Preview of the Calvary Chapel Senior Pastors Conference

You may also like...

88 Responses

  1. Michael says:

    Waiting for Mark in 3…2…

  2. Andrew says:

    I always thought Chuck wanted to bring the movement of CC to the East coast more to basically start afresh since CA was becoming the burned out district for CC. And I thought Joe Focht was his man all along to accomplish this. This narrative is not too hard for me to believe but I just wish it wasn’t so and I wish Joe would have some common sense and not take on the whole movement.

  3. Michael says:


    I’ve been involved in writing about this movement for years…and there is zero evidence that Chuck either wanted to move the operation or considered the OC a burned out district.

  4. Andrew says:

    Michael, that was my own speculation about burned out district. I think Chuck probably saw it in a positive light and wanted to bring all the excitement to the East Coast. I have listened to Joe for years and he has often said the East coast was much more resistant and it seems that he has wanted a revival for years.

  5. Xenia says:

    “Reform” is not on the agenda…there are few who believe it necessary.<<<

    Then what's the problem?

  6. Michael says:


    The problem is that there are some inside and outside the movement who believe some changes need to be made.
    That will continue to be their problem…

  7. Xenia says:

    But not very many, according to your article?

    Doesn’t every group have its dissenters? Does every group have to cater to the dissenters?

  8. Andrew says:

    What it appears to be on their agenda is “revival”. CC doesn’t seem to be able to think in terms of reform. If they can manufacture a revival they can ignore anything and everything to do with reform. Their thinking I believe is clouded.

  9. Michael says:

    The dissenters would be few in comparison to the majority at this point.
    How many there would be if allowed to know all the facts about the situation is up for discussion.

  10. Xenia says:

    Thanks to the Reformation, everyone who has his own take on the Scriptures is free to schism away from whatever schism they are currently part of and start their own church. This is the nature of Protestantism. So what if a group breaks away from CC? That’s what will happen, that’s what always happens. This behavior is being applauded on your History thread. Let it happen. Let birds of a feather flock together.

  11. Xenia says:

    Also…. if your typical CC member does not know all the stuff going on behind the scenes, good for them. They are relieved of the burden of church politics and can concentrate on what should matter most to a Christian- loving God and neighbor.

  12. I guess the biggest question that needs to be answered is – does CCA have any influence or control over the individual CC churches? Steve has assured us that they do not and if that is the case, where is the needed reform?

    In other words, who cares what goes on with the CCA guys sitting in the Logos building in Costa Mesa?

  13. Andrew says:

    Won’t surprise me if they sell the Logos building and move it to Philadelphia.

  14. Patrik says:

    Don’t you all get tired talking about this?

  15. Michael says:

    That would surprise me…they don’t own the Logos building.

  16. Michael says:


    From my email …no, people don’t.

  17. Andrew says:

    Michael, who owns it?

  18. Michael says:


    CC Costa Mesa…which is completely autonomous from the CCA.

  19. BoFu says:

    CC Costa Mesa… You mean Brian, Cheryl and family right?

  20. Andrew says:

    So when MLD says the CCA guys sitting in the Logos building, I didn’t understand what he meant.

  21. Michael says:

    I mean the corporate entity called CCCM.

  22. BoFu says:

    The question is WHO (i.e. persons name) is on the title deeds of the Logos, Murietta, Big Bear, The castle in Austria, etc, etc, now that Chuck has passed?

  23. Michael says:

    Those are corporate properties…only the names of the corporate officers changed.

  24. Andrew – I am sure that whoever is CCA in SoCal, like Don McClure and his assistant etc have an office in the Logos building.

  25. BoFu – who is on title to your church?

  26. BoFu says:

    So the CEO is? and the BOD is?

  27. Michael says:

    Brodersen is board chairman…I don’t have the names of the CCCM board with me at the moment.

  28. BoFu says:

    MLD: I am sure that whoever is CCA in SoCal, like Don McClure and his assistant etc have an office in the Logos building…

    no conflict of of interests there!

    MLD: who is on title to your church?

    I don’t go to church anymore after Calvary Chapel 🙂

  29. BoFu says:

    I don’t have the names of the CCCM board with me at the moment.

    I’ll bet there his close buddies and maybe relatives???

  30. BoFu says:


  31. BoFu,
    “I don’t go to church anymore after Calvary Chapel”

    I got really mad at Ralph’s grocery store once and stopped going – but I didn’t stop grocery shopping or eating.

    So why don’t you go to church after CC?

  32. Michael says:

    Most people don’t appoint their enemies to work with then…

  33. Andrew says:

    MLD, I thought Don McClure moved to Philadelphia because he has been listed there as pastor for a few years now.

  34. Well if he has, that’s news to me

  35. BoFu says:

    My point is that the sheep paid for all that property with their tithes and offerings and they have no say in how or who controls the empire, except the selected few…

    and that is why MLD I don’t go to Ralphs, Albertsons or Vons… the game is rigged and the sheep get nothing but low budget entertainment. I now fellowship with likeminded believers and have stopped attending crystal cathedrals, i.e. jesus corporations.

    OK, I’m done with my rant…thanks for the time!

  36. BoFu says:

    One more then I’m really done…

    CC Costa Mesa…which is completely autonomous from the CCA.

    Really? 😉

  37. Steve Wright says:

    My point is that the sheep paid for all that property with their tithes and offerings and they have no say in how or who controls the empire, except the selected few…
    I’ve got to chime in here. The Costa Mesa sheep paid for the Costa Mesa owned property which continues to be owned by Costa Mesa – and there is zero argument as to the legitimacy of Brian as the new Senior Pastor of CC Costa Mesa. I for one wish him all the best.

    The Costa Mesa sheep have just as much say as they had when Chuck was the Senior Pastor. Is there really an argument here that when Chuck died somehow church-owned property inherits to the thousands who have given to the church over the years as an act of worship? Should there be a vote about selling the Logos building and writing checks based on the tithe records for the almost 20 years since it was purchased?

    Not one outside Calvary Chapel pays one cent in dues or membership fees. So surely nobody from outside Costa Mesa has a complaint about who controls the Logos building.


  38. Andrew says:

    I wonder how many local church boards Don McClure is on in the organization.

  39. BoFu says:

    Would love to respond to you Mr. Wright but I will keep my word… Maybe someone else with common sense will type up?

  40. Kevin H says:

    Don McClure is part time in Philly. The other part is spent in California.

  41. Well no one at my church get’s a piece of it if it sold.

  42. Andrew says:

    How much is the Logos building worth anyways?

  43. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    Surreal? Unreal. Who cares who owns the Logos Building? Really? That has little to do with the topic of this thread.

    It is about a bunch of Calvary pastors getting to hear what they want, while George Bryson and Paul Smith will be sitting on a bus stop bench on the corner of MacArthur and Fairview. How it is that Don McClure ( and possibly a few others) can ban these men from fellowship when in reality the CCA board was only suppose to a means to affiliate those who want to become a part of Calvary Chapel? Some of these men are assuming power and influence into a movement and thus, the churches that make up that movement, when they really have no authority to do so. You don’t have to be on a board, all you got to do is say it loud enough and long enough and people will buy the line , hook line and sinker. The reality is, they only have as much authority as you give them.

  44. Michael says:

    Pastor Coy has a remarkable knack of hitting the nail on the head.
    These two men have assumed the power to set policy and define who is in and out of the family.
    Who granted that authority…or as I already know…was it simply assumed?
    Who could have granted that authority?
    If they simply assumed it, why not just be honest and say so?

  45. Steve Wright says:

    Brian….do you have any knowledge of any names besides these particular two men. Anyone else who wants to come next week and has been told by Don (or possibly a few others) “Sorry, you can’t”

    Any senior pastors? That’s primarily who the conference is for as we all know.

    Because given the actions of both these particular men, I think it might be a stretch to accuse Don McClure of wielding authority to “ban men from fellowship” – Whatever, one’s view of George and Paul and whether they should be there, surely we recognize both are unique cases indeed.

    And I know that when Paul Smith held the keys back in the day, he picked and choosed at whim who was deemed worthy of an invite that was not a Senior Pastor, often based on very specious reasoning. Sometimes we reap what we have sown in interesting ways.

  46. Michael says:


    By what authority and from where does McClure have the authority to disfellowship George Bryson?
    The reason given was that George was starting another movement…which was a lie.
    The dictum was sent out as if the CCA did this as a group.
    That is also a lie.
    I can prove everything I just wrote if need be.
    I do know of some SP’s who feel that they are next.
    I won’t be printing their names for obvious reasons.

  47. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    Yes the conference was primarily for senior pastors. However, we both know that several men who are not senior pastors regularly attend the SPC.

    George is the head of a national church planting ministry that was recognized by Chuck. If Chuck is the source of authority here, and he recognized George as a valid Calvary ministry (which he did), there should be no reason why he shouldn’t be extended the same status along side of CCA.

    When did Don last serve as a senior pastor? He is the head of his own teaching ministry “Calvary Way”, which should (and did) qualify him to attend. In the same way, it should be the case for George and Paul (although I am in favor of banning John and Ringo).

    Furthermore, my understand is that Paul Smith was an invited guest from a Calvary affiliate.

  48. Michael says:

    Pastor BGC seems to have good sources as well… 🙂

  49. Steve Wright says:

    So Brain, the answer to my question is, no, you don’t know of any other person who wants to go to this conference that has been told by CCA they were not allowed to be there.

    I am not going to repeat all I wrote a couple weeks ago in this same discussion. It might be worth a reread to refresh what I have actually stated.

    But I am going to challenge over-the-top conclusions at this stage based on these two specific mens’ circumstances.

  50. Michael says:


    I think the real question is by what authority does McClure (or anyone else on the council) exclude anyone associated with CC from anything?
    That’s the question…

  51. Steve Wright says:

    MIchael, I understand the question. It is a good one and one that remains to be seen in my opinion as to the future.

    We are hosting a small conference in a few weeks, with multiple pastors who also are inviting people from their churches.

    If I, as one of the chief organizers, know with certainty that someone is going to show up whose only motive is to cause problems, disrupt, make a display, then I am going to take the measures available to me now to diffuse that situation so the conference attendees are not affected. That is both my responsibility, and something to which I would have authority to do. I would not feel under an obligation to wait until the middle of the event and be forced to have ushers physically remove someone standing up and being, for lack of a better word, a jerk

    Not a perfect illustration I know…

  52. Michael says:


    I understand that line of thought.
    However…I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that either man would have been disruptive.
    The fact that George Bryson is speaking the truth about the CCA might have caused an issue…but if he’s speaking the truth should he not be heard?
    The narrative being sold is that both would have started stuff…and everyone is buying the narrative without asking questions.
    Paul Smith might have been a loose cannon…I can see that.
    The reason Bryson is gone is he keeps pointing out that the new emperors are buck naked.

  53. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    Thanks for the visual Michael… 😉

    Sorry forgot to answer your question. No, I don’t know of any one else banned this year. However, 2 have been, and that is two too many, particularly in light that these are men who have long standing association within the movement and the founder.

    BTW, I didn’t get invited to your conference.

  54. Steve Wright says:

    George bombarded my inbox for over a year, until he chose to stop. I read everything he sent…until he stopped.

    I think he was heard. Then he chose to stop speaking…months ago.

  55. Steve Wright says:

    BTW, I didn’t get invited to your conference.
    No invite needed. Just show up.

    My mens ministry leader is in charge of inviting the pastors to speak from around the area. Some Calvary guys, some not, all local.

  56. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    @ 54

    your point?

  57. Steve Wright says:

    but if he’s speaking the truth should he not be heard?
    That was Michael’s question for which #54 was written.

    Paul and George are two different situations, and the conference is not really the issue for George given the exodus months ago. That is a different discussion entirely.

  58. Kevin H says:

    Before this current CCA organization, there was the seemingly just as ambiguous CCOF. Everyone seemed to have a different opinion as to exactly what the function(s) of CCOF were and the power it wielded. Many circumstances were apparently handled in many different ways. Just as he is a regional leader now in the CCA (along with being on the main board), Joe was also a regional leader in CCOF. A couple years ago, there was a circumstance with a pastor under his jurisdiction where he decided that pastor in some manner was not meeting what he believed to be Calvary Chapel standards as set by Chuck. It was not a moral failure or doctrinal change of any kind, but whatever was going on in the political back scene, Joe apparently did not like some thing or things that this pastor was doing or saying. So he stepped in and pulled the dove and did not allow this pastor and his church to any longer be a Calvary Chapel. Now for full disclosure, this pastor was also a pastor that Joe had sent out from his church to start another Calvary Chapel.

    That being said, Joe at that time wielded the power he was able to take in order to keep Calvary Chapel as he believed it should be. And I believe for the large part, his vision comes from what he believes Chuck wanted Calvary Chapel to be (of course with his own personal bias, as we are all biased to some degree). With the current CCA and pastor conference happenings, it would seem to me as if Joe is acting consistently in exuding what influence he can and taking what power he can to shape/maintain Calvary Chapel into what he believes it should be and what Chuck would have wanted. And it would seem as if Joe and Don are very much on the same page.

  59. Michael says:


    Very well done…

  60. frankie777 says:

    Guys simply said with no disrespect to Pastor Don, but no one man has true spiritual authority to disfellowship or exclude any CC senior pastor.

    This said Don as the organizer/gatekeeper of this conference, he is simply exercising an implied authority that few are questioning whether legitimate or not. Some may not agree with the way the situation with PS an GB was handled and its perhaps it was quite unloving. Ultimatley however we can be certain whoever with this authority made this decision will someday have to give an account before the Lord one day. That is good enough for me.

    If someone wanted to get technical we could simply review the CCA by Laws to see what purpose and specific powers the entity has and who is able to exercise said powers whether its Don or some other individual.

  61. Steve Wright says:

    Now for full disclosure, this pastor was also a pastor that Joe had sent out from his church to start another Calvary Chapel.
    The one thing I have heard, clearly, is that by changing the affiliation process to pastoral referral then the disciplinary process also reverts to the sending pastor.

    That to me is a vast improvement over the CCOF method

  62. What makes a CC / CC Pastor unacceptable?

  63. Just A Sheep says:

    I am always impressed by how well Michael understands the inner workings of CC.
    It’s scary how dialed in he has it

  64. brian says:

    You know the Christian faith is very complicated when I first became a “christian” I was amazed, humbled, even scared that someone would die for a piece of &&&& like myself. I was just grateful that God loved me, I have repented of that wrong conclusion after many years in the industry and have come to learn its a business. I still think Jesus loves me and may even save me. I agree, that is part of my fallen nature and it to needs to be repented of.

  65. Andrew says:

    By what authority do Don and Joe do these things? I think if you ask them, the authority comes directly from God. That is the Moses Model in a nutshell and CC will go down in history with this as their legacy.

  66. Ms. Alnor says:

    Kevin – What cc did Joe disenfranchise? Did he have to have full consent of the other sr pastors of his division? Do you know what the deviation from the distinctives were that caused the ouster?

  67. Kevin H says:

    Ms. Alnor, I don’t know too much more detail beyond what I have already shared here. If you want to know what little more I know, you can email me at kevinh548 at

  68. Jackie Alnor says:

    Andrew – the Ocean City story didn’t say anything about Focht. I am supposing it is Ocean City, Maryland this is referring to. (story doesn’t say what state) – Kevin- I will email you privately. thanks

  69. Michael says:


    Can you email it to me so I can be sure of who you’re talking about?
    I think the person involved is still calling themselves CC…

  70. Bryan Stupar says:

    Here’s a thought/question:
    What if (key) CC leaders, rather than being transfixed w/ the question,
    “what was Chuck Smith’s vision for the Church (CC in particular)?”
    placed the focus on, the more relevant and longer lasting question,
    “what is God’s vision for the Church (of which CC is simply a bit player)?” ?

    This is not to say that no CC leaders do this…as I know of many who do. Yet what I hear especially via articles as the above are there are apparently those (who are many in number) on the inner circle wrangling over what constitutes fidelity to CS’s “vision”. This, if true, seems to be a misplacement of creative energy, and calls for proper coarse corrections.

    “Course corrections” are to be normative fair for the Church…if for no other reason, because we are bent towards, pride, power, and prone to manipulate the system away from the heart of God. Historically, this is often how “fresh movements of God” start, including CC. Yet, unfortunatly “course corrections” can often threaten the innovations and traditions which get embedded and memorialized into those movements.

  71. Michael says:


    It will be up to guys like you to make that point among your brothers in ministry.
    As of the last round of interviews I did, your voice is in the minority, but needs to be heard.

  72. Does anyone know who the speakers are? I checked the CCA site and there is no list of pastors/speakers.

  73. Nonnie says:

    Bryan Stupar, with guys like you in CC, I have great hopes for the “movement.”

  74. Michael says:

    SUNDAY, JULY 6th
    6:30pm Evening service – “A Story of Grace” and prayer for the conference (open to the public)
    All church services during the conference time frame will be closed to the public.
    MONDAY, JULY 7th
    10:00-1:00 Registration
    11:00-1:00 Lunch
    2:00-2:10 Welcome
    2:10-3:00 Session #1 – Damian Kyle
    3:00-7:00 Dinner
    7:00 Evening Service- Greg Laurie
    8:00-9:00 Breakfast
    9:00-10:15 Session #1 – Levi Lusko
    10:30-11:15 Session #2 – Don McClure
    11:25-1:00 Lunch
    1:00-2:30 Q&A Panel
    2:30-3:00 Break
    3:00-4:30 Workshops
    4:30-7:00 Dinner
    7:00 Evening Service- Pancho Juarez
    8:00-9:00 Breakfast
    9:00-10:15 Session #1 – Skip Heitzig
    10:30-11:15 Session #2 – Joe Focht
    11:25-1:00 Lunch
    1:00- 2:30 Q&A Panel
    2:30-3:00 Break
    3:00-4:30 Workshops
    4:30-7:00 Dinner
    7:00 Evening Service- Brian Brodersen
    THURSDAY, July 10th
    8:00-9:00 Breakfast
    9:00-10:15 Session #1 – Alistair Begg
    10:30-11:15 Session #2 – Greg Laurie, Brian Brodersen and Ricky Ryan
    11:25-1:00 Lunch
    Conference Concludes

  75. Just A Sheep says:

    That lineup looks like a conference from 1995
    It tells you everything you need to know about where Calvary is at

  76. Thank you, Michael.

    Just A Sheep, maybe some, but I’m pretty sure Alistair Begg wouldn’t have been at a CC conference in ’95.

    The final session should be interesting (?).

  77. Well I don’t know that having outsiders speak at your conference makes you progressive or shows improvement.

    It’s the yearly pep rally and is not and has never been a place of substance. It is totally unfair for anyone to call for substance at this point.

    Perhaps Michael’s Deep Throat(s) will risk a little and stand up at the CCSPC and call for a special session at a later date to discuss these issues of substance – and perhaps list a half dozen

    What is the fear? Why would anyone want to remain in an organization that will not listen and / or respond to you? This is what I don’t get Michael when you say that they risk much – it’s not like they are in line to inherit the family fortune.

    I think the public silence from these guys comes from the fact they get more than they give by being CC… and they know it.

  78. jrlauriw says:

    Perhaps instead of analyzing Calvary Chapel’s current situation, it might be better to understand how CC got this way in the first place. This is what happens when chuches have no biblical based plurality of elders and when the vision of a church is focused in expansion instead of ministering to the flock God gives them.

  79. Bill Stonebraker says:

    I have to comment on Prasch Jan 25 which wouldn’t let me comment. What a blowfish that guy is. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. A heavy ‘accuser of the brethren’. He tells us he’s shared the platform w/ Chuck and how much respect he has for him then w/ his double tongue likens Chuck to Eli. He did the same thing in Hawaii 15 years ago because Chuck appeared on TBN to share the word, Prasch likened him to Jehoshaphat partnering w/ King Ahab ‘I am as you are, my people are as your people’. As if Chuck was in agreement w/ TBN. Chuck used it as an avenue to reach people who watch TBN. I’m seeing what was once legitimate Cult watch ministries, under the likes of Walter Martin, morph into a cult of cult watchers. Guilt by association is their creed. BS

  80. Michael says:


    Do you have an opinion about what I wrote here?

  81. once a suckerfish says:

    Hey BS, your full of it!

    Easy to call Jacob a blowfish when you’re serving “red herrings…”

    Deal with the jellyfish in your own pond before you try and filet other fish in open waters…

  82. Steve Wright says:

    I take back my post 54. Apparently something happened where I stopped getting George’s emails, but they still were/are being sent.

  83. Dodger Dog says:

    Regarding post #81…that is not Bill Stonebraker the pastor.

  84. pstrmike says:


  85. Jesus Follower says:

    What a blithering bunch of nattering nabobs!

  86. Learner says:

    I’m no longer invited…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading