Dear George,
You don’t
know me even though I have received many emails from you over the last
months. I am a Calvary Chapel
pastor whose email I assume you got off the CCA website. I have thought and prayed many times about
responding to some of your email articles. There has honestly been so much you have written, I find it
perplexing to know where to start.
Perhaps I should start with why I have chosen to answer at all. I believe that you love the Lord and
care very deeply for the Calvary Chapel movement. Though I have not been a part of the movement as long as you
have, I also care deeply for it.
That is, after all, why I am a Calvary Chapel pastor. In writing this response, I do not
harbor illusions that you will fully agree with everything I have to say. Neither do I believe it necessary that
you do so. What I do hope to do,
if only slightly, is change the tone of the conversation that you have been
having (via your articles) to a more congenial one; one that reflects the fact
that we are all brothers who love the Lord and love the Calvary Chapel
movement. I pray that, by the
grace of God, you would be open to consider what I have to say. And though most of the other CC pastors
I’ve spoken with on these questions would agree with the stances laid out here,
I do not claim to speak for any other pastors or group other than myself. I will break this article in to various
sections and try to keep them brief so as not to create a book. ;)
Why an
open letter?
Since you
have been sending emails, I suppose the first question is: why answer with an
open letter? First, you have not
only sent emails but also published many of your articles on your website,
calvarychapeltheology.com, though with no ability to leave comments. The unfortunate thing about this method
is that you have effectively made any kind of dialogue impossible, except at
the personal level for those who chose to respond to your emails. That means that, as a collective group
of pastors, we all are left to the impressions of what “the majority” think
which you lay out in your emails, without actually hearing from the
majority. (I can only assume that
you are sending these emails to all CC pastors, though I have heard from some
that they have not received your emails.
But this is likely just because they are getting caught by spam
filters.) By writing an open
letter, I hope to encourage a dialogue rather than each side ranting in
isolation from the other. One
thing I am sure of is that unless we are willing to respectfully and graciously
talk about these important issues in an open and frank manner, the only thing
that can come of this is more division.
Each side sitting in their respective bunker, lobbing verbal grenades at
the other, will not make for a healthier, more vibrant CC. Most importantly, there is nothing that
glorifies Christ in that kind of approach.
Common
ground
I hope you
will not think me overly “ecumenical” for trying to point out the common ground
that we share, before dealing with differences of opinion. First let me say, there are a
number of points that you have made in your articles that I heartily agree
with. For starters, you made a
point about the difference in viewpoints among CC pastors not being a question
of age. I wholeheartedly
agree. Perhaps some CC pastors
have bought into the myth that the difference being discussed is purely a
generational one. I agree with you
that it is not. I have met both
more seasoned CC pastors whom you would disagree with (more on that later), as
well as younger pastors who would lean more towards the ideas presented in your
articles.
Another point
you have brought up is that CC is at a crossroads. I think we can all agree on that. Though pastor Chuck, by God’s grace, is still with us, none
of us (including him, I'm sure) are under the delusion that this can last
indefinitely. As is always the
case whenever the leader whom God has used to birth a movement goes to inherit
his eternal reward, CC, too, will be entering and indeed has begun already to
enter into a phase of transition leading up to and reaching this bittersweet
event. (Bitter for us who will miss pastor Chuck. Sweet for him as he goes to be in the presence of the Lord.)
A final point
I will mention with which I am in agreement is the point you have stressed that
each CC is an independent, locally-governed expression of the body of
Christ. CC and pastor Chuck have
always affirmed this and that CC is not a denomination. Though in a movement of our size there
are certain aspects that, for practical reasons, may resemble a denomination,
each church is indeed independent.
I believe this point to have important ramifications for some of the
questions you have brought up and I will return to it later.
More
similar than dissimilar
Surely there
are many other points that I could mention that we would be in agreement
on. In fact, the large majority of
points we would agree on. After
all, we are both part of not merely the universal body of Christ but the
specific branch of that known as CC.
One would hope that this fact alone would be enough to dissuade you from
speaking about other, fellow-CC pastors in the adversarial tone that you have
taken in some of your emails (though not in all.) To be fair, some of the quotes that you gave from those who
you see as representing the “other side” were also less than loving and
certainly did not reflect a spirit of humility or seeking to disagree as
brothers, rather than as enemy combatants. My plea to you as well as to those on the other side would
be to tone down the rhetoric. We are brothers in Christ. Moreover, we are pastors within the same movement of
churches. We can and must dialogue
openly about the important issues and changes that we are beginning to face if
we hope to face them in a way that will strengthen us as a movement rather than
tear us apart. Those who claim to
uphold an inclusive spirit would do well to live in that spirit toward not only
those who agree with them, otherwise there is not much meaning to it.
On this note
we come to the issues you’ve been focusing on. You have specifically criticized CC pastors who are seeking
to find some kind of common ground with other pastors and leaders from Acts 29,
The Gospel Coalition, etc. Here’s
the question that I believe we need to ask ourselves: do we have more in common
with these brothers than we do dissimilar?
Now, to deal
with it right away, these groups are not ashamed about their identity as
Reformed Christians (though they do claim to be “broadly Reformed”… more on
that later.) You mentioned in one
article that some CC pastor(s) said to you that Acts 29 and Mark Driscoll are
not Reformed. I can only believe
that this pastor had very little knowledge of who Driscoll is and what he
teaches (or what “Reformed” means. ;)
Driscoll is, by his own words, unabashedly Reformed, though not holding
to the extreme expressions/teachings of that position.
Allow me to
return to my previous question via a bit of a personal illustration. I pastor a CC in Ukraine. As one who has served for years in
Russia, I'm sure you can appreciate the cultural context in which I serve. It will not surprise you to hear that
the majority of people surrounding me are Eastern Orthodox. Without getting into a lot of
unnecessary detail for the uninitiated, let’s just say that this is a religion
of heavy legalism. People are
saved, if they are saved at all (there is never any guarantee), by doing good
works, keeping rituals, etc. It is
a synergistic view of salvation, and a semi-pelagian view of human nature. The sad part is that this is nearly
true of most of the “Evangelical” churches here. Though people are told that God will forgive their sins if
they repent, they are very quickly shut off from the fount of grace and told
that if they wish to keep their salvation, they must work for it. The majority of Christians live in
constant fear that they might lose their salvation at any turn. They live under self-condemnation and
have all but abandoned the good news of the Gospel of grace. They are clinging on with the faintest
remnant of hope in some kind of mercy, if not having abandoned said hope all
together. And if they are
confident in it, all the worse, because this confidence is often based on their
own devotion and activity, rather than the work of Christ. This is really regardless of what
expression or denomination within Evangelicalism these believers are part
of.
But besides
the CC’s and a few other non-denominational churches here, there is generally
one exception to this rule of legalism: Reformed churches. Though their understanding of the exact
manner in which a believer first comes to trust in grace does differ from the understanding in CC
(more on that later), the Reformed churches seem to be some of the only
churches besides CC in my country where believers are not neck-deep in legalism
and thinking that they may lose their salvation at any turn. They are different from CC in some important
ways, and yet there seems to be present a confidence in God’s grace as the sole
foundation of our salvation which we share with them. There is a clear renunciation of our works as even a partial
basis for either obtaining justification or continuing in it.
So to answer
the question, do we have more things similar or dissimilar with our brothers
and sisters of the Reformed persuasion, I have to come down on the side of
saying that we have overwhelmingly more that’s in common than what separates
us, and that what we have in common is that which is most important: the grace
of God. And if that is the case,
should we not seek at least some form of dialogue, goodwill and even
cooperation and partnership with these brothers and sisters? An attempt to separate ourselves from
all who do not agree with us in every stance would turn us into a sect.
“Ecumenism”:
an Evangelical’s four-letter word
You have
adopted the term in many of your email articles saying that there are those
within CC who support an “ecumenical position”. It may be that you chose this word as a sort of shorthand to
describe an attempt to find greater common ground with Evangelical Christians
outside of CC, but that is certainly not the picture this word conjures in the
minds of many Evangelicals. Like
many things in the western church, at some point this question was polarized
into two camps: fundamentalists and liberal theologians/ecumenicals. The word “ecumenical” for many conjures
up overtones of universalism, the World Council of Churches and throwing
doctrine out the window.
Therefore, perhaps your use of the word was unintentionally provocatory,
but it was provocatory nonetheless.
Moreover, it was likely the wrong word.
Ecumenism is
rigidly defined as the movement to unite all Christians into one church. I would be willing to bet that there is
not a single CC pastor out there who thinks that EVERY person who calls
themselves a Christian ought to just ignore our differences and all meld into
one big, vague, Christian-esque conglomeration. You, I'm sure, realize that no pastor in CC is proposing
such a thing.
It would be
much more helpful for us in this conversation rather than firing off polarizing
terms like “ecumenical” or “fundamentalist” to realize that the reality is not
two, exclusive camps, but rather a whole spectrum of positions, ranging from the
most extreme forms of isolationism on the one end to the most amorphous
universalism on the other. The
first extreme is well represented by the Roman Catholic Church before Vatican
II. It was taught that, outside
her structures, no one even knew Christ or could have salvation. On the other extreme are the
universalists and the rigid definition of ecumenism that say that all should just be part of one and
doctrine doesn’t matter. CC has
never held either of these positions and I would like to believe that there is
not a single CC pastor who would affirm either of these positions today. So the proper question is not “are we
ecumenical”. The very fact that we
recognize the reality of born-again believers who are part of other
denominations and movements than our own already puts us further along the
“ecumenical” scale than was common in much of church history.
In fact, in
the beginning of CC’s doctrinal statement, there is a line about how “we are
not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only
to their overemphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the
division of the Body of Christ.”
You have claimed to represent a position you label as “stay the course”,
claiming to represent some “original” set of CC values. The truth is that one of the greatest
values in CC and what pastor Chuck always taught was a spirit of graciousness
and cooperation towards other Christian groups outside our own. It would therefore seem that you,
George, are actually attempting to “change the course” by proposing a much less
gracious, more isolated and more divisive stance towards other Christians
groups, particularly Reformed ones, than we were all taught in CC through
pastor Chuck and others. Now, you
might think it beneficial for CC to go in that direction (I disagree), but
please at least be honest enough not to call it “keeping the course” when it is
nothing of the sort.
Judging
the thoughts and intents of the heart
It’s a
familiar phrase that describes the Word of God in Heb. 4. The problem comes when men put
themselves in a role that belongs to God.
In your articles you have, in my opinion, tragically attempted to do
this to your brothers. You have
asserted and implied motives to a number of CC pastors of attempting to purposefully
split the movement, of trying to “sneak in” Reformed soteriology, etc. The simple fact of the matter is,
George, that you are not capable of seeing the intentions of peoples’ hearts. Again, I do not believe that you are
doing this as a consciously false accusation against anyone (though some of
those pastors you imply accusations against have said that your accusations are
baseless, which does
make them false.) I do not want to
attempt to judge your motives, but I am willing to assume the best of you and
consider that you are doing it out of a true concern for CC, even if it’s a
mistaken concern. Nevertheless,
you have taken it upon yourself to judge the intentions of the hearts of some
of CC’s finest leaders and pastors.
Not only in
CC, but you have essentially accused some of the leaders of the Reformed camp
of trying to creep in and subvert CC.
Again, you not only have no evidence for this kind of accusation of the
inner intentions of other leaders, which you cannot possibly know, but you also
have no right biblically to put yourself a position which belongs to God. I will not repeat your mistake in
accusing you of any motives which I cannot possibly know. However, I would say that, whatever
your motives, the action itself is wrong.
While a healthy debate over actions, policy, etc. could be useful, your
approach of assuming others’ motives and then accusing them over the very
motives you, for all we know, made up or misconstrued, is dishonest and
unloving. Strangely, in a couple
of your email articles you have proceeded to accuse leaders both in CC and
outside of rather malicious intentions and then tried to justify it with “well,
if it’s not true, let him/them write me and say so.” So much for innocent until proven guilty, eh? I would urge you to cease this kind of
approach for your own sake, since what you are doing is called libel and could
realistically expose you to law suits (though I'm pretty sure none of the men
you are directing this libel at would stoop to that level). But more importantly, there is nothing
virtuous or Christ-like about it.
Straw
men
In some of
your articles you have attempted to argue against “Reformed theology” as a
whole. However, you have often
taken the most extreme forms of Reformed theology and tried to imply that all
Reformed people must believe this.
The truth is that there is a good deal of variety even on soteriological
questions among “Reformed” believers (or those who would label themselves as such.) Ascribing to someone an extreme
doctrinal position they do not hold, only to then take it apart is not only bad
form in debate (straw men), but it is dishonest.
There is also
some confusion in this approach since you’ve stated that anything less than an
extreme position is not true “Reformed” theology. Here’s my question, George: if these people are not “true
Calvinists”, then why do you still have a problem with the idea of cooperation
with them?
You have
stated that all 5 of the points of TULIP stand together as a whole and cannot
be separated. But CC itself is
proof that this is not true. In
his book, Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God, Chuck Smith lays out that we, as CC,
agree with some of the points of TULIP but not others (more on this
later.) So obviously it IS
possible to hold some and not others.
Perhaps you intended to imply that the 5 points are a logical set. One might then even argue that
doctrines such as double predestination (reprobation) or supralapsarianism are
part and parcel to the logical set, as you seem to imply in one of your
articles quoting an author who holds these positions.
The question
though is, are they a biblical set?
I would argue no. However,
I would also argue that the points of Arminianism are not a biblical set. The truth is that any believer ought to
always seek to hold a biblical set of beliefs rather than a logical set. Taking any one teaching of the Bible
and drawing it out ad absurdum
will result in errors. Most
Reformed believers would not agree with the extreme theological positions you
have implied that all Reformed people must hold. Rather, they would state at some point that we come to the
end of our understanding and we hold certain truths together, though we can’t
explain or reconcile them to the end.
Those in CC do the same (or at least ought to), though we might draw
that line at a slightly different place.
However, your attempts to argue against the Reformed camp by creating a
straw man, presenting the most extreme versions and then proceeding to attack
the Reformed community as a whole based on that are misrepresentative at best
and dishonest and insulting at worst.
Calvary
Chapel soteriology
This brings
us to the soteriological questions themselves. This will actually be a short section in my response,
because someone has already written it for me: Chuck Smith. CC has already had an answer to the
soteriological question for some time.
In fact, in the days of CCOF, Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of
God was one of the
required reading books and agreement with its stance was implied in becoming
affiliated with CC. CC has always
disagreed with 2 of the 5 points of Calvinism. But that also means that we AGREE with 3 of 5 (though,
granted, the 5th point on preservation of the saints is not answered
unambiguously in the book and different CC pastors have different opinions on
that question.)
What concerns me is that you seem to be attacking ALL the points of Calvinism,
which by default would make you an Arminian. I'm curious, George, do you consider yourself such? However, Chuck has clearly written in
that book against Arminian soteriology as well, so if that is what you are
advocating, then it is you, George, who is seeking to “change the course.” There was a very well thought-out
explanation of CC soteriology posted on calvarychapel.com a while back called
“Soteriology in the Middle”. These
posts were lucid explanations in harmony with Calvinism, Arminianism and the
Word of God. (On a historical note, I'd add that in
the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, we’re overlooking the Lutheran
soteriological position stated in the Formula of Concord. Those interested to investigate its chapter on election
will find it strikingly similar to CC’s position.)
Now, I would
agree with you that anyone who is a 5-point Calvinist and a CC pastor (if there
are any such pastors) would most likely be better suited to join a network that
is clearly Reformed. They will be
more comfortable in such a network.
The same thing goes for any who consider themselves Arminian. They ought to find a network that
clearly supports that position.
You should walk in what you believe God has called you to. I would add, however, that though we
don’t need to pretend to be exactly the same as these groups (on either side)
we ought to be willing to partner together to whatever extent the Lord reveals
to any given local CC with all those who love the Gospel of grace. And here we come to the next point…
Making
denominations
I have stated
that I agree with you that CC is not a denomination, nor was it ever intended
to be. I believe almost every CC
pastor would agree with this. Of
course, being the sizeable movement we are, some organizational structures
similar to a denomination are necessary, or it all just becomes chaotic. However, I am honestly confused by your
affirmation of the independence of each, local CC and your seeming attempt to
create a denominational charter statement and have pastors sign up. CC ALREADY HAS a common statement of
faith. What it seems that you are
doing, George, is trying to create a new one to your own liking.
Obviously
there are some common doctrinal beliefs that make one a CC. However, it seems that you are
attempting to go beyond doctrine by dictating very particular practices for
partnerships in ministry and policy concerning the personal life of a
pastor. The CC statement of faith
speaks of a gracious and cooperative attitude towards other Christian
groups. You seem to want to codify
a position of isolation from them and non-cooperation. Besides the obvious problem of this
being a divisive, un-Christ-like position, it also seems to assume some
denominational structure where someone from on high is telling local CC
churches whom they can and cannot cooperate with.
Similarly,
you have suggested a no alcohol policy for all CC senior pastors. I do not wish to enter into the
arguments of such a position here, though I assume every CC pastor would
acknowledge that the Bible nowhere states that mere consumption of alcohol is
sin. My only point in bringing
that out is that, since it is not a question the Bible clearly forbids, this
kind of policy ought to be decided by each individual pastor/elders at the
local level, unless you are actually advocating that CC become a denomination
and dictate such policies. So,
when you state in some of your articles that you are against the idea of CC
becoming a denomination, I would like to believe you, but the approach to
policy that you are taking seems to suggest the opposite.
Chuck’s
approval
With every
one of your articles, you have mentioned that you give it to pastor Chuck to
“approve”. However, the way you
are presenting this is not likely what is meant. Knowing Chuck’s gracious attitude, I can imagine him saying
something like, “George, if you feel like you should send this, go for
it.” That, however, is far from an
“approval” or agreement with your articles. In fact, I happen to know that pastor Chuck has said to
another staff pastor at CCCM, “George Bryson does not speak for me.” The way you have positioned yourself in
your email articles, however, is as the sole, faithful representative of pastor
Chuck. This seems like
misrepresentation at best and dishonesty at worst.
My greater
concern is that pastor Chuck may have had the real issues facing CC
misrepresented to him by you.
We’ve all received a couple letters now from pastor Chuck. While the exact message of these
letters may be debated, the one thing that is clear from these letters is that
pastor Chuck doesn’t want to see division, so my plea to you, George, is to do
your part to stop causing it. I
hope you believe me when I say that I do believe that you love CC and want the
best for it. I feel like many of
the questions you’ve brought up have been presented in your email articles in a
way that was unnecessarily divisive and sometimes misrepresentative. I do hope that you’ll take into
consideration the points I’ve brought up.
I’ve tried to be respectful in my tone in this article towards you as an
older brother in the Lord and fellow minister, however if I have managed to be
offensive in some way, please know that was not my intent and I would ask your
forgiveness for that. My prayer is
that as a movement we can learn to move forward in a spirit of love and
graciousness towards one another as we work through these issues. I do welcome feedback to this open
letter from you, George, as well as from any one else (especially CC pastors)
who would like to take part. My
only request is that, despite your opinion on these questions, everyone would
keep their tone respectful and try to approach any discussion in a spirit that
would honor Christ and our unity as brothers.
My
final request is to pastor Chuck himself: We have been blessed that God has placed
you as the leader of this movement.
As a movement, we are in need of clarity at this point, due to much
confusion that has been engendered.
Please speak clearly and boldly on these questions and do not allow them
to be swept along by the wave of division.
I will end with a quote from pastor Chuck himself at the end of Calvinism,
Arminianism and the Word of God
that, in light of the current debate, seems nearly prophetic:
“To say what God says in the Bible - no more and no
less - is not always easy, comfortable, or completely understandable. But
Scripture tells us that the wisdom from above will be loving and kind toward
all, seeking the unity of the believers, not trying to find ways to divide and
separate from one another. May God help us all to love each other, to be kind,
tenderhearted, forgiving one another as Jesus Christ has forgiven us (Ephesians
4:32)! In difficult doctrinal matters, may we have gracious attitudes and
humble hearts, desiring most of all to please Him who has called us to serve
Him in the body of Christ. Discussion - YES! Disagreements - YES! Division -
NO!
Jesus said, "By their fruit ye shall know them." When a
particular position on the Scriptures causes one to become argumentative,
legalistic, and divisive, I question the validity of that position. I seek to
embrace those things that tend to make me more loving and kind, more forgiving
and merciful. I know then that I am becoming more like my Lord. If you have
come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please
grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has helped you to become more
Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to
that same persuasion. Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the
teaching.
Seek
those things that produce the loving nature of Jesus in our lives. I would
rather have the wrong facts and a right attitude, than right facts and a wrong
attitude. God can change my understanding of the facts in a moment, but it
often takes a lifetime to effect changes of attitude.”
In Jesus,
Benjamin
Morrison
Pastor of CC
Svitlovodsk, Ukraine
