Granted, it's no secret that Calvary Chapel's leadership are, how shall we say, not exactly friendly with the doctrines of grace, but the denomination that's not a denomination has now taken it upon itself to revoke the ordination of Daniel Cassady.
By way of comment...
1. I gather CC claims not to be a "denomination" but a fellowship of churches. However, if that's so, then why is it revoking ordinations based on what is "magisterium" says about the doctrines of grace? What's also interesting to me here is that they organize on recognizably Baptist principles, but then here act remarkably like Presbyterians - or worse, Roman Catholics. Now, the General Baptists in England have been characterized as somewhat "Presbyterian" by some, but, in this day and age, this is rather odd behavior indeed.
2. What's truly sad about this is Brother Daniel was very explicit about his doctrinal beliefs, so they aren't doing this after the fact. Rather, they ordained him knowing full well what he believed.
3. Which gets us to the whole claim that Calvinists are dishonest when entering denominational service or ministry, a charge sometimes leveled by those in Baptist circles. It seems to me that to ordain a man who is up front with you and then revoke his ordination because you later find out he's a Calvinist smacks of one or more of the following: carelessness, ignorance, duplicity. Carelessness because he wasn't ordained just a few days or weeks before you revoked his ordination; ignorance if you read his answers and couldn't see what he was saying about what he affirmed soteriologically, and duplicity if you ordained him knowing his beliefs and thought he'd "shape up" in time.
My advice to Brother Daniel: get involved with a good congregation and bide you time before starting a church on your own. There are many good Baptist(ic) folks out there who affirm the doctrines of grace but have no church home. They could use a good pastor to gather them into a church.
HT: John Mark
Gene,
ReplyDeleteInteresting, huh? Over at Phoenix Preacher you can read about much more going on it seems at CC.
Mark
You said, "However, if that's so, then why is it revoking ordinations based on what is "magisterium" says about the doctrines of grace?"
ReplyDeleteWhy? Respectdully, it comes to the matter consistency of fellowship that's why. If the brother disagrees with a core belief then isn't it incumbent upon the "magisterium" to bring the issue to light?
"carelessness, ignorance, duplicity. Carelessness because he wasn't ordained just a few days or weeks before you revoked his ordination; ignorance if you read his answers and couldn't see what he was saying about what he affirmed soteriologically, and duplicity if you ordained him knowing his beliefs and thought he'd "shape up" in time."
Good point and well taken. So is it your contention that it would have been better to never correct the situation or just continue on knowing the brother is teaching outside the distinctives and ignore it? Better to address it late, than never address it all.
In his opinion, (in the closing of his letter) it sounds as though Daniel would have trouble getting licensed from any denomination or "fellowship" of churches. My advise, (since you gave yours), start a non-denom independent. That way your sure to answer only to Christ.
I will say that it is deception to say that any Calvary Pastor answers to Churck like he is the Pope or Christ Himself. That is disrespectful malice that only those who have been denied their own selfish wants propagate.
If Daniel had these differences before he was ordained and KNEW it, why doesn't anyone ask the question of why he didn't pull his own application, but instead continued on with the process knowing full well he wasn't in agreement? Why isn't that motivation being questioned?
I am a Calvinist and I attend a Calvary fellowship. I'm training to become a pastor.
ReplyDeleteI know that I don't have a future with the church, yet I love the people there, so I'm staying until I sail off for seminary.
It's okay with me that they don't allow me to teach or preach. I mean, I'd handle it the same way were the situation reversed.
You said, "However, if that's so, then why is it revoking ordinations based on what is "magisterium" says about the doctrines of grace?"
ReplyDeleteWhy? Respectdully, it comes to the matter consistency of fellowship that's why. If the brother disagrees with a core belief then isn't it incumbent upon the "magisterium" to bring the issue to light?
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't quote the first part of what I stated:
The claim that CC makes is that it isn't a denomination, it's a "fellowship of churches."
Moreover, it has no formalized church membership. So, what we have here contravenes that claim.
A denomination can do what you say, if its ecclesiology allows for it, but, strictly speaking a "fellowship of churches" without a formalized membership cannot. This intersects with Bapitst polity, for CC organizes itself according to Baptist principles in terms of the churches interaction - at least on paper. Each church is self-sufficient, so why is there a "magisterium" policing the eldership of the churches? That would be consistent with Presbyterian polity or a polity involving a consistory or episcopate.
So what we really have is a hierarchy going up to Chuck Smith and George Bryson, et.al.
And how is "consistency of fellowship" hurt by believing in the doctrines of grace? It isn't as if Brother Daniel denied a fundamental of the faith, and he was up front about his soteriology, and according to his statements, he eschews the term "Calvinist." What CC did was well after the fact of his ordination. What damages "consistency of fellowship" more: not ordaining him from the beginning or ordaining him and then many months afterward revoking it?
So is it your contention that it would have been better to never correct the situation or just continue on knowing the brother is teaching outside the distinctives and ignore it? Better to address it late, than never address it all.
Is a rejection of the doctrines of grace a "distinctive" and if so, then how is it a "distinctive" when all the churches are a loose fellowship of independent churches and not a denomination? The irony is that according to CC's own documents it tries to be "balanced" on this issue. Why then is George Bryson not being disciplined while Brother Daniel is?
CC wants to have its cake and eat it too for it says "Don't get polarized. Don't let the people get polarized." So, let's be clear here, George Bryson is not polarizing the people, but Brother Daniel's beliefs did.
And Brother Daniel did not hide anything. He was up front from beginning to end.
How are the doctrines of grace really "outside" the distinctives, unless one takes the position that sovereign election and irresistible grace impinge human freedom?
The whole problem here is that, strictly speaking, in the "distinctives" documentation, CC prides itself (or rather Chuck Smith prides himself) on not having a dogmatic position.
But if that's so, then is it not dogmatic to reject the doctrines of grace? Where is the supporting argument?
I will say that it is deception to say that any Calvary Pastor answers to Churck like he is the Pope or Christ Himself. That is disrespectful malice that only those who have been denied their own selfish wants propagate.
A. If you think Brother Daniel is being "deceptive" then why are you accusing him of sin on this blog and not trying to contact him personally?
B. This would have more weight as a complaint if CC's "position" on Calvinism and Arminianism didn't come rather clearly from Chuck Smith's Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God, and the list of "Distinctives" also comes directly from him, so Brother Daniel is, in point of fact, being measured by the opinions of one man, Chuck Smith.
C. CC says it uses an "episcopal" form of government within the churches. The pastor serves as Moses and the board of elders as the tribal elders in the OT.
D. Apropos C and B, since this is now being applied outside the local church, if CC is to be consistent, it has to go all the way up to the most senior elder, who would, in fact, be Chuck Smith, so I think Brother Daniel's claim has merit.
If Daniel had these differences before he was ordained and KNEW it, why doesn't anyone ask the question of why he didn't pull his own application, but instead continued on with the process knowing full well he wasn't in agreement? Why isn't that motivation being questioned?
Why don't you contact him and ask him yourself. He can post the answers here if he wishes.
Points to clarify :
ReplyDelete"Pastoral Ordination": Ordination is conferred by the leadership of a local Calvary Chapel Fellowship.
They are free to distinguish and uphold as requirements for ordination what they believe to be:
1)The requirements set out in the Bible.
2)And also what doctrinal distinctives and philisophy of ministry a man would hold in order to be ordained not only for the ministry, but also as a minister within a Calvary Fellowship.
Apparently Daniel was ordained by the local fellowship and he ventured to Oklahoma to plant and pastor a church felllowship.
Once a church fellowship begins: that pastor then is free to pursue affiliation as a Calvary Chapel Fellowship Church.
Apparently he began and was involved in that process.That process involves answering questions in writing concerning his doctrinal positions and philisophy of ministry.I see no problem with Daniel's answers as stated on the questionnaire.
However, he stated that he withdrew his affiliation request as Daniel was apparently not content with the answers representing his actual doctrinal position.
This affiliation process also includes a relational component. Daniel also disclosed to a regional Calvary Chapel Pastor, to his ordaining pastor (representing the local Calvary board) and also stated publicly on his website doctrinal positions that were beyond what he orignally stated in his affiliation paper.
I would state and agree that there are some within the Calvary Chapel movement who are not able to discuss in a mature and intelligent manner certain doctrinal perspectives and positions and come off like they are parroting the words of another (maybe they are may be they are not) rather than stating a position that they both believe, understand and can explain coherently. Maybe this was a part of Daniels frustration.
In any case, Daniel's ordination was removed by the local fellowship as a reasonable response to Daniel clarifying his doctrinal position.
Daniel voluntarily chose not to affiliate with Calvary Chapel according to conscience. He is to be commended and encouraged for seeking out and holding to his convictions as to the stewardship entrusted to him by Christ.
My issues ( which I hope I have addressed) are the mistatement by the blog authors as to what has taken place.
Blessings,
There have been some unfortunate cases of Calvinists attempting to become pastors of congregations that are not Calvinist in their doctrine, without being forthright and honest in the presentation of their beliefs. A pastor who holds Calvinist beliefs should not be trying to get into a Calvary Chapel church for example. Gene Bridges brings up such a case here.
ReplyDeleteSignificantly, Bridges had no problem recognizing that Daniel is a Calvinist, nor did I when reading the answers he gave to the questions.
Bridges wrote:
“2. What's truly sad about this is Brother Daniel was very explicit about his doctrinal beliefs, so they aren't doing this after the fact. Rather, they ordained him knowing full well what he believed.”
Actually, this is not true, Daniel was not explicit about his doctrinal beliefs. Look at question 18 where he is asked: Express your opinion concerning the Five Points of Calvinism. Identify, the specific points of Calvinism and indicate if you agree/disagree with each point and why.
And Daniel answers: “I am not a Calvinist, and I would like to not be categorized by a label.”
I AM NOT A CALVINIST!
An explicit denial that he is a Calvinist when in fact he is, and clearly affirms the five points in his statement that follows. This is precisely the kind of thing that demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity. If someone asks you if you are a Calvinist and you say No, when you in fact are, this is precisely what alarms the non-Calvinists who deal with Calvinists like Daniel trying to fly under the radar.
Bridges then in another post says:
“And Brother Daniel did not hide anything. He was up front from beginning to end.”
Again, not accurate or true. If he was “up front from beginning to end” then why not honestly admit from the beginning that he is in fact Calvinistic in his beliefs, that he is a Calvinist. Rather, than trying to distance himself from Calvinism by explicitly denying that he is a Calvinist and then setting forth Calvinistic answers in his answers to the questions. No, if he were “up front from the beginning” he would have answered that he is a Calvinist.
In his original post Bridges also wrote:
“3. Which gets us to the whole claim that Calvinists are dishonest when entering denominational service or ministry, a charge sometimes leveled by those in Baptist circles.”
Daniel presents exactly the kind of thing that some Southern Baptists have been concerned with: a Calvinist who wants to pastor a non-Calvinist congregation but is not forthright or honest up front about his Calvinism or that he is a Calvinist.
Robert
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to thank Gene for inviting me to respond to some of the comments on here. I did not even realize that my blog was being read and commented on.
Hmm.. where to start.
Victorious pointed out a number of true things in relation to Calvary Chapel and affiliation.
Basically what happened was the following.
I started to attend Calvary Chapel Houston in 1999. I was not a believer in the Doctrines of Grace at that time, nor did I consider myself an Arminian. While in undergraduate seminary I had shelved the entire issue because I thought there was a "middle" ground somewhere. I graduated in 99 before I started attending CCH. I was still a work in progress.
Of course I felt called to the ministry so I got heavily involved at the church including two years of Pastoral training with my Pastor. I was there over a course of five years, and at the end of the fifth, I was ordained and sent out to start a CC in the Tulsa area.
My pastor there taught through Romans 8-9 sometime in my second year at the church. That sparked certain members to investigate the entire issue of Calvinism. My Pastor took a neutral stance on the subject, he said he wasn't a Calvinist nor an Arminian. He believed there was a middle ground too, and when we got to Heaven we would understand. He didn't want to deal with the subject to a point of coming down on one side or the other. I agreed with him.
Everyone who became a "Calvinist" because of that was removed from leaderhip and ended up leaving the church over the course of the next 4-5 years. I spent long, long, long hours discussing the issue with some of them and did not become a "Calvinist." I stood with my Pastor on the subject. I even wrote articles and the like.
It was an ongoing study for me until I came to a conclusion on it years later. I was always open and honest about my beliefs, and I was in process for a long time.
I did not hold 100% to the Doctrines of Grace and did not completely understand them.
When asked if I was a Calvinist I stated honestly and truthfully "no." At that point I had not come to a conclusion on the subject. I was still heavily leaning away from the DoG.
During my last year at CCH, the Atonement of Christ is what the Lord used to open my eyes to His truth. I still did not consider myself a Calvinist or hold to the DoG completely.
I was ordained by my Pastor and sent out. Months later I decided to begin the affiliation process to affiliate my new church with Calvary Chapel. By that time, I had come to realize that this issue was going to be the deciding factor and focused in on it with the Pastor I was working with here in Oklahoma.
I had wanted to go through the affiliation requirements before I was ordained, but I was denied access to the paper work. It wasn't until the affiliation process that I had to nail down some things for CC and in my own heart. I was forced to take a side in my opinion.
I could not affirm the order of salvation that Chuck Smith required and decided the best thing to do was withdraw my application to affiliate with CC. I did just that.
My pastor called me not long after and stated that they would not support a church that was not affiliated with CC, so they pulled my funding.
If someone affiliating with Calvary Chapel cannot affirm 100% of Chuck Smith's doctrinal beliefs on the Calvary Chapel Distinctives they cannot affiliate with CC. I pulled my affiliation application not because I disagreed with Calvary Chapel doctrine, I pulled it because I cannot affirm one man's doctrine when it may be in error.
During that time I wrote the 31 Q&As that Gene linked too, and still to this day do not consider myself a Calvinist. What I wrote on the issue at that time is still what I believe.
If people want to label me as a Calvinist okay, but I do not consider myself a follower of John Calvin. I reject labels because they are used to stereo type what people believe. I follow Christ and His Word alone. John Calvin did not make up the Doctrines of Grace, he just delved into the text of scripture and explained them. Augustine had done so before him. I do not agree with 100% of what Augustine or John Calvin taught or did in their lives. What they taught or did does not have any impact on the text of Scripture. John Calvin didn't write the Bible.
CCH did not require a written in-depth theological declaration prior to ordination, so if I wasn't 100% sure about certain issues it was okay. Nor did I hold to the DoG 100% at that time. It wasn't until the affiliation process started that I realized where I clearly stood as I had to construct my theological summary on the issues.
Once Calvary Chapel and I realized we were not compatible I withdrew my application for affiliation, and I moved forward in my studies. Months later I finally decided that I did believe in the DoG through more study post that event, and I posted that on my Statement of Faith to avoid confusion on my website.
I had not spoken to my Pastor at CCH for a couple of years when out of nowhere I got the letter stating they removed my Ordination. I did not receive a phone call or anything prior to the letter.
I had found out during my time at CCH that Calvary Chapel as an organization had done a purge of all Calvinistic believers out of leadership, their seminary, and pastors back in the 90s. I never realized it would happen to me too, nor did I ever think while I was attending there I would be in that position.
No one at the church told me about those things. CCH did not have a defining Statement of Faith until recently. Even now they believe in a "Calvinism" that I do not believe in, so I am not a Calvinist according to their definition of one.
ReplyDeleteActually, this is not true, Daniel was not explicit about his doctrinal beliefs. Look at question 18 where he is asked: Express your opinion concerning the Five Points of Calvinism. Identify, the specific points of Calvinism and indicate if you agree/disagree with each point and why.
And Daniel answers: “I am not a Calvinist, and I would like to not be categorized by a label/
Robert is unable to present the historical record accurately for a 3rd of 4th time on this blog. Why is this?
Robert quotes the first sentence but not the second which clearly states: Please see my position stated below, and in a big underlined section writes in some detail about his soteriological beliefs.
Now, we need to ask why Brother Daniel would say that before accusing him of "deception." Brother Daniel has stated about the term "Calvinist":
That term is a man made label used to divide and stereotype what people believe. There is enough hatred without taking on a label for myself. I am not a follower of John Calvin, I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I do not 100% agree with everything John Calvin taught nor believed.
So is this "deceptive? Not at all, for the question goes on to ask (and Robert omits) for a statement on the five points of Calvinism which Brother Daniel very clearly provided.
Further, this is perfectly in line with CC's own "distinctives" which say the label "Calvinist" is precisely what Brother Daniel affirms about the term's use.
And, as Daniel has so well stated, the "Calvinism" that is taught in CC circles (as in George Bryson's version) is not the Calvinism that Daniel affirms. In fact, having seen Bryson's presentation, it is not accurate, for, as Daniel has said, Bryson tends to say "this is what they say they believe, but this is what they really believe."
So, Daniel answered truthfully, he answered that he affirms "Calvinist" is a divisive label and that he does not affirm "Calvinism" as men like George Bryson tar it.
An explicit denial that he is a Calvinist when in fact he is, and clearly affirms the five points in his statement that follows. This is precisely the kind of thing that demonstrates a lack of honesty and integrity. If someone asks you if you are a Calvinist and you say No, when you in fact are, this is precisely what alarms the non-Calvinists who deal with Calvinists like Daniel trying to fly under the radar.
This would only be true if Daniel had not given the answers he gave. If Daniel was "trying to fly under the radar," then why would he admit to believing the doctrines of grace in such explicit detail?
Daniel presents exactly the kind of thing that some Southern Baptists have been concerned with: a Calvinist who wants to pastor a non-Calvinist congregation but is not forthright or honest up front about his Calvinism or that he is a Calvinist.
Does this apply equally to non-Calvinists who have entered Calvinist congregations and cannot abide by their confession? Is Robert aware, for example, of the historic confession that once belonged to FBC Woodstock?
Robert presents exactly the kind of thing some Southern Baptists are concerned with: nonCalvinists who wants to tar Calvinists with dishonesty but is not honest with his assertions.
These kinds of criticisms expose the completely untenable position in which some Southern Baptist leaders place their Calvinistic brethren in the SBC. If we openly describe ourselves as Calvinists, we are accused of “wearing our Calvinism on our sleeves” and are admonished to stop doing this. If we speak in terms of wanting to recover biblical Christianity or the theological vision of the founders of the SBC or say we are not Calvinists (meaning we eschew that label) but explicitly and in some detail state our soteriological beliefs and affirm the doctrines of grace in the process, as Daniel did, we are accused of being deceitful and dishonest. When the same men level both criticisms it is a sure indicator that something more is going on than a quest for integrity and it causes their critiques to ring hollow.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThanks for making your explanation and order of events that led up to your "DE" ordination (For lack of a better term).
In reading your comments, there really doesn't seem to be much of an issue in your heart with anything that took place. In light of that it doesn't appear that your blaming CC for the church you planting not taking off the way you envisioned. You've been clear about that. But others draw incorrect conclusions based on the events following the church closing down.
The affiliation process with CC has gone through several transitions and revisions. I think I remember CC growing from a few hundred churches in the late 90's to almost one thousand in just a few years. There was a need for some sort of organized process. To be quite frank its an area that still needs much work and refining, and CCOF I'm sure is working on it. It appears from your story that your theology was as much in transition as CCOF and the affiliation process. I think it shows your clear conscience and integrity in pulling your application once you made the determination that you couldn't teach in agreement with the rest of CC. I also think its clear that CCH did what was expedient in light of your decision to pull your affiliation. They may have been a bit short on communication but in the end wouldn't you agree it was the right thing to do?
I do pray that at some time you will take what you've invested years of your life in christian education and use it to lead & shepherd another flock. The lessons you've learned through this season with certainly strengthen your resolve next time. You seem to have a shepherd's heart, and CC nor anyone else can take that away or disaffiliate you from it nor would they attempt to do so. Be strengthen, and take courage. None of this was any surprise to the Lord.
Gene seems to be getting closer to the problem when he writes:
ReplyDelete”And, as Daniel has so well stated, the "Calvinism" that is taught in CC circles (as in George Bryson's version) is not the Calvinism that Daniel affirms. In fact, having seen Bryson's presentation, it is not accurate, for, as Daniel has said, Bryson tends to say "this is what they say they believe, but this is what they really believe."
So, Daniel answered truthfully, he answered that he affirms "Calvinist" is a divisive label and that he does not affirm "Calvinism" as men like George Bryson tar it.”
When people speak of someone being a “Calvinist” they mean someone who affirms TULIP. Calvinists themselves have their own lingo for their beliefs (i.e., they say that they hold the “doctrines of grace”). Daniel knows all of this, and himself freely uses the term “doctrines of grace”. So he **is** a Calvinist as normally understood. But Daniel and Gene want to claim that people like Bryson mischaracterize Calvinism, so they want to distance themselves from what Bryson says. Fine, but when someone asks you what your beliefs about TULIP/”the doctrines of grace” are, and you explicitly state I AM NOT A CALVINIST. This is not forthright not completely honest. And it precisely doing this kind of thing that causes some, in places like the SBC, to be concerned that pastoral candidates who are in fact Calvinists are not being clear and honest about the presentation of themselves.
Gene then asks:
”Does this apply equally to non-Calvinists who have entered Calvinist congregations and cannot abide by their confession?”
Yes, and this is just the point: the demand for being forthright and honest in the presentation of ones theological beliefs APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD. What would we say about someone who holds Baptist beliefs and candidates at a Presbyterian church and when asked whether he was a Baptist answers: I AM NOT A BAPTIST (but then in his answers to questions declares Baptist beliefs)? For me it would be exactly the same, and just as wrong for the Baptist who eschews labels to do the same thing. What needs to happen is that those candidating for a pastoral position need to be honest from the beginning so there are no such instances of denying you are something when in fact you espouse those very beliefs.
Gene concludes with:
”These kinds of criticisms expose the completely untenable position in which some Southern Baptist leaders place their Calvinistic brethren in the SBC. If we openly describe ourselves as Calvinists, we are accused of “wearing our Calvinism on our sleeves” and are admonished to stop doing this. If we speak in terms of wanting to recover biblical Christianity or the theological vision of the founders of the SBC or say we are not Calvinists (meaning we eschew that label) but explicitly and in some detail state our soteriological beliefs and affirm the doctrines of grace in the process, as Daniel did, we are accused of being deceitful and dishonest. When the same men level both criticisms it is a sure indicator that something more is going on than a quest for integrity and it causes their critiques to ring hollow.”
From the people that I have spoken to and what I have read, a major division is brewing among the Southern Baptists between the Calvinists and noncalvinists. There are some non-Calvinists who really don’t like Calvinists or Calvinism at all, so I have no problem acknowledging that these folks are intentionally putting Calvinists in a double-bind. And that is not right. What I am concerned about, is those Calvinists who are not being forthright and honest, who are in fact trying to get into non-Calvinist congregations so that they can “reform” them, convert them to the “doctrines of grace”. These kinds of attempts are divisive and start with someone who says he is not a Calvinist when in fact he espouses the “doctrines of grace” and wants to convert everyone else to these same doctrines. It is just as wrong for a non-Calvinist to present himself one way in order to get into a congregation that holds Calvinist beliefs, so that he can then convert them to non-Calvinist beliefs. People who lead congregations need to be people who know their theology, model the Christian life in their Christian character and practices, and are honest about themselves and their beliefs from the beginning. The local churches deserve no less.
Robert
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI was never a candidate for a non-Calvinistic church. I started a new church, so I was never dishonest in that way. I would never be.
I attend an SBC church now, and I was and have been very upfront about my doctrinal standings. Unfortunately, at first they were fine with it and I was teaching and different things. But when the leadership of the church realized that I would teach the Bible as I saw it in my classes it became a problem. Just like at Calvary I can no longer teach or lead. It was very difficult, especially because they claimed they accepted me, but then they didn't when it came down to it.
With Calvary Chapel I was post affiliation process by a few months when I decided that the Doctrines of Grace were where I stood 100% without question.
When I was ordained I was not 100% sure on where I stood exactly.
Anonymous wrote:
I also think its clear that CCH did what was expedient in light of your decision to pull your affiliation. They may have been a bit short on communication but in the end wouldn't you agree it was the right thing to do?
Response:
I did not have a problem with CCH pulling their funding after we decided not to affiliate. I understood their stance.
I don't agree that my Ordination should have been removed. Especially without questioning me and giving me an opportunity to discuss it with the board.
The leadership of CCH agreed and recognized the calling of God on my life. That is the point of ordination. I don't think doctrine should be an issue as long as I'm not an outright heretic denying one of the fundlemental truths of the faith.
The Bryson version of Calvinism, which they reject is not what I believe and I reject it to.
Overall, I'm at peace with the events that have occured. All I want is what God wants, and I will go where He wants me to go and do. I marvel at the path that He has had me travel, but I know it is all for a reason and His glory. Hopefully, He will help me understand as time passes.
Peace.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDelete“I was never a candidate for a non-Calvinistic church. I started a new church, so I was never dishonest in that way. I would never be.”
From my understanding of Calvary Chapels, knowing some of the people and the pastors, they have never held to the “doctrines of grace”, or calvinism. For someone such as yourself who holds to the “doctrines of grace”, Calvary Chapels are not the churches where you ought to be a pastor or in leadership. As far as I know, all of the Calvary Chapels are non-Calvinistic churches.
”I attend an SBC church now, and I was and have been very upfront about my doctrinal standings. Unfortunately, at first they were fine with it and I was teaching and different things. But when the leadership of the church realized that I would teach the Bible as I saw it in my classes it became a problem. Just like at Calvary I can no longer teach or lead. It was very difficult, especially because they claimed they accepted me, but then they didn't when it came down to it.”
So it appears from what you say here, that the SBC may not be the place for you either.
”With Calvary Chapel I was post affiliation process by a few months when I decided that the Doctrines of Grace were where I stood 100% without question.”
So we can conclude that you hold and are committed to the “doctrines of grace”?
”When I was ordained I was not 100% sure on where I stood exactly”
OK, perhaps in the past you were not sure, but now you are fully and unreservedly committed to the “doctrines of grace.”
Here is my suggestion for you. If you believe that you are called to be a pastor, and if you are completely committed to the “doctrines of grace” and do not want to compromise your beliefs. Contact the following people, tell them your story, your desire to pastor a church where the “doctrines of grace” are upheld and respected, and ask them for recommendations, what would they do if they were in your place? I would contact pastor Tom Ascol from FOUNDERS. I would contact pastor Sam Storms (not sure what the name of his church is) and I would contact pastor Richard Barcellos (from MidWestern seminary I believe at this time). These three men hold to the “doctrines of grace” have lots of pastoral experience and may help you to make some helpful connections with others who view the “doctrines of grace” in the same way as you do. Tell them your story and ask them for advice and recommendations. You really need to find like-minded persons who have more in common with you than the Calvary Chapel or SBC folks that you have dealt with so far.
Robert
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDeleteIn reading your comments, there really doesn't seem to be much of an issue in your heart with anything that took place. In light of that it doesn't appear that your blaming CC for the church you planting not taking off the way you envisioned. You've been clear about that. But others draw incorrect conclusions based on the events following the church closing down.
Response:
You are correct, I don't harbor anything negative in my heart toward CCH, and I do not blame them for the church plant failing.
I take full responsibility for the failure, and I believe it was my inexperience that worked against me.
We moved up here to Tulsa in July 2004 and rapidly moved forward with the church. I had faith God was going to work everything out.
I decided to spend a lot of the funds we did have upfront on equipment, so the initial service everything would work well and go smoothly for those who attended.
We started the church the first Sunday of October so we had 2 month turn around from the time we arrived until the time we started.
I should have been much more conservative in my spending and gotten a job first. I should have spent atleast 6 months to a year getting to know the area better. I think we were in a bad location to start.
Unfortunately the city and school district were not helpful to the initiative. The city refused to let us use any city buildings to start the new work. The school district gave us 6 months then we had to get out.
In comparison CCH met in an elementary for 2 years, then moved to the Community Center for some years before acctually renting a facility. We would have had to rent a facility within 6 months. That is one reason why I thought spending more upfront would be ok. I believed by the time we had to get out we would have enough members to afford somewhere, even a little space in a shopping center or something.
The Calvary Chapel organization did not support the new work financially. CC Houston contributed enough per month to cover about 1/2 a Sunday morning service at the school we were in. Calvary Chapels believe that if God is in it He will provide.
We poured everything we had into the move and new start. We spent all of our savings, all of the retirement I had pulled out, and borrowed after that was all gone. We are still trying to recover.
It was not until after we had to close the church down because we couldn't pay for our building that I finally got a job.
I had hoped to restart the church a couple of times, but I did not feel God was in it. Things would happen that made me realize that it wasn't time. By the end of 2005 I knew that I needed to find a church so my family could be a part of the family of God.
So we found an SBC church. After all through Founders and study, I realized that I am a historical Southern Baptist in doctrine. Its too bad my SBC church is more Arminian. They felt that somethings I may teach from the Word of God would cause people to stumble. Yeah, I was shocked too.
There are a couple of "Calvinistic" Baptist churches in our immediate area, but they are tiny, tiny. Less that 10 people at the services I went to. My wife and I didn't feel that was where God wanted us.
I visited Bethel up in Owasso, but I don't feel I should go there. I want to be in a church in my local community, so we have not went anymore. They are there for Owasso, we need a good church on our side of Tulsa.
We will see what God has in store. I have faith He will work things out.
Hey Daniel, have you considered Acts 29, Mars Hill Church, affiliation? Sounds like you may fit in there just fine.
ReplyDelete