An Open Letter to George Bryson

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 5^th 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