Wikipedia on Calvary Chapel

A few years ago I attempted to edit the Calvary Chapel wikipedia entry and my edits were quickly removed by a CCite. I noticed that most of the points I brought forward at the time have since been reinserted albeit in most cases from sources other than mine.

If anyone doesn’t think CC acts in a cult-like manner, check the Talk page for the wikipedia entry. CCites (pastors I think) have been defending the page and boy do they make the whole “movement” look bad. Anyone considering CC would do well to see the arguments put forward on that page to defend CC.

Note the page stands as having a contested neutrality. That’s a flag itself.

Also, there are quite a few red herrings on the Wikipedia talk page for the CC entry. One is in the area of what constitutes a denomination. The only thing keeping CC from being a denomination is Chuck Smith’s unsupported claim that CC is not a denomination. If Smith woke up tomorrow and said “CC is a denomination” you’d have 1000 pastors saying that they are part of the CC denomination.

However, I think they like the franchise title even less so perhaps it would benefit them to embrace the “denomination” title. Bad arguments include my favorite one –

We are not a denomination because CCs are independent.

Bad argument since there are plenty of denominations where the local churches are independent – all Congregational and congregational churches are independent. IE, they are locally controlled.

Also, the CCites fail to define independent or if they do put it in terms of mandatory dollars sent to denominational HQ. Again, there are other denominations which do not have mandatory dollars sent to denominational HQ. What is the cash flow from local CCs to the mother ship? Nobody really knows. If CCCM lent money for the start-up then there’s cash flow back. Plus the mother ship is hardly a weak/poor church.

I propose an easy definition of denomination fitting with the internet age. If there’s a listing on some webpage of the local instances of the church, it’s a denomination.

Finally, CCs are not independent. They are bound together by Chuck Smith. He is the head of the denomination and his position cannot be questioned since it rests in his person. Their ordinations trace back to Chuck Smith. The dove flies because he says it can fly.

What keeps Smith from admitting CC is a denomination? He’s been printing that it’s not a denomination for a very long time. He may realize that CC won’t outlive him since he’s the central point of unity. Most importantly if he did admit it was a denomination he would be ultimately losing power. CCOF turned out to be a disaster since Smith can’t delegate power.

I think embracing the word “denomination” would help CCittes avoid the charge that CC is a personality cult centered around Chuck Smith. Note this personality cult problem is very old in Christianity. Paul addressed it:

1Cor 1:12-13 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Insert Chuck Smith in place of Cephas or Apollos and you get Paul’s point. We are not to set up churches around a person. That’s idolatry at it’s best and blasphemy.

Since I fully expect Dave Rolph will ignore the question…

Any pastor who claims that Chuck Smith is their pastor is in reality claiming that he is their bishop for their are no pastors in scripture over pastors, but rather Bishops over pastors. The main characteristic of a bishop is to rule well. Since Chuck claims to not rule and when he does rule he does it poorly, he is in fact NOT the pastor or Bishop of any CC pastor.

This brings up the question of ordination, and as it relates to this BLOG, the ordination of Bob Grenier. Was Bob ordained by Chuck Smith? If so, by what authority did he ordain Bob (and we know he ordained others such as the scoundrel Hank Hanegraaff)? The Apostles ordained and the Bishops/Overseers did as well. They did it by command of the Holy Spirit. By Chuck ordaining others, he is making either a Apostolic or Bishopric claim.

Is or is not Chuck Smith the Bishop/Overseer of Calvary Chapel?

Now if Smith is the Bishop over the churches, then BIBLICALLY he shares responsibility for their actions and failure to discipline them is his abrogation of BIBLICAL responsibility.

The only conclusion is that Smith is either a corrupt Bishop over his flock (the CC pastors) or he’s not a Bishop at all over them. CCites, pick your poison. He is not ruling well (again, the BIBLICAL standard by which a bishop/overseer is judged).

Let’s try and stick with the Biblical texts as if they are prototypes for the church of how we should behave in the house of God, rather than suggestions we can follow or reject. I suggest we work on developing a strong BIBLICAL case (as outlined above) which lays specifically out the requirements for Bishop (the only position Smith could potentially claim) and prove our case that he needs to be publicly tried on those grounds and removed from his role, or redefined as NOT THE BISHOP.

I suggest we start here with the assumption that the Scriptures are PRESCRIPTIVE of how the church should operate rather than DESCRIPTIVE and limited to the first century situation. Here’s the starting text:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

That was the purpose of 1 Timothy which is the banner passage of this page.

So, I pose this question to Chuck Smith, Dave Rolph or anyone who can answer from the CC organization.

Is or is not Chuck Smith the Bishop/Overseer of Calvary Chapel?

My opinion is that Chuck Smith is not the Bishop of Calvary Chapel. Then by what right does he ask men to associate with him? This is both sectarian (Scripturally like “some say they follow Paul, some say they follow Peter, others say they follow Jesus” and divisive because rather than being against divisions in the body as they claim (the body is already divided enough) it has become yet another division of the body. That alone is enough to declare affiliation UN-SCRIPTURAL.

I took a week off to think about all of this and do some business at the same time. I think the only right strategy is to strike at the head. Few will have the stomach to do this feeling more sympathy for an old man than for the people of the church. I think this is a misplaced loyalty and a form of favoritism (probably the main charge against CC/CS).

Chuck Smith in reality wants to control the franchise/trademark. The problem is that he can’t control whether someone names their church Calvary Chapel since there were other local churches with that name before CCCM. He can’t control the symbol (the dove) since it’s widely used before and outside of CCCM. The only thing Chuck can control is the list of affiliated churches (as seen on their website list). For potential attendees interested in the brand they can go to the official list and see if a local CC is on the list or not. Know that it is a brand name which is unprotected/unprotectable as well as one which has zero quality control over their product (hence in reality a useless branding).

In the end, all that Chuck Smith really controls is the list on a website of people who want to be listed on his website. Hence, he is not a Bishop but I think we need to keep asking the question of CCites. If Chuck is not the Bishop then by what SCRIPTURAL authority does he do any of these things?

Dave Rolph's "Investigation"

As much as I want to appreciate Dave Rolph’s “investigation” I’ve got a fundamental issue with it. If he’s given a private complaint I think it’s appropriate to investigate privately. But Alex/Paul’s complaint is not private, it’s public and the only SCRIPTURAL method is a public investigation. Dave’s investigation is therefore moot other than to establish his own PRIVATE opinion – which should have been kept private rather than made public.

Which is the Biblical definition of gossip, by the way. That’s why these things are to be PUBLIC.

The standard is two or three witnesses are enough to merit a PUBLIC investigation. There are more than three witnesses in this case. The fact that CC does not do a PUBLIC investigation shows that rather than being a People of the Book, they are a law unto themselves.

Calvary Chapel has no sanctioned way to have a public investigation of charges even against a CCCM pastor, let alone one in an auto-cephalous congregation. Rather than having one Pope (Head) with ultimate authority (as in the Roman Church) they have 1400 Popes one over each auto-cephalous church (many headed).

Sickest story yet

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2010/09/16/gods-lamentation/

Convoluted Calvinist Conceptions

Misreading Romans 13

Mikey once again misreads Scripture. He concludes from reading Romans 13 that:

Barack Obama was appointed by God.

Mikey reaches this conclusion because he doesn't get the meaning of Romans 13. And he doesn't get Romans 13 because he reads the scripture through Calvinist lenses. These lenses could best be understood from the chorus of a popular Doris Day song, Que Sera, Sera:

Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.

To the Calvinist, whatever is, is because God ordained it so. Hence, Obama is president because God ordained him to be president.

This is a total abuse of the Scriptures which tell us, among other things:

Pro 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

Not all rulership is from God. Anyone who reads the Old Testament Prophets should have a grasp on that fact. There were OT kings who did what was right in God's sight and those who rejected God's rule over his people. How far do you have to look in the OT to understand that?

Romans 13 is most abused in this instance. What does Romans 13 actually say?

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

The passage says:

• It is God 0rdained that there be leaders over us for our own good, ie to restrain evil. The existence of leaders is God ordained, not the particular choices of leaders.
  
• It does not say that every action of every leader is Godly.
  
• Insofar as a leader is in line with God's Word, he is to be followed.
• Leaders are to use the sword to restrain evildoers. Does that fit the current leader or is he the exact opposite?
• Taxes should be paid for civil order. What are taxes paid for today when less than a third goes to defense? Everything but...
  

PP Bleeding over...

There's a conflict that Mikey has kept the PP readers partly in the dark over. Michael refers to it as someone attempting to "SPAM" his PP BLOG. It has bled over here into the comments section of this BLOG due to Mikey's heavy handed moderating of the PP BLOG.

The central question seems to be whether or not Steve Aspinall has links to porn sites. I don't personally know whether he does, but when Aspinall shows up here threatening to sue me for not moderating out the comments, that's quite another thing altogether. I simply won't bow to Calvary Chapel demands to censor anyone here who is critical of them, Aspinall included. Aspinall has shown consistently poor character in my limited interactions with him and has not earned that respect.

My censor policy here is to censor out actual SPAM (ads for viagra and jewelry). I don't often censor people, but when I do it's usually out of control CC pastors and sycophants.

The irony for me here is that CC folks accused me of something similar in the distant past. My page had links (not controlled by me) to pages which linked to pages which were porn related. Guilt by association by association. My way of discrediting their claims was to show that there were CC pastors with similar links to sites which linked sites themselves. Case closed. Sometimes we can't control the links on our pages. Sometimes we can. Can Steve Aspinall? According to the claims he can and has altered some of them since being exposed.

True or not? You decide for yourself by examining the evidence. I've got better things to do with my time.