Paul Smith “Uninvited” To Calvary Chapel Senior Pastors Conference

You may also like...

280 Responses

  1. I agree with McClure’s thinking – the Pastor’s Conference is not the place for such disputes – the SPC has never had that tone it has always been a time of unity and teaching. So if people have questions or comments to PS, they can call or email him.(as I am sure many do.) I remember when I was at OH – our worship leader .. big name, will remain anonymous here was on the phone with Paul constantly … but that was 10 yrs ago.

    Now, if this were the synodical convention for the LCMS, well that is set up to let the fur fly, because the purpose is to vote for changes in policy, procedure, personnel and regimes. 🙂

  2. and I might add, McClure was quite upfront about the issue …”you are divisive.”

  3. Kevin H says:

    So just a few weeks ago at the East Coast Pastors Conference we heard how everything was honky dory and moving along smoothly with the CCA. How the CCA was there just to help with affiliation and fellowship. How the CCA had no jurisdiction to get involved with discipline in individual churches. Don, himself, was even on one of the panels where these things were discussed. Meanwhile, a few months back CCA kicks out Bryson and now they’ve “uninvited” Paul Smith from the Senior Pastors Conference. Granted, Bryson and Smith were not pastors of individual Calvary Chapels. But they obviously had long held significant leadership roles within Calvary Chapel. I probably don’t have much agreement with Bryson and Smith. At the same time, I often hate politics.

  4. Michael says:

    KevinH,

    I would dispute much of what was said at that conference.

  5. It seems to me that the ONLY thing that CCA has control over is the SPC – it’s not an individual church or region event – so, they get to do the invite list.

    Tempest in a teapot.

  6. Ricky Bobby says:

    Well, after much hashing out that prompted my article on CC Abuse about Group Dynamics and the important role it plays in all Groups, Blogs, Churches etc….i think this is just that Dynamic playing out.

    Paul and George haven’t followed the rules of the Core Group that now heads CC in the form of CCA….so they got banned from the blog, I mean conference/association.

    No different than what happens on this blog or anywhere.

  7. Ricky Bobby says:

    If Paul Smith and George Bryson conform to the Core Group’s consensus and rules at the CCA, then I imagine they’ll be let back in to participate with the Group.

    That’s things as they are….in all Groups I’ve participated in, even this blog and my blog.

  8. Ricky Bobby says:

    Paul Smith and George Bryson tried, unsuccessfully, to change the Consensus of the Group and Core Group.

    The Core Group reasserted itself, reaffirmed some rules and boundaries and then began exacting the penalty for not conforming to the rules of the Group.

    It’s how things are with human Groups that coalesce and organize.

    Had Paul and George been successful in disrupting the status quo and gathering enough support in their coup…they would have gotten the Consensus to change and they would have become part of the Core Group and would be influencing the shot-calling and new rules and new emphasis within the Calvary Chapel Group/Association.

    They weren’t successful in their attempts and ticked off the Core Group who is in power and are suffering the consequences of their non-conformity and disruption.

    They can go start their own Groups and make their own rules and enforce their own conformity…and life goes on…probably in the form of yet another new Denomination.

  9. “They can go start their own Groups and make their own rules and enforce their own conformity…and life goes on…probably in the form of yet another new Denomination.”

    Scary thought, RB, but you’re probably right.

  10. Ms. Alnor says:

    There’s no forming a new group – unless God builds the house, they labor in vain who build it. As most fellowships, they do not survive the death of the founder. The Methodist Church has been going down the tubes for decades and now faces a formal split over the issue of same-sex marriage. Calvary Chapel as a movement is over. Paul realized this when his brother was still hanging on. This formal rejection I’m sure came as no surprise to him. As soon as his nephew Paul Jr. was tolerated as he brought in his own pro-gay agenda and contemplative mindlessness into the church, Paul could see the writing on the wall. In spite of all that, Chuck still allowed his son to co-host his radio show with him and give unbiblical advice without Chuck bothering to correct him. Paul watched on the sidelines, tried his hardest to rescue CCCM, failed while his brother was still around as his brother did not come to his defense when Brian led the charge to get rid of him. Chuck Smith created this mess and that’s that. Nothing Paul can do about it now. The same thing happened with CRI — Walter let an ambitious infiltrator in and after he died that was the end of Walter’s ministry as he knew it. Walter made the mess and the results were his own lack of foresight. CRI deserved to go down the tubes since it wasn’t protected. RIP to CRI and CC.

  11. Ms. Alnor says:

    And RIP to the UMC as well!

  12. Ricky Bobby says:

    Jackie, in the ‘it’s a small world’ category…one of the cases our attorneys cited in the Appeals process is CRI vs. Bill Alnor where the Appellate Court found in favor of your late husband regarding “actual malice” in the case he won defending vs. CRI.

    Thought of you when I read it.

  13. Ricky Bobby says:

    “unless God builds the house, they labor in vain who build it”

    There are 9,000 to 30,000 Christian* denominations and then all the Mainlines…God’s been building churches like it’s the 2005 housing bubble 🙂

  14. Ms Alnor still holds acrimony for ChuckSr’s son whom she incorrectly identified as “PaulJr”

    Clear thinking has never been her strong suit, nor has being obedient to Jesus about seeking out someone face to face when one has an issue with another professing believer.

    Ms. Alnor, we’re still watching and waiting as you live out your hypocrisy

  15. Ms. Alnor says:

    Yeah – that was an oversight since we were talking about Paul – I should have wrote Chuckie. I have no acrimony for Chuckie or any other false teacher. I don’t respect them and I do expose them, but I have no emotional attachment – good or bad. But G., you yourself are full of unbiblical ideas and your defensivemess for Chuckie is really protectiveness for yourself. Go play your guitar and cool your heels.

  16. RIP to any illusion of Ms. Alnor’s integrity

  17. Xenia says:

    Hello Mrs. Alnor, always good to see you.

  18. My heels are quite active seeking unity in Jesus, pointing all in my path to Him, His words, His actions, His statements, especially the one you continue to ignore about how to dialog with someone who professes to follow Jesus.

  19. Xenia says:

    Looks like G broke one of the main rules of these place. He used someone’s real name.

  20. Xenia, did you happen to read Jackie’s post above where she addresses me as “Grendal”, or are you conveniently ignoring it?

  21. Michael says:

    I edited both posts.
    Let’s drop the personal stuff and move on.
    I’m sure I’m going to get enough heat for all of us…
    G, do you want me to edit #20 as well?

  22. I’m not at all protective of myself, Jackie. I couldn’t care less about you, your disapproval or your inflated opinion of yourself as a self appointed heresy hunting watchman on the wall. In the decade since you wreaked havoc at Capo Beach Calvary and have attempted to come between ChuckJr and his late dad, both who loved each other and blessed each other in their unique callings by Jesus to reach those who the other could not reach, you remain an angry and bitter woman who cannot see good in the continued work of God in the lives of those who name Jesus Christ as their Lord.

    You are sad indeed

  23. Ms. Alnor says:

    I don’t hide behind any phony names like the guy formerly known as Prince. I have nothing to hide.

  24. Ms. Alnor says:

    Control yourself G-man. Get a grip!

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

    Hi Michael, no, I’m good with being Grendal in that post. Ms. Alnor owes her fame to savaging my friend ChuckJr and she needs to gloat in her victory. As long as she is alive and does not seek him out to deal as Jesus tells her, I will remain the truth teller.

  26. Ms. Alnor says:

    Hi Xenia and Ricky Bobby — You’re both proof I can disagree agreeably, unlike the present false accusation from G-man. That’s interesting about the case example – thanks for sharing that RB.

  27. Ms. Alnor says:

    I sent this link to Jacob Prasch for his take on this and got this response-

    “It is indeed sad to see that Don Maclure, whom I once liked, trusted, and respected has joined the Sanhedrin. He was then issued a dagger and sent on his mission to neutralize the opposition.

    The theocratic riff raff who have hijacked CC and pushed it into the tide of error and deception with everything from Calvinist Mark Driscoll’s vulgarity and scandal ridden hype artistry to Rick Warren’s interfaith agenda and Purpose Driven Lie have had to silence George Bryson, Chuck’s brother Paul Smith and anyone else who stands up for the truth.

    In the aftermath of World War II , as London, Coventry, and Liverpool laid in smoldering ruins , a British Prime Minister quirked.
    ” in order for for evil men to triumph good men must merely remain silent and do Nothing”. As a result, Great Britain has never recovered its former glory and neither will Calvary Chapel. The good men shut up and run for cover maintaining low profiles while the wolves in sheeps clothing are just allowed to take over.

    At least Britain had a Churchill to salvage something from the devastation ( or in New Testament terms: ‘Strengthen the things that Remain – Rev. 3:2); but we are hard pressed to find many shepherds in Calvary Chapel who will protect The Lord’s sheep from the wolves as Jesus said in John chapter 10. If the pastors who know this garbage is wrong will not get up and fight they ought to at least get up and leave and pull out of CC because spiritually, doctrinally, and ethnically it has no place to go any longer except down. Eventual numerical decline, already incipient in some CCs, will sooner or later follow. It will just deteriorate like the Methodists and so many other movements before it, and will do so for the same kinds of reasons: Departure from The Word of God and compromise. Those who remain are cruising on the Titanic. Bon Voyage.

    CC Costa Mesa should be re- christened ” ICHABOD”.”

  28. gmusic1 says:

    Michael,
    I used to be a heresy hunting watchman on the wall, just like Ms Alnor, until I watched and experienced her savagery and destruction of the lives of my friends. Suddenly the theoretical got very real. It was a firsthand destruction of a fruitful ministry, the ripple effects harming my friend, his wife, his children, our church, it’s fellowship, it’s joy and worship of Jesus.

    Personal?

    All of this is personal, the attacks on each other over fine points of theology so thin the meat and bone cannot be discerned.

    You related over the past few days of your so-called friends savaging you over being irenic, and my experiences with CBC are part of why I weep with compassion at the hell you experience here from time to time.

    Ms. Alnor remains an unfettered and unaccountable renegade who has absolutely no respect for fellow professing believers who cling to Jesus but believe differently than her.

    I’ve said my peace. I’m off to spend time with my family.

    I love you, Michael. May you never have your personal Ms. Alnor

  29. I still want to know what Paul Smith offers to the SPC that cannot be supplied by someone else?

    Michael, your article seems to indicate that you think Paul should be a part of this – why? Over the past 40 yrs, he is the best that someone can come up with?

  30. brian says:

    “We truly want the focus on the Lord ”

    Gag

  31. Ms. Alnor says:

    Michael – G-man is worse than any ‘heresy hunter’ I’ve ever encountered. Any time I comment on PP about anything under the sun, he takes the opportunity to blast me and tear me down. I don’t think I do that. What a bitter guy.

  32. Michael says:

    MLD,

    First off, he’s the founders brother and has been part of the group for almost fifty years.
    Second, the reason he is being shunned is because they don’t want people asking questions about what he and Bryson are saying, because it does not fit the narrative they are selling.

    It’s not just or fair…and “unity” created by a climate of fear is not biblical unity, it’s enforced conformity.

  33. Jim says:

    Don’t know anything about Paul, but hard to think that showing Bryson the door is a bad thing. Obviously politics on both sides, but the winners always write the history books….

  34. Steve Voigt says:

    This whole thread should be deleted as it brings no glory to our Lord. It’s still God’s church and He can keep it in tow.. For now IMO we should let CCA go on and let the splits begin and go about doing our Lords business

  35. Michael says:

    Ms. Alnor,

    G and I are personal friends and have been for years .
    There is obviously a very painful and personal situation that occurred between you two as he defended his friend.
    I would expect no less passion from you if the roles were reversed.
    Perhaps working on some mutual understanding and forgiveness would be the better solution…

  36. Michael says:

    Steve,

    I think standing for the truth and justice in the house of God glories the Lord.

  37. Michael says:

    Jim,

    Bryson was an easy target…he is cartoonish at times and most wrote him off long ago.
    However, I defy the powers that be to tell me where he differs one iota from Chuck Smiths theology.
    He doesn’t…so why kick him out?

  38. Ms. Alnor says:

    Michael – Forgiveness??? I’m not the one holding onto any grudge.

  39. Bob Sweat says:

    Gee. I had the opportunity to attend the conference this year! Oh well!

  40. brian says:

    I think Steve is correct in a way, I should not have written what I did, it was not helpful.

  41. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    Standing for the truth and justice is what Christians have been called to do, unfortunately, it has never had a strong emphasis within Calvary Chapel.

    It was only a few years ago, that Paul Smith’s book was distributed at a SPC. Now I read that he has been banned from a SPC.

    This has all the markings of a power grab. I will give McClure the benefit of the doubt and at least hope that he thinks he is really doing the right thing. And BTW, Don, if this isn’t true, please let us know. This is a classic play right out of the Calvary playbook; you eliminate those who hold opinions that are opposed to your own and label it divisive; as Steve Voigt so graciously demonstrated. I understand that two cannot walk together unless they agree, but there needs to be acknowledgment of minority views, that while not popular, do bring some things of great value to the table, unless, of course, you already have it all figured out and are not open to other points of view. We over play the divisive card because we are so convinced of our own convictions that others cannot possibly be right, and therefore, their push to further their ideals must be divisive. It is spiritual pride and a stench in the nostrils of God.

    Dis-fellowshipping is the worse thing you can do to someone, particularly a pastor. At best, Paul Smith has been dis-fellowshiped and sent to his room until he agrees to embrace the ideals of those in power. At worst, he has been excommunicated, but done so in such a way that it can be legitimately said that he left on his own. Interesting, the results you get when you paint someone into a corner next to a door.

    I find this puzzling as Don McClure was originally in an administrative role for the CCA board without any authoritative role.

    It seems that the are looking to rid themselves of their “Stay the Course”. I wonder who will be next? And when the street is clear of those pesky “Stay the Course” people, who will be next? Those who drink? Those who do not prescribe to the Moses Model?

    One last thing. At the ECPC panel discussion, Focht, Kyle and McClure all took a swing at the blogs for, essentially, criticizing them and and disclosing their secrets.. Do you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, if you dealt with these issues in a way of respectful open, honest discourse and disclosure that you might be able to put the blogs out of business?

  42. brian says:

    Pastor Coy said:
    “Dis-fellowshipping is the worse thing you can do to someone”

    OK now I have some personal skin in the “game” It was this event that drove me to this blog for so many years because it was the only place I really had. The fact that I needed a place to go has caused me a great deal of Shame, Christians should not need, ever, no matter what. I get why people in the evangelical industry use disfellowshipping, it is effective, and the first tenant in this industry is pragmatism. My “disfellowshipping” gutted me, I eventually reconciled with the group after about 10 years. I sought out the reconciliation and it was good. Shame on me for that. I know I rant and rave about things but religion has made me crazy in so many areas, it is why I post some of the nonsense I post.

    An aside I was reading a few articles about children of child sexual abuse were required / encouraged to reconcile with the abuser and even meet with the abuser and confess their “sin”. This is the kind of nonsense that just ticks me off no end. One cannot “spiritualize” stupidity.

  43. brian says:

    children = victims sorry about that

  44. Ricky Bobby says:

    I don’t really have a dog in the fight. I think Jacob P. makes a valid point from that Camp’s point of view, and I think the opposing Camp has drawn its lines firm.

    It’s a classic example of two Camps/Groups with very deep differences of opinion and strong personalities (on both sides)…and the Camp/Group currently holding the power is the Brodersen Camp of which Don McClure is simply an agent and a proxy acting on behalf of Brodersen and his Core Group of which Don is a part.

    There’s a big family battle and part of it has spilled over into the macro-CC battle.

  45. Ricky Bobby says:

    “One last thing. At the ECPC panel discussion, Focht, Kyle and McClure all took a swing at the blogs ”

    Just brings more attention to the blogs. These guys can’t control their narrative anymore, that’s the best part about the blog era. Folks who aren’t CCool-aid drinkers will seek out other versions of the story and will seek out information that is intentionally hidden from them…and they’ll find it on the blogs that some CC pastors tell them not to read.

  46. brian says:

    RB it is interesting.

  47. Michael,
    Your view of Paul Smith is quite tainted by your lack of trust of CCA. I know for a fact that Paul Smith himself has changed – not in theology or what is described as CC, but in his direct efforts to be divisive.

    Look, he has turned into a cranky old man who is no longer wanted or needed – but it is of his doing.

    Again, the SPC is not the setting for controversy within CC – it is more like pastor going to summer camp, very shallow.

  48. PP Vet says:

    Newnham has no authority to speak on this matter until he learns the correct use of the pronoun “its”.

  49. To show how we have controversy just for the sake of the controversy itself, I bet that we would have seen an article if CCA had made Paul Smith the keynote speaker – stating that CCA has no independence from the past.

  50. Nonnie says:

    “As you know, most of the CC movement is well aware of the struggle within the Smith family, and some of us within the CCA council, and some of the leadership of CCCM.”

    That is such a sad statement for a church group to own up to. Really tragic .

  51. Bob says:

    PP Vet

    It’s the auto version of its.

    I’m sure you check you’re grammar perfectly.

  52. Andrew says:

    “Your view of Paul Smith is quite tainted by your lack of trust of CCA. I know for a fact that Paul Smith himself has changed – not in theology or what is described as CC, but in his direct efforts to be divisive.”

    MLD, this is the reality of how all dissenters are treated in CC. Unless you go along with the populous you are viewed as divisive. Actually I am finding it difficult to nail down CCs theology since it seems to be dynamic in accordance with the power brokers in play at the time.

  53. Andrew – Paul Smith in this case is the old school – the establishment … technically he is not the dissenter, but CCA is the dissenter and they want things changed – they are fighting the status quo.

    The only thing Paul Smith is, is a cantankerous old school bully who thinks because his name is Smith, he should have a continuing say.

    You never read after Luther’s death about the Luther family having contentious times with the future leaders of the church.

  54. Andrew says:

    MLD, its sounds like CCA definately has authority. However, this doesn’t take Don McClure off the hook for his responsibility in this mess. I think what he is doing is even worse. He is exercising authority he claimed he never had. This sounds like a denomination that CC insists they are not. That my friend is super divisive, politics at best, and not good for the greater church outside of CC land. Sets a terrible example of mistrust for good reason in my opinion.

  55. Andrew – as I said earlier, it seems that the one and only thing that CCA has under their control IS the SPC

    They are like the Academy of Motion Pictures – they have no authority over movie making, actors or actresses – BUT, they control the Academy Awards (SPC) – who get’s invited and what happens.

  56. Kelly Q says:

    Wow very in interesting comments.

  57. Michael says:

    MLD,

    You have demonstrated that you have no actual understanding of the CCA at all and your comments border on the humorous to those who do.
    The actual function of the CCA pertains to affiliation…who’s in the family and who is out.

    To correct some other errors:

    McClure is not acting as a proxy of Brodersen.
    Brodersen could end up being a target of this faction.
    All of this group is “old school”.

    In my opinion, the CCSPC is the perfect place for the kind of discussions that need to take place as that’s the one time you have all the players in one place.

    This CCSPC is as old school as it gets…Skip Heitzig is speaking and I haven’t written a word about it.

    “Divisive” is an extremely handy tool for tyrants.

    The comment @41 is pure gold.

  58. Tony says:

    I rarely post here, but I read this blog with some regularity. And I am hoping that a question seeking better understanding would be OK.

    I understand much of the changes that have taken place in the leadership structure since Chuck Smith passed. But is the “new” leadership group introducing change(s) in direction both functionally and theologically, or just functionally?

    I ask since the “old guard” and it’s demands regarding the “distinctives” and how they relate to affiliation caused myself and our church family much pain many years ago. Are those things changing or is this just a political power shift happening?

  59. Michael says:

    Tony,

    Immediately after Chuck died there was an attitude that the tent stakes might be widened…the classic “distinctives” are not on the CCA site and there was a diffusion of power.
    That “openness” has since passed in my opinion.
    There was a whole different slate of speakers scheduled for this CCSPC that would have demonstrated this new attitude…and they were uninvited by this faction of the CCA in favor of what will speak there in reality.
    I expect the return of the distinctives as well as some new injunctions about cussing and social drinking.
    The CCA itself will shrink as those who are “divisive” will be canned in the name of “unity”…if this group can continue to get people to buy into their narrative.

  60. Tony says:

    Thank you Michael. That perspective is helpful.

  61. anonymo says:

    Funny…

    During the years I was in CC and listened to their radio, I’d be rich if I got a dollar for the number of times CC pastors slammed the corrupt, bureaucratic Catholic church.

    The chickens have come home to roost.

  62. filbertz says:

    I looked up the word “hyperbole” in the dictionary and was startled to read this definition: “Jacob Prasch”

  63. Michael,
    1.) you have no idea what I know and who I speak with. I, as opposed to you actually knew Paul Smith for about 10 yrs up until about 5 yrs ago. I know what goes on behind those beady eyes.
    2.) you are a blind man passing around anonymous emails – raging against the machine
    3.) as I said earlier, had Paul been named keynote speaker, you would have written that CCA was a tool of the Smith family
    4.) Perhaps the CCSPC would be the right place for such discussion, but in 30 yrs that has not been the format.
    5.) I understand CCA’s position with regard to affiliation … but has it gone beyond that? Are there weekly / monthly letters of do’s and don’ts? Of course not
    6.) we differ as to who is the troublemaker here – you say McClure and CCA – I lay it all at the feet of Paul Smith.

    Hey, so we have differing views – but this topic is definitely center stage for you.

  64. Nonnie says:

    Filbertz!!!!! 😀

  65. filbertz says:

    Nonnie. 😉

  66. Andrew says:

    So MLD, you want to blame CC problems on Paul Smith? Now that he is kicked out, give the guy a break.

  67. Andrew –
    1.) I see nothing that says he is kicked out – he was just asked not to attend a conference.
    2.) I see this whole thing as a non issue – yesterday I called it a tempest in a teapot – Michael owns the teapot.
    3.) I don’t blame anyone for any problems, and surely don’t blame Paul. His presence at the conference is a problem – not he himself. He is just one old man, trying to hang on to a legacy.

  68. Ricky Bobby says:

    Well, I think CC Association needs to define itself and offer some rules to the road…just like this blog does, just like my blog made me do, etc.

    They just need to include Mandatory Child Protection Policies and Transparent Finances and I’ll be fine with them.

    I don’t care if they want to make speaking in tongues or baptizing babies or worshiping mary or hopping on one leg and reciting “Where God guides, he provides!” a “Distinctive…as long as they have CHILD PROTECTION POLICIES and Financial Transparency then good to go, I won’t harp on them.

    It would go a long way to define what is and is not “Godly” and Jesus-like and legal child discipline vs. child abuse…that would be good and proper for the CCA to articulate as well.

  69. Ricky Bobby says:

    Left ol’ Don a message at CCA. Don, you chicken, call me back buddy.

  70. Andrew says:

    Well, glad they gave Paul his money back at the conference. Which brings up an interesting point, I didn’t think any money transferred hands between CCA and the affiliates and it surprised me to see a conference fee at all. And since attendance at these conferences I thought was somewhat mandatory to remain an affiliate it does make a case for implied agency. But I will let the lawyers figure that out if CC ever gets sued again.

  71. Papias says:

    “As you know, most of the CC movement is well aware of the struggle within the Smith family, and some of us within the CCA council, and some of the leadership of CCCM.”

    Is Don saying that Paul is the cause of all this struggle, that it’s Paul vs. the Smith family/some CCA council/some CCCM leadership? Or is there a struggle within the Smith family and separately within the CCA council and separately within CCCM leadership?

    “We truly want the focus on the Lord…”. That’s Calvaryspeak for “we don’t want to discuss the issue so we will cloak our answer of “no” with spiritual sounding vernacular.” Heard this same phrase several times myself, mostly when the CC pastor wouldn’t give a financial summary of church expenditures and discuss having elders from amongst the congregation.

    None of this would be shocking, only surprising. Shocking would be when you don’t expect something to happen and it does. Surprising is when you think something might happen and it does.

    So at the CCSPC don’t be shocked that the narrative you have always known gets tweaked a little. And the expectation will be that “this is the way its been…you know that, right?”

  72. PP Vet says:

    I don’t know any of these people. But I know that in Calvary Chapel, what is most important is love.

    Also, our granddaughter has named my wife “Nonnie”‘. Did your grandchild name you, Nonnie?

  73. Ricky Bobby says:

    I can tell you there are some lawsuits inter-CC since the family and CC Corporation can’t agree on some things.

  74. Nonnie says:

    PP Vet,
    For us, “Nonnie” is a combination of Lola (the term for Grandmother in the Philippines), and Nannie (The British term for Grandmother). We’ve lived in both places, so when my kids asked me what the grandchildren should call me, “Nonnie” just came out.

  75. Pam Kulwiec says:

    “It’s not just or fair…and “unity” created by a climate of fear is not biblical unity, it’s enforced conformity.”
    Been there. Left that.

  76. Andrew says:

    The only winners in the lawsuits are the lawyers.

  77. DavidM says:

    As a long-time CC-er, here are a couple of thoughts:

    There are NEVER “discussions” at the CCSPC’s. The only discussions that take place are the discussions among attendees between the usual suspects’ preaching slots. I have decades of attending these things, and the format has not changed, nor has the slate of speakers, for the most part.

    Bryson is/was not widely seen as a “leader” in the CC tribe. Few take him seriously.

    What I see is the demise of CC into utter irrelevance. (I don’t like that, as my personal history with CC is a good one.) Those who have a stake in the leadership are desperately trying to keep it going.

    It will be interesting to see what, if anything, is different this year at the conference.

  78. PP Vet says:

    Well, Nonnie is an awesome grandma name.

    In our family the first-born names the grandparents. I was eager to learn mine.

    Turns out, we are Baba and Nonnie.

    Apparently, “Baba” is toddler-speak for “personal servant”.

  79. Nonnie says:

    PP Vet, LOL!!
    Being a grandparent is a sweet gift from the Lord. We just returned from a 3 week (once a year) visit to our 9 grandkids. Our hearts are overflowing with joy, but Poppie and Nonnie are exhausted.

  80. Nonnie says:

    PP Vet got me talking about the joy and love of family, and for me that is what is upsetting about Don McClure’s letter. He speaks of the “struggle within the Smith family.” Years ago I lived next door to one of Chuck Smith’s children and I saw “Grandpa Chuck” come to visit his grandchildren. It was obvious that he loved his family very much.

    I know it would break my heart if my children/grandchildren were estranged because of church property/power. This part of the story is what grieves me.

  81. Ricky Bobby says:

    One fact I want to point out:

    I demonstrated on here many times in testing the Dynamic…this blog is akin to the “Association”…we are all “independent” yet we have an affiliation on here…and there is a Core Group and a Leader…and there are rules written and unwritten.

    When someone doesn’t follow those rules and breaks the consensus consistently…the Group pressures the Leader to enforce the rules.

    Happens in every Group, every Association, every blog.

    CC Association is a Group. They have a Core Group hierarchy and a Leader/ship.

    It is what it is.

    They have the right and responsibility to define themselves and define their rules.

    Now, my particular beef with them is that they IGNORE what should be no-brainer priority rules like mandatory Child Protection Policies and Transparent Finances…which is very telling of the lack of wisdom and lax prioritization and lack of emphasis on things that are more important than family squabbles or doctrinal piccadilloes.

    CCA be responsible. Do the right thing. Require the Child Protection Policies, require Financial Transparency. The longer you don’t, the more suspicious you are and the more glaring your lack of emphasis on these issues becomes and begs the question as to your motive for not requiring these things.

  82. I tried to get the first 2 grand kids to call me GP (initials for grandpa) – I got Pop Pop. My wife was shooting for Nana and ended up with Mammy. – 🙂

  83. Andrew says:

    Ricky Bob,

    ccphilly with Don and Joe and others did host the child protection seminar not too long ago in philly. If they are not going to even listen to Boz and his recommendations from that seminar then you better believe they aren’t going to listen to you. I am confident CCA will NOT do the right thing.

  84. Ricky Bobby says:

    Andrew, if you are right then it will only hurt the CC Association and their Brand and will continue to open them up to lawsuits in the future where they will be forced to adopt those system-wide policies anyway.

  85. Andrew says:

    Thats true. And forcing them to do the right thing will probably put them out of business. Depending how you look at it, that may be a good thing too. I just wish a few of these guys I admired would stand up for the truth. That is kind of what I like about Paul Smith. At least he appears to have some convictions in what he believes but don’t know the entire story.

  86. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    @77
    I hear this regularly among the Calvary faithful. There is a sense of disconnection and disenchantment, yet everyone keeps quiet and attends these conferences anyway. I wonder how pervasive this is among Calvary pastors. It is sad that those who do speak up risk getting excluded as we have seen with Bryson and now Smith.

  87. PP Vet says:

    “I know it would break my heart if my children/grandchildren were estranged”

    Indeed. Sometimes as a parent, we are happy just to be talking to our children.

    Religion can cause a lot of problems in families.

    We all know parents that have had to die a thousand deaths, and lay aside any number of convictions, just to stay in relationship with their children.

    At some point it becomes very hard to find anything that you will allow to take them out of your heart and life.

    I have no idea what is right. In 40+ years, I do not think I have ever heard a teaching on how to relate to adult children

  88. Nosey says:

    Pastor Brian,

    Are you a CC pastor? Are you related to a CC pastor with the same name?

  89. Nosey says:

    Last name

  90. erunner says:

    Nosey…. I believe it’s Bob’s brother Dee….

  91. ” In 40+ years, I do not think I have ever heard a teaching on how to relate to adult children”

    Just take your beating like the rest of us. 🙂

  92. covered says:

    E~ that was awesome! I can’t believe no one else responded. 🙂

  93. Nosey says:

    Dee…….Coy, pretty clever Erunner.

  94. erunner says:

    covered and Nosey… just having some fun. 🙂

  95. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    erunner,
    I thought it was funny. Dee is the name of my brother. Let the reader understand….

  96. Billy says:

    MLD,

    I didn’t get GP, I get called “Dude” by my grandkids…

  97. Justhadtosay says:

    Could any of this ‘Paul dis invite’ have anything to do with the million dollar offer by him and Jeff Smith to buy the pulpit from Broderson if he would just go away?

    Action that could have tainted the waters abit in some respects.

    Don is usually a straight shooter for the company so it makes sense that he got elected to take out the trash so to speak (Paul is not a bad guy, very well respected in some circles).

    Knowing that his email would show up on a blog, he worded it as delicately as anyone could do. No rough edges, like a tennis pro.

    But man what a thread it elicited here LOL.

  98. Michael says:

    First off, unless you’re part of a very small circle, the only way you know about the million dollar offer is that you read about it here.
    Second, if that were the reason for Paul being disinvited, then Skip Heitzig, who was set to take the position from Brodersen, should be disinvited as well.
    He’s speaking, however.
    Third, these simple facts should tell you how well the CCA board really gets along.
    Fourth, Don never expected to see that email here and he’s none too happy that it is.

  99. Sad and sorry story continues. Revival turns to Big Time religion. A pox ensues.

  100. Michael says:

    McClure is often perceived as a straight shooter.
    I am often perceived as tall.
    Both perceptions are deeply flawed…

  101. Bob Sweat says:

    Michael, you just erased how I thought you would look like. 🙂

  102. PP Vet says:

    “Just take your beating like the rest of us.”

    Chuckle.

    OK that now goes down as the best advice I have heard so far on how to relate to adult children.

  103. It’s funny – Paul tries to capitalize on Smith money – circumventing CCA and the CCCM board by buying off Brodersen – I call Paul Smith the bad guy in this and I get jumped as not knowing what is going on.

    LOL at the blindness.

  104. Michael says:

    MLD,

    I’ve written elsewhere about the ethics involved in that…very critically.
    I do not conflate the situations.

  105. How could you not? The man told CCA & CCCM Board “you are worth less that a pile of dog crap.” and now when CCA holds it’s annual party, Paul Smith should be an invited guest?

  106. Michael says:

    He was an invited guest…the invitation was rescinded.
    There are legitimate questions surrounding the veracity and authority of the CCA.
    These men are not the only ones asking them.

  107. “He was an invited guest…the invitation was rescinded.”
    I am sure that it is a giant data base invitation list – not some folks sitting around the dinner table saying “Paul, do you think we should nvite Paul this year?”

    Look, I am not defending CCA – I think all faux independent churches are wrong and these issues are inherent. But look, for you to hang your hat on Paul Smith as the voice of right here – you are a misled puppy.

  108. Matthew18 says:

    If you read the open invitation sent to all CC pastor’s it is clear that they are encouraged to invite guests. Paul Smith did not personally register but his pastor registered and paid for Paul as his registered guest. Here is the email (addresses removed for privacy)

    From: McClure Don
    Date: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:43 PM
    Subject: 2114 Pastors Conference
    To: Paul & Ruth Smith

    Dear Paul
    I write to you as both a brother and at least someone who was regarded as a friend.
    As you know, most of the CC movement is well aware of the struggle within the Smith family, and some of us within the CCA council, and some of the leadership of CCCM.
    I am sure that this breaks your heart as well as many others and we truly pray for a day when all of this is joyfully and peacefully healed in the Lord. But, a pastors conference does not seem to be the arena where such could ever happen. I am sure that your presence there would be a lightening rod of disunity. You would not be able to attend without voicing your differences and others would certainly be asking you how you think about many things. We truly want the focus on the Lord and the encouragement of the churches; something I hope you do as well.
    I honestly hope for the day when we could all come together in fellowship and enjoy friendship once again. Until there is some sort of healing in these matters, I need to let you know that we will be returning your conference fees and invitation.
    If you would like to have a cup of coffee sometime, I will be available.
    Don McClure

    Paul’s pastor wrote a letter in response to Mr. McClure. I would be curious to read that letter and Mr. McClure’s response.

  109. Jeff Sheckstein says:

    Just to back up MLD, the offer to Brodersen well exceeded the $1MIL as proposed by Paul and the hissing snake. That comes from the horses mouth. Additionally, my dealing with Paul “in the day” was to the extent he tried to persuade me to counsel Chuck to violate his Thomas Nelson publishing deal, and when I refused to carry that message to Chuck, he proposed various schemes by which Chuck’s obligations could be either circumvented or minimized…totally in violation of the spirit of the agreement. Nice witness. All because Chuck decided on his own his terms for the Nelson contract and did not desire to receive counsel from Paul, the snake and their minions. While speculation is adrift, let’s not give Paul a pass if we are going to deal with the facts on the ground.

    “He was an invited guest…the invitation was rescinded.” This is the right of the offeror.

  110. Michael says:

    MLD,

    I’m not saying that Paul Smith is right.
    I’m saying that it’s wrong to quash dissent in an organization of “affiliated” men by threat of disfellowship.
    That’s not affiliation, it’s tyranny.
    Neither Smith or Bryson would walk across the street to urinate on me if I were on fire…but this is wrong.

  111. So it looks like in retaliation of CCA and McClure that Paul Smith’s pastor leaked the email … at least to me that is the way it looks.

  112. Michael says:

    Jeff,

    Good to see you.
    I don’t think Paul or George will ever think I gave them a pass. 🙂
    My position is that the current methodologies are no more righteous than theirs…

  113. Jeff Sheckstein says:

    Michael:
    “My position is that the current methodologies are no more righteous than theirs…”

    Agreed in full. I guess at this point I am jaded enough to believe that changes, if any, will come through a new generation. Old wine…new wineskins. Therefore, this will take some time. I hated this side of the ministry when I was there. The only difference now is the greater accumulation of luggage.

  114. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    Let’s refocus on the issue here. I’m not a fan of Paul Smith. However, the issue isn’t Paul Smith’s integrity, whatever that might or might not be. The issue is a CCA board member arbitrarily making decisions about who can attend the conference even though the individual has attended several conferences in the past. By what standard can these decisions actually be made? Does Paul Smith have any recourse? No. This is a fly by the sit of your pants operation without any guidelines to help administer these type of issue. This is the type of operation that is employed by tyrants. As I said earlier, what is to prevent them for dis-fellowshipping anyone who does not completely line up with their thinking?

  115. Jeff Sheckstein says:

    Pastor Brian:

    “The issue is a CCA board member arbitrarily making decisions about who can attend the conference even though the individual has attended several conferences in the past.”

    Quite an assumption. Like a previous post, the idea that Don would “cowboy” it on his own seems quite unlikely knowing the man as I do, but all is possible under the sun. More likely Paul’s disinvitation was the product of many others on CCA Board. If so, isn’t Don merely executing his administrative function at CCA as he should and as you would expect of your administrative pastor at your church?

  116. Michael says:

    Jeff,

    My information is that Don is “cowboying’ it quite a bit…

  117. Brian Coy,
    The fact is that the CC affiliation and congregations, like all human groups, are held together by coercion and if anyone dares ask for dialog or expresses anything other than submission to the consensus that individual is shunned. It’s a simple dynamic within human culture, it plays out in every gathering of humans and it’s something one figures out. Some individuals just have to declare themselves “leaders” while others are neutral and peacemakers as best we can be in our environments.

    Having said all that, respect is earned and when someone gains the identity of “other” its no surprise that they will be uninvited to something they are critical about.

  118. Jeff Sheckstein says:

    Michael:

    Not the Don I knew, but I’ll defer to you here if your sources have veracity and are placed in a position to know.

  119. Michael says:

    Jeff…we need to chat someday soon…

  120. Mark says:

    If I’m holding a family barbecue and my brother who’s been spouting off to my family that I’m no good shows up at my barbecue he will b disinvited. NO ONE attends my barbeque expecting to talk about family problems and to get embroiled in family debates. They come to my foly barbecue to have fellowship and get encouragement when they r struggling. If anyone was expecting to come to my family barbecue to spread disunity and make false accusations against me they would b shown the door. Make your own application.

  121. Michael says:

    Mark,

    I actually expected you back between #5 and #13…
    What if the allegations are not false…and they effect everyone else in the family?

  122. Mark says:

    Don mcLure has spent a lifetime serving The Lord faithfully and is a man of highest integrity. Our host has disparaged his character citing his usual anonymous sources. Our host has published another tabloid headline to drive his blog traffic, violating people’s privacy by publishing personal emails. The anti CC crowd has piled on. Again where is your dog in this fight ? This is a NON ISSUE for overwhelming majority of CC pastors and the attendees know nothing about it- nor should they. Just another day in the National Inquirer of PP

  123. Mark says:

    MY family barbecue is not the forum to discuss these issues. And they do not affect the ENTIRE family or even most of the family. My barbecue – my invitation list

  124. Michael says:

    Mark,

    Those are your opinions and you’re entitled to them.
    You have defended every scoundrel and ignored every scandal we’ve ever written about rather than deal with the issues as they are.
    You are the product of tyranny and you make sure that every one around you is bound as well.
    We shall all know one day who is telling the truth…and I have no fear of that day.
    My blog traffic is not dependent on CC follies…a very small percentage of the articles I write deal with these matters and we are a very healthy web site…so take your slander and shove it.

  125. Mark, I forget, are you a Calvary Chapel pastor?

  126. Steve Wright says:

    I want to add a brief note about the whole “guest issue”…from the official invite:
    ————
    This year’s conference is for Calvary Chapel senior pastors and their pastoral staff. We are also encouraging you to bring two to three younger potential pastors, with no limits on how many guests you can bring.
    ————

    I certainly read this to limit and define the idea of “guests” – namely pastoral staff and/or younger potential pastors.

  127. Michael says:

    Steve,

    The email McClure sent out to Smith didn’t say he wasn’t qualified to come for any reason other than he was a threat to “unity”.

  128. Steve Wright says:

    I understand, Michael. I am assuming the post @110 is accurate – that he was not at first invited and then rescinded, but rather was invited by another – which is a little different

    To say we SPs are “encouraged to invite guests” as post #110 also declared, I thought, needed a little clarification for your readers.

  129. Michael says:

    Let’s use Mark as an example to illustrate my point here.
    Mark has been the hyper loyal opposition to everything I’ve written about Calvary Chapel for years.
    He calls into question my integrity, my sources, my motives, and anything else he can throw up against the wall to see if it sticks.
    Mark would like to shut me up for good.
    Yet…
    I have let Mark post his objections for years.
    They serve a purpose.
    Readers can measure what I’ve written against his objections and come to their own conclusions.
    Some seek further information, some just think more deeply about the topic in question.
    Lamentably, some just take sides.
    In any case, the information is given to make judgments with and take actions by…and information is what empowers us to do both well.
    If Paul Smith and George Bryson are divisive fools spreading misinformation, then let them speak and let others respond…and let truth win out.

  130. Steve Wright says:

    There was a (to be charitable) crusty guy who began to get critical of my messages, which is his right. I would get long rambling voice mails about how badly I taught something, then started going down the road of “false teacher, false prophet” accusations. I let others in our leadership listen to a couple and they thought he was either drunk or not mentally well, though neither is the case.

    One time though, while I was giving a lengthy illustration to make a point, I actually got quietly heckled from this guy. A steady chant basically saying preach the word (i.e. stop the illustration). I did not stop the message, but…at that point, when he next confronted me, I said in effect (with an elder for witness), Look, you can say whatever you want to me but you will not cause a disruption in the actual service or else you will have to leave. Do we understand each other? He agreed. He stayed for a few more weeks then went away.

    (He has since come back and is in many ways a very changed man, especially towards me. Maybe the grass was not greener out there)

    My point, this guy did not pose the slightest threat to the church’s health and congregation of stirring up dissension against me as a false teacher. Nobody with any sense, and even a little experience at our place would listen to him – nor would you if you talked to him for 5 minutes. I didn’t freak out those weeks when I saw him talking to someone in the church or wonder what he might be saying about me.

    At the same time, if someone is going to be disruptive in the public meeting, when one does not have the floor to speak, then that person must be removed.

    Make your own application…but one lesson we often hear is that if you want to always defend yourself instead of letting the Lord defend you, He will let you try.

    Having begun in the Spirit, perfection (nor unity) will not be found in the flesh.

  131. Mark says:

    CC is not a blog. It’s not a debate forum. It is a voluntary participation church. Focused in teaching the Word and discipling folks. Michael keeps missing my point. The overwhelming vast majority of folks within CC DO NOT CARE about the issues Michael writes about. It does not affect them. In fact it distracts from the purpose of CC xpressed above. Bob Coy fell. It has had major impact on CCFL attendance. It has had NO IMPACT on the rest of CC. Other than pointing out we r all sinners. My point Michael is that all of the back room politics u report don’t mean s hill of beans to the rest of CC. U Mistaken. I never defended Coy. I never defended Grenier. I never defended Heitzig. Name one “scoundrel ” I have defended. I am on this blog mainly to speak up for the good and positive done by CC for tens of thousands worldwide. A product of tyranny. Imposing my tyranny on everyone around me? How dare u?? Do I accuse u of imposing your irascible mean spirited cussing and drinking persona on those around u? No. I have never imposed CC beliefs on anyone else. All I’ve ever said-consistently – is that we have our beliefs and if u font share them vote with your feet.

  132. Steve says:

    Mark @ 124 “Don McLure has spent a lifetime serving The Lord faithfully and is a man of highest integrity”

    And? Men of the highest integrity do bad things all the time.

    You don’t happen to be a fraternity member do you? They are the only individuals I have met who gloss over wrongdoings like gold paint on a turd nugget.

    Look, look, it’s gold now. What smell? Nah I don’t smell a thing, see? It’s gold!

    Don’t pay attention to that Don behind the curtain! He is the great, and powerful, McLure of Oz!

  133. covered says:

    Mark, you were asked a question @ #127 that you didn’t answer. I asked the same question months ago which you also ignored. If you are a pastor, then step up and own your comments. If you are not, then may I suggest that other than drinking CCool-Aid, then you really don’t have a dog in the hunt.

  134. Mark says:

    Covered I don’t owe you any answers and I surely won’t b bullied into providing any

  135. Mark says:

    Also doesn’t anyone else have a problem with Michael publishing a personal email on the Internet? Would any if u here b ok with your family business being put out on the web for the whole world to see? Doesn’t that give u some “information” about where Michaels heart is?

  136. Michael says:

    Mark,

    I didn’t publish a personal email.
    I published an email that was sent out to many, many people via an email blast.
    So, inform us all where my heart is, Mark…

  137. covered says:

    The only heart that I question is yours Mark. If you haven’t noticed, there are CC pastor’s who post here and challenge the owner of this blog as they feel necessary. I can respect that and understand that. In your case, you complain about a situation that doesn’t effect you. Of course you owe me nothing but it seems that there are those other than myself that don’t understand your position. It seems that your position is to go against anyone who has a problem with CC. As I said, if you were a pastor, then your defense makes sense. As a congregant, it’s a bit odd to dig in the way you do.

    I will assume that you are not a pastor as a pastor would have no problem defending himself without feeling intimidated.

  138. Dodger Dog says:

    Dear Mark,

    May I offer an observation? Your tone is kind of harsh and it seems you are unloading a ton of ’emotional’ ordnance at once, i.e. anger, bitterness, which lessens the impact of the message you are trying to convey.

    The host of the blog doesn’t relish his role, but he feels responsible to present his facts on his blog and he has certain convictions that fuel his position and role in the Body of Christ on a whole. He does his due diligence and does not sloppily throw out false accusations. He has gained credence because he has proven himself to be credible, even amongst many pastors throughout the country.

    If you would, could you please slow down and articulate a bit more clearly your thoughts? For me, your emotional responses make me want to skip over you, to be honest. Please take this as a ‘friend trying help out another friend.’ Take care Mark.

  139. Michael says:

    Mark,

    By the way, that email blast was orchestrated by a CC pastor…get him!

  140. covered says:

    Dang… Mark just got schooled by a wiener 🙂

  141. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    ( |o )====:::,

    Granted. However, the household of faith has been called to a radically different standard. Our calling of justice is to extend equity and respect to everyone, not just a certain demographic group. I don’t recall Jesus prohibiting anyone from fellowship; He even put up with Judas. Paul’s admonition to excommunicate was due to blatant, unrepentant sin within the context of restoration.

    Paul Smith is banned because he might…….. we have no way of knowing for sure…. be a source of division. Do we prevent people from driving solely on the suspicion that they might speed? Is the Holy Spirit unable to work at the conference if Paul is present? Really?

    I understand the movement is in flux. I understand the uncertainty and the dynamic in play when you put all those personalities of the CCA board in the same room and expect them to chart a course; of which, as they keep saying, has to do with affiliating new pastors into the movement. Since when were they given the authority to decide which Calvary pastors can and cannot attend a conference? Isn’t that a bit beyond the professed job description?

    If anything, I hope Paul learns now how it feels to be ostracized, and perhaps he might think twice before he makes some of the irresponsible segregated comments that he has made.

    Always hoping to redeem the time.

  142. covered says:

    Pastor Brian, I have enjoyed your participation recently. From the standpoint that Paul is more than likely to stir things up, doesn’t it make sense that de-fusing a situation makes sense?

    While I have some very legitimate issues with much of how CC functions, my hope is that it becomes healthy one day soon. To allow someone who will most likely will cause problems the decision to un-invite him seems like a wise thing to do. Don’t forget that Paul has a history of saying things that caused friction many times in the past. He is also still a very high profile personality within the tribe. Just my .02

  143. Xenia says:

    #137

    I for one have a serious problem with it.

  144. Mark says:

    Michael- r u claiming that Don McLure sent that personal email out as an email blast? That is not true. even if the email was put in wide circulation by a PP pastor u have posted a personal email on the Internet -accessible to the whole world. It doesn’t matter how u got it. U knew the author of the email did not intend it to be public and u made it public. I don’t want this thread to b about me so i will now out. But I stand by my premise-which has yet to be discussed. NOBODY in CC cares about this. U r making a big deal about NOTHING

  145. Matthew18 says:

    #110 Steve Mays’s admin/secretary accepted and processed the registration for Paul Smith’s pastor. After it was processed, there was an email by Mr. McClure and a “refund”. “I need to let you know that we will be returning your conference fees and invitation” The question is was Mr. McClure was acting alone or under the direction of CCA and/or Mr. Brodersen. Another question would be the reason for rejecting Mr. Paul Smith’s registration.

    Mr. McClures assumptions/conclusions:

    “I am sure that this breaks your heart as well as many others and we truly pray for a day when all of this is joyfully and peacefully healed in the Lord. But, a pastors conference does not seem to be the arena where such could ever happen.”

    1) Paul Smith heart is broken. (Is there evidence of this?)
    2) A pastors conference is not an arena for joyful and peaceful healing. (Is there evidence of this at past conferences?)

    “I am sure that your presence there would be a lightening rod of disunity”

    3) Paul Smith’s presence would cause of powerful disunity. (Is there evidence of this at past conferences?)

    “You would not be able to attend without voicing your differences and others would certainly be asking you how you think about many things.”

    4) Paul would not exercise restraint and cause division simply by sharing his thoughts. Paul Smith’s opinion would cause division. (Is there evidence of this at past conferences?)

    5) Paul and other pastors will not express and differences in a loving Biblical way.

    “We truly want the focus on the Lord and the encouragement of the churches; something I hope you do as well.”

    Question:

    1) If Mr. Mclure sincerely hopes that Mr. Paul Smith wanted to focus on the Lord why not simply state his concerns and leave it up to Mr. Paul Smith how he behaves? If Mr. Smith starts to cause disunity then ask Mr. Smith to leave.

    2) Since when is expressing opinions and differences discouraged at conferences?

    3) Why would Mr. Paul Smith’s opinion cause such division? Is there truth?

    4) Why not have coffee at the conference? I hear the coffee shop isn’t half bad 🙂

    Thoughts gentlemen and ladies?

  146. Michael says:

    Mark,

    Once an email is published for distribution it’s no longer private.
    I’ve never published private correspondence on this blog.
    If I would have referenced the email instead of publishing it, you would have denied it’s very existence.
    If no one in CC cares about this you need to inform those CC people who have flooded my email and overheated my phone over the last two days.
    What you should say is this…YOU don’t care about any of this, nor do YOU want to know anything that challenges your thinking in any way, shape, or form.
    That’s weird to me, but it is your right to do so.
    I’m still waiting for you to tell the readers about my heart…

  147. Steve Wright says:

    2 things I have read today in the comments that have made me chuckle (neither expressed by Michael though to be clear).

    1) The notion that someone who worships in a CC somehow has little to no reason to care about the health and unity of the movement – unless he is a pastor – and should sit in silence without comment on these sorts of things..

    2) The pressure to force someone beyond whatever level of anonymity they choose to reveal more about themselves.

    Given the history of this blog, both examples are quite eyebrow raising.

    Mark may be a little “bull in the china shop” but he does make a point that he has never defended a scoundrel, and he has offered many a compliment to the community, blog, and host in the past as well. He deserves a little better in my opinion.

  148. I would think that receiving and spreading stolen emails would rank right up there with receiving stolen property.

  149. Mark says:

    Gotta reply. Michael u can hide behind the email law but the Spirit should convict u for posting a brother in Christs prvt email. U know its wrong. And if all these CC FOLK r so interested in this info where r they ? Not here on this blog that’s for sure.

  150. Michael says:

    Mark,

    You’re right.
    Nobody in CC reads here but you.
    That makes me laugh…

  151. Michael says:

    MLD,

    So now I’m a criminal as well?
    Might be time for you to move on.

  152. Michael says:

    Mark,

    Bryson and Smith have been booted to the curb for dissenting opinions.
    Do you really think CC pastors are going to post agreement with the once again reviled Phoenix Preacher?

  153. Kevin H says:

    Mark, I am a CC attendee and I care about this.

  154. covered says:

    Steve, I made both of those comments and have no problem standing by them. For the record, I understand why you drink the CCoolAid but can’t figure out why a congregant has such a hard time with this thread.

    For this to be your contribution on the email shouldn’t surprise me anymore. I am glad I made you chuckle.

    Also, for you to consider my question about being a pastor “forcing beyond whatever level of anonymity” is sort of thinned skinned is it not? I was just wondering why Mark was so adamant on his position. You have no problem letting all know that you are a pastor, is that a personal question?

  155. Steve Wright says:

    For this to be your contribution on the email shouldn’t surprise me anymore.
    ————————————————————–
    Well, I thought my #132 was a pretty good and relevant contribution. It came first. Do you really still have questions as to where I stand after reading that?

    covered, you left CC to pastor outside the movement and I have no problem with that but I would say it is rather poor form to continue to refer to those who care about staying and serving the Lord within that structure as akin to non-thinking cultists, because that is what kool-aid drinkers usually refers too – and of course to stick the label on me, despite all I have written in the past about the issues we in CC need to address is sort of laughable. Consider it the 2nd chuckle you gave me. .

    If anything one could ask why YOU care about this issue, given your departure. Except nobody would ask that because you are part of the community and to my knowledge nobody is suggesting you not have a comment on one of Michael’s posts.

    As to the anonymity comment. There are more than a couple pastors who post here anonymously and do not tell this board they are pastors – I assume they have their reasons. I take the issue seriously because there was a time I needed to do so, and of course the breaking of that led to all sorts of problems which I was trying to avoid.

    But once broken, I personally have no trouble ID’ing myself here with my comments. So whether thin-skinned or not…just pointing out that Michael has ALWAYS to his credit, protected anonymity here.

  156. Steve Wright says:

    Michael, as someone who will be at the conference, I have no problem with you reporting this. It will end all the speculation and rumors that otherwise would likely fill the conference week as people asked each other “Hey, have you seen Paul? Is he here?” At least now we can be about other things.

    Much like CCFTL was wise to explain Bob Coy’s departure more clearly.

    A huge error within CC has been silence when people just disappear from ministry. I experienced it at Costa Mesa in the past. And all it does is lead to rumors and gossip.

  157. Michael says:

    Steve,

    Thank you.
    If these things were just discussed openly and honestly, I could just write about cats and kids and cussing and Kahlua…and Mark and MLD could read somewhere they enjoy.

  158. covered says:

    Steve, did you happen to miss the comment about me hoping that CC becomes healthy and soon? It’s for this reason that I agree that Paul should be uninvited. I do have a dog in the hunt as almost all of my pastor friends are still in your tribe, I aslo have family serving in your tribe and I have no issues with that at all. To dig in and defend all things CC like Mark does is a bit weird to me. His attacks on our host is strange to me but it wouldn’t be strange if he were a CC Pastor. You are a bit selective as to what you read from my comments but I will not say more about that. I never used the word “cult” but I do see you as a CCoolAid drinker. Why? Because you defend your tribe to the end and as a Pastor, I respect that. I don’t agree with you many times but I understand your loyalty.

  159. Matthew18 says:

    Guilty until proven innocent is the pattern at CC’s.

  160. Wow, kicked to the curb like Paul Smith.

    Why can’t I disagree with you on this – I know Paul Smith and I know him to be a troublemaker.And … I know that CCA has made the right decision for this type of meeting, which has always been a 100% pep rally and not a business meeting.

    Jeff Sheckstein, knows Paul better than I do and he agrees with me.

  161. Steve Wright says:

    As you know, most of the CC movement is well aware of the struggle within the Smith family, and some of us within the CCA council, and some of the leadership of CCCM.
    ———————————————————————–
    To anyone reading that matters to the schedule in 3 weeks.

    This statement is a serious problem.

    Don, most of us don’t know, and while I do not think any inner-family struggles with Pastor Chuck’s family are our business as pastors, no matter how much we cared about Chuck (and I lodged 21 years in that camp) – it certainly is our business to be aware of and discuss any issues within the CCA council.

    If George was just a voice in the wilderness, then that is one thing, but these words I paste above do not sound like that at all.

    My fear is that because the longtimers (i.e. longer than 21 years) know and talk amongst each other, there is the assumption that most everyone knows..at least that matter.

    That is an error.

    Or….most everyone knows only because what is read and believed at this blog – given to the host by CC leaders asking him to discuss things that apparently we all can’t get together and discuss as a fellowship.

    My hope, and I assure you the hope of a lot of CC leaders nobody who speaks next month will have even heard of, is that we can have a frank discussion

    I have been a defender of the new CCA, as Michael here would attest, and so needless to say it comes as a shock that there is all this struggle, since as an affiliate I sure haven’t been informed of the issues at hand.

    I hope that changes in 3 weeks in Costa Mesa.

    Blessings.

  162. Michael says:

    No, kicked to the curb for calling me a criminal. Don’t play games…I’m not in the mood.

  163. Matthew18 says:

    Martin Luther’s Disciple,

    “I know Paul Smith and I know him to be a troublemaker” I’m open to this possibility however do you have any facts to support this opinion?

  164. Michael says:

    Steve,

    That was excellent!

  165. Pastor Brian Gregory Coy says:

    @164
    Steve Wright has touched the center of the issue of concern for many (not all) of the Calvary Chapel pastors that I associate with. While that is not a large number, I suspect that my experience may be a valid sample of what many guys are thinking but not expressing. We all are pastors of independent church affiliated base on our like-mindedness in area of doctrine and practice. And we should not be kept in the dark.

  166. Matthew 18
    Read closely and I will type this slowly “I know Paul Smith” I knew Paul Smith for 10 yrs up until about 5 yrs ago.

    Those who know him, know he is trouble.

    Read Jeff Sheckstein @ #111

  167. Michael says:

    The issue isn’t whether Paul Smith is trouble.
    The issue is whether he has a right to be involved in a movement he was a part of for half a century.
    Is this how all dissent will be handled going forward?
    For the record…he was and is a pain in the butt.
    He was hired and fired by his brother at least three times…not for theological reasons as popularly believed, but for exposing CCCM to legal liability.
    This particular issue is probably the result of him interrupting Brodersens installation service as pastor at CCCM.
    It was a bush move…but it has no bearing on the group as a whole.

  168. Michael says:

    PBGC,

    Thank you for affirming what Steve said…and what I hear every day.

  169. Michael,
    “This particular issue is probably the result of him interrupting Brodersens installation service as pastor at CCCM.”

    This has been my whole point. If he did what you state above, does any rationale person have any justification to believe he would not do the same at CCSPC if he is allowed to attend?

    I don’t care if he was the actual founder, there is a time when you become unwelcome and irrelevant.- his is the crazy uncle at your daughter’s wedding.

    But I challenge you Micheal as you have stood boldly for his right to be heard, what does this guy have to offer, that has not been stated before – to make CC and CCA a better entity?

    Nothing.

  170. Pastor Coy,
    “affiliated base on our like-mindedness in area of doctrine and practice. And we should not be kept in the dark.”:

    If your affiliation is doctrine & practice – what are you kept in the dark about?
    1.) are you not given the information you need about CC doctrine?
    2.) are you kept in the dark about the practices of your local community?

    What darkness are you in?

  171. Michael says:

    MLD,

    By your logic, Heitzig shouldn’t be there.
    He’s been through his own scandal and he tried to lift CCCM right out from under Brodersen.
    What does he have to offer to make CC better?
    The issue is how dissension is handled and how information is disbursed.
    My regret is that Paul Smith’s dismissal is the issue instead of Bryson’s…because that is truly unjust.

  172. Linda Pappas says:

    Excellent comment at 131.

    A BBQ is not equivalent to “conference.” That is unless you want the general population believe that you are doing something important, like enabling the process of serious discussion over much weightier matters to take place, among differing opinions among those who are responsible in leading or making an impact upon others. In other words, this is not a family event, particularly when having to do the welfare, safety, and spiritual integrity of those called His people.

    34 years in Calvary Chapel for the record. If we all thought alike, only one of us would be necessary. Paul put in his time and even though he is known as a “trouble maker” among those who may disagree with him, or him agreeing with them, he is still as valid in voicing his thoughts and opinions, as much as any one else. Period.

    con·fer·ence
    [ kónfərənss ]

    1.meeting for lectures and discussion: a meeting, sometimes lasting for several days, in which people with a common interest participate in discussions or listen to lectures to obtain information

    2.meeting for serious discussion: a meeting to discuss serious matters such as policy or business

    3.meeting of representatives of organization: a usually annual gathering of local representatives of an organization, e.g. a political party, labor union, or church, at which policy matters and other issues are discussed or decided

  173. Michael,
    By my logic Skip probably shouldn’t be there – you are right, but that was not the topic of your article.

    Here is a question to throw out. So all these CC guys what the skinny, they want to know the low down, they want to know how the CC sausage is made.

    So they get their wish, they are let into the inner chamber of CC knowledge – do you think a one of them returns to their congregation and tells their people in detail what they learned / found out? Or do the little people remain in the dark?

    The answer is no.

  174. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – I’m not sure what you are driving at. At the core of CC is the rock solid belief that every one of our churches are independent, run by the leadership of that local church, led by the senior pastor. No other CC church has any say whatsoever in another CC church.

    That we are affiliated in philosophy, doctrine, and a desire for fellowship with one another.

    That there is no hierarchy, no “chief among equals” etc.

    And we have never been shown otherwise by CCA, and as I have said repeatedly, think the best of the CCA as a future mechanism to move forward for affiliation purposes. There is no inner workings or sausage being made that effects our churches – no matter what sort of challenges the transition at Costa Mesa is experiencing. We pray for the best for Brian, and for Costa Mesa, especially given the foundational nature of that church because of Pastor Chuck who we all loved and cared for.

    I assure you if there is something “to be learned” that would affect the future of OUR church, my leadership and eventually all the people would be advised by me.

  175. Steve, then no one is in the dark and no one is being left out of a conversation as their is no light to be shed by CCA and no conversation about CCA and the Smith family that is relevant to independent CC churches..

  176. This is the kind of stuff that goes on at a real Christian conference – big topics are discussed, hammered out, fought over and voted on. Paul Smith would be very welcome here because everyone is divisive.

    But the SPC??? Vacation, rest and recreation. Nothing challenging or disturbing – so Paul is too…

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-presbyterians-divest-20140620-story.html

  177. Ricky Bobby says:

    Steve W. said, “No other CC church has any say whatsoever in another CC church.”

    This is not true. CC Costa Mesa and probably the CC pastors/churches that head the CC Association Board do have a big say and can disinvite people and disaffliate CC’s etc…as exampled by Don McClure as proxy for the Core Group of big CC’s and their pastor CC Board members.

  178. Wait a minute so PCUSA votes to change their definition of marriage and to divest itself of stock?

    I am actually more shocked at the stock story.
    A church has stock?
    The first headline makes more sense when the stock thing is thrown in though.
    Gonna go in with the world might as well go all in.
    So did they vote on where they will build their abortion clinics?

  179. And to think all that CC has to worry about is that Paul Smith can’t go to SPC.
    That just puts a bit of perspective on this.

  180. Nonnie says:

    Derek, I was under the impression that churches and ministries have invested in stock for years. I seem to remember when some radio ministries, and I believe a few big missionary societies lost 10’s of thousands (or more) when the stocks bombed back in the 90’s. Perhaps it was some other kind of investment and not the stock market, but it was some sort of “money making” investment and they lost a lot of money.

  181. Wow Nonnie, mind officially blown.

  182. Now I don’t agree with the PCUSA on anything they come up with, but these are the issues that many are confronted with as they come into conference every couple of years … how does the church interact in this world. Now, I wish they, the ELCA, the UMC, the UCC the Episcopal Church and several others would come prepared to vote a biblical position – but they don’t.

    But when comparing to the CC gathering, think about it as you see them posting on FB over the next couple of weeks – what is on their mind, what is the big issue (and I am not kidding on this) “I can’t wait to get to SoCal and find an In N Out Burger!”

  183. I would rather someone go to a conference worried about finding a burger joint. After all, you can’t spend the whole time at the conference.

    Hey Steve, what is the lineup for your Senior Pastor’s Conference?

    Bet it doesn’t contain affirming gay marriage or the heart breaking agony of figuring out which stocks morally your church can drop from it’s portfolio.

    Does anyone see the problem inherent in the ending statement with that last sentence?

  184. I will bet that however you divide up “what is CC made of? That a grand stock portfolio will be found.

    I don’t know the stock holdings of the LCMC but I am sure that it is there. Where do you put your money when you are a large organization with worldwide operations – where do you store the monies set aside for world relief and missionary efforts – home and abroad?

    And let’s ask this question for those so open minded about people’s rights to be divisive at such conferences. What if during the year 10 pastors have been working together to have women ordained in CC and now want it on the agenda for discussion, and each year forward continue the same, next year 15, the 20 and so on. At what number does this group of open minded towards division say, we now have 15% of our pastors who want to discuss women being ordained – when does it end up on the agenda?

    Or does CCA take the same brutal unfair stand with the “women pastors” group as it did with Paul?

  185. What I was saying is that this is a small issue for SPC.
    Worrying about excluding one troublemaker is small change to the massive changes taking place in actual denominations.
    It seems to me that he was trying desperately to get in despite the rules set as to who attends.
    Like you, I see no problem with his exclusion.

    Sorry, MLD but putting money into stocks is not “storing” money. Putting money into the bank is “storing” money.
    Putting money into stocks is putting the money you do have for world relief and missionary efforts abroad at risk of disappearing in a stock crash.
    Albeit, even putting money into the bank could result in losing your money it is generally known to be safer and if the banks go society at large is at risk.

  186. Michael says:

    If you put money in bank savings accounts at the current interest rates you are actually losing money after factoring in the rate of inflation and fees.
    If you take any ten year period in the market with a balanced portfolio you will turn at least a small profit.

  187. Michael says:

    I would think it better to have open discussion about theological issues within the members than have them holding them in secret.
    Better that “division” be open and understood than secretly cracking the foundations…

  188. Well then, maybe he could do it at some conference to which he could attend without subterfuge.

    Maybe y’all are right about investing the churches money in the stock market.
    After all, Jesus gave a thief charge of the money bag.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/why-was-judas-carrying-the-moneybag

    Money isn’t all that important.

  189. Michael,
    Just as a point of reference and if you ran the world – at what point would you recommend CC put women pastor and gay marriage on the agenda if the topic came up?

  190. Derek,
    Do you think that millions of $$$s stored at .25% is good stewardship? That is one step above burying in the ground.

    I was the chairman of the board for the largest SBC church in the Inland Empire for 5 yrs and we would buy property, rental homes and commercial buildings to “store” our money.

  191. Michael says:

    Derek,

    I don’t believe any subterfuge was involved and neither does any CC pastor I’ve spoken with…and none of those I’ve spoken with have any love for Paul Smith.

  192. Michael says:

    MLD,

    First, I would suggest that CC have an agenda and open discussions instead of giving all the pastors the mushroom treatment.
    Those two issues have no impact on this group at this time.
    There is a lot of undercurrent on other topics…such as eschatology, ecumenism, and Reformed theology.
    There are questions around affiliation and who decides who is on the CCA and who appoints the regional leadership and how.
    There are a lot of issues under the surface…and I think grown men have the right and responsibility to grapple with them.

  193. I don’t know MLD. Is losing it all in a stock crash better stewardship.
    Or better yet, using its absence to punish companies and make a political statement a better stewardship?

    Like I said, if Jesus gave the thief the moneybag, maybe I am making too big a deal of it.
    Money isn’t all or the most important thing that God has entrusted to us after all.

  194. Michael,
    I understand that, but is that what they joined. Look at it this way.

    “We are CC and this is the way we run things, which may include keeping you in the dark and excluding you if you get divisive. Would you like to affiliate with us? If not, take your church and go be a Lutheran where you will have both voice and vote … but that is not who we (CC) are.”

  195. Derek, I am sure that if your church provides a retirement program for your pastor, that those monies are in investment accounts.

  196. Sorry, Michael but the official invite from Steve’s #128 sort of seems to make his trying to get in a subterfuge.
    If he is pastoral staff then I am wrong.
    I am pretty sure he isn’t a younger pastor though. 🙂
    If neither applies, what does he need to be at a Senior Pastor’s Conference for then?
    Are there not other ways or more broad conferences for this to be hashed out?
    I definitely don’t have a dog in this fight so this is my last, but I see where he seems to be actively trying to get in to something he doesn’t actually need to be at.

  197. MLD, maybe you are having a reading deficient day, but I said I may be wrong.

  198. I look at it this way – once Michael revealed that Paul Smith led a rebellion at Brodersen’s installation as SP at CCCM that he should be persona non grata at any CC event.

  199. Michael says:

    There are few people I have a lower personal opinion of than Paul Smith.
    I have written on his ways a lot over the years and never in a complimentary fashion.
    It’s unfortunate that he is getting the attention that George Bryson actually deserves…because Bryson was asking legitimate questions that deserve an answer.
    The point stands however, in my mind.
    Who empowers this tyranny and who’s next?
    I think I know who’s next…and if I’m right, watch out.

  200. You call it tyranny, but there is not a single person in CC who is there under duress or compulsion. Everyone is there because they have more to gain by being affiliated than being independent. Today, anyone pastor can declare, “we are no longer a part of the CC tyranny – I have removed the dove, I have written a letter to CCA and we will be changing the name of our church!”

    The question is, in light of the “tyranny” why stay? – i think we know.

  201. Michael,
    I know that your CC information pipeline runs long and deep. Those you speak with, who have these questions, has any of them petitioned CCA to be placed on the agenda to address concerns to the group?

  202. Michael says:

    MLD,

    There is no agenda to be put on.
    Bryson asked some good questions…and got disfellowshipped for his efforts.
    That sends a message…and doing this to Paul Smith reinforces it.

  203. Ricky Bobby says:

    It’s no more a “tyranny” than when this blog’s Core Group draws some lines and sets some rules and expects conformity to a particular orthodox position or a particular rule that says you shouldn’t post too many comments or no cussing or no starting conflict or no responding to conflict in kind etc.

  204. Ricky Bobby says:

    It’s really simple IMO: CCA has a Core Group and a Consensus and there has been a changing of the guard and a new regime in power.

    There are some dissenters who haven’t gotten on board with the new regime and the current Core Group’s consensus and rules of the road.

    Just like with any Group or church or denom or blog etc, conform in areas that are defined as hot-button actionable rules written and unwritten…or expect to be shown the door.

  205. Michael says:

    RB,

    This isn’t a church or even an organization.
    If I shut down tomorrow, or closed comments it would have minimal long term impact on others.
    I am not in “affiliation” with a large group whose actions affect the lives of tens of thousands of people.
    I as the owner of the media property can do with it as I choose.
    That is not the case with an organization of churches who have no clear guidelines for leadership or authority and where the affiliates have a vested interest in the organization.

  206. Ricky Bobby says:

    Unfortunately, the current regime at CC Association is more concerned with personal beefs and grudges with Paul Smith and George Bryson and others than they are with Child Protection Policies and Transparent Finances.

  207. Ricky Bobby says:

    Michael, it’s a Group and “Community” that is akin to any group of humans that coalesce and organize. You are not a media with a comments section…you are a Group with a hierarchy and a leader and rules…and so is my blog.

  208. Steve Wright says:

    I wonder how strong the conviction of the Lord’s return is the denomination that houses millions of dollars in longterm investments without an actual plan for those monies. Sounds like the definition of laying up treasures on earth that Jesus spoke of

    I’m not talking about either prudent reserves or funding future liabilities (i.e. pastoral retirements).

    I sometimes let my imagination run wild at the ministry opportunities one could finance if money was basically no object. Especially considering both the needs of our town and the needs of our missionaries.

    MLD, how much money does your church have to pay your denomination for the right to keep your name and connection. Is it a flat rate or a percentage of your offerings? Is it a national standard for every church in your denomination around the country? I ask sincerely. In fact, if you are comfortable, please share the dollar amount you paid last year.

  209. So, besides the In N Out Burgers, why would anyone show up? Again, there must be more gain than there is loss.

    I think they want exactly what they get – renew old friendships, eat burgers and get to watch the stars preach – in other words, no heavy lifting. The few you hear from may have valid questions but are not representative of the general CC pastor population.

  210. Ricky Bobby says:

    Michael to prove you are incorrect, may I offer this about your blog: I have never been threatened with banning or moderation on Rachel Maddows blogs or threads b/c they are a media with a comments section that tolerates dissent.

    Your blog and Core Group, when pressed, has banned me, moderated me, threatened me with punitive actions etc.

    You are a Group and you are not a media with a comments section where anyone can comment and dissent and argue to their heart’s content.

    You have a very defined set of rules on here and you enforce them…just like CC Association. Unfortunately CC Association’s rules they make a priority are petty issues and not good things like protecting kids to the maximum of their ability and enforcing transparent finances to keep their affiliates accountable.

  211. Michael says:

    There is a huge difference in so many ways between a blog and church.
    If you read the comments here you will also note that there is huge diversity of thought on many issues and no one has any problem calling me out.

    There is a degree of etiquette that I try to enforce.
    However, it’s clear that I have the right to do so, as I own the property and I’m operating within those rights.
    The questions being asked of the CCA is by what authority are they making decisions…and as affiliates I believe they have the right to real answers.

  212. RB,
    Your blog and Core Group, when pressed, has banned me, moderated me, threatened me with punitive actions etc.

    As you had done to me

    To the best of my knowledge you have never been banned for content – only the abuse of that content.

  213. Steve,
    Good question – I will need to run downstairs to my other office and get my budget. I just happen to have it handy as I am presenting it to the congregation for vote tomorrow. I will check to see if it is it’s own line item.

    But 1st, we don’t pay anything – we as a congregation have decided in the past what offering we will give to help other Lutheran works. We usually do it as a dollar amount per the average attendance. I need to check, we may give to the district who then from their funds give to the synod – I don’t remember – and then we contribute the the 2 Lutheran High Schools in the OC.

    While I am looking, what date do you present your budget to the congregation? 😉

  214. Michael says:

    All of us who own blogs have the right to ban or moderate whoever we choose.
    No one has a vested interest in the property except the owners and perhaps the advertisers…and their interest is limited to whether the blog agrees to the terms purchased.

    Now, let’s say that RB, MLD, and I agree to blog together…and we all pay for our share of the expenses of the site and agree to share the space.

    Then I would have a responsibility to both of them…but not to anyone else.

    If I arbitrarily broke that agreement in some way, then they have a legitimate grievance.

  215. Michael says:

    I will say this.
    If the majority of those in CC are fine with this arrangement as it stands and don’t care about the issues that have been raised, then they have the right to be part of what is in place…and those who do have an issue should separate out and make their own organizations.

    I just believe that all have the right in this case to know all the facts and make an informed decision.

  216. Ricky Bobby says:

    “All of us who own blogs have the right to ban or moderate whoever we choose”

    Yup, agreed.

    And CC Association has the same right as a Group.

    I’ve got no problem with critiquing what they choose to emphasize and what they choose to drop the hammer on…but to assert (it seems) that they don’t have the right or responsibility to enforce the current Group’s consensus and that they have to allow dissenters to remain in the Group is not correct…and not the example you’ve personally demonstrated.

  217. covered says:

    RB, regarding your #210. I disagree because I want to believe that after the dust settles, the reforms that you fight for will start to be put into place. Right now, all anyone wants to know is, who’s the boss?

    I will even go out on a limb and suggest that the new boss(es) will deal with Bob G and other big problems in the tribe. I know that many here disagree but one can still dream 🙂

  218. Michael says:

    Covered,

    Unless you know something I don’t…those things aren’t even on the radar.

  219. covered says:

    MLD, you crack me up 🙂 by the way, who coached Orange Lutheran Baseball this year? When my son played for CCCM, Mark Langston was the coach for your Lutheran boys.

  220. Michael says:

    RB,

    The differences between a blog and the CCA are such that I don’t believe the two are in any way comparable.
    I have a lot of dissenters here…you foremost among them.
    The issue again…is by what authority is the group exercising power?
    If the authority is legitimate and recognized, then that authority can run things as they please…if not…

  221. covered says:

    oops wrong thread for baseball talk 🙁

  222. Steve Wright says:

    MLD, the thing about a budget meeting is line one is expected income – which in a church setting translates “This is what we expect you to give to us this year”

    That stops me right there…but hey, you go for it.

    Now, I am being very specific in my question and not looking for you to dodge. I do not know the answer but want to.

    Are you trying to say in your “as a congregation we have decided” discussion that giving to the denomination is optional? Can a Lutheran church legally fly the name and attract the people and choose to spend all the offerings on the ministries of the local church to the community and the world without a penny going to a district or national office.

  223. Ricky Bobby says:

    Michael, I won’t belabor the point so as to conform to the rules here and to not get banned or moderated…but I disagree and in that disagreement there are strict rules about how I am to express that disagreement or face moderation (I’m still under moderation) or face banning.

    Likewise, Bryson and Paul Smith have bucked the rules and forced their issues…and are under moderation.

  224. covered says:

    I don’t know of any such thing Michael which is why I used words like hope and dream. I want to believe that God will restore CC into a Bible teaching, God fearing work. If not, then bring it down. As you know yourself, there are good men still drinking the CCoolAid that we know to be good Pastors.

  225. Steve,
    This is probably the biggest difference between the CC mindset and, in this case, the Lutheran.
    We do not fly the name Lutheran – we are Lutherans who have formed a Lutheran church and we work with other identified Lutherans in a common work … vs

    CC does actually fly the dove and the CC name as a marketing strategy.

    Now, when you ask what a Lutheran church can do legally, again it shows the difference in our thinking. Why would a Lutheran church not want to work with other Lutherans for common works – it does not even enter our thinking that we are independent or that we might be like CC “Lone Rangers” play it close to the vest.

    The reason we have school systems, universities and seminaries is because we work together. The reason we have World Wide Relief Organizations is because we work together – it goes on and on.

    Do you really just work out of your checkbook – you have no budget plan?

  226. Steve,
    To answer a previous question and it should stay secret here – we have in our budget a pledge to the district of $80K and to the 2 high schools $20K

    I am sure that there are plenty of Lutheran churches that do not have funds to give up the line. Many small Lutheran churches in the farming mid west cannot even afford a pastor and many pastors in that area serve 2 or 3 churches … not to be confused with the CC multi campus pastors – these guys drive to 3 churches to preach and administer the sacraments each Sunday.

  227. Ricky Bobby says:

    MLD said, “CC does actually fly the dove and the CC name as a marketing strategy.”

    Agreed. It is like a franchise in that respect.

  228. Ricky Bobby says:

    Franchises provide a business plan, an established Brand and a formula, a list of ‘distinctives’ or franchise rules/ethos/creeds, a process and advertising/marketing.

    Calvary Chapel is pretty much like that.

  229. Steve Wright says:

    Your answer is EXACTLY how a Mormon once answered me when I pressed him on the demand for tithes to be a member in good standing. “Why would you want to be a Mormon then if you didn’t want to do it”…thus missing the point.

    Again, I ask you. How long could you stay Lutheran if you faithfully served the Lord with your money solely in your own ministry efforts and stopped writing checks to other Lutheran works. It is a simple question about requirements, that is all.

    As far as how we supposedly think differently

    Now, surely you know that CCs do work together for common good works. In fact, the only emails I get from CCA are opportunities to help in time of need, using the local CC in the area as the point-church. But we are not mandated to do so, especially if we have a full plate of ministry in our own backyard. CC too has school systems (as you know), ministry schools and so forth to work together. I can’t start a school at our place, but our people can send their kids to a school down the freeway that is established at a much larger CC. No difference at all on that score.

    There is zero difference between having Lutheran or Calvary Chapel in the name. People move to your city they look up the local Lutheran church, and they find you. When is the last time you heard of a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) church that did not have Lutheran prominently in the name and on the building. Meanwhile, a whole lot of CCs don’t have doves and don’t have the name on the building.

    I know you are prone to bombast but let’s try to keep it a little real. 🙂

    (P.S. – a financial plan is far different than a formal budget presented to the congregation. I assume if the recession hits and the income is lagging after 6 months you also meet and tell the financially hurting people that the income is running below budget?)

  230. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – my last was in response to your #229, before your #230.

    Thank you for answering with specifics. Needless to say I am shocked by that amount but it does explain why a denomination might over time have millions of dollars to worry about investing.

    And yes, it does mark a huge difference between our two systems. However, “lone wolf” should no longer be equated to “no membership dues”….CC pastors by definition are entering into a fellowship with the desire NOT to be lone wolfs.

  231. Ricky Bobby says:

    Steve W. said, “CC pastors by definition are entering into a fellowship with the desire NOT to be lone wolfs.”

    Agreed, good point.

    Much of the reasoning for joining up with CC Association, besides the name Brand and agreement with the general ‘distinctives’ of what makes CC a like-minded Group…is supposedly some sort of accountability and “iron sharpens iron” type thing the pastors seem to also want.

  232. Steve,
    We present out budget / financial plan as our mission statement in dollars and cents.

    We have a plan, that is set at all levels. As a church, we set our SMP, our Strategic Ministry Plan as to the work of our local church and then our budget as to “this is what our plan looks like in dollars”

    Because people an bought into the “Plan” they should also buy into the “Budget” to carry out the plan. Both this years plan and budget have been available to the congregation for a month for their review. Tomorrow, they will first vote to accept the “plan” followed by a vote to accept the “budget”

    All presented as part of the churches teaching on stewardship … but we have replaced the preaching on stewardship with the actions of stewardship.

  233. Xenia says:

    I don’t actually get the purpose of this entire thread.

    1. A letter that was not written by any of us to any of us is posted here. That right there is very problematic, especially if, as reported, its author is unhappy about it. I think the letter’s author has the expectation of some kind of privacy in his personal correspondence, even if he has no legal expectation.

    2. A grouchy old man with a history of causing public disruptions is asked not to come to a conference. So what? Why should anyone here care? For all we know, he might have some kind of fresh disturbance planned for the conference.

    3. CC can have whatever kind of conferences they want to have and invite or uninvite whoever they want without comment (even from me- I am breaking my own rule) from anyone outside CC. If these people like the style of conference where they meet old friends and listen to golden oldie speakers, that’s no skin off my nose. No one says they have to be the type of council that votes on issues. What kind of issues should they be voting on? What prevents local CC’s from doing what they want anyway?

    4. When other groups of churches are voting on whether they should perform homosexual marriages and ordain lesbian New Agers, CC is staying the course for tradition evangelical Christianity. *That* is what will be promoted and preached at the conference and for that, we should all rejoice that there is at least one group of Christians that is not caving in. So what if they don’t want a cranky old guy to come disrupt their unity? *Why* does Paul Smith and his agenda *have* to be discussed? Let them be what they are.

  234. “explain why a denomination might over time have millions of dollars to worry about investing.”

    The LCMS is almost always broke as funds are dedicated to existing areas. But dedicated and custodial funds must be stored somewhere.

    Are you saying that you don’t think that Harvest (which is a single church and not a denomination of 6,000 churches like LCMS) has a giant financial portfolio?

  235. Steve Wright says:

    MLD…stewardship?

    In ten years at the current pace your people will give one million dollars to other groups that you have zero control over, zero oversight of, and no way of knowing how well those dollars are spent except by whatever reports they are willing to give you. You trust them because they are “Lutherans”

  236. Steve,
    You are completely wrong – let me say again completely wrong
    1.) we have representatives to our district who decide their budget and move monies
    2.) Our district has representatives to the synod
    3.) The synod has audited financials
    The synod is under the control of the people – you probably do not remember 2008 / 2009 when the synodical leadership, that was in “power” for almost 10 yrs was upended and defeated in a vote – that was all started at the grassroots level because of the synod’s cancelling of the radio show “Issues etc.”
    4.) Is that at all possible, that grassroots CC attenders could cause massive changes and a whole new leadership at CC / CCA or even in your church?
    5.) So who really has no control.

  237. So based on you comments at 12 noon, that you and your church give no money because you have no assurance of control etc. If that’s the case, I would suggest you put that hoarded money into some stock accounts. 😉

    “You trust them because they are “Lutherans”
    We trust them because they are us.

  238. Ricky Bobby says:

    It would be great if CC could find a way to have some sort of structure that articulates some good rules and of course expresses their core doctrines/opinions…while still allowing for autonomy at the local CC level as long as those local affiliates agree to some common sense rules of the road.

    I don’t think doing this would increase their liability, though Sheckstein could weigh in on that better than I can.

  239. Ricky Bobby says:

    Did want to note that McClure and CC Association “disinvites” a Paul Smith but not a Bob Grenier.

    It means they either believe Bob Grenier’s side of things (even though Chuck Smith is on record as witnessed by Dave Rolph and Janet Carter that Chuck believed us brothers about the abuse) or they care more about doctrinal piccadilloes and personality conflicts than they do about child abuse.

  240. Steve,
    I showed you mine – now show me yours.
    What is your biggest expense outside of your own church structure? How much?

  241. Xenia says:

    We trust them because they are us<<<

    Exactly. I was trying to come up with something that would explain why my parish gives money to our Orthodox jurisdiction but this says is perfectly. They are us and we are them.

  242. Here is an article about the LCMS budget. $75 million – I did the math, if it were all from plate offerings it would come to $35 per year per member – but them you have people who give in church who are not members and much of synod money comes from estates and other plans.

    http://blogs.lcms.org/2014/board-oks-budget

    This is what can come into the storehouse when people work together.

  243. I would never have mentioned it if I had known everyone would be pulling out their receipts.

  244. Steve Wright says:

    , that you and your church give no money because you have no assurance of control etc
    ———————————————–
    Stepped away for a moment. I said no such thing as this.

    Look, you trust them because they are you, but then you vote the bums out when they go sideways. I do applaud the grassroots effort…though I guess God’s people don’t get a refund after the fact if their money is used in a way disapproving. Your question about similar possibilities is moot within the independence of the local church.

    And we all recognize there is a lot of overhead in any sort of multi-layered management structure, and so obviously the local churches need to fund that if it is essential for the Lord’s work in the mind of the denomination (and they can’t organize enough to get existing churches to volunteer the resources for those expenses).

    Where I am confused is the large money you sent to private Lutheran high schools. I would love to ask about a dozen questions on that topic but maybe some other time.

    I do have one question though. Can people at your church specifically say they do not want THEIR money to go to district, outside schools, or any other ministry effort besides the local church. Will their request be honored unquestionably? Will it be honored but with a phone call from the leadership to try to persuade otherwise? Or will it not be honored at all?

    You have your budget vote. Some rabble rouser stirs up a team that votes against any budget that gives outside the needs of the church. Makes a good argument about the poor in your own backyard, that people can fund their own kids education etc. The budget still passes 60/40 with those expenses so the 40% say they want their money to not be used in that way. I know “it would never happen” but humor the hypothetical.

    I do find the discussion both interesting and helpful, because it seems when it comes to finances, the complaints about one group (and the explanations by that group) can often be applied to a different group in a similar but slightly different way. The whole “give and trust the leadership to be good stewards” still shows up at the end of the day, doesn’t it?

  245. Mark says:

    Xenia I couldn’t have said it better myself. But then our host wouldn’t have his lurid headline and hundreds of comments on a thread. Every time he posts an anti CC thread he knows his attendance rises. How about a thread about Calvary Reliefs efforts after Sandy, or massive tornados or Haiti EQ. Nope nothing posted here. Michael continues to rail on about change in CC. Guess what- we r happy with our Distinctives- and have no plan to change them. CC was never a “big tent” fellowship. It remains what it always was.

  246. Ricky Bobby says:

    I respect the Lutheran denomination for their financial transparency and accountability and shared power and structure to “trust but verify”

  247. Q says:

    CC personal spiritualize many of their decisions making them seem arbitrary. It seems to be a brilliant way of staying in control.

    People like to know the the rules, at least some, up front. They assume they do until the are caught on the flotsam and realize there is no recourse, but it’s too late.

    Just swim to shore and salvage what you can.

    If you are great at playing politics you can avoid all this or beat them at their own game, but that is not godly.

    I do not know if Paul Smith participated in this but some have said he has, if so now I guess it’s his turn.

    I like what Matthew 18 has said, something like, is there any evidence of division or is it just a ‘feeling’ (spiritualizing) CCA personal have. And what Michael said about let each speak and let others judge instead of silencing.

    Has anyone wondered if this has anything to do with the bool Paul Smith wrote?

    CC protects the brand and each other more than anything, maybe the book was too revealing of the workings or direction.

  248. Steve,
    “that you and your church give no money because you have no assurance of control etc
    ———————————————–
    Stepped away for a moment. I said no such thing as this.”

    Well you indicated that our giving to another organization was foolish because we could not account for the use of the funds. So I made the assumption that you follow your same assumptions in your own church giving … that being once it leaves your hands you have no accountability – hence you do not give away your money.

  249. Q says:

    Sorry for the typos.

  250. Steve Wright says:

    1.) we have representatives to our district who decide their budget and move monies
    ———————————————————–
    This is more to the point I have been trying to get an answer on about dues.

    MLD, let’s say your church has a different perspective than the rest of the district as far as financial priorities. I don’t know how many reps your one church sends, but assume they all are united and yet voted down in the district budget argument.

    Can they return to your church and suggest the church stop funding the district in any way. Will national come down on churches who refuse to play ball and accept defeat at the ballot box. I assume the votes aren’t unanimous so there must be some rancor on occasion. Unlike sports or an election when participation recognizes the necessity of defeat for someone, we are talking about spiritual matters here – people being convinced God wants this for His money given by His people. If your reps were united in the Spirit that the district is wrong, what then?

    I get that there are lots of layers of involvement in the process – but my original question is if the Lutheran church requires you to pay dues and how long you could go choosing not to do so (for whatever reasons)

  251. Steve,
    You have too many questions for me to answer properly, but you might on your end tell me how you handle people designating funds in the plate offerings.

    “Where I am confused is the large money you sent to private Lutheran high schools. ”
    When the schools were built we pledged money per student who goes from our church to one of the Lutheran High Schools. We share with the parents in a continuing Lutheran education.

    Again, just another thing where we work together to do God’s work as Lutherans. It is the rare individual church that can build it’s own high school. If the CCs worked together in your area, you too could have a CC regional high school. But you don’t

    And Orange Lutheran has a killer football program 🙂

  252. Steve Wright says:

    Well you indicated that our giving to another organization was foolish because we could not account for the use of the funds.
    ———————————————————-
    No. I just said your boast of stewardship seemed out of place. Not that it was foolish to do so. Do you have anyone sitting on the High School Board? Do you monitor the curriculum or the SAT scores? 🙂

    I do like what you wrote (and Xenia agreed to) “We trust them because they are us.”

    Just apply that to why CC people give to their local churches and trust the Board on spending the money. Except we don’t just share a denominaiton, we worship side by side together each Sunday in the same place. We are not CC people in another state somewhere. We are the ones we see each week, attend funerals with, laugh at potlucks with, take communion with etc.

    Very similar if you ask me. Yet different in their own ways.

  253. Steve,
    “I get that there are lots of layers of involvement in the process – but my original question is if the Lutheran church requires you to pay dues and how long you could go choosing not to do so (for whatever reasons)”

    You keep missing it – they do not send us a bill – we send them funds to support them. You seem to come from a first perspective of lack of trust – and I understand that this is the main reason independent churches are independent – they don’t trust anyone else.

    Look, we take defeat in votes. Let me tell you one thing we do, and we are not always successful. when we have a vote say on the budget and it comes out 60 – 40 in favor, we then have a follow up vote saying “since we have passed this budget and in the spirit of unity, we would like to have 100% affirmation. And we re vote with 100%

    We do this especially when we call new personnel, so we can tell them they were approved by unanimous consent.

    We Lutherans are weird.

  254. Steve Wright says:

    You have too many questions for me to answer properly, but you might on your end tell me how you handle people designating funds in the plate offerings.
    ——————————————————–
    We honor them.

  255. About designating funds. We will not accept “you can’t spend my money on this”. We do make “best effort” when people try to designate funds to a specific area, but sometimes it is not legal or it gives the IRS a headache.

    We try to get all to give to first fruits to the general fund and if they want to go above and beyond, we will work with it.

  256. Steve Wright says:

    Look, we take defeat in votes. Let me tell you one thing we do, and we are not always successful. when we have a vote say on the budget and it comes out 60 – 40 in favor, we then have a follow up vote saying “since we have passed this budget and in the spirit of unity, we would like to have 100% affirmation. And we re vote with 100%

    We do this especially when we call new personnel, so we can tell them they were approved by unanimous consent.

    We Lutherans are weird.
    ———————————————-
    Fascinating.

    The flip side is a local church board that seeks unanimous agreement in the Spirit, and refuse to go forward without it. I know of a couple churches (not necessarily Calvary) that actually have that in the bylaws.

    Now, like with anything, if the board is yes men for the pastor or some other leading elder, then this is meaningless, but if you have Spirit-led people who truly want God’s will on every decision…and who find themselves troubled on an item, the rest of the group is wise to take pause and discuss more before proceeding with the official vote.

  257. Steve Wright says:

    When the schools were built we pledged money per student who goes from our church to one of the Lutheran High Schools. We share with the parents in a continuing Lutheran education.
    ———————————————————————
    Well that is different. You are just talking scholarships now. So if you had no students a given year in one of the Lutheran H.S. – then you would give no money to the school, right?

    (P.S. – Of course if someone innocently asks for something that is illegal for their money, we then talk to them to explain. But that would be a very rare thing indeed)

  258. “the rest of the group is wise to take pause and discuss more before proceeding with the official vote.”

    Probably another reason that you do not have a budget and share information with the congregation. We have a beforehand agreement in our by laws to pass a budget by July 1 and we believe the holy spirit has always allowed us to do so. Everyone has a month to have input and review – knowing it comes down to a vote.

    Hey, I don’t always get my way on the board or in the voter’s meetings – but I have never had trouble adding my voice and vote to unanimous consent.

    Tomorrow I will be elected President of our board – guarantees me nothing in getting my way.

  259. Steve, I have told you almost everything about our finances and you have revealed next to nothing.

    I don’t know that we are at zero balance if no one goes to the school, but even so – what is your “scholarship” budget?

    Where does the CC money go outside of the payroll and facility costs?

  260. Steve Wright says:

    There is a difference between not having a formal budget process and “not sharing information”

    Considering you just commented that us independent churches don’t trust others, it seems like you miss the trust inside our four walls. The chief point of #256

    Funny a person would trust the leadership with the weightier matters of their spiritual growth and health, but would not be willing to trust with the lucre…..

  261. I may not understand your 264 properly.
    We as Lutherans are ready and set to work as not only a local organization but to go into Judea, Samaria and into all the world with our efforts – that is why we give so world wide helps organizations, worldwide Christian training centers can exist and thrive … as compared to your “trust inside our four walls” attitude.

  262. Steve Wright says:

    Steve, I have told you almost everything about our finances and you have revealed next to nothing.
    ———————————————————-
    Well, we are in a poor city, in the heart of the poorest section of town, and thankfully God has seen fit to draw a lot of the poor to our doors…probably because they don’t have to stress about giving commitments, budgets and general financial talk. I have not and will never use the expression “Partner with us” – We have a simple offering with no build-up as part of the worship service.

    I have said before, I want on my tombstone “The poor felt welcomed and loved at the church he pastored”

    The majority of the people (i.e. more than 50%) are on very fixed incomes, unemployed, or underemployed. The LAST thing they will ever hear from me is anything about church financial challenges.

    In discussions with others, I know churches half our size that average as much or more than we do each week in giving. Since your church is in the heart of Orange County I am sure you know what I mean.

    Within the first few months of becoming pastor I was advised one week we had less than $200 to our name. This is when I was taking no salary. We have come back from that but even today there are many weeks when we receive less than the bills, and the totals can fluctuate by as much as 50% a week. Now, why would I want to share that with people who just want to worship God and grow in their walk with Him? God knows our needs, and He has never let us down and in six years I have never made a plea for money, no matter how dire things looked.

    The one budget commitment we do have, that I established a few years ago when we dug out, was that 10% minimum would go to our missions and the poor/needy (split 50/50) – no matter how big the bills, how low the offering, that would come off the top. And we have kept that commitment every week. And I would add that the church DOES know about THAT commitment, as I want them to be encouraged that even if just a widow’s mite, they are making a difference in the lives of others, and not just keeping the lights on.

  263. Steve Wright says:

    I also want to make one thing very clear. We have a congregation of very generous givers. They were once publicly criticized in that regard and I do not want anything in my statement above to be interpreted as if I was saying they are selfish or miserly.

    Hardly.

    In fact, I am blown away by their love and generosity and commitment. It is a high honor indeed to pastor this church.

  264. Steve Wright says:

    Once publicly criticized by another

  265. Michael says:

    Mark,

    You’re a hoot.
    Let me dissuade you of some assumptions.
    First you assume that all CC pastors agree with you in your opinions of this blog and the articles I write.
    Nothing…nothing…could be farther from the truth.
    Where the hell do you think I get my information?
    Second, you think I need to write these for numbers.
    I don’t.
    I broadened the scope of this blog many years ago and it would be one of the top blogs in the country even if I never wrote another word about CC.
    This year there have been exactly four articles published here with “Calvary Chapel” in the title.
    Four.
    In the last year there have been six.
    Six.
    We publish every day.
    I’m sure that I’ve written more articles than that on the subject, but not many.
    You never comment on anything other than those articles, so like many in your tribe, that’s all you’re looking for.
    I get that you hate what I do.
    I don’t care.
    I believe in what I’m doing and it’s come at a cost.
    I’m going to keep doing it.

  266. Steve, very commendable.

    “Now, why would I want to share that with people who just want to worship God and grow in their walk with Him?” Because if you don’t then you deprive them of the joy that comes in doing God’s work and helping to fix this world.

    We never preach money for money’s sake – but you kind of laughed off my stewardship comment earlier, but stewardship to a Christian is just as much for their spiritual growth and development as a bible study is. Stewardship is a reward in itself given by God to strengthen people in living the Christian life.

    Why would you want to bring it up? Many reasons – by starting people off on a good footing in how to use their time, talents and resources.

  267. Steve Wright says:

    MLD, I speak on money whenever it comes up in the regular course of the book study….which as you know in the NT is sort of rare.

    Stewardship however is a regular topic, as it is in the Scripture. I would never laugh off the topic of stewardship.

  268. Well, I need to go take a nap. My fingers wore me out.

    Actually, while I was discussing finances, I was polishing my class for tomorrow – Daniel 9:1-23 and I finished off next week’s class Daniel 10.

  269. Steve Wright says:

    Yeah I have to go too, MLD. While you are in Daniel, we are having a communion service and message tomorrow.

    The world is upside down. 🙂

  270. Matthew18 says:

    Martin Luther’s Disciple:

    “Read closely and I will type this slowly “I know Paul Smith” I knew Paul Smith for 10 yrs up until about 5 yrs ago.” is not evidence in support of your accusation. I was asking for facts. You could just say you don’t have any examples or evidence just an oppinion. I would respect that more.

  271. Former CC Pastor says:

    I completely disagree with the thought “this is not the place to allow open dialogue about their differences. This is the kind of thinking that fosters and ALMOST cult environment. This is a form of “control” which CC is notorious for. I have been a CC Pastor and an executive in the business world. Allowing people to voice their opinions is HEALTHY! It promotes an environment, where others are not afraid to speak up. Ducking draws more attention to them and gives the impression, there’s something to hide. If the CC leadership are confident in their decisions. Why are they afraid to allow dissenters to even be present. Bad form! I personally almost had my faith destroyed by this group and it has taken years to recover. And it is this type of behavior that contributed to my demise. If you only allow yourself to be surrounded by those who agree with you and your opinions. This is an extremely dangerous position. It creates Group Think, and promotes this example to other Pastors who follow their example and exclude those who disagree or dissent from their opinions.

  272. Former CC Pastor says:

    Additional Comment: I personally dealt with Paul Smith a few years ago. He appeared to be a compassionate and good man. But with all due respect, due to his age (I am not sure of any known condition) I know first hand he has problems remembering and sometimes not able to grasp a 100% a conversation. I mean no disrespect to Paul. I don’t know him well. This is based on my personal interaction dealing with a situation where I received a call from him and told to remove an advertisement for opening a new CC. This call was after receiving permission from CCOF to Open said CC (The Local Pastor complained :-(. All silliness now. My point is, there is NO WAY Paul Smith could do ANY “damage” during the Pastors conference. It makes no sense. In my interactions with him. It doesn’t fit his character. This is pure silliness.

  273. Michael says:

    Paul Smith tried to disrupt Brian Brodersens installation as pastor of Costa Mesa.
    His own brother fired him for being a loose cannon.
    He does have a age related condition…

  274. the dude says:

    Maybe this is a little off subject, but I am going to ask it anyway.

    What was the point of the pastors’ conference at CCCM on 07/25-26? My group meeting (and all others that night) were dark because the conference attendees were going to be using all the rooms.

    Anybody know about this?

  275. Ronnie Plotner says:

    The false teachers that Ms Alnor exposes are ones who will not change and continue to be a problem to the Body of Christ. We need to expose them to help protect the Body of Christ.

    Regarding Chuck Smith Jr, it should be a no brainer to not have him on the Pastors Perspective (PP) radio program. Afterall, he has openly joined ranks with the emergent (un) church movement and publicly endorses homosexuality. Shame on having Chuck Jr on PP. Nor should have Rick Warren been on PP.

    I do pray that Chuck Jr and Rick Warren will get right with God. I mean that with all of my heart.

  276. Ronnie Plotner says:

    So many CC pastors and other CC church attenders protect the Cc Movement no matter what goes on. It is scratching each others backs. How sad and pitiful. All of you falling in the pit together like the blind leading the blind.

    It is time for all of us to be honest and forthright for/to God and to help protect the Body of Christ.

    God will sort it out in His own timing, but He also wants us to do our part.

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.