The Primary Doctrine of American Evangelicalism

You may also like...

79 Responses

  1. Josh Hamrick says:

    I expected to be offended, but you pretty much got it right. I do believe in church autonomy, and think you have summed up the issue pretty well. To attack a non-denominational group on the denominational level is an absolute waste of time. Changes must be made in the local churches, and that’s where it matters anyway.

    Now, are there tons of examples of abuse in autonomous congregations? Yep. And in every other kind, too.

  2. Steve Wright says:

    I expected to be offended, but you pretty much got it right.
    Agree with Josh. Good article, Michael

  3. drunken bum says:

    Michael, I always figured the fundamental secondary doctrine of the modern evangelical church to be, “The pastor speaks for God.”

    But this has me thinking.

    Groundwork has to be laid. Then comes the necessary understanding of who your pastor is.

  4. drunken, in some circles “The pastor speaks for God” and the autonomy of the local church are synonymous.

  5. Josh Hamrick says:

    You’d be surprised. In most SBC churches, I’d say the pastor has too little power. The congregation can fire him for anything and everything. He can’ make the simplest of decisions without passing it through ten committees first.

    When I last checked a few years ago, the average tenure for an SBC Pastor was under 4 years.

  6. #5 Josh is right on. That is the trade off a lot of times. To steal (and garble) from Mather Byles.
    Do you trade 1 tyrant for 300 tyrants?

  7. Josh Hamrick says:

    Right Derek, or if you are talking about a denominational hierarchy, maybe a million tyrants.

  8. Michael says:


    In American Protestantism I would say that there is exponentially more unresolved abuse in these churches simply because there is no mechanism to resolve any abuse above the local level.
    All systems can and have been abused…the safeguard is a way to address it.

  9. As witnessed by big denominational splits that happen with frequency lately.

  10. Michael says:

    drunken one,

    This may be the most important article I’ve written on the subject in years.
    It’s time that people choose to understand what these organizations believe and what is non negotiable in their ecclesiology.
    Otherwise, too much time is spent demanding what is never going to happen, then getting madder and more despondent when it doesn’t.
    We need to focus on what can be done…and I’ll have more to say about that later.

  11. Xenia says:

    Even a seemingly perfect ecclesiastical system can be (temporarily) defeated by a good ol’ boys club.

  12. Josh Hamrick says:

    You absolutely have to implement safeguards, but it has to be done at the local level. Any good pastor needs to make sure there are accountability in measures in place when he takes the job. No one is above going corrupt. Given enough power, we will all go bad. Checks and balances are needed in every direction, but more bureaucracy never helps.Let the people who live and work there solve the problems.

  13. Josh,
    I think you touched at the root of the problem – probably without expecting to.

    “You’d be surprised. In most SBC churches, I’d say the pastor has too little power. ”

    How does power relate to church life? My pastor has authority over word and sacrament and that is it. Constitutionally church life is handled by others. My pastor has to run stuff through committees and voter’s assemblies. He has been pastor at the church for 23 yrs. The guy before him was 20 yrs. (that guy is 91 and still a member of our church.

    Do Baptist pastors need power?

  14. dusty says:

    we should have an old fashioned wooden paddle laying across every pulpit… think that would lead them to stay in line? 😉

  15. “but more bureaucracy never helps”
    As witnessed by the RCC abuse scandals.

  16. Michael says:


    In some places the paddles need to be in the hands of the people… 🙂

  17. dusty says:

    lol you are right. 🙂

  18. Interesting read here.
    The headline made me read it, because of the discussion.

  19. drunken bum says:

    Dang. I have to agree with MLD again.

  20. David sloane says:

    I thoughtfully read the original post by Michael. He has a knack for bringing up the things hidden in plain sight. Then as always I went to the comments that I look forward to reading.

    The one thought that came to me that persisted, even after reading all of the above comments, was that people need to be educated in these things and taught to speak out with their feet by just leaving empty pews and such behind. Vote with your feet.

    I mean why stay?

    A large portion of the regular commenters here have done this I would imagine. Left the church proper in a sense. My take is pastor Newnham has been called to round up these eclectic types, we are an assorted tribe of sorts. And we seem to have landed here for what ever reason.

    I know one of the regular commentators here sat under pastor Greg Laurie’s pulpit in Riverside Ca for around 13 years and never really experienced Greg as a real pastor. So he and his wife eventually voted with their feet and simply left.

    You can’t do church without people can you?

    This place thrives no matter how many times pastor MN gets frustrated and shuts it down for a season. Why? Because it meets a very valid need. The scattered sheep need a shepherd. One who understands them and loves them. The sheep keep coming and remain. Well the cowards who obey a man have quietly disappeared from here when that man once sent out an edict to clear out or else, before The Lord removed him.

    I say cowards because they are so shallow and have revealed that they were only following a man and not truly The Lord…

    You know who they are by their conspicuous absense. They were here and very vocal once and them Bam! They we’re gone or posting under alias.

    Just reminds me that pastor Michael is so right on. He hates the duplicity of the phony church as opposed to the real Church.

    Fantastic post Michael.

  21. Ixtlan says:

    Josh and Derek identified the SBC version of “voting with your feet”. With the SBC, the congregation votes and the pastor uses his feet. In Calvary Chapel, the Senior pastor casts his vote and the congregant[s] must use their feet. Two different sides of the same coin.

  22. Michael says:


    Thank you.
    My hope is that if we examine these issues together that we all will become more educated about how these systems work…and then use that education to make good decisions about how and where we worship.
    You make the point I’ve been trying to make for a few years now…no one can abuse empty pews.
    We have to help people understand the importance of shaking off the dust…

  23. David sloane says:

    Good point Steve.

  24. Jim says:

    The last institutional church I invested my life in ran a consistent 250 people on Sundays. Now they’re at 100 on a good day, and the pastor still doesn’t get it. There are still people there on the fence who will end up leaving.

    They (we) used to boast/joke about voting with your feet. Not so funny anymore. Not even to me.

  25. Steve Wright says:

    Good point Steve.
    ??? 🙂

    So I was going to respond to David’s post #20 but as I thought it through in my head I read his #23….so I guess you already ‘heard’ me, David? LOL

  26. Babylon's Dread says:

    The autonomy of the local church is the outcome of the freedom doctrines of Baptist. There is a cluster of them. Local church autonomy, congregational church government, soul competency or liberty, separation of church and state and the priesthood of all believers. These beliefs in personal freedom became the very foundation of liberal american democracy.

    The german prince who protected Luther had at the deepest root an economic motive. The church and state fell into bed in northern Europe. The radical reformers who wanted the church to further reform found themselves persecuted by Catholic and Protestant alike. Unarmed and unprotected by governments they turned to ideas for their haven. Believing that faith could not be coerced they fashioned arguments to undergird freedom.

    The anabaptists went to the logical conclusion of pacifism the Baptist chose all the arguments of freedom short of a willingness to suffer without self defense. The Baptist proved to be the heartier of the two streams and found themselves perfectly suited for the American individualism and quest for freedom. Unwittingly they became the seedbed for every form of vile morality and unbelief. If freedom to believe according to one’s conscience is foundational then a conscience unbound by religion is the logical outcome.

    Baptist autonomy is not only the fountain of unrestrained religious pomposity it is the basis of every radical antichrist spirit in the culture. Freedom is a damnable gift.

  27. Michael says:


    That…was really good.

  28. Babylon's Dread says:

    Spent a lot of time thinking on these things as a Baptist… and now as my friend Ted Haggard points out, we are all engaged in Free Market Faith. Thus we are all functional Popes in churches that claim to hate such things.

  29. Steve Wright says:

    Not sure how we can blame those who believe in the freedom of man under the government of God, for the actions of those who sought to jettison the government of God part and just embrace the freedom of man.

    it’s all the difference in the world between the American and French revolutions.- and their subsequent results.

  30. Brian Darby says:

    BD wrote “Spent a lot of time thinking on these things as a Baptist… and now as my friend Ted Haggard points out, we are all engaged in Free Market Faith. Thus we are all functional Popes in churches that claim to hate such things.”

    I am wondering is that a bad thing in some ways?

    If someone could please list in their opinion what the ” primary doctrines of the Gospel” is ?

    Thank you happy new year all

  31. Michael says:


    The Gospel is basically the story of five truths and what they mean for us.

    1. The Incarnation.
    2. The death of Christ for sinners
    3. His resurrection
    4. His ascension
    5. His return

    If you read the sermons in Acts and Paul in 1 Cor 15 this is the Gospel in it’s essence.
    In my opinion of course…

  32. Brian Darby says:

    I can live with that Michael, actually I hope I die with it and Him as well.

  33. Michael says:


    i have no doubt that you are living with Him now and will do so forever.

  34. Steve Wright says:

    I think even points 4 and 5, while foundational, are somewhat subsets of the resurrection when it comes to defining the gospel. (It is interesting the 1 Cor 15 passage in defining the gospel in the first 8 verses does not mention either – though the chapter later on does)

    Important to the extent that He is indeed alive. If (since) He is alive, where is He? (The ascension). Is He staying up there? Will the world ever see Him again,since He is alive – (The Return)

    I feel I have shared the Gospel when I have said that God became man who died for our sins and rose from the dead – even if I don’t mention either the ascension or return.

    However, I don’t think I have shared the gospel if I don’t include the Incarnation or Resurrection. “Jesus died for your sins” is incomplete….

  35. Michael says:


    I agree, but I’m already accused of being a minimalist… 🙂
    If I stick within the historical kerygma at least I have some back up…

  36. Brian Darby says:

    Something I hold to myself but not others, Personal holiness, dedication to the poor, sick, down trodden, imprisoned and so on. The sacraments / ordinances mainly the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, maybe confession I know I have done that one time at a Catholic Church and that old priest saved my spiritual life, face to face for about an hour. Not one time did he flinch, mock, condescend, or lord it over me. He even gave me some very well thought out advice which helps to this day.

    Another essential is to love one another and that love keeps no account of wrong suffered. I have failed at this, I remember every single hurt and have paraded it around. My recent illness made me have to shut up, literally, literally a week + not being able to talk. It made me want to scream and made me cry in silence but hope with great joy. It made me read the scriptures and try to understand other people’s point of view. I grew / grow tired of my rhetoric in some ways. The Christian religion is not full of evil horrid people but full of broken people seeking healing and to serve others as they hope to serve their Lord. I am also dedicated to dying well what ever that means, but above that living well with what ever time any of us have.

    Above all I want reconciliation for all people, this has been the single strongest hope, but even that I leave at the feet of a sovereign God.

  37. Michael says:


    Well said, my friend…

  38. David sloane says:

    Go to the pastures where you are fed, nurtured and cared for. Participate and support. Bring in others as fishers of men. Gather together and share in the building up of one another. Community is essential for growth and fulfillment. Your presence is your vote of confidence and approval.

    1 Peter 2:5
    Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

    Colossians 2:7
    Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

    This is Church, the Body of Christ.

    We are great full.

  39. “Baptist autonomy is not only the fountain of unrestrained religious pomposity it is the basis of every radical antichrist spirit in the culture. Freedom is a damnable gift.”

    You would think by reading this that BD’s church is under the authority of a larger denominational structure.

    You would be incorrect.

    MLD – My pastor has been at our church for 24 years. I’m thinking you misunderstood my point, or that I misunderstood your counterpoint.

  40. Andrew says:

    Awesome article Michael!

    “When the board, elders, and pastors won’t budge…it’s up to you.

    The challenge then isn’t to reform the “leadership’…but to reform how people think and act about their responsibilities in the local church.”

    You nailed it and this is why I approve of online blogs such as yours. Without some kind of outside influence exposing the malpractice it is very difficult for one to get untangled from the web let alone understand that reform is needed. The local church isn’t as local as people think especially when many senior pastors seem to be on multiple boards of other local churches. . If you take Calvary Chapel for example, I personally think that many within the hierarchy understand this dilemma in their church’s authority and many are coming to the conclusion that Rome is the best answer. (just my opinion) I really am not a conspiracy theorist at all but for the life of me I don’t understand how CC continues to use Gen. Boykin (a Jesuit) on their speaking tours. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

  41. dusty says:

    good morning everyone. 🙂

    It is a balmy 24′ out with light flurries…much much better than a few days ago when it was -15′ (yes that was—15′) with blizzard conditions…

  42. Andrew,

    Because Gen Boykin is a very decorated Vet. And he speaks Calvary Chapel “discourse” fluently.

    Ever watch the movie “Black Hawk Down”? That was under his watch.

    One must always remember that the original roots of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa were a bunch of the good ole’ boys called John Birtchers. They met in a trailer court before acquiring a small corner on Church street. Then along came Chuck Smith to take over the helm.

    Most people don’t know this. I used to drink coffee with an old Dutchman named Hank who had an electrical company in Costa Mesa; he filled me in on the origins of Calvary Chapel, he was one of the foundational members.

    It kind of puts everything in perspective somehow…

  43. Dusty,

    Good morning!

    It was 85+’ here in Orange County California yesterday. Supposed to be close to that today. I guess that is why the population density is ever increasing around these here parts. I wore just a Tshirt and felt like it was summer in January.

    We are currently having what they call Santa ana winds. An off shore wind condition that heats the air as it passes through the mountains on the way to the sea. They are usually in the fall and not in winter. Very strange.

    Great for surfing, the wind tends to hold up the waves for awesome long rides. The spray coming off the top of the waves is like rain. I love it when that happens.

    As I sit here typing I can see that the day is shaping up to be a repeat of yesterday.

  44. Sarah says:

    David…might be careful wearing just a Tshirt around 😉

    Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

    I remember the Santa Ana winds from when I went to college in CA…would love to feel one right now!

    Now to read the rest of the thread….

  45. dusty says:

    I’m jealous….one day we will move somewhere warm….I keep telling myself. 😉

    Glad you are having a beautiful day! 🙂

  46. Sarah says:

    Morning, Dusty…we got down to 0′ the other day, which is mighty cold for us Southerners. We are used to it being in the low 20’s at night, but not 0!!!

  47. Kevin H says:

    As to General Boykin, he apparently gives an “insiders” view of world political and military events, most especially as to things happening in Israel. It is no wonder he is a favorite to some Calvary Chapels.

    He has spoken at my church a few times over the past few years. I have not heard him nor have I had any interest in doing so. My lack of interest has nothing to do with his supposed guilt by association connections to some Jesuit conspiracy theories and the like. Rather, if I go to church, I want to hear the Word of God preached. Not a bunch of speculations of current world events and how they are supposedly playing into the “end times”.

  48. dusty says:

    When it hit 30* we where thinking how warm it was. Lol

  49. Andrew says:


    I just did a google search for Chuck Smith and John Birch society and the first entry I get is something by “John Todd”. To me John Todd sounds like a lunatic. I am more inclined to believe a Vatican conspiracy rather than a John Todd type conspiracy but not into either. Anyway, I hope some day a good book on the Calvary Chapel movement with a complete unbiased biography of Chuck Smith is written so people can make some sense of everything. There are just too many unanswered questions for me and it seems the hierarchy within CC likes their opaqueness which is fuel for the controversy.

  50. Michael says:


    There is no hierarchy within CC…that’s the point.
    Position in that organization is based on perceived popularity, not real power.
    The structures they have now are but paper tigers.
    When Smith was alive he was the whole hierarchy.

  51. Andrew says:


    I agree there is now no hierarchy within CC as a whole but it does seem that individual regions do have their own hierarchy and authority with the regional pastor in charge of their own specific region..

    “Here are the men on the council:

    Why are the other 3/4 of the men on the council not mentioned?

  52. Michael says:

    I’m very aware of what the structure is and I’ll say it again…there is no real power or authority there.
    That is the entire council and those guys agree on very little…and the most powerful figure in the movement isn’t even on the “council”.

  53. Ixtlan says:

    @39 I found BD’s statements highly ironic as well. It must be considered that Baptist freedom was also a reaction to the Puritan’s desire to control the religion of their settlements. The Puritans were only concerned with their own religious freedom, but not for differing views. By their oppression, they unwittingly contributed to the development of the of our current “free market faith”.

    It was the Quakers in Pennsylvania that were the first to establish true religious freedom. While I am not a fan of the a free market ecclesiology, the alternative opens the possibility of a tyrannical hierarchy, which in further irony, is exactly what we see in independent churches today. I guess man cannot resist the temptation to control other men in matters of spirituality.

  54. Andrew says:

    Who is the most powerful figure?

  55. Michael says:


    The better word would be influential…and at this point it would be Greg Laurie.
    My point is that there are no individuals or group of individuals who have the clout or real authority to make binding policy for the whole.
    Assuming that there is creates false expectations and distracts from the reality of the situation, preventing real progress.

  56. J.U. says:

    Michael Newnham, you nailed it. You hit the nail squarely on the head, and, in a few short strokes, sunk it deep into the topic. Not only is this a fair and honest description, it cuts right to the marrow of the bone.

    As proof of how well you have covered this, witness the quality of the comments. The usual suspects have all chimed in and the discussion is honest and helpful with none of the “Oh yeah, your momma wears army boots.”

    I’m not the brightest bulb in the tree, and I never really took this view of freedom and the Evangelical Church. I was always distracted by the word “evangelical” and its meaning as I processed these independent, born again churches and tried to understand their internal mechanisms and motivations beyond worshiping Christ.

    You struck a new chord in me and now I see some things much more clearly. Here on this blog that, for ten years, has ran church abuse and Calvary Chapel and other abusive institutions through the meat grinder, often producing more smoke than light, I think you’ve captured the essence of both the problem and the difficulty with many of the suggested corrections and solutions for that abuse.

    I think I now see why the Evangelical Church is so popular here in America because it so fits our zeitgeist.

    I’m not bashing CC nor am I suggesting that all solutions lie in the hierarchical church organization. I am suggesting that you have put your finger on a root cause. And the comments from Josh and BD and Steve and others have added to the original idea, fleshing it out in an interesting way.

    This is not the solution to church abuse, but this discussion increases greatly the understanding of the causes, the root problem, and that is the first step in problem solving.

    This was the MVP of your blog. This thread contains much clarity as to the what’s and why’s of behavior in the American church. You not only hit the nail on the head, you hit it out of the park. Now I’ll sit back and mix up some more metaphors while I think about what I’ve learned today from this blog. Thank you for geat clarity. You again show your mastery of language and church politics and history. Thank you for giving me a new perspective. That’s why I come here, to learn something. This was a powerful lesson.

  57. Michael says:


    I appreciate that more than you know…that’s exactly what I’m trying to accomplish here and if I was remotely successful it makes my week. 🙂

  58. Steve Wright says:

    I agree there is now no hierarchy within CC as a whole but it does seem that individual regions do have their own hierarchy and authority with the regional pastor in charge of their own specific region..
    Andrew…please listen to Michael. He is saying what I have been trying to tell many here ever since the old CCOF was eliminated.

  59. Andrew says:


    I agree with J.U. that you hit the nail on the head. Greg Laurie being on the counsel of CC would probably get in the way of someones or some groups agenda that is far greater than CC and goes right into the heart of evangelicalism in America. Evangelicalism is no longer a protestant word but more of an American one that includes Roman Catholicism as a subset.

  60. Michael says:

    Greg is not on the council by his choice…he could write his own ticket.

  61. Andrew says:

    Yep. I agree. And Greg by his choice is on the board of the Billy Graham Evangelical Association which I believe Greg has more in common with than his CC affiliates.

  62. Ixtlan says:

    aah… the Santa Ana Winds and 22nd st NB……

    RCC a subset of evangelicalism? noooo………..

  63. filbertz says:

    I fear the autonomy enjoyed by and insisted upon ‘independent’ congregations is more a product of their (American) culture and economic system than of proper, consistent biblical interpretation. Independence and lack of accountability go hand in hand with division, disunity, lack of fellowship, and unawareness of the Church both present and historic.

  64. filbertz says:

    …and the interpretations are foregone conclusions when the presuppositions are identified.

  65. Steve Wright says:

    Independence and lack of accountability go hand in hand with division, disunity, lack of fellowship,
    The church has divided and broken fellowship over doctrinal issues for centuries – despite the hierarchy in place and well before there ever was a USA culture to blame it on.. The key is whether we agree to disagree and do so charitably.

    That sort of doctrinal division is not more “noble” than when I left the Baptist church I was serving at because I disagreed with the pastor and felt the Lord moving us on. No tossing a grenade into the place as we split, no cries of heresy, remaining friends with many through facebook and so forth.

    We left more charitably than what I read happening with Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Mark.

  66. “Independence and lack of accountability” are not synonymous. The best accountability will take place within the confines of a local congregation.

  67. Andrew says:

    Extreme local autonomy on one side vs. extreme hierarchical authority on the other. Are they really that different or more like two different sides of the same coin? In both scenarios it appears to be all about power. One side leads to many popes over their mini congregations while the other side leads to one pope over everyone. As far as I am concerned you can pick your poison but neither side is right.

  68. filbertz says:

    Josh @ 66,
    unless the pastor has the ‘power’ or the board is comprised of ‘good ol’ boys’ or the congregation is cowed by a vocal few, or…

  69. filbertz says:

    local autonomy allows everyone to keep their heads in their local holes and ignore the broader demands and needs. Further, it presents a ‘posterior’ to everyone else who might seek to look in on what is happening there.

  70. Fil @ 68 – Why would that be any different in a denomination? What if the head of the whole thing is corrupt? What if every level is filled with good ol boys and yes men? 1 guy can make a real change at a local church if there is corruption, but 1 guy can’t do much against a national structure. Plus, do you really think someone in Nebraska would kno0w better how to deal with the issues in a small Georgia church…more so than the people in that small Georgia church?

  71. fyi says:

    Andrew @40; CC does not have ‘speaking tours.’ Period. That was not an honest or accurate coment. Some individual CCs might have chosen to have him speak at their church, but there is no organized effort. I am a CC.

  72. Andrew says:

    Thanks for correcting me. I do have some honest questions though. Calvary does have pastors conferences, senior pastor conferences and men’s conferences. From what I recall, it was a requirement to attend some sort of conference like this to remain or become an affiliate. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the requirement have changed. I don’t know. As a CC were you or are you required to attend any CC sponsored conference at all and if so who plans the conference, the speakers, etc? Who determines your affiliation status or lack there of? Gen Boykin has been a speaker at many of the CC men’s conferences which has been well documented. Who invited him in? Was it Chuck Smith himself?

  73. Michael says:


    Boykins place in CC is because he’s a famous military conservative and he’s all in on Israel.
    Being all in on Israel covers a multitude of sins.
    The really interesting thing to me is that if you lift up any rock in U.S. covert operations, Boykin was under it…

  74. fyi says:

    Andrew, there are no such requirements. Those of us who attend the SPC each year do so because we want to, not because we have to. I have been CC for 19 years and have never been required to do anything.

  75. Andrew says:


    Ok, I stand corrected. I just remember going to the CCOF web site about 2 years ago before it was disbanded where it stated the requirements for affiliation. Maybe it was never meant to be required but than again not sure why they had it listed.

  76. Babylon's Dread says:

    Not sure why anyone would think I am above the implications of my own critique. I indeed enjoy the vain pleasure of pastoral fiefdom of which I speak.

    Pope Dread I

  77. Steve Wright says:

    Hi Andrew, I know what you are probably thinking, and while fyi is absolutely correct, you aren’t exactly absolutely wrong either.

    There is an encouragement for the pastors to try and get together with each other and have fellowship at the local level, to make bonds with each other – and so that should be the desire of a pastor who wants to affiliate. Nobody should join CC planning on being a lone wolf. That’s probably what you are thinking about.

    There are plenty of chances for this fellowship locally, regionally, (of course privately) and the annual SPC is another chance. But nobody takes attendance, nobody insists or requires anything in this regard. And for that matter there is nothing that says if some CC guy is a scoundrel that you ever have to talk to the guy your entire life.

  78. Neo says:

    In other news, RBI Baseball will soon be an app for mobile devices. See, everything will be okay in the end!

  79. Andrew says:

    “Nobody should join CC planning on being a lone wolf. That’s probably what you are thinking about.”

    Not exactly. Hi Steve,

    I get what you are saying. I guess what the real question is what is the the bare minimum that is “required” to be listed in the CC database of churches and to be affiliated? I get it that know one is taking attendance at the CCSPC and it seems that once you are listed, there are really no requirements to remain affiliated. Although I think affiliates have occasionally on a select basis been removed for various reasons in the past, that practice seems to have stopped. I also get it that you probably don’t need to embrace the CC “distinctives” although at one time it appears that affiliates needed to embrace them. That requirement seems to also have at least been removed from the CCA website.

    The other requirement I remember clearly was that potential affiliates had to resemble something more like a mature type of church meeting on Sunday rather than something more informal like a home fellowship meeting at someones home on lets say a Wednesday evening instead of Sunday. I personally found this particular requirement to be the most troubling in that it appears that the size would be a consideration of what can and would be called a CC church. Anyway, not sure if this particular requirement has been removed yet but would be curious to know.

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.