The wife and I saw The Zookeeper’s Wife. Most excellent. A true story in the mold of Schindler’s List, filmed without the R-rated graphic violence and language (though a STRONG PG-13). I don’t know if the Oscars will honor it since there is no “Hanks”, “Streep”, or “Spielberg” associated with it (but they should). Go see it.
As we move into Holy Week, I’m thinking more and more about the centrality of the Cross. It seems to me that most of the preaching I hear these day is in one of two “camps” – One is based on “Love one another as I have loved you” and the other is “I came among you preaching nothing but Christ crucified”. The preaching on love is comfortable and, to be honest, in the mainstream of church life these days. On the other hand preaching Christ crucified puts the Cross at the center with the attendant message that God incarnate drew into himself the suffering of humanity. For a person who is short on money, or is suffering from some terrible disease, or has a husband or a wife who is dying, or is trapped in a job that they hate, I think it is of little comfort to say, “Yes, I understand, but keep in mind that God loves you”, for it explains little and comforts less. On the other hand, to say that God understands fully the brutality of the human condition and of the universe and has experienced that brutality in the person of Christ may allow for some greater relevance in people’s lives. Again, just a thought as we move from Palm Sunday to Easter…
“For a person who is short on money, or is suffering from some terrible disease, or has a husband or a wife who is dying, or is trapped in a job that they hate, I think it is of little comfort to say, “Yes, I understand, but keep in mind that God loves you”, for it explains little and comforts less. On the other hand, to say that God understands fully the brutality of the human condition and of the universe and has experienced that brutality in the person of Christ may allow for some greater relevance in people’s lives. ”
The issue is that many today see “love” as the gospel message and therefore preach it.
However, love is not the gospel message. You can massage it in, but it just takes away the true message of Easter.
This is where people fail to understand how to properly distinguish between the law and the gospel (which I think is the entire essence of ‘rightly dividing the word’.)
“Love one another as I have loved you” is a pure law statement and the action of the crucifixion is pure gospel.
could there be a greater demonstration of the character of God’s love than the cross upon which the Son, in obedience to the plan, submitted and the Father permitted, paying the price of our ransom?
if you don’t like the word ‘ransom’ – not theologically precise enough – substitute your own term for offering mankind a rescue from hell, from the consequences of our law breaking
would a loving God send a flawed human being to hell? you bet He would and with reason, but we don’t have to go there – we choose, do we not? oh, oh – i forgot about the predestination thing
sometimes theological precision just isn’t necessary for us pew sitters… John 3:16 broke thru my rebellion
My internal anger is not. I feel like there are new rules in place with all this, and I feel like my childhood rage is going to continually spill out in these kinds of situations.
I haven’t made any new rules.
I’ve had to navigate a lot of impossible conversations and situations over the years and have done so better at some times than others.
This situation with the Greniers has been one of the most difficult ever and it’s taken a lot out of all of us.
I’m trying to walk in wisdom and the Spirit…and at the same time allow people to speak while having a life of my own.
I always want to keep the community intact.
Most of the time,I don’t know what the hell I’m doing…but we get through anyway.
Today I know I’m going to be swamped, so I’m asking for some patience for myself.
A man died and went to heaven. When he got the the pearly gates, St. Peter took him and began showing him around. He showed the man all of the different areas of heaven. St. Peter explained to the man that there were separate areas for separate religions. He showed the man the Baptist area of heaven, he showed him the the Catholic area of heaven, he showed him the Methodist area of heaven and so on. They finally got to the last area and St. Peter looked at the man and said, while we are near this area, we have to be very quiet. The man, looking confused, asked why and St. Peter answered, “This is the Lutheran area, they think that they are the only ones here.”
CCA conference- sad to see the division still going on. Would that sudden reconciliation would happen there as well.
Greniers- I’m thankful for family reconciliation. My other thoughts are a jumbled mess, so I’ll wait to share them.
Josh the Baptist- no need to banish him to the Internet Wilderness, but he might look good in a camel hair suit. It would definitely get him noticed if he wears it to church this Sunday.
I recommended a book on Kevin’s thread the other day… then I sat down and read the whole thing last night… (typical of certain personalities).
“Through him the new age of eternity has come and is manifested in his Church. It is indeed true that the old age with its errors, its suffering, and its death has not fully passed away, but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come, the promises are fulfilled, and life eternal is already given in an anticipatory manner to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church. The turning point of history and of all the ages came in that hour when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was lifted on the cross and from that cross raised his triumphant cry to all nations and all ages: It is finished…”
Alf Corell
‘Consummate Est – Eschatology and Church in the Gospel of John
Michael,
Sorry you closed the thread. You rightly said,
“Assent to tyranny is in the DNA, and with it a taboo against questioning authority and an utter inability to address conflict constructively.”
THAT is a systemic and cancerous reality in the CC system that, you are probably right, will never be addressed — until the sick system dies a slow and painful death.
dusty can attest to this better than i can, but this website of Michael’s has done God’s work here for a very long time… too bad there’s no sweet tea and BBQ delivery service, tho… i’d add some good corn bread and lots of real butter to the order?
John 20:29, is right, Michael has been doing God’s work here for a very very long time and has taken so much beatings….but still comes back with grace and integrity. He truly has a shepherds heart. We love him!
Corn meal mush fried in bacon fat, eaten with white Karo Syrup and powdered sugar on top. The thought of it makes my mouth water, but eating it could be fatal.
That is a very nice quote in your #19. You are probably aware that many, if not most, of this blog community regrettably does not agree with its substance.
but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come, the promises are fulfilled, and life eternal is already given in an anticipatory manner to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church.
——————————————————————————
Jean wrote, “You are probably aware that many, if not most, of this blog community regrettably does not agree with its substance”
I will say this once. This once more serves as an example that Jean is either incapable or unwilling to actually listen to what people express on this blog about their doctrinal views. His lack of study of scholars who do not reside in his echo chamber, and consequent ignorance of what others in the Body of Christ actually believe, is glaring at such times.
Now, this is when the argument breaks forth and Jean tries to tell us that he knows more about what we believe than we do, or rejects any explanation offered on our end for clarity sake. Or insists one write a systematic theology which will quickly be ignored for further argumentation.
Imagine if I wrote “Jean thinks that life will be no different after the 2nd Coming than it is today.” – If that were my conclusion on his doctrinal beliefs.
I would not write that, because it would be as equally an asinine comment (word chosen specifically for its definition) as what Jean wrote.
There was zero reason for most of Jean’s post 33 (after the compliment on the quote) – except to bash evangelicals….which was both wrong in substance and purpose.
Put another way, if someone dislikes the NFL. And then is described as hating football. That description would be in error. One can love all levels of football beside the NFL, can enjoy playing the game, coaching it to children, going to the high school stands on Friday nights and watching the college kids play on Saturday.
But why should one have to explain all that. Especially when the retort will just be “Every true football fan likes the NFL”
Why not just be honest, and don’t misrepresent others – (all the more “in the name of Jesus”)
You wrote: “His lack of study of scholars who do not reside in his echo chamber, and consequent ignorance of what others in the Body of Christ actually believe, is glaring at such times.”
It might surprise you to know that the eschatology described in Duane’s quotation is creedal, was the universal eschatology for the first 17-18 centuries of the Church, and even today is shared among the vast majority (80-90%) of the Christian Church. Why do you call who I study an echo chamber?
I admit I am a little confused by your other comments at #34. Do you agree with Duane’s quote at #19 or not, in whole or in part?
I am not bashing evangelicals. In your opinion, are evangelicals committed to a certain eschatology, or can one be an evangelical and still confess Christ’s work on the cross with the historic Christian Church?
I would appreciate it if you would abide by the etiquette of this blog by not engaging in personal animus.
What do they say about when you throw a rock at a pack of wolves? The one that yelps is the one that got hit?
Steve, how did you know that was aimed at you? What beliefs have you expressed that have now come back at you in a way that you must protest Jean’s general comment?
The quote sounds so good that even dispensationalists get caught up in it. But they have grand disputes with the quote and don’t recognize it. The kingdom has not yet come, for that David’s throne must be dragged out of storage and all of the promises have not been fulfilled – many more to come for Israel … and not to be brought into the Church.
the Kingdom has come, is coming and will culminate in the Lord’s return…
we may not agree on how these last days play out, but none of what is quoted from old Alf up there precludes or contradicts what “most of us” here believe… 🙂
I don’t think that some people understand the proposition laid out by Jean in his statement to Duane. The question is not whether ‘old Alf’ is right or wrong – he is just Alf.
The question is do people here believe what Alf said – right or wrong. As I said, it sounds good and it sounds right – so someone like Steve is not going to disagree. But old Alf said “but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come,” – so if the new kingdom has come, why are some waiting for another? Now old Alf could be wrong.
Old Alf also said ” the promises are fulfilled,” — well they are or they are not. It does not say some promises are fulfilled – it does not say they Christian promises are fulfilled – but not the Israeli centric promises. Now old Alf could be wrong.
Old Alf goes on to say “to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church” If I have my dispensational theology down this is not true of Israel when they come to believe in Christ – because the age of the Church will be over – so this cannot apply to Israel – they cannot and will not become a part of the Church — like old Alf claims. Now old Alf could be wrong.
Now I happen to agree with old Alf on all 3 points – if I did not agree with old Alf – even though it sounds so good, I would not claim to agree with him.
So those who think that the Kingdom has not yet come, to those who think that the promises have not been fulfilled but are still outstanding to Israel and to those who claim that Israel will not be a part of the ‘church’ age – I wouldn’t say I agree with old Alf.
I’m just glad I provoked some discussion on the kingdom…. much better than dealing with personalities! I actually think Jean and Steve Wright are in agreement.
If “it is finished” then I think it prudent to take Jesus at his Word. I don’t recall Jesus leaving any loopholes, even for Israel. But I’m no scholar.
“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”
I’m way over my head here but common sense says old Ald is right. But I could be wrong.
Old Alf is right because he listened to Peter’s sermon at Pentecost Acts 2. I think beginning at v 22 and running down about 15 verses Peter declares that Jesus is ruling in his kingdom and if you know the story, Peter is laying claim that Jesus is now sitting on David’s throne.
Josh – can you address the question or are you just going to toss bombs with a smiley face?
Dispensationalism aside (I didn’t mention the rapture and I referred to dispensationalists only once) – To you directly – do you agree with old Alf’s statement?
Any hermeneutical system is exactly that – a “system”. The chosen system may help to illuminate certain passages of a text, but if the text has to be “squeezed into” the system template, we’re exalting the tool over the text.
For my own hermeneutics, I turn to Augustine. Approach the text first with humility and love in its plain reading and only then deal with signs, allegories and/or typological interpretation.
Duane – that may be true of scripture – but I am trying to see if people agree with old Alf.
If someone wrote a page describing the Calvinist view of double predestination and his comments were highlighting the power and majesty of God – I would still disagree with his statement that double predestination were true – even in light of agreeing that God is majestic and powerful.
Without becoming argumentative with anyone on the thread, I think dispensationalism is a hermeneutic which all too often calls for texts to be squeezed into a predetermined template – especially some texts, such as the Revelation, which may be subject to various interpretations. I think humility in approaching the text is the first step…
Alf’s statement summarizes well the biblical witness on a few points, are highlighted after the quote:
“Through him the new age of eternity has come and is manifested in his Church. It is indeed true that the old age with its errors, its suffering, and its death has not fully passed away, but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come, the promises are fulfilled, and life eternal is already given in an anticipatory manner to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church. The turning point of history and of all the ages came in that hour when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was lifted on the cross and from that cross raised his triumphant cry to all nations and all ages: It is finished…”
1) Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies of the Messiah who inaugurated His Messianic kingdom. The dispensationalists make the same mistake that the 1st Century Jews made, who were hoping for a earthly political kingdom. By not recognizing the presence of Christ’s kingdom, dispensationalists rob Christians of the comfort in knowing that (a) Christ’s atoning work on the cross is God’s central plan and (b) Christ’s kingdom is here for Christians today.
2) Jesus fulfilled all the OT promises. The dispensationalist withhold some of the OT promises from Christ’s Church.
3) The idea of the promises being fulfilled in Christ gives a unity to the Bible in which the OT contains the promises, which are fulfilled in the NT. The dispensationalists break the unity of the Bible into a law period and a grace period.
Agreed. In referring to hermeneutical systems, I could have just as easily used covenant theology, rather than dispensationalism. My point is, when fitting the text into a system is the priority, I think there is a problem.
It doesn’t need to get nasty at all – but this is what I meant by the quote from old ALF sounds so good that people are afraid to really stand up and deny it.
Jean’s comment was true – most here do not believe what old Alf said … unless “the terms are defined differently by each…”
You can’t say the kingdom has come while still teaching thse things that will eventually usher in said kingdom.
You can’t say the promises have been fulfilled while listing which promises are still outstanding to a separate group.
You can’t say that it all will culminate in the Church for all who believe in Jesus while teaching that some will come to faith after the Church age.
#48- no, you didn’t mention any interpretation of the Church meeting Christ in the air… i was a bit presumptuous and i apologize – so many who contribute here were stung by the frenzied expectation the invaded the Church of the last century that i sense a reactive fear of its possibility and all that hangs on it now…
having started my walk in the Lord among stuffy, staid old Presbyterian teachers who most certainly did fear what they saw as the “strange” doctrines cropping up, i respect the cautious and the reserved among us
grateful for the weekend open blog here to vent
the sight of the carnage inflicted on the Palm Sunday worshipers in Egypt this morning, the damage to the church building both in spilled blood and broken furnishings… God sees and that should terrify these demented rebels and their cheering squad… and it will
Michael, I saw a few references here from the closed thread. Do not worry that I wish to rehash that subject here. I do not. 🙂 My thoughts are on some information you were kind enough to share. I was having a good talk with my better half about what happened to us in the aftermath of the Hocking fiasco to see what we both remembered.
Briefly: We lived in Orange County, near the epicentre when this incident happened and we lost an opportunity to continue ministering to a group of people because they found out we went to Calvary Chapel. There were other “moral failures” close to that event and they thought we were going to lie to them like Chuck Smith. I am not kidding. One of the impressionable young men in the group went away and decided to live with his girlfriend because he didn’t think it mattered any more. That didn’t end well. I could go on, but you get the idea. The selfishness of those in leadership to sin publicly and then mar the witness of God by treating it lightly has consequences just as I have shared so many times. So… for the one who wondered how something like that could have possibly affected anyone personally…I offer testimony that it did.
When I investigated the affair at the time, all that I could find out is that, besides a few pastors on the outside, there were internal objections, but they weren’t going to do anything. It sounded like the intention was to keep it quiet. It was nearly impossible to penetrate the wall of silence. Our pastor at the time personified the “company man” and actually had to be told that was kinda wrong.
You shared this much: “There was some extreme (and in some cases, amusing) pushback to Hocking by some close to Smith.
Smith was intractable.”
Of the internal people, you may not be able to share names, but I wondered if you are able to say if there were very many or if there were men among them who knew about 1977 (which some believed made Hocking’s 1992 possible) and stayed all the way until Chuck’s passing. Also, did anyone from his circle separate over this incident or did any of the CC’s disassociate over it? Secondly, do you know where I could find a record of those on the outside who opposed what Chuck did or do you happen to know who they were?
If you cannot illuminate this situation any further, then I understand. It’s just that we received significant pushback over it at the time and I think it would make my other half feel better to know more of what happened. Again, no worries if you cannot. I was just trying to help. We both still thank you for what you have done already.
These are difficult questions because to answer them almost requires that the person hearing has an understanding of the Calvary Chapel dynamic around Chuck Smith.
The most important thing to note is that most of the inside circle had “re-parented” with Smith.
They came from difficult home situations and Smith became the idealized father they always wanted but never had.
To make things even more complex, Smith rarely returned their adoration in kind.
If you don’t understand that dynamic, you’ll never understand CC or the Smith era and legacy.
So, to answer your questions, almost all of the 1st gen group know about 1977.
However, it was not spoken of and God only knows what extremes that some would have gone to in order to protect their re-parented fathers secret.
No one to my knowledge left the movement over the incident and those who were upset inside the tent were only concerned that Hocking would bring more shame to Chuck as it was rumored that he had some other “issues”.
The people at Hockings former church were quite upset, but if others were they were going to keep it to themselves…Smith was both powerful and occasionally vindictive.
This brings me to the last point which was that for all of his better qualities, Smith was a very jealous and territorial man. By “extending grace” to Hocking he was also crippling and conquering a competitor…
Michael, we appreciate more than we can express the time you have taken to answer this query.
We researched enough about the 1st gen backgrounds to identify why they were loyal and we absolutely agree with your assessment. Further, with what spotty information that we did gain surrounding the handling of the Hocking debacle, we were able to extrapolate quite a bit there too. That being said, your confirmations are priceless to us. I would even go further and say they have given us a great deal of peace. We can rest more in that the tremendous pushback we received (and have continued to receive) was and is highly unwarranted. Our objections and even disgust were reasonable.
Strangely enough, we also speculated about the “competitor” angle, but were met with near rage from an unexpected source so we abandoned ever going there again. Very interesting.
Lastly, you are right about the people at Calvary Church being quite upset. I knew people from there. They were really hurting. Nobody seemed to care about that back then. The focus was more on the dynamic duo of Smith and Hocking. Hmmm….sounds like a brand name or something….
I will sign off with another deeply felt, “Thank you”, and a hopeful quip that I have not taken any thunder out of your eventual book. May you have a very fruitful week.
Michael, my better half, who gets to the point rather quickly, has stated to me that what has been confirmed here should really scare people. Some may not realize it, because we are often in denial about the depths of error or even evil to which people can stoop, but cult-like behavior is being described here.
The personal dynamic between the CC “founding” parties and its fearless leader would, unfortunately, fit the description of historically aberrant groups. People in these groups give over their critical thinking to another because they never developed an identity of their own. Like a cult, these early CC people were eventually given an identity that suited its leader. It is sad that no one seemed strong enough to call this what it was at the group’s inception. If anyone did–they sure got quiet.
I will say, in no uncertain terms–often, once you get that far into a group like this–it is extremely difficult to get out. Because of the emotional dynamics, there are always unseen tentacles that adhere for much time to come. ( I saw the damage in my own family from a cult. This would be another reason I wish to encourage those in the grip of any abusive system that they have permission to say “This is wrong” and leave. Certain groups are consummate at playing on our loyalty, fear and guilt. …but I digress.)
It is frightening that “Santa Claus” allowed himself to occupy that “father” position if, in the end, it was only to usurp power over these people. That power should have been the purview of the Holy Spirit. In the end, what these “founding” and remaining people have rationalized over the years and even committed, is not God-fearing or God-honoring behavior, but Chuck-fearing and Chuck-honoring behavior. It was about pleasing and saving the leader–and–certainly saving the group at all costs. Idolatry remains the correct word.
Extreme thinking, combined with the Moses Model, explains why so much unchecked harm has been perpetrated by this “group think” system. Under its influence, they have all shown that casualties are acceptable. Loose association excuse be damned. Evidence has spoken for itself. Despite all their assertions that it was to be “The Bible First”–it became the Bible last if it interfered with their operations. Does anyone smell blindness and delusion here? This information should give a healthy dose of sobriety to anyone who values righteousness over being “accepted”.
“The personal dynamic between the CC “founding” parties and its fearless leader would, unfortunately, fit the description of historically aberrant groups. ”
Would this be similar to Jesus and the 12 guys who followed him?
I do not know the whole of who reads this, but you may be right. It does appear, however, that this blog is sometimes perused by unhappy souls who chose to ignore corroborating testimony in favor of partisan opinion or they just like blowback for the sake of it. This–even at the expense of others. I find it interesting, too, that, though some of my commentary mirrors what has been stated by our host on occasion, they choose to make themselves look astute by attacking an easy target rather than a formidable one. As with so much inappropriate behavior, it says more about them. Sadly, I actually agree with them on some issues, but I am quickly losing respect for their supposed powers of reason. Just so there is no doubt, I still stand by my statements.
Unfortunately Josh, Disillusioned is correct. Less than a month ago, I was told by a CC pastor that it didn’t matter what Chuck did, nobody especially his son in law has a right to say bad things about him. I can assure you that there are quite a few who feel the same way. If you watch the CCA conference video that Michael posted, it is basically a love fest directed at Chuck. Very few questions were answered as to why they are splitting up other than they didn’t care for the way they felt Chuck was treated at the first conference following his death.
Josh, I have been associated with CC in some shape or form since 1993 and Chuck worship is a big part of that movement. The good news is that there are many CC pastors who have decided to put Christ (big C) over chuck (little c).
Josh, if I had my way, we would be rejoicing over the CC guys who have decided to put Christ ahead of chuck rather than those who worship men. There are a few CC pastors that I know personally that feel as though they once were blinded by the chuck worship.
Dusty, I will always take what you say as in no way patronizing or a backhanded slight. I have appreciated your presence wherever I have seen it. Thank you so very much. I could never imagine saying that I do not need prayer (I do) nor could I ever imagine rejecting such a kind offer. You are appreciated.
JM, thank you for your kind words. I worry sometimes that my words are not lining up with what I am intending…….I will continue to pray for you for your broken heart and for Disillusioned. I can understand that it may seem people don’t care but I assure you they do. Michael has a heart for the wounded.
It’s all yours today…
The wife and I saw The Zookeeper’s Wife. Most excellent. A true story in the mold of Schindler’s List, filmed without the R-rated graphic violence and language (though a STRONG PG-13). I don’t know if the Oscars will honor it since there is no “Hanks”, “Streep”, or “Spielberg” associated with it (but they should). Go see it.
As we move into Holy Week, I’m thinking more and more about the centrality of the Cross. It seems to me that most of the preaching I hear these day is in one of two “camps” – One is based on “Love one another as I have loved you” and the other is “I came among you preaching nothing but Christ crucified”. The preaching on love is comfortable and, to be honest, in the mainstream of church life these days. On the other hand preaching Christ crucified puts the Cross at the center with the attendant message that God incarnate drew into himself the suffering of humanity. For a person who is short on money, or is suffering from some terrible disease, or has a husband or a wife who is dying, or is trapped in a job that they hate, I think it is of little comfort to say, “Yes, I understand, but keep in mind that God loves you”, for it explains little and comforts less. On the other hand, to say that God understands fully the brutality of the human condition and of the universe and has experienced that brutality in the person of Christ may allow for some greater relevance in people’s lives. Again, just a thought as we move from Palm Sunday to Easter…
“For a person who is short on money, or is suffering from some terrible disease, or has a husband or a wife who is dying, or is trapped in a job that they hate, I think it is of little comfort to say, “Yes, I understand, but keep in mind that God loves you”, for it explains little and comforts less. On the other hand, to say that God understands fully the brutality of the human condition and of the universe and has experienced that brutality in the person of Christ may allow for some greater relevance in people’s lives. ”
That is the essence of the faith to me…well said.
The issue is that many today see “love” as the gospel message and therefore preach it.
However, love is not the gospel message. You can massage it in, but it just takes away the true message of Easter.
This is where people fail to understand how to properly distinguish between the law and the gospel (which I think is the entire essence of ‘rightly dividing the word’.)
“Love one another as I have loved you” is a pure law statement and the action of the crucifixion is pure gospel.
perhaps, the parsing is turning to parsnips here…
could there be a greater demonstration of the character of God’s love than the cross upon which the Son, in obedience to the plan, submitted and the Father permitted, paying the price of our ransom?
if you don’t like the word ‘ransom’ – not theologically precise enough – substitute your own term for offering mankind a rescue from hell, from the consequences of our law breaking
would a loving God send a flawed human being to hell? you bet He would and with reason, but we don’t have to go there – we choose, do we not? oh, oh – i forgot about the predestination thing
sometimes theological precision just isn’t necessary for us pew sitters… John 3:16 broke thru my rebellion
Michael,
When you get a chance, please ban me. I have zero self control and no longer belong at this site.
Thanks!
Josh,
We all love you and need you here.
You’re asking the same questions a lot of folks are asking.
I closed the thread because I’m not going to be online much today and won’t be able to moderate the site.
We’ll see how this all plays out…but not today. 🙂
Closing the thread was right.
My internal anger is not. I feel like there are new rules in place with all this, and I feel like my childhood rage is going to continually spill out in these kinds of situations.
Maybe you can block me for today so I don’t ruin this thread too?
Baptist,
You’re fine. Have a glass of sweet tea, relax, and rejoin the fray.
Josh,
I haven’t made any new rules.
I’ve had to navigate a lot of impossible conversations and situations over the years and have done so better at some times than others.
This situation with the Greniers has been one of the most difficult ever and it’s taken a lot out of all of us.
I’m trying to walk in wisdom and the Spirit…and at the same time allow people to speak while having a life of my own.
I always want to keep the community intact.
Most of the time,I don’t know what the hell I’m doing…but we get through anyway.
Today I know I’m going to be swamped, so I’m asking for some patience for myself.
You are doing fine.
I do not know how to act.
I’m sure your stress in this is exponentially higher than mine,
I’ve given myself a headache.
(Do I need a safeplace or something 🙂 Deez.)
Josh,
If I got you another PP Hall of Fame trophy, would that help calm you down? 🙂
Well, it made me laugh. Thanks, Kev.
Josh,
A little joke to lighten up the day:
A man died and went to heaven. When he got the the pearly gates, St. Peter took him and began showing him around. He showed the man all of the different areas of heaven. St. Peter explained to the man that there were separate areas for separate religions. He showed the man the Baptist area of heaven, he showed him the the Catholic area of heaven, he showed him the Methodist area of heaven and so on. They finally got to the last area and St. Peter looked at the man and said, while we are near this area, we have to be very quiet. The man, looking confused, asked why and St. Peter answered, “This is the Lutheran area, they think that they are the only ones here.”
Have a peaceful weekend!
HA! You guys are awesome.
CCA conference- sad to see the division still going on. Would that sudden reconciliation would happen there as well.
Greniers- I’m thankful for family reconciliation. My other thoughts are a jumbled mess, so I’ll wait to share them.
Josh the Baptist- no need to banish him to the Internet Wilderness, but he might look good in a camel hair suit. It would definitely get him noticed if he wears it to church this Sunday.
I’d rock it.
I recommended a book on Kevin’s thread the other day… then I sat down and read the whole thing last night… (typical of certain personalities).
“Through him the new age of eternity has come and is manifested in his Church. It is indeed true that the old age with its errors, its suffering, and its death has not fully passed away, but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come, the promises are fulfilled, and life eternal is already given in an anticipatory manner to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church. The turning point of history and of all the ages came in that hour when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was lifted on the cross and from that cross raised his triumphant cry to all nations and all ages: It is finished…”
Alf Corell
‘Consummate Est – Eschatology and Church in the Gospel of John
I just finished listening to the panel discussion from the CCA conference.
Now, I need to go find Josh and stay in his safe space with him…
Duane,
I think you just provided the base for a bunch of sermons next Sunday…that was great.
Michael,
I’d not touched that book for over 20 years… It’s good!
Josh you are a good man, don’t beat yourself up so much.
Michael, take some deep breaths
Thanks Dusty, unfortunately I know better. 🙂
Michael, the safe space has sweet tea and BBQ.
Real sweet tea, and real BBQ.
Now i want some sweet tea and BBQ
Michael,
Sorry you closed the thread. You rightly said,
“Assent to tyranny is in the DNA, and with it a taboo against questioning authority and an utter inability to address conflict constructively.”
THAT is a systemic and cancerous reality in the CC system that, you are probably right, will never be addressed — until the sick system dies a slow and painful death.
dusty can attest to this better than i can, but this website of Michael’s has done God’s work here for a very long time… too bad there’s no sweet tea and BBQ delivery service, tho… i’d add some good corn bread and lots of real butter to the order?
Goodness, now I’m starving.
John 20:29, is right, Michael has been doing God’s work here for a very very long time and has taken so much beatings….but still comes back with grace and integrity. He truly has a shepherds heart. We love him!
Cornbread and real butter, john20:29, that sounds so yummy, i want some. 😉
Corn meal mush fried in bacon fat, eaten with white Karo Syrup and powdered sugar on top. The thought of it makes my mouth water, but eating it could be fatal.
Duane,
That is a very nice quote in your #19. You are probably aware that many, if not most, of this blog community regrettably does not agree with its substance.
but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come, the promises are fulfilled, and life eternal is already given in an anticipatory manner to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church.
——————————————————————————
Jean wrote, “You are probably aware that many, if not most, of this blog community regrettably does not agree with its substance”
I will say this once. This once more serves as an example that Jean is either incapable or unwilling to actually listen to what people express on this blog about their doctrinal views. His lack of study of scholars who do not reside in his echo chamber, and consequent ignorance of what others in the Body of Christ actually believe, is glaring at such times.
Now, this is when the argument breaks forth and Jean tries to tell us that he knows more about what we believe than we do, or rejects any explanation offered on our end for clarity sake. Or insists one write a systematic theology which will quickly be ignored for further argumentation.
Imagine if I wrote “Jean thinks that life will be no different after the 2nd Coming than it is today.” – If that were my conclusion on his doctrinal beliefs.
I would not write that, because it would be as equally an asinine comment (word chosen specifically for its definition) as what Jean wrote.
There was zero reason for most of Jean’s post 33 (after the compliment on the quote) – except to bash evangelicals….which was both wrong in substance and purpose.
Put another way, if someone dislikes the NFL. And then is described as hating football. That description would be in error. One can love all levels of football beside the NFL, can enjoy playing the game, coaching it to children, going to the high school stands on Friday nights and watching the college kids play on Saturday.
But why should one have to explain all that. Especially when the retort will just be “Every true football fan likes the NFL”
Why not just be honest, and don’t misrepresent others – (all the more “in the name of Jesus”)
Steve,
You wrote: “His lack of study of scholars who do not reside in his echo chamber, and consequent ignorance of what others in the Body of Christ actually believe, is glaring at such times.”
It might surprise you to know that the eschatology described in Duane’s quotation is creedal, was the universal eschatology for the first 17-18 centuries of the Church, and even today is shared among the vast majority (80-90%) of the Christian Church. Why do you call who I study an echo chamber?
I admit I am a little confused by your other comments at #34. Do you agree with Duane’s quote at #19 or not, in whole or in part?
I am not bashing evangelicals. In your opinion, are evangelicals committed to a certain eschatology, or can one be an evangelical and still confess Christ’s work on the cross with the historic Christian Church?
I would appreciate it if you would abide by the etiquette of this blog by not engaging in personal animus.
Wow….let’s take a deep breath…..
What do they say about when you throw a rock at a pack of wolves? The one that yelps is the one that got hit?
Steve, how did you know that was aimed at you? What beliefs have you expressed that have now come back at you in a way that you must protest Jean’s general comment?
The quote sounds so good that even dispensationalists get caught up in it. But they have grand disputes with the quote and don’t recognize it. The kingdom has not yet come, for that David’s throne must be dragged out of storage and all of the promises have not been fulfilled – many more to come for Israel … and not to be brought into the Church.
yeah, what Steve said in response to #33…
the Kingdom has come, is coming and will culminate in the Lord’s return…
we may not agree on how these last days play out, but none of what is quoted from old Alf up there precludes or contradicts what “most of us” here believe… 🙂
Em,
I’m glad you’re on board.
Mmmmmmmmm……..Baaaaar-B-Que………mmmmmmmmm
I don’t think that some people understand the proposition laid out by Jean in his statement to Duane. The question is not whether ‘old Alf’ is right or wrong – he is just Alf.
The question is do people here believe what Alf said – right or wrong. As I said, it sounds good and it sounds right – so someone like Steve is not going to disagree. But old Alf said “but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come,” – so if the new kingdom has come, why are some waiting for another? Now old Alf could be wrong.
Old Alf also said ” the promises are fulfilled,” — well they are or they are not. It does not say some promises are fulfilled – it does not say they Christian promises are fulfilled – but not the Israeli centric promises. Now old Alf could be wrong.
Old Alf goes on to say “to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church” If I have my dispensational theology down this is not true of Israel when they come to believe in Christ – because the age of the Church will be over – so this cannot apply to Israel – they cannot and will not become a part of the Church — like old Alf claims. Now old Alf could be wrong.
Now I happen to agree with old Alf on all 3 points – if I did not agree with old Alf – even though it sounds so good, I would not claim to agree with him.
So those who think that the Kingdom has not yet come, to those who think that the promises have not been fulfilled but are still outstanding to Israel and to those who claim that Israel will not be a part of the ‘church’ age – I wouldn’t say I agree with old Alf.
I’m just glad I provoked some discussion on the kingdom…. much better than dealing with personalities! I actually think Jean and Steve Wright are in agreement.
Friends, this is Theology 101…
If “it is finished” then I think it prudent to take Jesus at his Word. I don’t recall Jesus leaving any loopholes, even for Israel. But I’m no scholar.
“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”
I’m way over my head here but common sense says old Ald is right. But I could be wrong.
Old Alf is right because he listened to Peter’s sermon at Pentecost Acts 2. I think beginning at v 22 and running down about 15 verses Peter declares that Jesus is ruling in his kingdom and if you know the story, Peter is laying claim that Jesus is now sitting on David’s throne.
Dinner time. 🙂
Just ran across this on Russia cracking down on Jehovah Witnesses. Labeled as extremest. The reason? They say that they know the truth and share it.
Politics aside, Russia is continuing to increase the persecution of believers and our family there could use our prayers.
#38- yep, there’s that Rapture thing… there goes the Kingdom 🙂
em, didn’t even mention the rapture in any of my comments – and neither did old Alf.
Now our differing views of the kingdom are scary.
Finally! MLD finds the last nail for dispensational coffin! 🙂
Josh – can you address the question or are you just going to toss bombs with a smiley face?
Dispensationalism aside (I didn’t mention the rapture and I referred to dispensationalists only once) – To you directly – do you agree with old Alf’s statement?
Any hermeneutical system is exactly that – a “system”. The chosen system may help to illuminate certain passages of a text, but if the text has to be “squeezed into” the system template, we’re exalting the tool over the text.
For my own hermeneutics, I turn to Augustine. Approach the text first with humility and love in its plain reading and only then deal with signs, allegories and/or typological interpretation.
Duane – that may be true of scripture – but I am trying to see if people agree with old Alf.
If someone wrote a page describing the Calvinist view of double predestination and his comments were highlighting the power and majesty of God – I would still disagree with his statement that double predestination were true – even in light of agreeing that God is majestic and powerful.
MLD
Without becoming argumentative with anyone on the thread, I think dispensationalism is a hermeneutic which all too often calls for texts to be squeezed into a predetermined template – especially some texts, such as the Revelation, which may be subject to various interpretations. I think humility in approaching the text is the first step…
I agree that humility is primary in approaching the text – however, sensibility must follow quickly 😉
Alf’s statement summarizes well the biblical witness on a few points, are highlighted after the quote:
“Through him the new age of eternity has come and is manifested in his Church. It is indeed true that the old age with its errors, its suffering, and its death has not fully passed away, but the new Kingdom has, nevertheless come, the promises are fulfilled, and life eternal is already given in an anticipatory manner to those who believe in Christ and live with him in his Church. The turning point of history and of all the ages came in that hour when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was lifted on the cross and from that cross raised his triumphant cry to all nations and all ages: It is finished…”
1) Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies of the Messiah who inaugurated His Messianic kingdom. The dispensationalists make the same mistake that the 1st Century Jews made, who were hoping for a earthly political kingdom. By not recognizing the presence of Christ’s kingdom, dispensationalists rob Christians of the comfort in knowing that (a) Christ’s atoning work on the cross is God’s central plan and (b) Christ’s kingdom is here for Christians today.
2) Jesus fulfilled all the OT promises. The dispensationalist withhold some of the OT promises from Christ’s Church.
3) The idea of the promises being fulfilled in Christ gives a unity to the Bible in which the OT contains the promises, which are fulfilled in the NT. The dispensationalists break the unity of the Bible into a law period and a grace period.
Before this gets nasty…
We need to agree that dispensationalists and amillennialists are brethren.
Both camps have their own scholars who are worthy of note.
Poor representatives of both camps should be ignored in favor of the best of both.
It is doubtful that anyone is going to change their position.
I can easily see where an Anglican, the renewal folks, and the dispy could affirm Alf… the terms are defined differently by each…
Michael
Agreed. In referring to hermeneutical systems, I could have just as easily used covenant theology, rather than dispensationalism. My point is, when fitting the text into a system is the priority, I think there is a problem.
Duane,
Agreed.
There will always be socks sticking out of any theological suitcase.
Which is why I love Anglicanism that lets me carry multiple suitcases… 🙂
It doesn’t need to get nasty at all – but this is what I meant by the quote from old ALF sounds so good that people are afraid to really stand up and deny it.
Jean’s comment was true – most here do not believe what old Alf said … unless “the terms are defined differently by each…”
You can’t say the kingdom has come while still teaching thse things that will eventually usher in said kingdom.
You can’t say the promises have been fulfilled while listing which promises are still outstanding to a separate group.
You can’t say that it all will culminate in the Church for all who believe in Jesus while teaching that some will come to faith after the Church age.
But I am ready to move on. Once again I am sure that the Apostle Paul is a Lutheran. Reading 1 Cor 6:11 this morning just nailed it one more time.
It’s Lazarus Saturday.
Death begins to tremble….
If anyone struggles with anxiety / sadness / shame I found this article to be helpful:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2017/04/07/comfort-child-speaking-peace-shame/
#48- no, you didn’t mention any interpretation of the Church meeting Christ in the air… i was a bit presumptuous and i apologize – so many who contribute here were stung by the frenzied expectation the invaded the Church of the last century that i sense a reactive fear of its possibility and all that hangs on it now…
having started my walk in the Lord among stuffy, staid old Presbyterian teachers who most certainly did fear what they saw as the “strange” doctrines cropping up, i respect the cautious and the reserved among us
MLD @ 50 – I was hoping just to lob bombs and drop smileys 🙂
Yes, I affirm the statement.
grateful for the weekend open blog here to vent
the sight of the carnage inflicted on the Palm Sunday worshipers in Egypt this morning, the damage to the church building both in spilled blood and broken furnishings… God sees and that should terrify these demented rebels and their cheering squad… and it will
Michael, I saw a few references here from the closed thread. Do not worry that I wish to rehash that subject here. I do not. 🙂 My thoughts are on some information you were kind enough to share. I was having a good talk with my better half about what happened to us in the aftermath of the Hocking fiasco to see what we both remembered.
Briefly: We lived in Orange County, near the epicentre when this incident happened and we lost an opportunity to continue ministering to a group of people because they found out we went to Calvary Chapel. There were other “moral failures” close to that event and they thought we were going to lie to them like Chuck Smith. I am not kidding. One of the impressionable young men in the group went away and decided to live with his girlfriend because he didn’t think it mattered any more. That didn’t end well. I could go on, but you get the idea. The selfishness of those in leadership to sin publicly and then mar the witness of God by treating it lightly has consequences just as I have shared so many times. So… for the one who wondered how something like that could have possibly affected anyone personally…I offer testimony that it did.
When I investigated the affair at the time, all that I could find out is that, besides a few pastors on the outside, there were internal objections, but they weren’t going to do anything. It sounded like the intention was to keep it quiet. It was nearly impossible to penetrate the wall of silence. Our pastor at the time personified the “company man” and actually had to be told that was kinda wrong.
You shared this much: “There was some extreme (and in some cases, amusing) pushback to Hocking by some close to Smith.
Smith was intractable.”
Of the internal people, you may not be able to share names, but I wondered if you are able to say if there were very many or if there were men among them who knew about 1977 (which some believed made Hocking’s 1992 possible) and stayed all the way until Chuck’s passing. Also, did anyone from his circle separate over this incident or did any of the CC’s disassociate over it? Secondly, do you know where I could find a record of those on the outside who opposed what Chuck did or do you happen to know who they were?
If you cannot illuminate this situation any further, then I understand. It’s just that we received significant pushback over it at the time and I think it would make my other half feel better to know more of what happened. Again, no worries if you cannot. I was just trying to help. We both still thank you for what you have done already.
JM,
These are difficult questions because to answer them almost requires that the person hearing has an understanding of the Calvary Chapel dynamic around Chuck Smith.
The most important thing to note is that most of the inside circle had “re-parented” with Smith.
They came from difficult home situations and Smith became the idealized father they always wanted but never had.
To make things even more complex, Smith rarely returned their adoration in kind.
If you don’t understand that dynamic, you’ll never understand CC or the Smith era and legacy.
So, to answer your questions, almost all of the 1st gen group know about 1977.
However, it was not spoken of and God only knows what extremes that some would have gone to in order to protect their re-parented fathers secret.
No one to my knowledge left the movement over the incident and those who were upset inside the tent were only concerned that Hocking would bring more shame to Chuck as it was rumored that he had some other “issues”.
The people at Hockings former church were quite upset, but if others were they were going to keep it to themselves…Smith was both powerful and occasionally vindictive.
This brings me to the last point which was that for all of his better qualities, Smith was a very jealous and territorial man. By “extending grace” to Hocking he was also crippling and conquering a competitor…
Michael, we appreciate more than we can express the time you have taken to answer this query.
We researched enough about the 1st gen backgrounds to identify why they were loyal and we absolutely agree with your assessment. Further, with what spotty information that we did gain surrounding the handling of the Hocking debacle, we were able to extrapolate quite a bit there too. That being said, your confirmations are priceless to us. I would even go further and say they have given us a great deal of peace. We can rest more in that the tremendous pushback we received (and have continued to receive) was and is highly unwarranted. Our objections and even disgust were reasonable.
Strangely enough, we also speculated about the “competitor” angle, but were met with near rage from an unexpected source so we abandoned ever going there again. Very interesting.
Lastly, you are right about the people at Calvary Church being quite upset. I knew people from there. They were really hurting. Nobody seemed to care about that back then. The focus was more on the dynamic duo of Smith and Hocking. Hmmm….sounds like a brand name or something….
I will sign off with another deeply felt, “Thank you”, and a hopeful quip that I have not taken any thunder out of your eventual book. May you have a very fruitful week.
Michael, my better half, who gets to the point rather quickly, has stated to me that what has been confirmed here should really scare people. Some may not realize it, because we are often in denial about the depths of error or even evil to which people can stoop, but cult-like behavior is being described here.
The personal dynamic between the CC “founding” parties and its fearless leader would, unfortunately, fit the description of historically aberrant groups. People in these groups give over their critical thinking to another because they never developed an identity of their own. Like a cult, these early CC people were eventually given an identity that suited its leader. It is sad that no one seemed strong enough to call this what it was at the group’s inception. If anyone did–they sure got quiet.
I will say, in no uncertain terms–often, once you get that far into a group like this–it is extremely difficult to get out. Because of the emotional dynamics, there are always unseen tentacles that adhere for much time to come. ( I saw the damage in my own family from a cult. This would be another reason I wish to encourage those in the grip of any abusive system that they have permission to say “This is wrong” and leave. Certain groups are consummate at playing on our loyalty, fear and guilt. …but I digress.)
It is frightening that “Santa Claus” allowed himself to occupy that “father” position if, in the end, it was only to usurp power over these people. That power should have been the purview of the Holy Spirit. In the end, what these “founding” and remaining people have rationalized over the years and even committed, is not God-fearing or God-honoring behavior, but Chuck-fearing and Chuck-honoring behavior. It was about pleasing and saving the leader–and–certainly saving the group at all costs. Idolatry remains the correct word.
Extreme thinking, combined with the Moses Model, explains why so much unchecked harm has been perpetrated by this “group think” system. Under its influence, they have all shown that casualties are acceptable. Loose association excuse be damned. Evidence has spoken for itself. Despite all their assertions that it was to be “The Bible First”–it became the Bible last if it interfered with their operations. Does anyone smell blindness and delusion here? This information should give a healthy dose of sobriety to anyone who values righteousness over being “accepted”.
JM,
You’ve used the correct words:
Cult like behavior, delusional, anti-biblical, blind.
I know there are CC “pastors” reading here to whom this applies.
“The personal dynamic between the CC “founding” parties and its fearless leader would, unfortunately, fit the description of historically aberrant groups. ”
Would this be similar to Jesus and the 12 guys who followed him?
“I know there are CC “pastors” reading here to whom this applies.”
Name one.
Disillusioned,
I do not know the whole of who reads this, but you may be right. It does appear, however, that this blog is sometimes perused by unhappy souls who chose to ignore corroborating testimony in favor of partisan opinion or they just like blowback for the sake of it. This–even at the expense of others. I find it interesting, too, that, though some of my commentary mirrors what has been stated by our host on occasion, they choose to make themselves look astute by attacking an easy target rather than a formidable one. As with so much inappropriate behavior, it says more about them. Sadly, I actually agree with them on some issues, but I am quickly losing respect for their supposed powers of reason. Just so there is no doubt, I still stand by my statements.
Disillusioned,and JM, I’m so sorry you are hurting….still praying for you
Unfortunately Josh, Disillusioned is correct. Less than a month ago, I was told by a CC pastor that it didn’t matter what Chuck did, nobody especially his son in law has a right to say bad things about him. I can assure you that there are quite a few who feel the same way. If you watch the CCA conference video that Michael posted, it is basically a love fest directed at Chuck. Very few questions were answered as to why they are splitting up other than they didn’t care for the way they felt Chuck was treated at the first conference following his death.
Josh, I have been associated with CC in some shape or form since 1993 and Chuck worship is a big part of that movement. The good news is that there are many CC pastors who have decided to put Christ (big C) over chuck (little c).
I’m sure there are. I just don’t find it useful to call nameless people here “Cult like behavior, delusional, anti-biblical, blind.”
Josh, if I had my way, we would be rejoicing over the CC guys who have decided to put Christ ahead of chuck rather than those who worship men. There are a few CC pastors that I know personally that feel as though they once were blinded by the chuck worship.
I hear ya. That whole scene is just so foreign to me. The CC pastors that I know are good guys.
Dusty, I will always take what you say as in no way patronizing or a backhanded slight. I have appreciated your presence wherever I have seen it. Thank you so very much. I could never imagine saying that I do not need prayer (I do) nor could I ever imagine rejecting such a kind offer. You are appreciated.
JM, thank you for your kind words. I worry sometimes that my words are not lining up with what I am intending…….I will continue to pray for you for your broken heart and for Disillusioned. I can understand that it may seem people don’t care but I assure you they do. Michael has a heart for the wounded.
Josh the Baptist,
You wouldn’t know them by name. I stand by my assessment.
Dusty, your kind heart touches me. Thank you for caring.
MLD – Pffffffffft. As if.