Don’t Expect Accountability From the Calvary Chapel Association
The Julie Roys website has been publishing articles about current issues in Calvary Chapel’s…and people don’t understand why there isn’t a governing body that holds abusive churches accountable.
This is an article i published years ago…not much has changed.
What does the CCA do?
I’ve been asked this question a lot lately by people who have an issue with a Calvary Chapel.
They write or call the Calvary Chapel Association with that issue assuming that it is the governing body of the movement.
This assumption comes from a few places where the website speaks of regional authorities who have “oversight” over a group of churches in a geographical location.
They invariably get no response.
It may be helpful to start at the beginning to understand why and what’s happening now.
When the movement was founded it was founded on the principle of the autonomy of the local church.
Chuck Smith would not be told what to do or how to do it, nor did he want that power over others.
There would be no bishops or other oversight, each body would be wholly responsible for its governance through elders and the board with the senior pastor always having the final say.
This became the notorious “Moses Model”.
In reality, the “Moses Model” was nothing new in the church
Independent Baptists and others had used a senior pastor centric model before, though without the ridiculous Mosaic explanation.
The movement would not be a denomination, but a group of pastors who “affiliated” with each other on the basis of shared doctrine and vision.
As the movement grew, it became necessary to deal with the flood of pastors who wanted to become “affiliated” with Calvary Chapel.
Thus was born the Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowship.
That became the agency that handed out the dove.
In time, it also became the enforcement arm of the movement, dealing with issues of moral turpitude, financial issues, and doctrinal fidelity to the “Distinctives”.
That worked…until it became evident that it also created a legal liability for Costa Mesa when one of the “affiliates” got in trouble.
Eventually, Chuck Smith grew tired of “paying for the boys mistakes” in legal settlements and disbanded the CCOF in an attempt to get back to the original plan.
The buck would stop with Chuck Smith and Chuck Smith wasn’t going to have anymore of his bucks going out the door to cover some guys sin, a guy he possibly had never even met.
The affiliates would be liable for their own actions and Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa would only be responsible for its own.
That was the case from 2012 to when Smith died.
Smith spoke of no plan for how to govern the movement after his death, so the CCA was formed while he was still around and great efforts were made to show that he approved it.
Whether he did or not is another story, but the CCA was in place when he died.
It was created solely to approve affiliation… the “Leadership Council” would oversee things such as the annual conference and doctrinal statements, but no one was to have any authority over anyone else.
In truth, they don’t.
What the CCAÂ does is type names of new affiliates into a database and removes names that are no longer affiliated for some reason.
Regional pastors submit names, someone types them in and the work of the CCA is done.
The harshest “discipline” that the CCA can administer is deleting a name from the CC database.
No one wants to or will take on the responsibility or liability for the errors of another affiliate.
No one wants to be sued.
The reality is that for the first time Calvary Chapels are truly autonomous.
If you have an issue with your local CC that can’t be resolved at the church, you’re out of luck.
Period.
It would be helpful and responsible if the CCA website took away any language that indicated that there was any sort of accountability hierarchy within the movement.
It leads people to believe that there is a place to appeal…and there is not.
Any accountability is at the local level…and if there is none there, there is none to be had.
We can debate all day about whether there should be, but at the end of the day we must deal with what is.
This is quintessential American religion…the market will decide if it works.
I believe the Southern Baptist Convention works much the same way, which is likely why Greg Laurie felt comfortable bringing his megachurch Harvest over to the SBC. The SBC replaces the Distinctives with the Baptist Faith and Message, but the local church autonomy is the same.
I notice that CCA finally delisted Harvest, but I doubt Laurie mourned that loss much and his church probably isn’t even aware of the change.
Calvary Chapel as a movement or brand is nearing irrelevance…
Yes, but we know what happens if a prominent CC pastor does something as egregious as saying that maybe they should scale back on talking about the Rapture all the time….. then there is hell to pay.
Kevin,
The CCA does have strong boundary markers…but the worst they can do is take your name out of a database…
Michael
“ Calvary Chapel as a movement or brand is nearing irrelevance…”
I think it passed that mark a few years back. CGN is attempting to move into the future but I doubt it has much success. The CC method and message was relevant in the 70’s, 80’s and some of the 90’s but fell out of step with millennials and even more so with Igen.
EricL
For most part, you are correct. Local autonomy is supreme in both groups.
As to the SBC:
I haven’t read of anyone going after Saddleback for ordaining women (its contrary to the BFM), although I have heard a few murmurings going on.
Sometimes, it depends on how strong the local leadership is. I’ve seen area presidents (an elected, one year term normally), step into the affairs of a different church and strongly suggest that they disband. They did.
There are the “unofficial networks” among pastors whereby a wayward pastor is dealt with. You could say their version of when a government imposes economic sanctions. I’ve seen a few “run outta town” and forced to resign their churches.
I have seen a state convention debate whether a church should be allowed to remain in fellowship with them and then actually be removed from being a cooperative church. I’ve seen a group of churches leave their local association, form their own, and be accepted by the state. There are mechanisms in place if one choses to use them. Of course, knowing the right people is always helpful in these struggles.
And also, in short, don’t piss off a Baptist! Most are quite capable and willing to regulate their tribe.
Harvest becoming SBC is so interesting to me. Greg may have had a change in theology, as he was Pentecostal back the 70’s at his Sunday Night Service at Raincross Square. I saw a lot of healings take place back then, although they were not what they regularly practiced.
EricL,
Another line of distinction between CC and the SBC. Calvary Distinctives were essentially taken from some of Chuck Smith’s sermons. Some held to them fast, some took liberties with them. The BFM was hammered out by a committee and approved by the Convention . Big difference. Forging doctrinal statements for denominations should, in my opinion, be done collectively. Some Baptists hold fast to them, while others, take liberties with them.
Michael,
Yes, officially the worst they can do is take your name out of a database. Unofficially, they can still make one’s life pretty miserable.
But we all know they pick and choose when they’re going to follow the unofficial path, and seemingly whenever there is abuse or corruption within a church, that is never one of those times. Heck, rather than opposing, they may even choose to join in on the corruption, which very well may be the case in this latest reported case from Julie Roys’ site.
pstrmike,
I find it interesting that SBC hasn’t done anything with Saddleback yet, but maybe they’re waiting for Rick Warren’s upcoming retirement. How influential is Warren to today’s SBC? I really don’t follow all the SBC insider stuff, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of his name come up during all the SBC wars that make it to the headlines.
EricL,
Rick Warren does not get the press he once did. But Saddleback definitely does have a seat at the table. They are too big to simply dismiss.
And we are talking about ordaining women, that some SBC, within California, don’t appear to have too much concern over. This is not the first time this issue has come up in CalSBC.
Rick has been above board with his finances, from what I have heard, he is not a difficult man to work for—more than one of my friends growing up have done so. While I don’t always agree with his views or methods, in many ways, he has been a good example. No reason to tar and feather him now.
A characteristic I have seen among some SBC is that they will fight like hell about issues, then kiss and make up and respect the other’s POV. And the majority rules…..
pstrmike,
If one of the CCs ever installed a woman in the pulpit?, CCA would converge on them like the Empire to the Hoth system.
Yes, they would. I seem to recall it was one of their critiques of Brian post-split.
I asked a member (who has since left) of the CCA council if they had any guiding document or by-laws that governed how they as a council operated. He told me no, they just pray and seek the Lord and get their direction that way. We could hope that is truly the case, but I see it as more of a consensus of men who were all cast from the same mold and think, for the most part, much the same. Or it is at times, the most powerful voice in the room who gets the mantle and they all agree. Sometimes, I’m sure, the Spirit does actually break through. But councils need outside, objective framework such as bylaws to help them operate without being overridden by subjectivity, whether good or bad.
In fairness, I asked this question several years ago and things may have actually changed and they may have by laws today. I don’t know, I’ve moved on, so I rarely concern myself about CC.
Michael, with the leadership counsel of CCA I saw 11 pastors listed. If I recall there has been quite a lot of attrition when Don McClure first laid this out. I know some were removed like Bob Coy, and Bob Caldwell among others, etc. I suppose their own churches removed them. Are these 11 original and is there a mechanism to replace anyone when attrition gets too low? It will be interesting to see who the last one standing with these touch not Gods annointed super apostles. That person would be Chuck successor and Pope of CCA in my opinion. Although they do nothing they are regarded as the super duber spiritual charismatic leader of leaders and a Moses of Moses that can teach through the Bible verse by verse mimicking almost every detail of Chuck Smith. Although their power seems insignificant, they do have the power to remove a name from a database. Does that power rest solely with Don McClure? To me this is enough that could spark a legal action. If he can remove a pastor from a database that is authority they can exercise.
Steve,
I don’t understand why so many have a hard time understanding this situation.
The CCA is a shell corp with no assets and set up to completely avoid legal liability.
The power today rests with McClure and Focht and their successors will be someone like Sandy Adams or John Randall.
Their power is solely that of removing a name and talking trash.
A story from the inside. Legal/practical accountability to step in from the outside to address something inside of a church is zero from CCA. Any and all accountability is informal and based on relationship. CCA is a more formalized version of what existed pre-CCA and post CCOF anyway.
I was an associate pastor at a CC in the NW region. When a certain pastor had a moral failing at his church it became very public and he cooperated in stepping down from his position (thankfully). The church was not equipped to find a replacement so they reached out to the regional overseer (which everyone called these guys Bishops anyway) for help. The overseer initially helped find pulpit supply for a bit, of which I was one. The overseer asked if I’d be willing to leave my associate position at the one church and become the pastor of this other church. The church took his recommendation and hired me as the pastor.
The overseer didn’t force me on them, nor did he have anything to do with any process of the previous pastor. This was all done on relationship and trust. At this point in time CC stopped affiliating a church as a CC and instead affiliated individual Pastors as CC. Even though I was an associate at a CC I had to go through the application and review process which I eventually passed. I was on-board and on-brand.
So when Michael says that the CCA has no authority in a local church he is absolutely correct. From a functional/practical perspective they are a brand-management group with a spiritual mantle they can give and take away. Are you “one of us” or not? There is a lot of street cred within the movement for that. It’s not that shallow on the inside. Outside the movement your mileage may vary.
Having said all of that, another facet to consider is that they will delete you from the list if it doesn’t cost them anything. If you are no one of consequence to the movement and do something off-brand, they will take you off. If you aren’t a brand unto yourself and your name is connected to their name, they might keep you on the list because it would make them look worse to take you off. See Potter’s Field for an example. It took a while for CCA to figure out that PFM made them look bad before they were taken off of the endorsed list.
PS, As of October I’m a confirmed Anglican (ACNA) on the past to being ordained a Deacon and perhaps a priest someday. Issues similar to those around accountability and the culture it reveals are a part of why, there is much more to why. But that’s for another time.
Well said Corby…and congratulations.
Thanks Corby and Michael. I’m beginning to understand. They flip flopped a few times and changed to protect themselves legally but in the process hurt so many individuals. Many cases of abuse that they completely ignored that got swept completely under the rug. I was told by an affiliated pastor over a decade ago that Focht was the replacement for Oden Fong who I believe was in the CCOF. But I realize now the emperor has no clothes. It truly is an entrepreneurualy friends and family business plan based on nepotism and brand protection. It certainly is the quintessential American religion. If only the congregants that support this could understand this dynamic. I doubt the typical giving unit and attendee has any clue. Focht had me fooled for a long time because of his supernaturally natural demeanor and his verse by verse teaching. Trust me, ccphilly is not the last watering hole in town. Doubt there is much water there at all anymore.
The two evangelical denominations I’ve belonged to over the years-Conservative Baptist and the Evangelical Free Church (currently) are similar. As long as you adhere to the doctrinal statement and pay your dues you’re in. If you become too outrageous (morally or doctrinally), they will attempt to help, but don’t get too involved because each church is autonomous. Outrageous churches tend to get “uninvited” or unlisted if they really do shed the denominational distinctives. Years ago I was in a CB church that turned out to have a pastor that was a serial adulterer. I went to another CB pastor at a different church (one of my supporting churches as I was a missionary) and he a)accused me of gossiping, and b) said there was nothing he could do, anyway. Since every single CB church that supported me (half of dozen of them) knew about the situation in my church, I was a bit nonplussed, to say the least. The EFCA seems to handle difficult situations better, but it all still comes down to congregational polity and the church constitution. That being said, there always seems to be something serious happening in Calvary Chapel, and I would never consider one as my usual place of worship. When you make the papers that often (like my local CC), it’s not a good sign.
As the OP suggests, as a CC Pastor, I learned long to expect nothing from them. It was an association of like minded pastors who got together once a year at a pastor’s conference to hear from some superstars in the movement, schmooze and posture for position. After my 3rd conference, I decided my church didn’t need to pay for it and stopped attending.
CCA was never intended to be a governing body of CC pastors but nothing more than a fellowship of like minded men.
The concept of affiliation being described here is a religious version of medieval feudalism, and the related notion of chivalry.
It was an evil system regulating interaction of upper social classes. A professional courtesy and difference to maintain class exploitation. The same intended benefit to fellow nobility, was balanced with intended harm to lower classes.
Nathan
In other words, it’s more like a dysfunctional family.
I’ve been to Calvary chapels for many years and they never discipline anybody.
That has always concerned me. It’s definitely not biblical.
This was my experience too. I had an absolutely horrible experience in one of their “fellowship” affiliated churches, where I got harassed and literally physically stalked by a guy who was infuriated at me for rejecting dating him, and also for discovering his habit of looking at sexualized teens online! The pastor did absolutely nothing! Regional oversight did absolutely nothing! They took my presumably confidential emails and sent them straight over to the guys that I was “accusing” and set them off on an even worse rage against me! Then they wouldn’t respond to me when I was scared and the local pastor was literally repeatedly calling my phone over and over and over! I was terrified and should have gotten the police involved with both the local pastor and the creep pedo stalker! I could have definitely gotten a restraining order, instead calvary was trying to threaten to sue me if I speak about what happened! Calvary chapel is sick and so corrupt!