, ole' Bob's not going to have complete continuity with his mortal body whatsoever -- parts of the poor boy are scattered all across the fruited plain -- possibly even appearing in Herr Limbaugh's next sip of Snapple. Ergo, God totally reconstitutes his body by total recreative fiat.
In another example, let's say that Johnny is a Christian of the first order. Johnny one day tastes Becky's firewall on the freeway in a head-on collision. Miraculously, the paramedics are able to preserve his organs to such a degree that Johnny -- who signed the "organ donor" thingy on the back of his drivers' license -- is able to give up his now-unneeded heart to dying Mr. Jimmy. The heart transplant is successful, and Mr. Jimmy -- who is decidedly not a Christian, though he attends church regularly -- goes on living. A few months thereafter, the Rapture occurs. Does Mr. Jimmy die suddenly as his heart is mysteriously raptured right out of his body? I think not. Rather, the Father -- again, by direct creative fiat -- reconstitutes a new heart in Johnny's body.
Or, let's take the what-if one step further. Let's say that Mr. Jimmy becomes a Christian before that time. His old heart has been destroyed -- SOP for HazMat in a hospital. In the Resurrection, does Johnny enjoy his old heart, while poor Mr. Jimmy walks around a bit heart-less? Of course not.
So you see that there comes a time in sound reasoning where absolute continuity becomes a nonrational point; a noncontinuity theory -- while again being in my opinion less than accurate -- at the very least lies within the bounds of possibility.
Doug has recently raise the objection that I do not answer his objection to this point of doctrine, to which I must kindly reply that I do in fact answer. The point of this answer is to demonstrate that a noncontinuity theory -- again, while being remarkably inadequate -- is far from the "core essential" that Doug demands it be. Mr. Smith et al firmly declare the reality of the believer's physical, bodily resurrection. My answer, therefore, stands.
Return to Index
Doug's objection comes from the use of the term "separate" in reference to the Persons of the Theotetos. I have adequately demonstrated two things:
1) The amount of semantic convergence between the terms "separate" and "distinct" are sufficient to allow for Calvary Chapel's usage. There is no real difference between the two terms in this context because:
2) We are speaking of Person over against Being. God is absolutely One in Being while being Triune in Person. Theologically speaking, the term "person" does not refer to a distinct individual or entity, but rather a separate personality [or persona]. Ergo, just as it is entirely incorrect to sate -- as the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does -- that there are three distinct beings in the Godhead, it is also entirely correct to state that there is but One God Who is ontologically One in Being and Nature and Substance, yet Who eternally exists in Three separate Persons. When referencing the Persons of the Theotetos, since we are referring to the One True God of the Scriptures Who is absolutely One in Being, it is entirely acceptable and correct to distinguish between the Persons of that Theotetos with either term ["distinct" or "separate"].
As a side note, I too prefer the use of the term "distinct" over "separate," but only because that is the theologically accepted term used; the English language permits both in the context described above.
Return to Index
The basic forms of church government are: Episcopal [government by a tiered series of bishops], presbyterian [government by the eldership], and congregational [government by the body itself]. All three have problems, which should be expected considering the nature of fallen man.
In Calvary Chapels, you become a "member" by regular attendance and by becoming involved in the ministry. There are always opportunities. There is usually a dire need of ministers in the "less than glamorous" sections of ministry -- the nursery, after-service cleanup, counselling, prayer team, etc. More often than not, the Calvaries tend to be more or less cell-based, in which the actual ministrations occur during the week at the Home Fellowships [I myself was an Assistant Home Fellowship Leader of the El Cajon Home Fellowship of Horizon Christian Fellowship, San Diego]. In this case, you become an active member of your Home Fellowship by getting yourself involved. Calvaries tend to look greatly askance at the pew-warmer approach of some congregationalist fellowships.
I myself once fellowshipped at a congregationalist church. It was Maranatha Ministries in Grandville, Michigan, and over the course of one year it slipped into the most amazing heterodoxy [it became Word-Faith]. I was a "voting member" of that church; yet since the congregation was infected with this particular cancer -- to the point that when Gil Howard-Browne stated that "What the church needs is head-bypass surgery," the congregation went wild in laughter and applause [it was very shortly thereafter that I left] -- the congregationalistic bent of the church did me nothing, and I "voted" in the usual Calvary fashion: I voted with my feet. I left. I voiced my concerns, was benignly ignored, and I left when it became painfully apparent that the congregation had voted themselves into office a pastor who cared not in the least for sound doctrine but tickled their itching ears [most were TBN-ites prior to Steve Bacon's arrival to the church; all became TBN-ites afterward].
Doug believes in a congregationalistic ecclesiology. And that is definitely his right; however, congregationalism has its flaws, the most glaring of which is the tendency of congregationalistic churches to heap up for themselves those teachers that don't rock the boat too much or step on too many toes. A pastor who begins to teach objective Truth in an uncompromising fashion to a congregation of spiritual laggards will many times tend to find himself out the door, due to the fact that the congregation rules him rather than the Scriptural opposite [Hebrews 13:17, among others].
However, I again affirm Doug's right to his opinion.
Return to Index
The term "charismatic" does not mean that the individual rolls around on the floor "barking in the Spirit" or babbling off in tongues during a service; rather, the term simply designates an individual who believes that a) the Bible declares that the pneumatikon were given at Pentecost, and b) the Bible nowhere even hints that the pneumatikon were repealed; ergo, they are still in operation. That's it; that's all.
Within the parameters of the term "charismatic" there are several shades. On the one end, you have the Pentecostals, who -- among other things -- believe in the doctrine of "initial evidence." That is, anybody who has been "baptized in the Spirit" will invariably [as in, in a "carbon-copy" fashion] speak with tongues. On the other end you have men like J. I. Packer, who -- while not identifying themselves as "charismatic," do indeed hold to the perpetuity doctrine; these identify themselves usually by the terms "Third Waver" or "Empowered Evangelical." They nowhere emphasize the gifts, nor demonstrate themselves to be remarkably "geeked" about them; they simply quietly disagree with their rabid cessationist brethren, and happily go on teaching and practicing the gifts to themselves and their congregations, refusing to go on jihad in order to get the whole church to accept this doctrine.
Doug most likely lies somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, though I strongly suspect that he leans most heavily toward the Pentecostal side [Pentecostals are almost to a man Arminian in theology and are even more concerned with the teaching of the perpetuity doctrine than are "mere" charismatics].
[As a side note, I would point out that in the nonchristian world there are those cults which also teach a perpetuity doctrine. The largest cult is the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which teaches in their "Statement of Faith" [Doctrine & Covenants, in the back of the work] that the gifts are still active. A smaller, but no less insidious cult is the Word-Faith Movement. Word-Faithers teach -- among other things -- 1) that their god is physical [it has a real body that is identical to that of a human], 2) their god is a nonsovereign lackey of "Spiritual Laws" that can be manipulated into doing what you want it to do by manipulating "faith-filled words" in "faith formulae," 3) man has the capacity to create his own reality by "speaking it into existence," 4) their "Jesus" is not eternal God, but a demigod which laid down its "deity" during the Incarnation -- an ontological impossibility since God -- by definition -- is eternally God and can at no point cease to be God, and 5) they de facto teach that their "Holy Spirit" is a force -- a personal force, to be sure, but a force nonetheless, which can be manipulated, transmitted by touch, blowing, or waving the hand, and cast across a room.]
Calvaries are all decidedly charismatic, though the degree of practice of the pneumatikon varies from fellowship to fellowship. Horizon [Mount Alifan campus], for instance, is very conservative. Practice of the pneumatikon are reserved for the Home Fellowships and for the Wednesday service in the old auditorium. On the other hand, it is not unusual to hear a word of prophecy in Calvary Chapel Cleveland, or in CCEGR [my own fellowship]. All lie within the parameters of being "charismatic." Incidentally, all reject "charismania," or what you would see in nonchristian Word-Faith "churches." This is the practice of de facto mayhem, in which proper order is condemned and thrown out the door.
Doug somewhat incorrectly asserts that an insistence upon Scriptural order locks out the Holy Spirit's Sovereign use of His gifts in and among His people. I disagree most firmly, and suggest in counter that it is a cancerous disregard for sound doctrine and Scriptural order which kills true fellowship in charismaniac "churches." Many Calvaries tend to be quite large -- 500 persons or more. The exercise of -- for instance -- a word of knowledge would be impractical on a large scale. This is why in the Home Fellowships such activity is usually encouraged -- again, within the bounds of good order. The Holy Spirit is the God of order, and He usually does not interrupt Himself [for instance, His modus operandi is not to interrupt a sermon with another manifestation of His Presence]. And much to the contrary of Doug's assertion that the exercise of the pneumatikon is effectively "locked out" by Scriptural order, I have frequently encountered the practice of such in Calvary meetings.
In Calvary Chapels, however, the main point is sound doctrine and the preaching of the Word. Focus is not on things like the pneumatikon or such-like until those texts are reached which have bearing on the teachings. In this, Calvary tends to be "Third Wave" over against the far more extreme Pentecostal.
Return to Index
So much for a "King James Only" position for Calvary...
Return to Index
Return to Index
I have endeavored in this document to answer Doug's questions concerning Calvary Chapel on a point-by-point basis. He will doubtless reject the vast majority of these defenses, which is to be expected when and individual is very convinced of his opinion. However, they are now the matter of public record, should anyone be in the least bit interested.
Return to Index
The objective reader will, however, note the vitriolic tone of Mr. Robinson's "response," as well as the a priori argumentation that "The Anglican Church is the Ground and Pillar of the Truth", which underpins it. You may see for yourself here.
The most amusing thing about the "response," however,
is how many times Mr. Robinson shoots both himself and Doug in the foot.
Again, however, a response is forthcoming...
Last Updated on 6/27/97 by Michael D Macon