Father, Son and Holy Rift

A Saturday's Los Angeles Times had an article describing the two Chuck Smith pastors' theological and methodological rift. I just want to post this link, and write about a few select issues that arose in my mind while reading it. They are not connected to each other beside the fact that they come up in the same article. I really have no comments on the main point of the article, I just had a couple scattered thoughts about different things. Part of the fun in having a blog is that you can do whatever you want. I am not writing for a grade, or to try to get published, or even in this case to communicate something specific. I started this post a while back, but never really finished it. I am posting it because I don't intend to finish it. Not many of my comments are really meant for too much discussion, I am just taking the opportunity to rant a little. The below admittedly out of context quotations can be found in the article I linked to above.


1. "Without a trace of fire and brimstone, [Chuck Smith Jr.] speaks of Christianity as a 'conversation' rather than a dogma"

I understand that "dogma" has become an emotionally charged word, and it might prove best to avoid using it for the sake of clarity. Surely I do not advocate Christians being dogmatic about their beliefs - if by that we mean that nobody should talk about their beliefs as being the only logically sound and acceptable set of propositions and proposed behaviors that everyone should and must follow without investigation. However, even if unbelievers are unwilling to make any truth claim or ever believe any fact or proposition, surely a relationship with Christ requires some beliefs to be held firmly. I am bold enough to maintain that even if it isn't true, Christianity is something definite. For the term to even be meaningful it has to have some unchanging essence. Furthermore, the nature of Christianity is not physical. We cannot point to an artifact and call it Christianity. So, for communication to take place - even among those who have nothing to do with Christianity - a set of beliefs, or values, or something has to be collected and called "Christianity". For those within the faith, whatever they think are the core truths essential to Christianity, they ought to believe them with conviction. Just like everyone should hold their most valued and certain propositions tightly. What else can we call a set of principles held to be incontrovertibly true than dogma? And although there can be bad dogmas, why would dogma be bad, in and of itself?


2. "'What will it take for Chuck Sr. to stop the nepotism?' blogged Calvary congregant Jackie Alnor (although quoted by the newspaper, I found her actual blog and linked to it), one of the critics leading to the charge. 'Does his son have to burn incense to Isis and Zeus before he is disfellowshipped from a Bible-believing fellowship of churches?'"

Seriously, I can't stand legalistic Christians. They have certainly contributed to our label "intolerant", and not just by disfellowshipping other believers. I am sick to my stomach. Ever notice how all of Jesus' venom was saved for the religious (cf. Luke 3, et al.)? I hardly think that wishing his community well in the name of the Triune God is similar to offering incense to Zeus! The mere fact that it looks like what Roman Catholics do (and don't get me started on the Evangelical hate for Catholics - there is truth in the Catholic church [although it can be hard to find sometimes, although they are not too unlike many Protestant churches in this respect], and there are plenty of genuine followers of Jesus in the Catholic church. Evangelicals display both arrogance and ignorance when they brazenly and swiftly dismiss the entire Catholic church in two sentences. Who are we to judge the root from which we sprouted?) doesn't make it full-blown idolatry! Lighten up woman! If we can't love each other (which is what outsiders are supposed to know us by according to John 13:35, by the way), then how are we going to be able to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us, as Jesus commands in Luke 6:27 & 35? We all need step back, and take one good look at ourselves and stop proclaiming judgment on, and "disfellowshipping", everyone who deviates from our flavor of Christianity, thinking we have it all down. Grow up.


3. "... the first nondenominational Calvary Chapel..."

Just a note on denominations. Although I think that wanting to do things that unify Christians is very important, I posit that shrinking the teachings that our leaders profess from the pulpit down to bare bones doctrine isn't necessary, practical, or strictly possible. Furthermore, just as soon as you begin to do anything, your practices as a church will distinguish you from other groups. And even if you were to somehow succeed in creating a community that was denominationally neutral, other denominations would remain, and your group would be identified as distinct. This is exactly what has happened with the nondenominational folks. When listing popular denominations people now include baptist, Lutheran, nondenominational, methodist, etc. I don't think it's a big deal, I just find it funny.

On a separate note, I find it tragic that the Universal Church (everyone who has a relationship with God) is so splintered. Some of us identify ourselves as Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and even more specific do our categories go as you get down to local churches, small groups and individuals. Any opportunity for cooperation (tempered by wisdom and integrity) should be aptly seized. We can all hope for the uniting work that Jesus will do in us over time, and when He comes back. Still, in the meantime I vote for two things. Firstly, I vote for cooperation. Secondly, I vote for appreciation. Let us maintain our own nuances of belief, but work together in our purpose. Let us appreciate the work of each other, as we are all different, different groups have strengths and we all have many weakness, so let's learn from each other and be glad that where some of us may be weak, there may be others who are strong.

While I am on the subject of the church. I would like to make a brief note about the Great Schism in 1054 of the East and West churches. I am familiar with many of the issues, and recognize that the split was very complicated and unfortunately political as well, but don't you find it confusing that both sides claim that their's is now the church? As if Jesus had formed an institution! The Orthodox, even today, place such an importance on their rituals as being those established by the church. The Roman Catholics believe that their leadership structure presides over the church. It seems to me that the the church is made up of anyone who believes. It is more like a movement than an institution. So it doesn't make any sense when one organization claims to be it. It's not like there was an establishment that, at the time of the split, could only continue to be manifested by one set of people and not the other. Which side had the right to call themselves the church? Neither, because the church is inclusive of all Christians. So my Evangelical community in Pasadena has just as much a right to say that we are a local gathering of church members as the entire Orthodox church does.

It gets under my skin when I talk to be beloved Orthodox friends and they talk about the early church fathers as belonging to the Orthodox church. There wasn't an Orthodox church back then. Sure we used terms like orthodox (literally 'straight belief') and catholic (universal or whole), but the identity of the church did not exclusively follow the Orthodox believers after the split in such a way that they now have the right to talk about someone like Irenaeus as being an Orthodox saint. He was a Christian saint, and I have a right to him to. Should I start calling him a Protestant saint? Wouldn''t make sense, right? Neither does calling him Orthodox.


4. "Listening convinced [Chuck Smith Jr.] that homosexual orientation is not something people chose."

This was noted in the article as one of the points that Smith Jr. deviates from his father on. I will admit that my initial reaction to this sentence was 'yes it is - homosexuals are so by choice'. But let me here apologize and humbly say that despite the fact that contemporary scientific research might be used to support the view that sexual orientation is a choice, it should not matter to the Christian. The experience of homosexuals remains; they do not feel that it is a choice. Don't pretend that you know what they are going through, be it good or ill. Most Christians believe anyway that everyone is born into a state of separation from God, and with a propensity to do things that are contrary to God's character. So let me lovingly note a point of contention with my fellow Christians and say, who cares whether homosexuality is a choice?. What matters is whether a person is estranged from God. I won't be shy - I will be honest and say that at this point in my life I personally humbly believe, for both Biblical and philosophical reasons, that homosexual behavior is against man's design, and has negative physical and emotional repercussions. But guys everyone, Christian or not, does things that harm themselves. I am not making any judgment here as to whether a Christian can or can't willingly practice, or struggle against, homosexuality. What I am saying is that a Christian who is coherent with his own worldview should reach out to those he believes are in need of a relationship with God. We should be jumping at the chance to make friends with homosexuals (and heterosexuals), wanting to show them God's love, just as Jesus met with prostitutes, people with illnesses, extortionists, homeless people, and outcasts, in addition to mainstream society. Stop picketing and start engaging people relationally, walking upright, and ignoring the complaints of the intolerant. So let's get past the debate about the possibility of sexual choice, and get on to reaching out to people in love. If you want to influence the views of others in order to move them even a little toward goodness and God, then be willing to start with love and acceptance.