Calvary Chapel is not a denomination. In fact, our Statement of Faith reads, “We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only to their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.” To better describe what we are about as a whole we have decided to refer to ourselves as a movement. But what is a movement? What does it mean to be a movement? I found this definition on the web through Google:
A group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals.
While it may not instantaneously settle in your head exactly what that means in the context of Calvary Chapel, it certainly starts leading us in the right direction. Instead of “a common ideology“ we might choose to say a common theology. And while this may be somewhat oversimplifying I think it touches on the main point. Our Statement of Faith then goes on to describe what that theology looks like in the context of every day application at the local church.
But beyond sterile definitions, to me, the term movement implies some traits not found in the dictionary. When I hear movement I think of fresh, new, and exciting. Something that is moving would seem to not sit around and get stale. Something that wouldn’t settle into it’s ways but would constantly be “in the now.” It would seem that under this idea one would have a great deal of room to navigate through changing times to be able to continue to meet the current culture where they’re at and help people move past the traditional views of church that seems to lead to spiritual rigor mortis. As the old adage goes, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” So, that’s what I think of when I hear something referred to as a movement.
Recently, at the Passion Conference ‘07 in Atlanta, Louie Giglio referred to Passion as a movement. He said that it wasn’t their original goal or intent to become “Passion Conferences” that went around making money on doing conferences. Instead his heart behind the movement was to reach out to the 18-25 age group and ignite a fire for Jesus Christ in their hearts that would spread across the country and it’s campuses. I liked that! It sounded fresh, vibrant and alive. And because of that goal in the context of being a movement, he was going to change the way they would continue that mission. Why? Times have changed since they first started. People have begun to expect certain things from these conferences that would eventually lead to a rut or routine approach to something that was not supposed to be routine.
So what about Calvary Chapel? How can we continue to stay fresh and vibrant without settling into the rut of expectations of what people begin to think is or is not Calvary Chapel or “Calvary-esque?” Besides our Statement of Faith we do have what are called the Distinctives. These Distinctives were to add daily application to our theology and act as a tool and reference point that we come back to for guidance on our method of ministry, that makes us different from a lot of the other evangelical churches out there.
With that, we don’t stray away from what makes us uniquely grounded in what we believe is a very balanced approach to theology, but we also want to be “culturally relevant” to our communities, not getting stuck in a rut of methodology . This is a quandary that many “new school” Calvary guys are running into right now. They want to see God work in a fresh and exciting way through our church to reach our community. But they’re also aware of a pressure to adhere to certain principles in the Distinctives that supposedly make us who we are. I would love to invite some discussion around this topic and hear what you see as things that are flexible vs. things that just cannot change at all. And within those boundaries, what can we do to stay fresh? Do we need to DO anything to stay fresh? What are your thoughts/ideas?
17 responses so far ↓
Thinking Ape // March 20, 2007 at 1:17 am
The word “denomination” means to distinguish or classify a set of things. You say that Calvary Chapel is “not a denomination” based on the emphasis of doctrinal differences. Yet Calvary Chapel has surpassed even the secular definiton of denomination and created a “recognized autonomous branch of the Christian church.” Is denomination such a dirty word? Does it actually perpetuate difference? If it did, would you actually consider this difference a bad thing? Or are you okay with lumping yourself in with everyone who claims to be “Christian”: Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christadelphians?
I know many that see denominations are friendly differences. MB and GC Mennonites hardly have much difference with Baptists, and they certainly are not starting riots over preferences of worship or administration logistics.
The problem I have found in the Calvary churches I have attended, which at one time I thought were isolated issues, is that they are not “nondenominational” at all, but are rather hypocritically “anti-denominational” and every Calvary Chapel pastor I have met always appears to have something negative to say about some other denomination. Isn’t it odd that Chuck Smith left a denomination out of frustration only to create a so-called non-denomination and proclaim that, as you say, denominational churches are the root of church divisiveness?
Sean Nelson // March 20, 2007 at 11:11 am
Hey Thinking Ape, thanks for being my first comment on my first post! I don’t think denomination is a dirty word at all. In fact, I have a great number of very close and well respected Christian friends in denominations. A youth pastor in an Episcopal church, a small group leader in a Baptist church, etc. Read my quote from our statement of faith to understand where I am coming from on this issue. However, just as I believe, movement carries some traits not found in a definition, I believe that the idea of denominations does as well. There are different authority structures and such that vary from denom to denom but also differ greatly from that of a CC. As we may not agree with those structures I don’t believe it’s my place to destroy them either. As long as we all preach Christ and Him crucified I’m stoked. I cannot answer for the statements you may have heard in your time with a CC, I know I have heard it as well from one particular CC pastor, who actually isn’t a CC pastor anymore. Personally, I don’t like that stuff. It’s one thing if it is discussed in maybe a leadership training type of scenario so that people understand where and why we differ on these issues, but I don’t believe in making them an issue or it turns into the same divisive attitude that we are against per our statement of faith.
Next, to reply to your last sentence: “That, as you say, denominational churches are the root of church divisiveness?” I don’t recall saying that, nor do I see it in my post. The denom is not the root of divisiveness, the choice by some denoms to turn doctrinal differences into divisional issues is what is divisive. I am sure that even a CC pastor could fall into that trap and if he has he needs to check himself and go back to the basics of why he is CC.
Lastly, an words of insight or wisdom to share on the last paragraph or two of the post? Thanks for your comments!
Sean Nelson // March 20, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Before anyone throws it out there… Obviously, teaching God’s Word in it’s entirety, in context and doing verse-by-verse (VBV) studies is a non-negotiable. So let’s leave that one to the “Duh” category and move on from there…
Corby Stephens // May 24, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Duh.
gene p // November 6, 2007 at 12:38 am
So what about Calvary Chapel? How can we continue to stay fresh and vibrant without settling into the rut of expectations of what people begin to think is or is not Calvary Chapel or “Calvary-esque?”
hello! this is my first time on your blog.
since calvary is in it’s 2nd/3rd generation now, the best thing to do (like all movements) is for each church to focus on the fundamental calling that the Lord has placed on them, while also continuing to step out in ventures of faith. the Distinctives are a great road map for remaining rooted and grounded in the type of ministry that the Lord has been blessing throughout the Church Age.
sometimes people have a hard time differentiating between an ‘affiliation’ and a ‘denomination.’ i know that i really appreciate the fact that no hierarchical group is making sweeping decisions for the whole movement…one of the big differences between CC and a denomination like the Southern Baptist churches (for example).
freshness and vibrance is achieved through personal vision, personal passion. when we are faithful in our own relationships with the Lord then our ministries will remain healthy, meaningful and Spirit-led.
blessings and maranatha
Sean Nelson // November 6, 2007 at 9:02 am
Hey Gene,
Thanks for stopping by the blog! I agree, we absolutely need freshness and vibrance. And that is only achievable through acting in the passion and vision that God has given each individual for their place in ministry. However, it seems to me that in a lot of circles within the movement, we have kind of built a ministry box.
Instead of looking at the distinctives principally (the heart) there are those that are more concerned with upholding the letter, resulting in cookie-cutter style churches and a very narrow view of how to “do church.” But the Spirit isn’t and won’t be boxed in, I believe we need the freedom to act outside of the box as we follow the Spirit’s lead. EVEN IF that looks really different from the way we’ve done things in times past. What do you think?
God bless you!
gene p // November 6, 2007 at 12:41 pm
–
i definitely agree. like you’re saying, these issues are church-specific, thus there probably isn’t any literal list of stylistic changes or ideas that every calvary can or should do to remain in their first love.
i think that churches need to try new things for the Lord. tradition is the enemy of freshness and flexibility in ministry. there are always going to be people (in any church group/movement) that want to only maintain the status quo, only want to keep things “like they’ve always been.” and, as the Word reveals and history has shown, that is deadly to churches and revivals.
on the other hand, if a certain church leadership feels led to ‘act outside the box’ then praise God! however, i do think that if they are led consistently and markedly outside of the ‘box’ (the general style of cc) then there is cause to wonder why they remain affiliated. there is no shame in joining or leaving the affiliation, and, if a church no longer fits the general description of a calvary chapel, why keep the name? if i was at a charismatic church and our leadership was led to stop allowing open sharing of tongues in our services i would start to think that we’re no longer charismatic…does that make sense?
i think part of the reason that people are interested in the state of the calvary chapel movement is because it is at a pivotal point in the time-line of organizations…by that i mean throughout history other church movements, like calvary chapel, usually reach about the point we’re at (40 years old, 2nd generation, etc) and drastic changes start occurring (that and some calvarys have received some bad press recently). so now people within and outside of the ministry are wondering what will happen.
again, this is where i’m glad there isn’t one deciding body for the whole group of churches.
so…this was a long route to the answer to your question…
i think that there is nothing wrong if our ministries look differently than they have in the past, but, if that difference becomes doctrinal or foundational, then maybe it’s time to think about changing the letterhead.
what do you think?
Sean Nelson // November 6, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I think you make some great points. But I’m curious (and this is probably where it gets interesting) what do you see as “doctrinal or foundational” that is or isn’t up for grabs? In other words, there are some doctrines that will make or break, but are there others that don’t? Also, shouldn’t it just be the doctrinal stances that determine our position in the movement vs. “foundational” ones?
To me, I see a “foundational” characteristic as something that worked great in the 60’s or 70’s at the foundation of the movement. However, as the times have changed, so have the people and probably needs to be “revamped” or maybe even removed to effectively hit our perspective mission fields at gut level. Can’t I change some “foundational” things without changing some doctrinal things and still be “plowing together” within the movement? The way I see it, some of the foundational things are better viewed as principles rather than laws. Capture the heart of why it was done like that and bring it into today’s culture, no?
genepensiero // November 6, 2007 at 3:58 pm
–
i see what you’re saying, and it will be easy to start splitting semantic hairs, so let me clarify.
by foundational i don’t mean “what they did in the 60s and 70s,” but instead the philosophical foundations of verse-by-verse Bible teaching, worship, and other principles like ’striking the balance’ (as Chuck’s book talks about). it’s not that every pastor must teach with the same style, for the same length of time out of the same passages every sunday, but to me verse-by-verse study (for example), though not explicitly mandated in the Bible, is one of the key ‘foundations’ that characterizes calvary chapel. does that make sense? if a church was going to leave regular, verse-by-verse study behind then they probably are no longer a calvary chapel in the philosophical sense. it’s not a judgment, just an assessment.
there’s absolutely nothing wrong with change and adaptation in ministry. it’s necessary to retool the mission, sharpen our tools, approach evangelism relevantly, sing new songs, teach new Bible studies, plan new outreaches, address current issues, minister to the people of my community right now, not minister to the people who lived here 15 years ago. however, if you sign up to play for a certain ‘team’ then you should wear the team uniform.
when i played baseball in high school we all were given a uniform. no one made me sign up for the team, i chose to try out because i wanted to be on the team. after i received my uniform i was given a certain amount of leeway in how i wore it…sleeves up or down, pant legs at ankle or knee, stirrups or socks, hat brim bent or straight. but, if i wanted to play for that team then i was expected to wear the entire uniform. hat, shirt, under-shirt, pants, cleats.
for me the issue is simple…i have no business telling a calvary in philadelphia how to minister because i’ve never been there, i don’t know the region, i don’t know the people, i don’t know the work that God is doing there. but, there should be some definition of what a calvary chapel is. even though i’ve never been to philly, if a friend moves there and asks me what to expect (in general) at cc philly there should be some sort of definition.
and that’s all i need…a definition in general terms of what can be expected. if cc is a branch of the move of God’s Spirit on the earth then shouldn’t that branch be recognizable amidst the other Godly branches? does that make sense?
i don’t want to bind anyone into a box, but my question is, if there are churches who want to uproot the definition of the calvary chapel movement then why have the words ‘calvary chapel’ on your marquee out front?
Sean Nelson // November 7, 2007 at 2:01 am
I don’t know Gene, I hear what you’re saying, but allow me to play “devil’s advocate” for a moment. If I understand what you’re saying, regardless of how well a church taught the Bible with integrity and accuracy, no matter how much they fit within the doctrinal positions that CC holds on essential and even non-essential doctrines and so on… If as you said, “a church was going to leave regular, verse-by-verse study behind,” then that would disqualify them from being a CC?
I understand the uniform analogy and think you’re right. You volunteer to wear it, you need to have some type of “uniform” to identify the team, etc. But I guess that’s where I come to a quandary is defining what the non-negotiables are that define what the “uniform” MUST include to be “official.”
Verse-by-Verse (VBV) for instance; is it that we have to do VBV teaching or is that we really want to make sure our people learn and understand God’s Word. Is VBV the only way to assure that? Trust me, I’ve heard pleanty of guys go through VBV that I really didn’t learn a thing from. Basically just reading and giving a book report on what they just read. From my perspective, VBV doesn’t guarantee a thorough understanding of God’s Word. Only how well the teacher(under the anointing of the Spirit) teaches and relates it to the listener. That could be topical and could be VBV, no?
To me part of the uniform could be a high commitment to teaching God’s Word accurately and applicably, regardless if that’s VBV or topical. I think it would make more sense to make the uniform strictly doctrinal. That way you can be very clear on what is acceptable and what is not. You can cover doctrine topically and VBV with equal accuracy. But the Distinctives book leaves so much room for opinion and interpretation that it just doesn’t provide a good platform for “enforcement.” Should it really matter if someone stands while most are sitting during worship? Just one example of how they (the Distinctives) aren’t really being 100% followed by plenty of great CC guys.
I think our distinctives would be better defined by our theology/doctrinal stances than our methodology. But that’s just my opinion.
genepensiero // November 7, 2007 at 10:39 am
–
it’s always good to look at the ‘devil’s’ viewpoint, but i think this is where we will differ slightly.
i didn’t mean to say that the Bible can’t be taught well without VBV teaching, simply that (like it or not) it is a characteristic of the cc uniform…it is part of the definition. so the question to me isn’t about methodology, but about either having a definition or not having one.
i don’t think methodology should be enforced, because cc isn’t a denomination. as soon as enforcement begins then the affiliation becomes a denomination. now, i DO see a difference between enforcing methodology and suggesting that a church no longer be a calvary chapel if they’re not wearing the uniform (like we discussed).
i can understand how sticking to a doctrinal uniform might seem better on paper…but when we get right down to it, that’s not much easier to negotiate. at this point lots of calvary guys are calvinists, lots are not. so…if we were to enforce a doctrinal standpoint, then which group gets disqualified? if the calvinists win, then what about 4 point calvinists? what about old earth vs. young earth? there are too many doctrines like those that are interpreted differently within the movement…so…a doctrinal uniform falls short.
if our ‘uniform’ comes down to the doctrines of (being overly simplistic):
1. There is a God…
2. We should worship Him…
3. We should learn and understand His word…
…then why be a distinct branch at all? why not just be “the church at hanford”?
is this making sense? to me it’s not about who is doing better methods or people following the company line…but why be affiliated if there shouldn’t be common ground both theologically AND methodically?
Sean Nelson // November 8, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Hey Gene… Sorry for the delay. had the Wednesday night thing, then I take Thurs. & Fri. and did some running around and blogging over at simplemindedpreacher.com (if you haven’t visited this site, I would highly recommend it). Anyway…
I guess I see it differently. I think theology is much more important than methodology. One is ordained by God’s Word, the other is man’s ideas (hopefully centered around God’s Word, but still his opinion nonetheless).
Holding the position of Calvinism is in no way a “uniform” item. To me, that’s non-negotiable. If you’re a Calvinist, you’re not a CC guy, that’s one of our “ditsinctives,” as is our position on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I would think that these are way more important than alternate teaching styles (topical vs. VBV) for instance.
Methodology is tough to “suggest” because how and why do you get to pick certain methods in ministry that are OK to veer from and certain ones that we must hold to dogmatically? Instead, just base everything off of God’s Word and let that be “the enforcer.” I know we’re not a denomination, but I think we should enforce the main points of theology that make us who we are within the body of Christ. But again, that’s just my opinion.
For the most part, methods are only as effective as they relate to the current culture. You can’t do things now like you did back 50 years ago. You can’t do things in other parts of the world like you would here in the USA. Never change the message, just the way it’s communicated and related. That too is what I believe makes us distinct in ministry(though less now a days than earlier). That we are willing to mix the methods up, but never compromise the message.
I respect what you have to say and appreciate your input and insight. I hope you don’t take the disagreement as an insult. By the way, you’ve got a great looking blog over there!
genepensiero // November 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm
–
no offense taken, i really appreciated the discussion.
to close it off, let me say that i agree that theology IS much more important than methodology. methods are nothing compared to the Word of God and the theology therein. i simply don’t think the change you’re describing (or i’m describing for that matter) is really doable, only because (as we’ve said), there ARE a lot of calvinist cc pastors, there ARE a lot of guys who think that individuals standing up during worship does become a doctrinal issue…there are just a lot of gray doctrines that are open to discussion and would have to be adjudicated by some governing body in order to make the doctrinal boundaries you’re describing. as soon as that happens then cc is 100% changed.
it is a good discussion on paper, but when you get right down to it it’s probably better if our focus is on the individual, local church. methodology will always fail to unite a group of churches like CC, but doctrine yields a large number of issues too. if cc sets up a creed, a strict methodology, a checklist of what we believe and how we believe it, then cc is a denomination…and i don’t think either of us would want that.
anyway, thanks for the talk. hope i came across clearly…it’s an interesting (and slippery) topic.
have a blessed weekend.
Sean Nelson // November 9, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Gene, I appreciate all that you’ve shared. You come across clearly and cordially.
You said, “It is a good discussion on paper, but when you get right down to it it’s probably better if our focus is on the individual, local church.”
I think you’re right. However, the issue lies within the internal pressure to conform to some pretty strict expectations. Hence my post on the topic. But if it can’t be “enforced” doesn’t it eventually lead to one of two things? Either a diluting of the “brand” as people continue to drift or a strict and rigid standard of guidelines to stop the drifting?
I think we may see both and to a degree are experiencing both currently. I think to stay “fresh,” to retain our status as a “movement” we’ve got to be really flexible on the methodology but still retain our balanced and distinct theology. We’ve got to explore different ways to bring our message (purely and uncompromised) to folks in a way that meets them where they’re at, hits them at gut level.
To me that means, we also have to let go of the status quo “Calvary Way.” To maintain the Distinctives by their heart not by their letter. And to bring that heart into the context of our culture that we are serving in. Each culture is unique across the country, so that methodology should differ from place to place. And yet, our distinctives even in heart will limit some of those methods (and rightfully so).
I would love to see our movement embrace some change that really challenges the same old, same old that a lot of folks are stuck in. That works fine (kind of) for those who are used to it but to the world outside, I think we may be missing some opportunity to make a larger impact.
So I’m interested in exploring and seeking God for some creative ways to serve our cultures in a way that really hits people at the heart. But still communicates the timeless truth of God’s word int he process. Peace!
Reuben // November 29, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Ok, sorry to bombard your site all at once like this, but I have a question.
What is the “same old, same old that a lot of folks are stuck in”?
I see similarities between Calvary Chapels in our state, the book store, the coffee shop, the dove, but what is it that Calvary Chapel has to correct? I understood the argument about people doing the Calvary thing for the sake of doing it, and having a box of their own in some major city, but that will be shown for what it is by God in due time.
See, I believe that most guys that are affiliated with CC are affiliated because they love the distinctives. They love the verse by verse teaching. They love the fellowship. They relate with the foundation, and want to build on it.
The “culture” we work in is different from any other I know. We are above Boulder Colorado in a little mountain town named Nederland. Home of the frozen dead guy. Almost everyone up here is a detached from reality washed up hippy. No joke either. Folks that are too detached from reality to live in Boulder wind up in Ned. The people who started the church were exactly that. They were not sent from the CCCM after 10 years under Romaine, they adopted CC as the method that they felt the Lord was leading them in. Richie Furay told our senior pastor almost 30 years ago that he needed to be a pastor. Richie, being the ex-hippy that he is, seemed to think that Ned was an awesome place to have a church. Witches and warlocks everywhere, Antoine Levay was stationed at the time just a few minutes away from the house they met in, and everyone around there hated God, spent most of their time drowning out the reality of truth with drugs and alcohol.
How did we reach them? The same way any church reaches any culture. They proclaimed the truth of God’s Word in love. About 30 years later, that is still what CCNed does. I find that most CCs from the olden days were built with similar stories. I don’t know how it happens now, but what has to change in order for CC to not be this “same old, same old” that folks talk about as if it were an illness?
Just asking. Not an attack.
Reuben // November 30, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I have been convicted to retract that question. Sorry man. My head needs some straightening out.
Larry Cornell // March 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Greetings,
I have just recently started taking a serious look at Calvary Chapel. I am very impressed with Gregg Laurie but have not visited his church. However I have noticed that there is an odd pre-occupation with supposedly deep revelations about pre-trib rapture doctrine in many of the Calvary Chapels I have visited. I recall a passage in Deuteronomy which says ‘The things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, and the things which are hidden belong to God.’ Of making many books there is no end, if Calvary returns to the message of the gospel taught in the power of the Spirit the refreshing will come. But excessive focus and energy spent trying to fill in the gray areas of Scripture is nothing but a distraction. The fundamentalist notion that Scripture is a giant interconnected web of truths that one must either agree with wholeheartedly or not at all is wrong, that is law and not grace as James tells us so clearly. It is necessary to know the Risen Christ Jesus to be saved, it is not necessary to infer that the anti-deluvian religions emerged after the flood through Ham’s wife and led to the Tower of Babel. Though that is a sound Biblical inference there is no implication that the Book of Genesis was written with the intent that we would notice it. Let the church return to the simple truth and understand what David knew,
‘O Lord, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; Nor do I involve myself in great matters, or in things too difficult for me. Surely I have composed and quieted my soul; Like a weaned child rests against his mother, my soul is like a weaned child within me. O Israel hope in the Lord from this time forth and forever more.’
Psalm 131
We are called to grow up in all ways, but peddling gray dogma and calling it living bread does not a disciple make.
’solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.’
Hebrews 5:14
Trying to discuss the intricacies of Rapture scenarios or dispensationalism with a congregation that is struggling to live out the grace of God is like feeding steak to a baby. Not only is it not nutritious to them it can actually kill them. We ought to be very careful about knowledge that puffs up or is ‘distinctive’ because we should fear Jesus’ condemnation of the pharisees understanding that they were alot like us. ‘you travel hundreds of miles to make a disciple and then you turn him into twice the son of hell that you are yourself.’ So what is the danger? Recall that the Pharisees and Scribes had already determined completely the nature of the coming of the Messiah in such dogmatic detail that when Jesus stood before them they did not recognize Him. He had to point out to them that David had called the Messiah Lord and therfore He could not be the Son of David in the way they expected (and yes something good could come out of Nazareth.) We have to be very careful brothers about building doctrine out of supposed insights into things the Bible is not perfectly clear about.
So to you I say, God’s best, and keep ‘moving’ toward God and run as fast as you can from peddling next year’s prophecy books, lest Calvary wake up one day and be known as the movement that wasn’t. The Spirit brings life and He does not require a Phd in theology before He graciously pours out the living waters into our hearts.
‘For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincereity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.’
2Corinthians 2:17
My prayer for Calvary is that it would be spared the pride which causes so many denominations to fall, which might be all the more delicately applied and hidden since it is stated not to be one.
May God cause us all to partake deeply of the knowledge of Him which is understood by the original language of this verse, ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.’
The last thing I would say if we must split hairs is that Calvary Chapel is wonderful in it’s recognition of the teaching ministry and some of the best in the world can be found there. However, you struggle to accept the full expression of God’s Spirit in your midst. I’ll leave it to you all to determine what I mean by that.
May God bless you and strengthen you for the times just ahead, times which will leave every mouth hanging open and every hand trembling. Only those who fear the Lord shall find comfort. May God send this with grace so that it hits it’s mark and does not damage one single grain of wheat.
In the Name of Jesus