Review: "Calvary Chapel Distinctives" by Chuck Smith

THOUGHTS ON CALVARY CHAPEL DISTINCTIVES BY CHUCK SMITH

Bearing the titles “Christian,” “Protestant,” and “Evangelical,” I share much with Chuck Smith, founding pastor of the Calvary Chapel movement. We agree on much more than we disagree. However, in looking at his book, I find that when we do disagree, they are rather serious and not all that periphery to the outworking of the Christian faith in everyday life. A few things I noticed in reading his book:

Pg. 12 – On The Nature of Church History: Chuck Smith criticizes church history, saying that within 60 years of its founding, the church was a failure and “nauseating” to God. He cites “Gnosticism and Aryanism” as examples. For a person to make bold ahistorical claims, one would expect a firm grasp of the history itself, but nothing of this sort is present. In fact, the second of the aforementioned heresies is not even correct. Aryanism refers to a philosophy which supports Indo-European peoples as being the master race (present in Nazism in the 1940s), while Arianism is a second century Christological heresy that was present in the early church but completely crushed by the work of Athanasius, the homousias declaration at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and with the official adoption of the Nicene Creed some years later. Before claiming that all of church history except for the period recorded in Acts was a failure and “nauseating” to God, Smith might want to actually learn something about church history. Whether this error is typographical or actual in Smith’s own mind, to make such a mistake in the midst of such a critique removes any academic credibility whatsoever from his patently false statements.

And as a side thought, how can he hold this view and believe in the purity of the New Testament canon? The first definitive, all-inclusive statement concerning this canon came in AD 367, many years after Smith’s declaration of supposed “failure” on the part of the church. If he is right that growing the church comes first of all by “getting people into the Word” (14), then where did this “Word” come from? Who decided that this book was “the Word” (e.g. Galatians, Hebrews, 2 Peter) while another was not “the Word” (e.g. the Didache, 1 & 2 Clement, the Gospel of Thomas)? This canon did not fall from heaven and Acts certainly gives us no help here.

Pgs. 13-17 – On Being a “New Testament Church”: Smith believes CC to be a “New Testament Church” or a church consistent with that of the community in Acts. He notes that Acts provides the “divine ideal” for such a community. But there are obvious inconsistencies here that he does not account for. If Acts provides “the divine ideal” for a church then CC ought to perform household baptisms (which they do not). They also ought to worship on Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) and use wine during the Lord’s Supper as the church in Acts did (both of which they do not do). CC must also disavow any and every notion of “independent” or “autonomous” local churches because Acts 15 would be completely irrelevant if all early churches were independent and/or autonomous (yet they maintain the local autonomy of their churches). And where do we find everyone being a deacon (as Smith proposes, 26) if we look at the context of Acts 6:3, for example? Clearly, it is meant to be an office of the church, not open to everyone, but to those with the gift of service.

Pg. 26-28 – On Presbyterian Polity: Chuck Smith criticizes Presbyterian polity but it is quickly apparent to a knowledgeable reader that Smith does not have an accurate view of Presbyterian polity. What he calls a “board” is actually called a session and no, it cannot hire and fire a pastor. Only the presbytery can do this! A session and a presbytery are not the same thing, unless one thinks a state and an entire nation are the same thing. The presbytery is composed of all elders of all sessions of the churches within the boundaries of each regional presbytery. This body of elders, not the “board” (i.e. session) creates and dissolves the pastoral relationship between a pastor and a congregation. In addition to this, pastors are in no way “hirelings” of the board because by virtue of his position as pastor, he is the moderator of each session. As an ordained minister of the gospel, he is not a pawn or hireling to be used to do the board’s bidding (28). Even a passing glance at a Presbyterian book of polity would disprove this misinformed assertion (see the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, chs. 21-22 for but one example).

Pg. 55 – On Soteriological Distinctives: Smith espouses a very typical doctrinal indecisiveness when it comes to important soteriological issues. He sees Calvinists and Arminians as being “polarized” and tries to argue that people should not themselves become “polarized” by taking a firm position on either side. Yes, a full understanding of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is not possible (both Calvinists[1] and Arminians note this), but regeneration either precedes faith or it follows faith. It cannot be both. Either the affects of the fall extend to all of the human being’s faculties or it does not. Either Christ died for the sins of the entire world or for the church’s only. Either a Christian can fall away or s/he cannot. In these cases, it cannot be both. Both cannot be true! The law of non-contradiction must be invoked here lest we spin into relativism. Saying that both are right or not very different is just another way to say that theology (and by proxy, the teaching of Scripture on these points) is not important. This is latent agnosticism. Furthermore, to elide “Reformation theology” with legalism (as Smith does on page 55) is another historical fallacy for who has stood most ardently for the doctrine of sola gratia (by grace alone). Again, for such a bold claim, we are given absolutely no examples, just a straw man for ostracize. His conclusion is to be theologically bland in order not to lose 50% of a congregation. But the question I have for Chuck Smith is this, “Why would you want a congregation that is twice as big as mine but understands half the good news?” Is the size of a congregation more important than the truth of the gospel? The answer to this question seems obvious to this reader.

Pg. 76 – A Doctrinal Double Standard: As it regards CC’s pretribulational stance, the proof-texts supplied for this position are in no way clear. If they were, then Smith would not need to devote the longest chapter in the entire book to this topic.[2] No verse or verses in the Bible depict an order of rapture then Parousia. The “bread and butter” reference to 1 Thessalonians 4:6-7 actually lends to the opposite stance: Christ will return and only then will the church be rescued. Trying to draw a line between Christ coming for and Christ coming with the church is highly tendentious, for there is almost no scriptural evidence for such a view of the Second (and as a result, Third) Coming of Christ. In addition, the entire outlook on the book of Revelation has been revised by evangelical scholars (Beale, Aune, Poythress, Bauckham, et al.) who have recognized that earlier schools of interpretation (Which Smith represents) were too literalistic and not sympathetic enough to John’s use of metaphor and imagery. Thus, whereas Chuck Smith encourages his followers not to become “polarized” as it regards soteriology (see pg. 55), he is taking a very polarized view on eschatology (premillenial, pretribulational dispensationalism). This stance has no precedence in the church until the 20^th century and even now in the 21^st, it is being abandoned by even the most loyal dispensationalist because it cannot be defended biblically. Regarding Smith’s understanding of theological “polarity,” I must ask why does he hold a double standard?

---

[1] Smith’s caricature of what he calls “Calvinism” is a position that no Calvinist would ever defend (see page 122). The position he is describing is commonly called “hyper-Calvinism” or better determinism/fatalism. Even a glance at any Reformed confession (Belgic, Westminster, etc.) or an orthodox Reformed theologian (Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, Kuyper, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, Murray, Sproul, Piper, et al.) would show that we do not begin to espouse what Smith (wrongly) calls Calvinism. Again…a straw man.

[2] I find it highly ironic that the preceding chapter entitled “The Centrality of Christ” is only 8 pages long and this one on eschatology is three and a half times longer (28 pages). What is really central here?