CC vs EC - Charge #8

The final charge is

8 - The great confusion that exists in the divergent positions of the Emergent Church results from their challenging the final authority of the Scriptures. When you no longer have a final authority, then everyone's ideas become as valid as the next person's, and it cannot help but end in total confusion and contradictions.

This one has several aspects which reflect on CC and Protestantism in general. Everyone does have their private interpretation of Scripture in Protestantism. That's not just a problem within the EC, but all of the Protestant Church.

For CC, this is an implicit assertion that it is only Chuck Smith's interpretation that matters. The final authority on what constitutes a CC is Chuck Smith and the position papers he endorses - ex cathedra. Pope Chuck at his worst.

The criticism of the EC is that they are a movement without a central authority. LOL.

CC vs EC - Charge #7

Chuck comes out against contemplative practices in the church:

7 - Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices of meditation through Yoga and special breathing techniques or repeating a mantra to hear God speak to us? If this is needed to enhance our communication with God, why do you suppose that God did not give us implicit instructions in the Scriptures to give us methods to hear His voice? Is it the position of my body or my heart that helps me to communicate with Him?

Where is the place for prayer in the Christian life? How serious should we be about it? What about fasting? When was the last time you heard Chuck Smith preach on fasting or any of the other spiritual disciples which are clearly found in the NT?

Jesus prescribes fasting for the church

Mat 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Is Meditation Eastern?
Christianity is Eastern. It was born in the Middle East. Meditation is part of the Christian faith and the Jewish faith. In the NT we read:

1Ti 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

The same is in the Old Testament:

Jos 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

CC vs EC - Charge #6

Homosexuality has been a hot topic at CCCM for a long time. In this charge, they write:

6 - Should we seek to condone what God has condemned, such as the homosexual lifestyle? Should we tell them that their problem is a genetic disorder rather than a blatant sin that God condemns over and over in the Bible? How long before they tell us that they have discovered that rapists, pedophiles, and adulterers have a genetic disorder and need to be understood rather than condemned?

The CC message seems long on condemnation here and little on the message that Christ came to save sinners. Not to make them good sinners, but to save them.

This is a pet peeve of Chuck Smith which led many attenders there after hearing Smith preach on it week after week that Chuck Smith can find anti-homosexual content in every verse in the Bible. True enough. When it comes to bad behavior there's more than a small amount of it to be found among CC pastors.

CC vs EC - Charge #5

The fifth charge is

5 - We do not believe that we should seek to make sinners feel safe and comfortable in church. Is it right for me to speak comfortable words to a man who is going to hell unless he turns from his sin? If I fail to warn him of the consequences of his sin, and he dies and goes to hell, will God require his blood at my hand? When is godly sorrow and conviction of sin such a wrong thing?

Once again this one feels like the pot calling the kettle black. Calvary Chapel is the place that the hippies were openly welcomed in spite of their dirty feet and smell or is physical comfort all that was provided by CC?

Does Calvary preach a message of repentance?
Not in my experience. It's a rare message that centers on the repentance of the pew warmer at Calvary Chapel.

CC vs EC - Charge #4

NO ICONS ALLOWED

4 - We have great problems with the use of icons to give them a sense of God or the presence of God. If they want to have a tie with the historicity of the church, why not go back to the church in Acts, which seems to be devoid of incense, candles, robes etc., but was filled with the Spirit.

Was the early church "devoid of icons"? The use of priestly clothing and incense have very early witness.

Should the church have incense?
Interesting question which Smith would clearly say "no". Unfortunately for Smith the Bible says something quite different. Mal 1:11 prophetically states about the church that

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

The context here is clearly one of the proper worship of God among the Gentiles and incense is specifically mentioned.

Let's turn this passage around. In every place where God is worshiped incense is offered. Is incense offered at any CC? Nope. Then it stands to be asked if God is being worshiped there or are they only playing at worship?

The Scriptural Test
Are there Scriptural prohibitions against incense? We see the contrary is the case. Are there Scriptural prohibitions against robes? The Priests in the Old Testament wore priestly clothing to differentiate them from the rest of the people. The principle would seem to be a sound one even today. It marks a person as a religious leader if they wear different clothing. There are no prohibitions against this anywhere in the New Testament and there is a precedent for it in the Old Testament. How can CC justify their rejection of specific clothing? There is no indication in the NT one way or the other.

How about Icons?
Calvary Chapels often have religious images in their worship spaces. Costa Mecca has a wooden dove at the front of the church and on their literature. Why? Does the New Testament portray the dove icon anywhere? Or is the presence of the icon not so much the issue as the attitude of the person towards the icon?

This same controversy happened way back in church history. It was called the iconclast controversy. 'Iconoclasts' were deeply suspicious of any pictorial representations of Christ, the Mother of God, and the saints, and they therefore unleashed a wave of persecution against the use of religious images, while 'iconophiles' fiercely defended the veneration of icons as an integral element of the life of the church.

The controversy over icons during the eighth and ninth centuries shook the entire Byzantine Empire. Emperor Leo III triggered the dispute with an open condemnation of icons in 726, and only the Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 787, could reverse the iconoclastic current.

Basically, Calvary Chapel agrees with the Roman Catholic emperor Leo III. On the other side, the church council settled the question in favor of icons. Calvary Chapel has a right to be distinctive but they need to understand that their position was rejected by the entire church in 787. It was the Muslims who have a radical rejection of religious imagery that inspired the icon smashers. Why does Calvary side with the Muslims against the Christian church?

CC vs EC - Charge #3

This next one has to be the best of all:

3 - We have difficulty in their touchy-feely relating to God. Where the experience of certain feelings become the criteria for truth rather than the word of God.

This is too nebulous a charge to address, but if there is one characteristic of CC it is that CC is all about "feeling" God. It's the burning of the bosom that one gets when visiting CCCM that you hear many testify about. The stress at CC on a personal relationship with Jesus is the center of "touchy-feely." The position paper does not explain what constitutes an appropriate amount of touchey-feeliness.

CC vs EC - Charge #2

The second charge CC has leveled against the EC is:

2 - The soft peddling of hell as the destiny for those who reject the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. There are suggestions of universalism in their teaching, that all will ultimately be saved.

There are two charges here which are once against unsubstantiated.

About making unsubstantiated charges against Christians
This is an ethical problem. Does the Bible permit CC to make these charges without substantiation? I think that CC is being unethical here.

The two charges are "soft peddling of hell" and "suggestions of universalism".

1 - Soft peddling of Hell. This same charge has been raised against Calvary Chapel. Here's how it can be done. Go to the document "What Calvary Teaches". Search the document about what Calvary teaches for "hell". You will only find one reference and it is in a section about what Calvary rejects. Near as one can tell from their own official documents they "soft peddle hell".

2 - Universalism. Again there is no specific quote included and even this point says that the EC only offers a "suggestion" of universalism. This point was also dealt with in the first point.

OK, we get it. Calvary Chapel is against everyone being saved. Nuff said.

CC vs EC - Charge #1

The first charge CC has raised against the EC is:

1 - That Jesus is not the only way by which one might be saved. It seems that they are postulating a broader gate and a broader path to heaven, a sort of "all roads lead to heaven." That good people by every religious persuasion may be received into heaven. We feel that this goes against the plain teaching of the Scriptures and negates the need of the cross for the expiation of our sins. Paul wrote of those men in his letter to the Philippians and called them enemies of the cross of Christ. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father but by Me." This is not relative truth, but absolute truth.

Since there is no specific source and only "it seems that they" statement this is hard to address. For the sake of argument let's assume that there are some people in the EC which see other roads to Heaven outside of Evangelical Protestantism. So what?

Saying all roads lead to heaven is quite a different thing than saying good people get to get to heaven. If all people go to heaven then it doesn't matter whether one is good or not.

What About Righteous Pre-NT People?
The position paper fails to take account of people who have never heard the Gospel message or those who lived prior to 27 AD. What about them? Was David saved? Certainly CC would say he was, but did David know Jesus? CC seems to be ignoring these questions by their flip response.

Phil Passage Butchered Out of Context
The Phillipians scripture quote is completely out of context and is drawn upon in the most evil sort of way by CC. The context of Phillipians 3:18 is those who are seeking to draw Christians back into the Jewish Law and they are called enemies of God. The dogs and evil workers are those of the circumcision (Jewish Christians trying to draw people back into Judaism).

If there is one consistent characteristic of the Emerging Church is that they are not drawing people back into following the Old Testament Law. Quite the contrary. Their ethos is the exact opposite, drawing people towards grace. If there is one side that is closer to drawing people back to law, it is CC not the EC.

Absolute vs Relative Truth
Are the words of Jesus "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me." intended as absolute truth? Certainly they are an absolute statement but is CC reading them right? Try another reading that fits the words quite nicely. If someone is coming to God, then God is drawing them to Himself through Jesus. Does that mean that they even know who Jesus is? Can't this drawing be progressive?

Who was Jesus speaking to?
He was speaking to an audience who was rejecting Him and claiming they could get to God without Jesus. That was a different situation than what the EC are talking about. Certainly if someone is deliberately and consciously rejecting Christ they have a reason to be concerned about their souls.

Emergent Controversy

Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel have come out swinging at the Emergent Church in a way that is reminiscent of the sort of attacks that Calvary Chapel received from mainline churches in the 1970s. Calvary Chapel has always been "seeker sensitive" when the term is defined in the broadest way. Smith prides himself on being the one to tell the usher that the people without shoes (the hippies in the 1960's) should be allowed to come in and the church would take care of cleaning the carpets after they left.

Why Has the Emerging Church Movement Gone Too Far?
This one's a bit harder to follow. With the (self) excommunication of Chuck Smith Jr from Calvary Chapel the separation has taken hold.

The criticisms are non-specific in terms of who said what or pointing to any authoritative position since the emerging church itself is non-specific and has no central authority - unlike CC where Chuck Smith is the pope. The emergents have taken a page from Calvary by eschewing traditional denominational associations but gone a step further by not needing someone like Smith at the center.

Listing the errors of the EC, the CC position paper says

1 - That Jesus is not the only way by which one might be saved. It seems that they are postulating a broader gate and a broader path to heaven, a sort of "all roads lead to heaven." That good people by every religious persuasion may be received into heaven. We feel that this goes against the plain teaching of the Scriptures and negates the need of the cross for the expiation of our sins. Paul wrote of those men in his letter to the Philippians and called them enemies of the cross of Christ. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father but by Me." This is not relative truth, but absolute truth.

2 - The soft peddling of hell as the destiny for those who reject the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. There are suggestions of universalism in their teaching, that all will ultimately be saved.

3 - We have difficulty in their touchy-feely relating to God. Where the experience of certain feelings become the criteria for truth rather than the word of God.

4 - We have great problems with the use of icons to give them a sense of God or the presence of God. If they want to have a tie with the historicity of the church, why not go back to the church in Acts, which seems to be devoid of incense, candles, robes etc., but was filled with the Spirit.

5 - We do not believe that we should seek to make sinners feel safe and comfortable in church. Is it right for me to speak comfortable words to a man who is going to hell unless he turns from his sin? If I fail to warn him of the consequences of his sin, and he dies and goes to hell, will God require his blood at my hand? When is godly sorrow and conviction of sin such a wrong thing?

6 - Should we seek to condone what God has condemned, such as the homosexual lifestyle? Should we tell them that their problem is a genetic disorder rather than a blatant sin that God condemns over and over in the Bible? How long before they tell us that they have discovered that rapists, pedophiles, and adulterers have a genetic disorder and need to be understood rather than condemned?

7 - Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices of meditation through Yoga and special breathing techniques or repeating a mantra to hear God speak to us? If this is needed to enhance our communication with God, why do you suppose that God did not give us implicit instructions in the Scriptures to give us methods to hear His voice? Is it the position of my body or my heart that helps me to communicate with Him?

8 - The great confusion that exists in the divergent positions of the Emergent Church results from their challenging the final authority of the Scriptures. When you no longer have a final authority, then everyone's ideas become as valid as the next person's, and it cannot help but end in total confusion and contradictions.

Let's look at each of these claims one at a time.