Oakland Hijacks the Truth

You may also like...

95 Responses

  1. Potatoehead says:

    Wow you dropped the bomb we knew about but never acknowledged!

    I once talked with a girl who got sent to England to make sure she kept quiet about such things.

    And then another girl told me about an uncomfortable massage incident.

    He was a great man so we must look the other way when it comes to his humanity…right?

    ( I can hear Al saying…”NOT!”)

  2. Michael says:

    The bomb has already been dropped off these pages…I’m tired of ignoring stuff like this to pretend it didn’t happen.

  3. Potatoehead says:

    Now Michael had you said that within the Moses Model camp you would have heard, “Michael if you don’t like what we do here and how we do it, perhaps you should leave and start your own church.”

    Many a person has heard those very words at Calvary Chapels.

    They kept a sanitized camp indeed.

    But great journalist, such as your self will not back off from the truth.

    What is truth anyway?

    Anything that delineates that which is is truth.

    Thank God for men willing to speak the truth.

    King David was not such a wonderful guy at times.

    And how do we know that?

    By the truth being told!

  4. Michael says:


    I would have preferred to deal with it properly in the book and preferably after his wife passed.
    It’s already been reported and it hasn’t exactly been the best kept secret in Christendom anyway…

  5. Hmmm…I’ve gone by Pineapple Head for about 10 years now. Now there’s a Potaoehead in posting!

  6. Michael says:

    We’re covering all the food groups… 🙂

  7. Potatoehead says:


  8. Owen says:

    I’m only commenting on this thread for the sake of filling in the food groups.

    I’ll gladly be the Steakhead!

    (….before anyone else beats me to it, please not I did NOT say meathead….;) )

  9. CostcoCal says:

    Who is Roger Oakland these days? Or virtually, ever No one knows nor cares what he says. He was marginally accepted when I attended CC Bible College…..in 1995! Lol

  10. Michael says:


    The margins seem to be growing and gaining some traction among the old guard…

  11. covered says:

    Costco is right. Is Oakland even relevant anymore? I think most of us just remember his as a minor leaguer in the late ’90’s. That doesn’t justify Chuck’s issues with infidelity. All of it is sad. You better get that book done before Calvary becomes completely irrelevant.

  12. Michael says:


    I think the issues I’m addressing (and the way in which I am addressing them) are applicable way beyond Calvary Chapel.

    The only segment of evangelicalism that is growing at all is the non denominational section…and I’ve seen the same abuses and issues across the board.

  13. covered says:

    I agree Michael. My comment is specific to CC. I just don’t see CC as having the influence they used to have. I remember thinking just the word, “movement” was cool. Now they seem to be a bunch of old rich guys who can’t seem to get along. Not so convinced that the younger, cool guys can carry the tribe like it was 15-20 years ago.

  14. Potatoehead says:

    Calvary is done.

    It can’t make it on the past.

    Water that has already passed the mill wheel can no longer turn it…

  15. Disillusioned says:

    Truth is hard but refreshing.

  16. brian says:

    I wanted to really write something very nasty about CS and folks like Mr. Oakland but once words are put out there they are not taken back and they may hurt others I care about. I totally disagree with CS, I disagreed back in the early 80’s when I first got introduced to the CC movement and Mr. Smith. Many young folks were taken with his style and his books. I never was, it was just something, part of it was his eschatology and definitely his view of origins but that came a bit later. I do believe he cared for his children and I think he did love Jesus and tried to serve Christ. He would not have felt the same about me or afforded me the same view at least according to his sermons and what he has said on the radio.

    I am sorry his family and his faith group are going through this another “grace” the franchise never gave to folks like myself.

  17. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I am always amazed at the interest that people have in what Oakland writes. Talk about someone who is as relevant as a pimple on an elephant’s ass. Sometimes Michael, I think you are the only one who keeps him in the limelight.

    But I was amused by one of your lines – “The margins seem to be growing and gaining some traction among the old guard… ”

    I always like to tease on CC stuff that 99% of the country has no idea of who so and so is (the latest CC bad guy) or the latest event. But with the “old guard – 99% of CC people have no idea who these guys are and fall under zero influence of these “old guards”.

    I say let them just be over in their own ‘amen’ corner and shrivel up and die as time goes on. Oakland is probably smiling broadly this morning as he checks the now enormous number of reads he had on his blog. He has been encouraged and energize now to fight on.

  18. Since I’ve been out of California (since 2006), it is a rare person who has any idea who Greg Laurie is. I thought he was more widely known. Just piggy backing MLD’s point that the Calvary world is out of the sight lines of most.

    Now that I live in Idaho, I wonder if I should have changed my moniker to potato head. ?????

  19. Babylon's Dread says:

    Roger Oakland is Chuck Smith’s own creation is he not. By imbedding conspiratorial eschatological notions into the fabric of theology Smith created Oakland and all his kin. I think Oakland is the logical outcome of having bogeyman eschatology.

    So now the rot in the CC system is unavoidably obvious but rather than calling it old fashion lust for money sex and power we have to stage it as eschatological inevitabilities infringing on the family.

    Oakland is the spawn of pretribulationalism run amuck. He is Chuck’s spawn. I could get much worse in my characterization but I shall not. For most of the body of Christ he is a gnat to be swatted or simply blown away in a cool breeze.

    I am glad he has no voice in my world.

  20. Duane Arnold says:


    I hope that in writing your book it is all put into the broadest possible contest. CCCM did not exist in a vacuum. House of Hossana (Shiloh), Melodyland, even the Crystal Cathedral were all part of the zeitgeist. It is now almost like looking at a 40 year period in the Reformation era and trying to make sense of the personalities, movements, doctrinal debates, etc. Despite it all – and despite the “clay feet” of some leaders – I still believe that God, by the work of the Holy Spirit – did something remarkable…

  21. Nonnie says:

    ” Despite it all – and despite the “clay feet” of some leaders – I still believe that God, by the work of the Holy Spirit – did something remarkable…”


  22. Michael says:


    It’s very broad.
    My concern is how the creation of unbiblical traditions inside a tradition lead to spiritual abuse.

  23. Michael says:

    I’m having all sorts of issues with the site here…working on resolutions.

  24. ( |o )====::: says:

    I remember dumping boxes of over two decades of sermon tapes of CSSr’s Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings and Thursday nights, thinking, “I wonder what it would be like to just read each book without someone telling me what it means?”

    I remember the liberating realization that I no longer had Chuck Smith Sr’s voice commenting in my head as I read my bible silently, on my own.

    It takes a conscious effort to think one’s own thoughts, ask questions that you’re not supposed to ask, and embrace the spiritual ambiguity that comes with uncertainty.

    God has been, is, and ever shall be bigger than a book people wrote about Him, or the teachers who string together conclusions that unstrung texts could never conclude.

  25. Jim Jacobson says:

    I was told about the affair over a decade ago. I always assumed that things were probably handled in a gracious and biblical manner. Often times when the “stories of grace” are told and retold, a lot of the sins get omitted in order to preserve the image of the individuals. I am glad that God didn’t do this with the scriptures. Though we don’t know the details of every “sharp disagreement” we do know that the heroes of the faith were in fact flawed men, so that grace is magnified and Jesus alone is worshipped. I wish the church modeled repentance better.

  26. Michael says:

    Jim has nailed the real issue.

    When it’s too dangerous to repent, then grace is nowhere found.

  27. Em ... again says:

    ” I wish the church modeled repentance better.” chilling truth and Michael is so correct, “When it’s too dangerous to repent, then grace is nowhere found.”

    not only do Scriptures not hide the sins of the players, it gives wonderful examples of what results from how those players dealt with their sins, too … thinking of a man whom God dealt with back there… King Nebuchadnezzar

    some good thoughts here this morning – i am blessed to read

  28. Kevin H says:

    The Oakland stuff is laughable and sad and disturbing. I would hope he would stay in the outskirts and would never gain any significant traction within today’s Calvary Chapel, or any other church for that matter.

    As for Chuck Smith I will open the can of worms here. Assuming the truthfulness of the affair as I trust Michael’s forthrightness with these things and that he wouldn’t go public with something like this without being certain, and we also have Jim’s testimony here just now of being told about it, it is a shame that so many knew about it and never did anything about it except to allegedly use if for their own gain. It is a shame that not even one confronted Chuck and told him that he needed to step down because he had disqualified himself and then would have gone public before the church if need be if Chuck wouldn’t do the right thing. And maybe some did try to confront him privately, this I would not have any way of knowing. But at the very least, there is seemingly no record of anyone ever putting it before his church or the movement, for that sake.

    Now I’m not necessarily suggesting that everyone who had ever been told of the affair should have done something about it. But certainly of those who were closer to Chuck and/or CCCM, something should have been said and done. I know this would have been quite a difficult thing to do. But out of all those other “men of God”, one would have hoped that someone, or some group of them would have stepped up and did the hard but righteous thing.

  29. Michael says:


    When you’re told repeatedly to “touch not God’s anointed” this is what you get…

  30. Michael says:

    Needless to say, but it’s also why you get taught that over and over…

  31. Kevin H says:


    I imagine your statement is right in playing a big part in it. Still a crying shame that nobody could do the right thing.

  32. Kevin H says:

    Surprisingly, I actually don’t hear the “touch not God’s anointed” very often, although I have. Other old guard mantras are repeated much more frequently.

  33. Michael says:


    It’s a complex story…in movements like this it can be difficult for people to discern what the right thing is and how to execute actually doing it.
    My interest is not in making a blight on Smith’s legacy, but in examining how it affected the doctrine and practice of the group in the middle of the last great revival this country has seen.
    That’s what is important here…

  34. Kevin H says:


    It most certainly would be complex. I know that. And I know it wouldn’t have been easy to go about figuring out the best way to handle or execute such a confrontation. But still, the bottom line is that nobody took on standing for the biblical requirement that a man who was unfaithful to his wife should not continue on as a pastor, at least not for a significant period of time.

    Yes, this is now an old happening and nothing of consequence could or should be done about it. But it is still disheartening to learn of what went on. And it would cause me to lose some respect for those who were integral in the whole thing. At the very least, we can hopefully use this as a learning experience of how to do better going forward in the church.

  35. Michael says:


    What’s disheartening is the culture one secret spawned and how it colored everything else that went on.

    The interesting thing to me is that ten years ago my email would be full of everything from curses to death threats for writing this…Oakland would be anathema as well.

    The only thing I’ve received this morning is a good cat video…few care about such things anymore.

  36. Kevin H says:

    Was the cat claiming any kind of special anointing in the video? You may want to stay clear if so. 🙂

  37. Michael says:

    🙂 … they all think they’re anointed…

  38. dusty says:

    Hi everyone! Hi big brother!
    Been missing all of you.

  39. Michael says:

    Hi, Dusty…good to see you again!

  40. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Hi Dusty! 🙂

  41. Em ... again says:

    a Dusty sighting here is a good thing

  42. Erunner says:

    Dusty, so glad to see you here!! 🙂

  43. JTK says:

    I missed that you are writing a book on CC!?

    And that Papa Chuck had an affair in the ’70’s.


  44. dusty says:

    Sister Christian says hi too!

  45. dusty says:

    Will try to keep up on posting. This place does me good.

    Hi em, ebrother, mld, big brother. It is good to be back.

  46. David H says:

    I’m so glad I escaped from a certain CC several years ago.

    I lost a lot of so called friends when we left. It’s hard to be shunned by people who you thought were your friends.

    It’s been a real hard transition for my wife.

    My son is the one who weathered the storm the best. He’s thriving at our new church.

  47. dusty says:

    David h
    Sounds just like our story….

  48. David H says:


    It really hurt to have people essentially abandon me, and my family after being at that church for 14 years. There are a few who we still call friends, but not many.

    I was told I was “backslidden,” “apostate,” “I had a demon,” etc. Then came the “You need to pray about it,” “you need to read your Bible more,” “you need to repent,” “you need to go to the midweek ‘Bible studies,'” and on and on. Then one of my former friends had the gall to say, “you’ll come back, and repent. You’ll have to rebuild the trust you’ve lost.” The trust I’d lost? What was he saying? I was the one who lost all trust in the leadership of the church.

    I could never get a grip on what was going on. I hadn’t done anything wrong, except to disagree with their brand of leadership. I’ll always remember being told to read that Larry Taylor tripe “Things I Learned From My Pastor” “Never disagree with the pastor, etc.” It was shortly after reading that that I quit teaching a midweek Bible Study. And, then things whirled out of control. I don’t do well when I’m told to blindly follow orders.

  49. dusty says:

    Dave h still sounds like us!

    I pray for your healing and that of your wife as well. I remember you from years ago and have prayed as i remember …peace to you my friend.

  50. Al says:

    Jim Jacobsen said, “I was told about the affair over a decade ago. I always assumed that things were probably handled in a gracious and biblical manner. Often times when the “stories of grace” are told and retold, a lot of the sins get omitted in order to preserve the image of the individuals. I am glad that God didn’t do this with the scriptures. Though we don’t know the details of every “sharp disagreement” we do know that the heroes of the faith were in fact flawed men, so that grace is magnified and Jesus alone is worshipped. I wish the church modeled repentance better.”

    Wow. I owe you an apology. That is very direct and truthful, and publicly stated. Thank you.

    Great point that God didn’t hide anything in the bible about the details of sin and leadership/bible figures.

  51. dusty says:

    Worth repeating…

    “I wish the church modled repentance better.’

  52. Jeff Sheckstein says:

    Wow. Thought someone would carry the thread about Chuck allegedly being blackmailed, but as to what people allegedly committed the dirty deed, Oakland didn’t come close to pinning the tail on the donkey.

  53. Michael says:

    “Oakland didn’t come close to pinning the tail on the donkey.”

    I did… 🙂

  54. dusty says:

    Michael, lol. 🙂

  55. dusty says:

    I’ve missed this plsce.

  56. dusty says:

    Still feels like home

  57. That Guy Over There says:


    You said:

    ““Oakland didn’t come close to pinning the tail on the donkey.”

    I did… ?”

    I’m not attacking here. No interest in that. I’m not even disagreeing. You’ve been right in general far far more than you’ve been wrong, and usually when I disagree with you it’s over analysis and not the facts themselves.

    But as you’ve spent most of the last decade asking questions to people more well known than yourself, I think it’s fair that some lesser known than you asks you some questions about this.

    1. Why bring this up now? I’d assume that you’ve known about this for a while. I heard the rumor myself a few years back. What good does it do to bring this up? That it was published on a far less known, and far less respected blog than yours is hardly cover. That’s how the mega-church guys do it: well, that church did it so it’s just the way it’s done.

    2. There have been other rumors out there that have been published on other blogs, but those guys are still alive and still have lawyers… would it be fair to assume that this plays a factor?

    3. What’s the point? You brought this up now, and not later, or earlier. Your second blog about Mr. Oakland could have made you point just fine, yet you chose to write the first one. So how does this help? What major changes in CC will this bring about?

  58. Michael says:

    “But as you’ve spent most of the last decade asking questions to people more well known than yourself”

    What difference does that make?

    “Why bring this up now?”

    Because it’s now a topic that is being brought up elsewhere and I think to fully understand these dynamics it’s time to just get the truth out and quit pretending. Everyone who knows about this has been in bondage to it…I’m tired of pretending and believe it’s time to deal with it properly.

    “There have been other rumors out there that have been published on other blogs, but those guys are still alive and still have lawyers… would it be fair to assume that this plays a factor?”

    I don’t even remotely understand the question.

    “What’s the point?”
    I answered that already. I believed Oakland’s article needed answered…and it had to be done in two parts.

    “What major changes in CC will this bring about?”
    I’m not interested in making changes to the Titanic as it sinks. I’m very interested in helping people avoid booking trips on the next Titanic.

    We’ve barely scratched the surface…

  59. Anne says:

    As if Michael has never pulled the covers on folks with living people who have lawyers?!?!? Kestler, Coy, Heitzig right off the top of my head–SMH & LOL!

  60. Jeff Sheckstein says:

    “what’s the point?….What major changes in CC will this bring about?”

    My friend, there were dozens, if not hundreds or more who witnessed the dynamics of CCCM and the decision-making and preferences that took place. While I was privy to much of it, most like me fully sold themselves out to that man and that ministry even though they labored further from the dynamics. Yeah, I know, should have kept the focus on Jesus many would say. Well forgive the shortcomings of a sinner who has walked 30 odd years and has the scars and failings to prove it.

    I digress, these CCCM employees and attendees all share this in common however…why were certain decisions made in that church and by Chuck corporately in CC at large? Why did it seem that certain people and events had outsized influence over Chuck which seemingly influenced his decisions? Personally I gave up eleven of my best years to serve there. While I can finally say that I have put the pieces together to enable me to move on, I suppose, pastor, there are quite a few that have not or are on the path to doing so. These “matters” will enlighten and give answers to those who still raise these questions in their minds in order to gain closure and also move on. Please spare me the trite CC admonition to forgive, forget, move on.”

    Michael as the high minded thinker that he is has a greater purpose as he just stated. “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” he might say. Me, as a small minded man, has his memories and questions (some expressed above) and I am certain there are loyal servants who serve or served at CCCM that deserve the facts to connect the dots to assist them in moving on.

    That young man is “the point” to me.

  61. Anne says:

    Hello & hugs to dusty!

  62. Michael says:


    Thank you.
    I spent hours last night communicating with folks who finally did connect the dots…way past my bedtime.
    The other thing that I will show is that this incident colored the entire culture of CC then and still influences it now.
    That’s what is important to me…because those same dynamics are repeated in many places today for similar reasons.
    If I can teach people to recognize them, I’ve fulfilled my calling.

  63. Michael says:


    Thank you for helping me understand that question.
    If that is truly what he was asking, I have no way to answer him without profanity.

  64. Linnea says:

    Ok, haven’t read the whole thread, but this popped into my mind as I read Michael’s article.

    I really resonate with ( |o )====::: @24: “It takes a conscious effort to think one’s own thoughts, ask questions that you’re not supposed to ask, and embrace the spiritual ambiguity that comes with uncertainty.

    God has been, is, and ever shall be bigger than a book people wrote about Him, or the teachers who string together conclusions that unstrung texts could never conclude.”

    So, Oakland has the same facts as many other critics of the Calvary Chapel “loose association”, but he interprets them differently, based on what he believes to be true.

    I have seen this time and again with scientists, who confronted with the same data, interpret it differently according to the system by which they were trained. Others, whose worldview trumps the scientific method, interpret the same data differently. Within Christianity, we do not accept a uniform worldview, unless we espouse the creeds, or unless we find others who share our same interpretation.

    This is how the apparent truth is interpreted by the eye of the beholder–we interpret information based on our values, our beliefs, our environment, our experiences, and how we’ve been treated by others in the past.

    It’s how God’s word, through a good sermon, speaks differently to everyone who hears. It’s also how we get wildly different interpretations of the same information.

  65. dusty says:

    Hi Anne ((((((hugs)))))

  66. Nonnie says:

    So, so happy to see Dusty here again. Hugs!!

  67. Linnea says:

    Hi dusty and Nonnie!

  68. dusty says:

    Hi Lennea and Nonnie…so good to see you both ((((hugs))))

  69. Michael says:

    Now that I’m awake and fully medicated…

    “That Guy Over There” has once again provided us with a text book case of the typical passive aggressive attack/not an attack that was so common here for years.

    It’s cowardice at it’s worse.

    “I’m not attacking here”…then proceeding to do just that while hoping no one notices.
    When answered he disappears…hoping to get the “attaboys” of his peers.

    He goes after me…but doesn’t utter one word about the subjects of this article.

    It’s almost like 2006…

    Yes, I let the cat out of the bag.
    The bag was pretty badly ripped already and lot of people could already see the cat.
    I did so without a big headline,without sensationalism, and without rancor.

    I believe I did it as right as it could be done.
    My name, as always, is on what I wrote…just like it’s been when I wrote about living people with lawyers…

  70. John Schmidt says:

    Michael, I think you picked exactly the right time to say what you said, and I like the way you said it.

    Anybody who wants to second guess Michael should bear in mind that he has spent a decade and a half writing about these things, dialoging with people on this blog, and talking to folks in an investigative capacity. So maybe we want to respect his timing.

    The issue that comes to my mind in this is, what was the church board’s role in this story? Chuck S always had an issue with boards and their authority. According to him, it has always been the Holy Spirit vs the boards.

    When he was a young man, he put chairs in a circle, the board told him not to do it again. This started so much bitterness on his part that he was still telling his version of the story fifty years later, about how church boards get in the way of the Holy Spirit doing what he wants to do.

    Years later, when another big name pastor is fired by his board for adultery, Chuck immediately hires him himself, proclaiming how ‘anointed’ and ‘gifted’ the man is and how short sighted his board was for disciplining him. Then, his proteges start the practice of placing their buddies from other churches on their boards, instead of people who are actually part of the congregation.

    So the intriguing question for me is, is anything known about the church board’s part in the story?

  71. Michael says:


    We’re talking about a forty year old story, so even getting consistent details on the incident are difficult.
    Memories fade…
    I don’t have anything about the board on that time that I could report with confidence.

    I want to reiterate…the issue today doesn’t concern the sin, it concerns the fact that the sin defined a big part of the culture that is still in play today.

    That culture showed itself in TGOT’s post…where the “no talk” rule and “kill the messenger” both reared their heads as they have for years when dealing with issues in CC.

    John, I appreciate the kind words.

  72. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Going back to the Chuck Smith had an affair story, help me as I think I missed a step here. Has anyone ever come out and say “Chuck Smith had an affair. I saw it, he told me, the woman showed me pictures – anything like that.”

    What I have read is several people saying “well I have heard the rumors” and some saying “I heard the rumors going back to 1977” or some variation of that. Is hearing rumors any form of evidence? Heck, I have heard the rumors right herer – and I could say “yes, I have heard the rumors”, but I know absolutely nothing.

    I would hope that there was some substance behind the rumors – after all, one more person saying they heard a rumor means nothing.

  73. Michael says:

    Evidently, you missed his attorney for over a decade confirming the report farther up the thread…

  74. Michael says:

    Surely ,you also know by now that I wouldn’t say such a thing unless I was completely confident it was true.

  75. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    “I digress, these CCCM employees and attendees all share this in common however…why were certain decisions made in that church and by Chuck corporately in CC at large? Why did it seem that certain people and events had outsized influence over Chuck which seemingly influenced his decisions? ”

    Am I reading the wrong post? Is this what you consider the smoking gun?

    Look, personally I don’t care if he spent 40 yrs spreading his seed over the Hawaiian Island and that people were blackmailing him. If he is guilty, he is guilty – but someone should come out and clearly say – “Chuck had an affair and I know.” – Jeff Sheckstein seems to be saying that the staff etc was speculating why some seemed to have this influence over Chuck Smith.
    Perhaps Jeff will come back and just state clearly what he knows (or at least clear enough for a simpleton such as myself.

    btw – I am not challenging what you have written – just that “I have heard the rumors” does not satisfy me – and I am probably a lone voice on this side of the issue.

  76. Michael says:


    I have no problem with your questions.
    I’ve probably interviewed at least three dozen people since 2004 who told the same story consistently.
    No one will dare go on the record…but no one is going to challenge me either.

  77. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    But are they confirming that they ‘know’ or are they confirming they have heard the rumors?

    As I said, I have heard the rumors and know absolutely nothing.

  78. Michael says:

    Trust me, the people I have spoken with know.
    Even if you don’t trust me, they know.

  79. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I didn’t say I didn’t trust you – I have just not heard in these reports here that anyone has come out and said “I personally know this happened” as I said, almost all of the reports are people recollecting when they heard the rumor. I have not heard you say so — until your #78 above.

  80. Michael says:


    I have to be very careful…whenever I post a story like this a witch hunt usually ensues.

    They would have to burn a lot of witches with this one…worst kept secret in Christendom.

  81. Al says:

    MLD sounds like an Atheist, “Where’s your proof! I want video of Jesus resurrecting from the dead! No video or it didn’t happen!”

    ….ya, but you have a ton of witnesses saying they saw him, even extant writings from two non-bible historians who document a “Cristus” and “Cretos” aka Jesus Christ.

    “Doesn’t matter! I want VIDEO EVIDENCE! …or it didn’t happen!”

    It happened, way too many sources and people on the deep inside. No, they cannot provide video.

  82. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Nope – I just asked for someone to say the knew objectively and not just “I heard the rumor.”

    I said earlier if he is guilty, he is guilty and I don’t care one way or another.

  83. That Guy Over There says:


    you quoted me: “That culture showed itself in TGOT’s post…where the “no talk” rule and “kill the messenger” both reared their heads as they have for years when dealing with issues in CC.”

    where am i killing the messenger? I’m not fighting your assertion. Like i said earlier, I’ve learned that you are usually right on the facts in substance. But does that mean you’re above questioning? who watches the watchers? Questions don’t kill the messenger.

    My questions are this:

    1. Why are you using the blog posts of others as a pretext to post your own? That’s what the celebrity mega-church guys you’ve railed against do. Pastor X makes this much and so should I. Big church X is doing this and so should we. Blogger X posted un-corroborated claims so I”m ok to as well. Another big name CC pastor was listed in that post as having sinned previously… yet you’re silent about him.

    2. What are you hoping to get? I’m willing to be more than patient and charitable. If you have a series of posts coming that show how this one horrible event shaped the CC movement then I’ll wait and see what you put forth. But Oakland’s rantings were just an excuse to post about Chuck. Perhaps I wouldn’t have cringed as much if you’d said “here’s the truth-Chuck Smith disqualified himself in the 70’s and it was covered up…. in the coming weeks I’m going to post about how that directly shaped the CC movement.” Instead, you posted the ramblings of a bitter fear monger and used them as a pretext to expose a sin from 40 years ago. That’s my beef.

    I’m not saying that no one should talk. I’m glad people have talked about men like Coy and Kestler, KP and Heitzig. I’m not interested in killing the messenger. But I’ll question the messenger lest he become what he stands against.

  84. Michael says:


    As you are someone who in the past has only shown the courage to try to expose a nine year old, I have little respect for you or your questions.
    I am happy to report that the young man is almost big enough to exact his own justice for that act of bravery.
    As usual with people of your ilk, you are obfuscating that matter.
    You have decided that Oakland’s screed was a ‘pretext” to do what I really wanted to do.
    You have no proof of this but you will try to repeat the assertion until some folks think it’s true.
    If I wanted to use this fact to accomplish whatever it is that you think I gain by it’s publication, I could have done so any time within the last 14 years.
    I could have done it on a Monday with a big banner headline and used social media to promote the point.
    I could have done that and been perfectly justified in doing so.
    I have been commenting on Oaklands posts consistently because he is speaking for a group of CC pastors and he accurately represents everything I loathe about the way that prophecy wonks operate.
    He is raising questions that are confusing and upsetting people…I answered them correctly ,not covered with the mire of conspiracy theory.
    Oakland alluded to the incident and I decided it was time to get the whole thing out in the open.
    Some people would consider this foolish as it may diminish the impact of the complete book I’m writing about how this sin colors the culture of a movement for half a century.

    I could care less if you choose to patient or charitable.
    If you would like to be other than either, I’m more than willing to engage in whatever level of vitriol you choose to engage in…you are utterly irrelevant to my life and calling.

    I missed where Oakland accused someone else…perhaps someone can point that out to me.

    I do note you have avoided answering the questions that were posed to you…

    You also need not worry about me becoming what I stand against…unlike those in your movement, I have real people I’m accountable to for everything I do.

  85. Em ... again says:

    a view from the sidelines on this subject….

    the point of exposing hypocrisy (serious) in our church’s leaderships is not to embarrass the perp…
    AND it is not to embarrass his family (they must, by their role in the person’s life, share in the esteem or the condemnation)…

    RATHER the exposure and the discussion is to embarrass the rest of us who may be supporting a personality at the expense of our duty to reverence and fear God… it is the rest of us who are obligated to be discerning in who we follow, who we give credibility to – God has no celebrities, but Jesus Christ… it is our feet being held to the fire…
    and it is a work that has to be done – long overdue … thank God for the Michael’s among us
    if one is called to leadership, it is not that they are BETTER than the rest of us (they might be… or not) – nor does it mean that that they are great Believers, they just may be the best that God has to work with … pray for them and for discernment
    ….. IMHO, of course 🙂

  86. Linnea says:

    Em…you nailed it! Thanks for your comment. And that, I believe, is what Michael has expressed is his purpose– to expose charlatanism so that others won’t succumb to it.

  87. That Guy Over There says:

    I debated whether to comment again.

    If I didn’t then I feed into the idea that says “oh there’s just another CC pastor who takes a pot shot and then disappears.”

    But if I do respond… do I really want the heartburn? I’ve been called a vitriolic coward in the above comments after all 🙂

    I wanted to address a few things:

    You said i wasn’t responding to questions. I apologize about this. I missed them, and I scanned the comments but I didn’t see any that needed answering, although I’m totally willing to engage.

    You referenced an unfortunate comment I made 6 years ago. I apologized to you directly and almost immediately. You said we were good. I still have the email. I thought that was the case, and its sad that it appears not to be. I also remember why I made the comment and the story had published that was factually incorrect. The guy who you wrote an article about (that might be described as slander) forgave you and moved I.. I had hoped we had both done the same 🙁

    Regarding my assertions that you used Oakland’s rantings as a pretext, my first post asked the question, because it felt that way. My second post made the assertions because of your comment in response to someone else: “He didn’t pin the tail on the donkey… I did 🙂 “. Meaning that the average person wouldn’t have known or had any idea what Roger was talking about (assuming that was it) but you decided that we all should know.

    I’m not bothered that someone says Pastor Chuck sinned. I am bothered if there was a cover up (and there probably was). I’m bothered because i genuinely don’t see the reason for running this now. I could see the reason for running the story 5 years ago: Pastor Chuck should’ve stepped down in 1977 and he should more than step down in 2011, etc. That’s why I questioned you… and honestly, your response feels (not saying it is, just saying it feels) like the response many have reported when dealing with worst of what CC has to offer.

  88. Michael says:


    You are a disingenuous ass.
    You don’t want to engage anything…you want to continue repeating the same things I’ve already answered.
    My best guess is that you are doing so in order to curry some favor with anyone who might be willing to help you in your (so far) failed attempts to fill a pulpit.

    “Look at this! I took on the Phoenix Preacher!’

    Slow clap from the critics section…

    I frankly don’t care what you think of my response or my articles…I do care that you continue to want to plow the same ground over and over gain in hopes that your seeds of of doubt about my character and intentions will take hold.

    No, I have not moved on from your attack on a child,despite my best efforts to do so.
    The very fact that it would enter someones heart to do such a thing is more reprehensible than I can cope with.

    I will freely own that sin.

    My suggestion to you is that you move on…I’m starting to get angry now.

  89. That Guy Over There says:


    I’m going to move on and I promise not to comment again at your request because this is your blog. Don’t leave angry just leave right? 😉

    But i want to make a few things clear to those watching in the peanut gallery.

    -I never attacked your son. Never… I did attack you 6 years ago after you took a swing at my friend. I was wrong.

    -I apologized and you said you forgave. I still have that email.

    -I wasn’t the passive/aggressive CC guy. I was willing to engage and when i did i was shown the door.

    -I am about to be unemployed, that’s true, and it’s true that I have yet to find my next spot. All true. But remember this: any CC Pastor who might like that I was “taking you on”, wouldn’t like me because I’m exactly the CC guy you’ve said you want. Willing to engage with bloggers. I’ve publicly put my name out there in criticism of GFA and David Barton. In a lot of ways I’m exactly the guy that Oakland and Bryson and the “old guard” are terrified will take over CC. I don’t hate Calvinists or the Pope, I’m ecumenical and open to ideas from different tribes, etc.

    I’m comforted that in heaven you and I will experience the true brotherhood we’ve seemed unable to find here on Earth. You know how to get a hold of me offline… I’ll take your call or email any time.


    -Adam Dolhanyk (TGOT)

  90. Michael says:

    “I never attacked your son. Never… I did attack you 6 years ago after you took a swing at my friend. I was wrong.”

    That is a lie. Except for you being wrong.

    You never engaged with any of my answers, just kept asking the same questions.

    When we asked what on earth this meant… “There have been other rumors out there that have been published on other blogs, but those guys are still alive and still have lawyers… would it be fair to assume that this plays a factor?”… silence.

    When I asked what other person Oakland accused that you implicitly accused me of ducking…silence.

    Both were believed to be further allegations against my character,without the guts to actually spell it out.

    You’re free to stay Adam…but you better bring your lunch because this ain’t going to be short or pretty…

  91. Jeff Sheckstein says:


    You got it entirely wrong. Do yourself a favor and go back and read my first comment, slowly, which spurred Michael’s response re: pinning the tail on the donkey. The context and summary surround who the party(s) or classes of people were that allegedly could/would use the affair info/allegations as leverage against Chuck. Oakland missed it completely by inferring others used it to change Chuck’s theology and positions re: CC, etc. Michael hit it on the head…go back and read his opener.

    What I find interesting, even compelling about you, Pastor, is that you did not respond to or even acknowledge my reply to you. No where, seemingly, in your heart or mind, is a concern for the people subjected to these issues and the decisions made by Chuck that in many regards were unfair and stumbled those in his employ. While I recognize that situation didn’t affect you personally, as I pointed out, it affected many, likely including your former employer. Your utter lack or empathy and understanding of this collateral damage speaks volumes. Instead you focus solely on whether Oakland got it right.

  92. That Guy Over There says:


    I tried to find your contact info so I could reach out to you outside of this blog. I didn’t want to post here again but I’d love to respond to you.

    Please reach out. My contact info is linked on my comments.


  93. Michael says:

    Let me get this right.
    When you challenge me, you want to be here.
    When you are challenged, you want to answer offline.


  94. Chris says:

    Still the sexual sin of the newer pastors continues. Just to be covered up “ don’t touch the Lords anointed”. Makes me sick. The latest: Ben Ortize Sandpoint Idaho
    We rescued his wife once and have plenty of emails to prove it all

  95. CM says:


    Was Ben Ortize an appointee (or sent out by Caldwell of Boise)? Was he ever a staff member of Boise CC?

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.