May 252016
 

rdozlerDoveThis is the “East Coast” pastors conference and it’s taking place now.

It has become fashionable to have “Q & A” sessions at these gatherings now and they had one here as well.

I was going to go through and chart each lie as it was told, but it’s really not worth my time or yours anymore to do so.

I will note a couple that stand out…

The opening remarks always begin with the foundational lie, that lie being that Chuck Smith really wanted this group to govern Calvary Chapel after he was gone.

All you need do is search this site for “CCA” for the truth about that one.

The truth was that Smith was ambivalent at best about this set up and many observers (including myself) believe he wanted “the movement” to die with him.

Still, the lie has been told so often that I suspect even the liars are beginning to believe it and the rank and file seem to swallow such tales without need for water to wash them down.

The second lie is that “nothing has changed” since Smith’s death.

Nothing except that Smith is gone, the national pastors conference is gone, “affiliation” is now done on the East Coast, and the movement is now run by the CCA and by regional leaders who no one has any idea how they are selected.

There is no process for their selection and there is no structure for any accountability.

The move out of Costa Mesa and it’s demotion to another “regional” conference has nothing to do with anything but minimizing the influence of Brian Brodersen and his contingent.

The one thing that has not changed is that there is absolutely no accountability standards in place for anything other than a violation of “the distinctives”.

Even that process that has no formal structure and when someone asks how someone gets removed from the movement, the answers are purposefully vague.

While the rest of evangelicalism wrestles with how best to protect children and hold leaders accountable, Calvary Chapel still thinks that abstinence from alcohol while waiting for the Rapture is the critical cutting edge concern.

So yes, in some ways…nothings changed.

  39 Responses to “CC Philly Conference 2016”

  1. Lack of accountability and morals rings a bell here in CA. Do your own research, BG of CCV gave Jr a gun. I am one of Bobby’s friends and he shared that he pulled the gun on his wife before he left her to return to his father’s dictator lifestyle.

  2. They just won’t accept that the horse they’re beating has been dead so long that it stinks! There’s not enough Febreeze on the shelves to cover this stench.

  3. Yes, most of our community are aware of BG and his evil ways. Will be made public soon!

  4. Janet – if the community is aware, what is to be made public? What most can’t get through their head is that people don’t care.
    The wider central valley is not even aware that there is such an entity as CCV and most of those who do know don’t care and anyone left at CCV like it.

  5. Michael,

    A few questions on the things you wrote:

    1) “Affiliation” is now done on the East Coast – What do you mean by this? When a church (or I should say pastor), regardless of location, wants to become a Calvary Chapel affiliate, does it only go through East Coast leaders/administration to approve? No one outside the East Coast has a say or makes an effort to have a say? Is the East Coast the only portion of Calvary Chapel that may be trying to enforce any kind of oversight over existing affiliations?

    2) As for the “demotion” of the Costa Mesa conference to a regional conference, I kind of remember a little while back Brodersen himself making it open to more than just senior pastors. So in that facet it seemed that Brodersen changed it from what it had traditionally been and represented. But in what ways has it changed in that it is now viewed as only a “regional” conference?

    3) Due to the double-speak that has been talked about here before with Chuck Smith in regards to how he wanted to please people and tell people what they wanted to hear, is it possible that some honestly believe that the current CCA and leadership structure is what Chuck wanted? Is this possible with any of the “top” shakers and influencers in the movement today?

  6. Local people in Albuquerque know virtually NOTHING about the roots of Calvary Chapel. CC is a movement of independent churches and it will thrive of wane purely on the charisms of the local church pastor.

    One underlying catapult for CC was its seizure of the media as a means of proliferation. In the 70s Christian radio was fledgling and CC sensed its value and took it. The relative value now is lower, but it gave CC a push in many locales, not least in Albuquerque.

    The national CC will now become a microcosm of Alexander the Great’s kingdom. It will be carved by the sons and eventually take its place among the denominations as a niche.

    The end times craze was perfect for radio proliferation. It has much less strength in an internet world where debunking data proliferates.

    Finally I think Wimber felt the same as Smith about his kingdom. He wanted it to go away with him. Both men are blessed to have their names off the movements.

    Random Reaction Dread

  7. I am a regional leader and affiliation is NOT done on rage east coast. Each region has sole authority to affiliate churches (and remove them) with zero interference from outside regions. Wanted to set the record straight.

  8. Don’t know where the word rage came from in above post. You h, well. Getting old…

  9. KevinH,

    The moving away of the affiliation piece is more symbolic than real.
    It’s another way of saying that “Costa Mesa is no longer the center of the CC universe”.
    Affiliation (and dis-affiliation) is now supposed to be in the hands of regional leaders, but it doesn’t always work that way.
    This is just another way to try to get around the problem of liability for rogue pastors, but it won’t work…you’re either a denomination or not and CC is a denomination whether they want to admit to it or not.

    The difference for the Costa Mesa convention was as the “national” convention attendance was required.
    That is no longer the case, as it is now just another “regional” meeting.

    Some may believe that Smith endorsed the CCA.
    Great trouble has been gone to to smear me, and the other person who tried to speak (my old nemesis George Bryson) was kicked out of the movement.

    He stopped speaking.
    I won’t.

  10. FYI,

    You can affiliate them…but they’re not official until placed in the database by McClures office.
    You may have had no interference…others have.

    Just wanted to set the record straight.

  11. Lots of wisdom in BD’s post…

  12. Thanks for the answers, Michael.

  13. One last follow-up question. What was the genesis of the Costa Mesa conference becoming un-mandatory?

  14. I find it fascinating that CCA has migrated back east. I remember when all the big shots flocked to Orange County to help Chuck Smith (and maybe hoping to inherit his mantle of leadership): Skip left New Mexico, Jon Courson left Oregon, Don McClure left San Jose, and even Greg Laurie came in from Riverside to teach a mid-week study.

    But Chuck never anointed the next leader for the movement. Slowly each of these guys realized it and drifted away. Then Brian inherited CCCM and its goldmine of properties (it own the colleges, conference centers and radio stations- not Calvary Chapel as a whole) but not the mantle of Movement Leader.

    It looks like the last holdout has finally fled: Don McClure.

  15. To BD’s point @6, I think the Vineyard took a different path after it lost its founder. It has had a National Board of Directors and 3 national directors in the last 20 years, helping to turn the movement into a denomination. The Vineyard went through a lot of turmoil here in the USA and lost many congregations, but they seem to have righted themselves. Not many of Vineyards left here in the land of their birth (Southern California) but they are big in Ohio and other areas.

    I wonder if Calvary Chapel we also go through that many years of unsettled times. Will they coalesce into a denomination or will that shatter into hundreds of small fiefdoms?

  16. I’ll answer after we record the podcast…

  17. Attendance was not “required” at the annual pastor’s conference. That is just flat out wrong. I missed a few and I have many pastor friends who likewise certainly did not come each and every year. There were no consequences, no chastisement for missing. The loss was OURS for not going (as usually the decision not to go involved scheduling conflict or financial concerns for transportation)

    It was certainly encouraged, but the fact is, most pastors did not need much encouragement since it was always a very special week. In fact, if one did not sign up early one likely would get shut out as it would fill up – hard to have a “required” conference that is first come, first served. (That is also the chief reason why they were so strict on senior pastors only – they did not even have enough room for all of them, much less if everyone brought assistants. Having it at Costa Mesa makes that a moot point)

    I would disagree that calling the current conference at Costa Mesa simply a regional conference is accurate. However, I am sure that there are far less out-of-state pastors who want to make the expense and effort to come to a church in Costa Mesa, stay in some dorms off site and be shuttled in, find your own meals etc as opposed to the wonderful Murrieta Conference Center and all the amenities that made that conference special.

  18. Steve @17, thanks for sharing your insights. I can see how moving the conference away from Murrieta and its facilities would dampen attendance a bit. (It certainly makes your traveling distance longer.) I wonder why they moved it, since CCCM owns both properties. Cost factor, or does the Bible College need the housing?

  19. I’m not sure if it was in the old affiliation agreement or just a published statement of Smith’s that attendance at the national conference was expected.
    He reasoned that because the movement was based on “fellowship” that non attendance indicated that someone was no longer in “fellowship” with his brethren.

    I’ll see if I can find the exact quote, but this isn’t really disputed.

    So, to answer your question, Kevin H, the other council members (some,not all) didn’t want the main conference centered in Costa Mesa anymore because that gave the appearance that Brodersen was head of the movement.

  20. Agreed. What you just posted is not disputed. I disputed the “required” comment and yes it is a distinction with a difference. There are many other ways that pastoral fellowship was encouraged such as monthly lunch gatherings, regional conferences etc. Nothing was ever considered mandatory. Of course if someone was opposed to hanging out with CC pastors it would warrant a question as to why one would seek to be one. Which was always Chuck’s point.

  21. @18, I was told it was moved to CCCM because the Bible College was running out of space. They wanted to open it up to pastors who were not “Senior Pastors” and CCCM had by far more room for that sort of thing.

    Personally, I far prefer the Bible College. There was a lot more fellowship over the meals (though they were loud & crowded), and it was just good to get away.

    FWIW, this is the 1st conference since my initial affliation that I will miss.

  22. Last night I was watching the Q&A session with the old guys and perhaps I heard it wrong when Don McClure was speaking of the web site — but did he say that they were putting Chuck Smith’s Distinctives on the web site?

    Not that they would just be in there but he seemed to single them out. I thought they had walked away from the Distinctives.

    Help me here

  23. MLD,

    LOL!

    They had walked back from them and they are still not published in the original form on the CCA site.
    These guys have won the battle…now they’re implementing their reign.

  24. Well if I heard right, he did identify them as Chuck Smith’s Distictives and it sounded like a future event to be accomplished – so perhaps now they just have an abridged form of them.

  25. MLD,

    Right now they have some doctrinal statements on various issues…but that group wants the old “Distinctives” back.
    Brodersen envisioned a group where things were more open…but he has capitulated and lost.

  26. Tim,

    Why are you missing this one?

  27. @26, a variety of reasons. Mostly because (1) it’s simply not the same conference as it has been in the past, and (2) I cannot honestly abide having Skip as a main speaker, especially in light of his current ongoing support of GFA.

  28. *applause*

  29. Tim,

    Thank you…that tells me you have a blessed congregation, indeed.

  30. Seconding the *applause*.

  31. Tim, I am not going either. Same reasons.

  32. Thank you, Jim.

  33. @27 and 31

    I am not attending either… same reasons.

    @17 Steve,
    The old statement on affiliation including wording that CCOF was not interested in offering affiliation to those who were not willing to make the time for fellowship by attending conferences, particularly the SPC at Murrieta. Might have been prior to you becoming pastor at your church.

  34. Since Skip will be speaking at the conference, I wonder if GFA will have a table at the conference, as in past years.

  35. Mike, that sounds pretty much like the wording I recall too.

  36. Thanks…and as I’ve already seen Jim & PstrMike comment, I knew I wouldn’t be alone in my reasoning. I’ve got to think registrations are somewhat low for this particular conference, considering I’ve seen several announcements of it in my email. In past years, one announcement was all that was needed & it got filled up fast.

  37. If we are taking roll 🙂 …I’m not planning on attending either. However, there are multiple reasons why in my case…

  38. Thanks to Mike and JJ…I know there are others who won’t be attending because of Heitzig and GFA.
    That is a stand for righteousness.

    Lets hope CCCM has the sense to leave GFA out this year.

  39. Tim @ 36, yes there has been a lot more promotion of this conference than at any time prior including video invitations. I’m sure it will be interesting.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

%d bloggers like this: