The Senior Pastor of Calvary of Albuquerque resigned this past weekend.
The reason given in his final message was that he was unable to work within the structure of CC Abq.
What is the Structure of CC Abq?
Calvary Chapel's are led by the Senior Pastor under the Moses Principle. Legally, they have to have a board of directors under their articles of incorporation in most states. The board of directors is selected by the Senior Pastor.
Who is on the CC Abq Board?
At Calvary Chapel of Abq the board consists of John Fidel, Gino Geraci, Skip Heitzig, Raul Ries, Paul Saber, and Paul Scozzafava. Only one of these men attends CC Abq. The rest are pastors in other Calvary Chapels.
Former Pastor, Heitzig, on the Board
Skip Heitzig who is on the board, was the former pastor of the church. This probably does not concern most CC folks but if you are from outside CC the idea of having the former pastor on the board is unbelievable. It's considered a violation of the ethical standards of most churches to have the former pastor involved in his former church.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Episcopacy at Calvary Chapel
CC operates in sort of a weird spot when it comes to church government. In spite of their claims to the contrary, most Calvary Chapels have what amounts to an Episcopalian form of church governance. Episcopalian government in the church is where the church is ruled by a hierarchy of bishops. These bishops place pastors into local churches.
But, CC has no bishops!
At the larger CCs, the board obstensively picks the next pastor and the board is largely picked from other CC pastors. Often these are prominent pastors in CC who are friends of the current pastor. Such an example is Calvary Chapel of Albquerque where the board consists of only one person from inside the local church. The rest of the board members are friends of the former pastor, They are mostly pastors of other Calvary Chapels.
The Congregational Form in contrast to CC
Calvary Chapel rejects the congregational form of government where the people of the church elect the board members. In such a church, when a pastor leaves an search committee is formed inside the church. The search committee is often elected by the congregation to represent their interests. That way the search committee reflects the local church situation.
Where does CC draw it's model from?
Calvary Chapel is modeled most closely to the Roman Catholic form of church government. It is true that there is no formal heirarchy of bishops at Calvary Chapel. However, there is an informal heirarch of bishops in CC. They have the superstars at the top in this multi-tiered system. The Superstars function as bishops.
So How does it work at CC?
If a new pastor is needed the board of the Calvary Chapel picks the new pastor. The board is made up of people that are hand picked by the previous pastor. As noted, often times they are pastors from other Calvary Chapels. Thus, Calvary Chapel has an episcopal form of governance when it comes to pastoral succession. The superstar pastors in the denomination all serve on each other's boards. When one of them leaves, the other chooses his successor. That way they protect their own jobs by stopping hostile takeovers within the local church.
But, CC has no bishops!
At the larger CCs, the board obstensively picks the next pastor and the board is largely picked from other CC pastors. Often these are prominent pastors in CC who are friends of the current pastor. Such an example is Calvary Chapel of Albquerque where the board consists of only one person from inside the local church. The rest of the board members are friends of the former pastor, They are mostly pastors of other Calvary Chapels.
The Congregational Form in contrast to CC
Calvary Chapel rejects the congregational form of government where the people of the church elect the board members. In such a church, when a pastor leaves an search committee is formed inside the church. The search committee is often elected by the congregation to represent their interests. That way the search committee reflects the local church situation.
Where does CC draw it's model from?
Calvary Chapel is modeled most closely to the Roman Catholic form of church government. It is true that there is no formal heirarchy of bishops at Calvary Chapel. However, there is an informal heirarch of bishops in CC. They have the superstars at the top in this multi-tiered system. The Superstars function as bishops.
So How does it work at CC?
If a new pastor is needed the board of the Calvary Chapel picks the new pastor. The board is made up of people that are hand picked by the previous pastor. As noted, often times they are pastors from other Calvary Chapels. Thus, Calvary Chapel has an episcopal form of governance when it comes to pastoral succession. The superstar pastors in the denomination all serve on each other's boards. When one of them leaves, the other chooses his successor. That way they protect their own jobs by stopping hostile takeovers within the local church.
Monday, February 20, 2006
A Papal Enclave?
Will there be an enclave to select the next pope when Smith dies? Is there a chimney at CCCM where we can watch for smoke? Will the regional pastors select the next head? Or will there be no head?
The Example of John Wimber and the Vineyard Movement
John Wimber was faced with the same issues at the Vineyard that Calvary Chapel faces. In 25 years, his denomination has grown to approximately the same number of churches (600 at last count) as CC although they have fewer megachurches in their fold so the total attendance is smaller.
The Hub Church
The Vineyard of Anaheim was the equivalent of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. It was the hub for the movement. In many ways, the Vineyard did things smarter than CC perhaps due to Wimber seeing the things that Smith did wrong. For instance, Vineyard pastors are often seminary trained in contrast to CC which prefers field trained pastors to classroom training. The Vineyard does not divide over non-essentials of the faith such as the timing of Christ's return. Their difference in eschatology translated into a greater emphasis on justice ministries. Wimber did not seem to view the church as an employment agency for his extended family.
The biggest problem with the Anaheim Vineyard is that it mirrored Wimber's faith journey and was very experimental. Groups like the Kansas City Prophets would be in vogue one year and then they would be anathema the next. The flux probably played better in So Cal than it would in other places.
What Happened When Wimber Died?
When Wimber died the hub church had serious adjustments, particularly with a large drop in attendance. Pastoral changes ensued. Finding a star with Wimber's drawing power is necessary to keep the church (which had a Wimber sized mortgage) doors open.
Costa Mesa will have this same problem no matter who the replacement for Chuck at CCCM might be. I think that they are probably in a better financial situation to weather the drop in attendance/giving that will naturally happen with a change in Senior Pastor. They probably have much less debt (if any at all).
If there were anyone at CCCM with the authority over Smith they would have demanded that he deal with this issue more effectively.
The Difference Between Wimber and Smith
Unlike Smith, Wimber realized he would someday die. I will give him credit for a better solution. Maybe it was because Wimber was dying slowly - years of heart problems and a protracted battle with cancer must have gotten Wimber thinking.
Wimber was concerned that the churches would have a struggle after him if he didn't do something to structure things in an intelligent way. Certainly, Wimber must have realized that the structures would not stand the test of time and would over time need to be altered as the needs changed. Wimber's genius was that he understood that it was better to have something in place for the structure to grow from than nothing which would lead to chaos and fracturing.
A bit of structure was invented. The Association of Vineyard Churches was put in place to handle the denominational tasks. There are regional pastors (CC has them too). The Vineyard International Consortium is at the top.
Smith's Choice
Smith likes to keep his head in the sand about the Calvary movement. That way have can have it both ways. Smith is of the sort that like to take credit, but shuns taking responsibility. Dave Rolph describes this as the "freedom" of Calvary Chapel.
From the outside, it appears that Smith's first priority appears to be to make sure that the family assets are protected. The local church (CCCM) and the business interests need to be in the hands of trusted family members.
Beyond the home line
What happens is that the rest of the Calvary Chapels will be left to market forces after Smith passes. CCOF is set up as a denominational control point but is it's legs get chopped out of it when it comes to any real authority in the local church. About all that they are left with is the claimed ability to rescind the "Calvary Chapel" name although even this is probably not enforceable.
I'd love to hear from people who a different view of Calvary and the Vineyard.
The Example of John Wimber and the Vineyard Movement
John Wimber was faced with the same issues at the Vineyard that Calvary Chapel faces. In 25 years, his denomination has grown to approximately the same number of churches (600 at last count) as CC although they have fewer megachurches in their fold so the total attendance is smaller.
The Hub Church
The Vineyard of Anaheim was the equivalent of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. It was the hub for the movement. In many ways, the Vineyard did things smarter than CC perhaps due to Wimber seeing the things that Smith did wrong. For instance, Vineyard pastors are often seminary trained in contrast to CC which prefers field trained pastors to classroom training. The Vineyard does not divide over non-essentials of the faith such as the timing of Christ's return. Their difference in eschatology translated into a greater emphasis on justice ministries. Wimber did not seem to view the church as an employment agency for his extended family.
The biggest problem with the Anaheim Vineyard is that it mirrored Wimber's faith journey and was very experimental. Groups like the Kansas City Prophets would be in vogue one year and then they would be anathema the next. The flux probably played better in So Cal than it would in other places.
What Happened When Wimber Died?
When Wimber died the hub church had serious adjustments, particularly with a large drop in attendance. Pastoral changes ensued. Finding a star with Wimber's drawing power is necessary to keep the church (which had a Wimber sized mortgage) doors open.
Costa Mesa will have this same problem no matter who the replacement for Chuck at CCCM might be. I think that they are probably in a better financial situation to weather the drop in attendance/giving that will naturally happen with a change in Senior Pastor. They probably have much less debt (if any at all).
If there were anyone at CCCM with the authority over Smith they would have demanded that he deal with this issue more effectively.
The Difference Between Wimber and Smith
Unlike Smith, Wimber realized he would someday die. I will give him credit for a better solution. Maybe it was because Wimber was dying slowly - years of heart problems and a protracted battle with cancer must have gotten Wimber thinking.
Wimber was concerned that the churches would have a struggle after him if he didn't do something to structure things in an intelligent way. Certainly, Wimber must have realized that the structures would not stand the test of time and would over time need to be altered as the needs changed. Wimber's genius was that he understood that it was better to have something in place for the structure to grow from than nothing which would lead to chaos and fracturing.
A bit of structure was invented. The Association of Vineyard Churches was put in place to handle the denominational tasks. There are regional pastors (CC has them too). The Vineyard International Consortium is at the top.
Smith's Choice
Smith likes to keep his head in the sand about the Calvary movement. That way have can have it both ways. Smith is of the sort that like to take credit, but shuns taking responsibility. Dave Rolph describes this as the "freedom" of Calvary Chapel.
From the outside, it appears that Smith's first priority appears to be to make sure that the family assets are protected. The local church (CCCM) and the business interests need to be in the hands of trusted family members.
Beyond the home line
What happens is that the rest of the Calvary Chapels will be left to market forces after Smith passes. CCOF is set up as a denominational control point but is it's legs get chopped out of it when it comes to any real authority in the local church. About all that they are left with is the claimed ability to rescind the "Calvary Chapel" name although even this is probably not enforceable.
I'd love to hear from people who a different view of Calvary and the Vineyard.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Chuck Smith on Eternal Security
Calvary Magazine
Interesting website for Calvary Magazine.
Chuck Speaks on Calvinism
There's an article there on Chuck's view of Calvinism. (Fall 2005 issue).
Chuck says "We" when He means "I"
I wonder about Chuck's use of the words "we" and "our" in describing Calvary Chapel. They do not seem to me to be the correct words. Perhaps the words that Chuck Smith should use are "I" and "My" because, in fact, that's all that he is talking about.
What is a Calvary Distinctive Other Than Smith's Opinion?
Calvary Chapel distinctives are Chuck Smith's views. They are shared by those who follow after Smith, but that says nothing more than the people who follow the Great Leader believe what he believes. If they don't believe what he believes they would not be following him. Smith could write, "I and the people who follow after me"...
Smith is Wrong on the History of Arminianism
Smith is historically incorrect when he states that the Arminian position denies Eternal Security. A reading of the Five Articles of the Remonstrants shows that they took no position on the subject of Eternal Security. The Remonstrants had people on both sides and like Calvary saw Scripture supporting both sides. To use a Calvary word, the official historical Arminian position was "balanced."
It was the Calvinists who took an unequivocal position in favor of Eternal Security.
Article Five from the Remonstrants
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.
How is Smith's view any different than the positions of the Remonstrants (Arminians)?
Smith is Wrong Again
Smith says in his column that is was taking hard stands on these issues that has emptied the Methodist church. To the contrary. It was the lack of taking stands on matters of truth that have emptied these churches. Churches, like Calvary Chapel, which take dogmatic stands, are filling up. The more complex ideas are simplified and made into bite sized pieces by places like Calvary Chapel the more they grow.
Smith Does Not Believe in the Law of Non-Contradiction
Smith goes on to say that there are Scriptures on both sides of the subject of Eternal Security. Since God is the God of truth, does God hold to two contrary positions? Clearly for Smith a thing can be a thing and not a thing at the same time. The Law of non-contradiction means little to him.
Smith's position is Arminian
Chuck Smith's answer to the eternal security position demonstrates that he is not in the middle, but firmly in the Arminian camp. In the article, Smith writes:
I tell people that, of course, I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, I’m eternally secure. As long as I abide in Him, He’s going to keep me from falling and present me faultless before His glorious presence. I believe that and I experience God’s security.
That's a classic Arminian response but I'm sure that it impresses people to think that Chuck has solved the problem that theologians have grappled with for a long time.
The eternal security question is whether a person can fall from grace. The advocate of eternal security says that it is impossible to fall from grace. Smith says that it is possible to fall from grace. Therefore Smith does not believe in eternal security. It is double speak for him to say that he does.
Disclaimer
I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in Eternal Security.
The Non-Denominational Denomination
Is Calvary a Denomination?
Dave Rolph wrote in the phoenixpreacher BLOG
Let's examine each of these and see if they are relevant to the question of whether CC is a denomination or not.
Loosely Structured
This is a pretty subjective definition. Calvary Chapel's share the same name and are a franchise like any other denomination.
Although CC does not have congregational polity, many churches which have congregational polity in their local churches are also loosely structured in their connection to the denomination. In many such cases the denomination cannot remove a local pastor since the call of a pastor comes from the church.
No Support from Member Churches
Perhaps it is true that Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa does not recieve regular offerings from the local churches but does that imply that the local churches do not support Costa Mesa? Costa Mesa publishes materials which the local churches purchase. Costa Mesa controls the Bible College which local churches send kids to. There is support for the denomination that goes to the denominational structures.
No requirement for ordination
Ordination does appear to be somewhat fluid in Calvary Chapel. It seems that the method of ordination with Calvary Chapel is to have pastors ordain other pastors rather than the ordination coming from the denomination. It may surprise Dave, but that has parallels to some other denominations. The pastors are part of the ministerium and are ordained through the ministerium not through the denomination. There is a one to one correspondence between the ministerium and the pastors of the denomination. Do Calvary pastors pay yearly dues to a ministerial association for Calvary Chapel pastors or do the costs of running the yearly pastor's conferences include this as a hidden charge?
No central ordaining group
There are other denominations which do not have a central ordaining group.
No central governing officials
Certainly this is the key point. Other groups have elected denomination official and separately elected ministerial officials. Calvary Chapel has regional pasts which seem to cover both.
No denominational office
What is the CCOF but this?
How does CC describe itself?
CC describes itself as a "church", a "movement" and a "fellowship".
Definition of Denomination
The definition of denomination from wikipedia is:
What Makes CC a Denomination?
Dave Rolph wrote in the phoenixpreacher BLOG
The argument about denominationalism and Calvary could go on forever, without resolution. ... If you want to believe that CC is a denomination then you should at least concede that it is unlike any other denomination. No denomination that I know of is so loosely structured, with no support from its member churches, no requirements for ordination (and no central ordaining group), no central governing officials, no denominational office...This is the case for what Dave considers Calvary to not be a denomination. Here's the reasons:
- loosely structured
- no support from member churches
- no requirement for ordination
- no central ordaining group
- no central governing officials
- no denominational office
Let's examine each of these and see if they are relevant to the question of whether CC is a denomination or not.
Loosely Structured
This is a pretty subjective definition. Calvary Chapel's share the same name and are a franchise like any other denomination.
Although CC does not have congregational polity, many churches which have congregational polity in their local churches are also loosely structured in their connection to the denomination. In many such cases the denomination cannot remove a local pastor since the call of a pastor comes from the church.
No Support from Member Churches
Perhaps it is true that Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa does not recieve regular offerings from the local churches but does that imply that the local churches do not support Costa Mesa? Costa Mesa publishes materials which the local churches purchase. Costa Mesa controls the Bible College which local churches send kids to. There is support for the denomination that goes to the denominational structures.
No requirement for ordination
Ordination does appear to be somewhat fluid in Calvary Chapel. It seems that the method of ordination with Calvary Chapel is to have pastors ordain other pastors rather than the ordination coming from the denomination. It may surprise Dave, but that has parallels to some other denominations. The pastors are part of the ministerium and are ordained through the ministerium not through the denomination. There is a one to one correspondence between the ministerium and the pastors of the denomination. Do Calvary pastors pay yearly dues to a ministerial association for Calvary Chapel pastors or do the costs of running the yearly pastor's conferences include this as a hidden charge?
No central ordaining group
There are other denominations which do not have a central ordaining group.
No central governing officials
Certainly this is the key point. Other groups have elected denomination official and separately elected ministerial officials. Calvary Chapel has regional pasts which seem to cover both.
No denominational office
What is the CCOF but this?
How does CC describe itself?
CC describes itself as a "church", a "movement" and a "fellowship".
Definition of Denomination
The definition of denomination from wikipedia is:
A religious denomination, (also simply denomination) is a large, long-established subgroup within a religion that has existed for many years.
What Makes CC a Denomination?
- A sense of a cohering self identity.
- Certification by a central authority of who is CC (the CCOF).
- CC has distinctives. These are available in a book form.
- Distinct form of church governance - polity.
- The distinctives include a certain position on particular subjects, such as a rejection of five point Calvinism and an acceptance of a Dispensational framework for eschatology.
- A written history "A Venture in Faith" of the church.
- CCCM houses CCOF.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Raptured Rapture
The Rapture is Relatively Recent
The pre-tribulational rapture teaching started with Margaret McDonald in 1830. John Nelson Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible popularized the teaching. Today most Evangelical Televangelists are pre-trib rapture proponents. Calvary Chapel fits into this same theological camp - Dispensationalism. Wikipedia has a good article on Dispensationalism.
Is the rapture Scriptural?
Here are the typical proof texts most often used so support the pre-tribulational rapture teaching.
The pre-tribulational rapture teaching started with Margaret McDonald in 1830. John Nelson Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible popularized the teaching. Today most Evangelical Televangelists are pre-trib rapture proponents. Calvary Chapel fits into this same theological camp - Dispensationalism. Wikipedia has a good article on Dispensationalism.
Is the rapture Scriptural?
Here are the typical proof texts most often used so support the pre-tribulational rapture teaching.
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.This one happens at the last trump. If this "last trump" is the last trumpet from the book of Revelation that places this at the end of the Tribulation period.
1Th 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.The problem here is the timing of the resurrection. Those who are changed are changed after the dead in Christ are raised. If this is at the start of the tribulation period then when are the dead who die in the tribulation raised? At the end? How many resurrections are there if there is also one at the end of the 1000 years? Three resurrections?
1Th 5:9a For God hath not appointed us to wrath...First lesson is to watch out for the elipses dots... Chuck Smith is famous in his writings for using them to ignore parts of verses which refute his teachings. The rest of this passage sets the context. We are not appointed to wrath, but to obtain salvation. This passage is about our eternal destiny, not the rapture.
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.There is nothing in this passage about timing. In fact, the context shows believers present throughout this period, albeit protected by God.
Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee things which must be hereafter.This one assumes that Revelation follows a time sequence. A close examination shows that the first three chapters are set in the form of letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. The switch at chapter four is not a translation of the church into Heaven, but a shift of focus of the writer of Revelation to the Heavenly scene.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Accountability at Calvary Chapel
The CCOF website talks about accountability of local Calvary Chapel pastors. Here's what their mission statement says:
The second major function of CCOF is how we would like to encourage accountability to God, to His Word, and to fellow pastors. Accountability is first to the pastor who ordained the applicant to minister. We will also look to our regional lead pastors located worldwide to maintain the relationship of personal accountability with the Calvary Chapel pastors located in their respective regions. We will be accountable to one another so as to avoid becoming an offense to our Lord, our fellowship of pastors, or to other Calvary Chapel fellowships.So there are several tiers of accountability.
1 - the ordaining pastor.Who are the regional lead pastors? The CCOF site does not name them. What is their authority in the local church should a conflict occur? Do the people in local Calvary Chapels know who the regional pastor is if they are in a conflict. What if the conflict is with a regional pastor or with Chuck Smith? How does a person find out who to go to if there is a conflict?
2 - Regional lead pastors
3 - Accountability to other pastors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
