Church shopping—excursus on Calvary Chapel Movement

[Guest]

George Mueller was an acquaintance (friend?) of J. N. Darby. Eventually, Darby excommunicated Mueller and the church of which he was the pastor from his circle because Mueller was too willing to fellowship broadly with various Christians with whom Darby disagreed. It was either Shaw's or Pierson's biography of Mueller that had a whole chapter about Darby and Mueller.

Born in 1805, Mueller was raised (unsaved) in the Lutheran Church in Germany (then Prussia). He studied theology prior to his conversion, and was taught amillennialism by his unsaved theology professors. When he got saved, it was among premillennialists in a home prayer meeting, and he came to accept premillennialism as the view of the only evangelicals he knew. He never, however, accepted Darby's system or the pretribulational rapture (according to biographers). It is this fact that caused me to list him among those that Calvary Chapel will not accept. I have friends who have been pressured to leave Calvary Chapel, not because they were either amillennial or preterist, but because they did not believe in the pretribulational rapture.

[Guest]

What is "Calvary Chapel".

Doesn't Dave Hunt have a group of churches called "Calvary Chapels"?

[Guest]

Calvary Chapel was a non-denominational church in Santa Ana, California, which was very small (a couple dozen people) when they called the young Chuck Smith to be their pastor in the sixties. Chuck began to teach through the Bible verse-by-verse, which brought new life to the little congregation. When Lonnie Frisbee, the hippie preacher, came to Calvary Chapel, his preaching (and Chuck's) drew enormous crowds of curious young people to the little church, which became the the hub of the resulting Jesus Movement.

Calvary moved to facilities in Costa Mesa, where it grew into the nation's third largest congregation. Hundreds of Chuck's disciples (of which I was one) were launched into their own ministries far and wide, and many of them started daughter congregations, calling them "Calvary Chapel" as well. There are now many hundreds, if not thousands of Calvary Chapel churches around the world—many are the largest churches in their communities.

When there were only a few hundred Calvary Chapels, there was much liberty in the movement. Chuck Smith printed, on the back of each bulletin of the church, "We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only to their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ." This appeared to be true until there arose a major split in the movement, in the early eighties.

John Wimber was the pastor of Calvary Chapel, Yorba Linda, CA, and began to take his church in a direction emphasizing signs, wonders and miracles. Chuck Smith had come out of a Pentecostal (Foursquare) background, and had an aversion to what he regarded to be "charismania." Since he could not persuade Wimber to change the direction of his congregation and to move back into the direction of the Calvary Chapel distinctive (i.e., teaching through the Bible verse-by-verse), Wimber left the Calvary Chapel and linked up with a church in North Hollywood called the Vineyard. This was the church where Bob Dylan, Keith Green, and many celebrities had gotten saved or were in fellowship.

This break caused many other Calvary pastors to consider doing the same thing, and over the course of a few years, the Calvary movement saw dozens of their churches switching over and affiliating with the Vineyard. The result was a lot of hard feelings between Calvary and the Vineyard movements, and Chuck Smith began to tighten the definition of what could and what could not be considered compatible with Calvary Chapel's "distinctives."

At this point, Calvary transitioned from what it had been—a free association of Spirit-filled Christians who just loved Jesus and enjoyed studying His Word—to a regular denomination. There soon were strict doctrinal criteria defined for those who would teach in the movement. They could not be Calvinists (thankfully, I am not), nor could they be very Pentecostal. Especially, they could not hold end-times positions contrary to dispensationalism, which is Chuck's main doctrinal distinctive—the hobby-horse doctrine of the whole movement.

Dave Hunt and Calvary Chapel have very similar convictions about most things. Dave was raised in the Plymouth Brethren movement, was converted in high school, and became mildly charismatic in the late sixties or early seventies (his book about his transition was published by Logos International around 1971 or 72, and was called "Confessions of a Heretic"). He was a CPA in Southern California, when I met him, and was doing some lay-evangelism and apologetics out of his home during the Jesus Movement.

In 1973 he branched out to writing books against false doctrine. His book "The Cult Explosion" (1978) was an early Christian rebuttal of the Eastern Mysticism that characterized the New Age Movement. There were many other books, and Dave's reputation came to be that of a heresy-buster (especially with the publication of his best-selling, "The Seduction of Christianity" in the mid-eighties).

One distinctive of Dave Hunt's approach to writing apologetics against heresy is to tie it all in with eschatology. This happened, first, by his identifying the New Age Movement with the eschatological antichrist of dispensationalism. That is, he believed the New Age movement would bring in the antichrist. The next step was to accuse groups that had non-dispensational eschatology (especially "Kingdom Now" groups) of being complicit with the antichrist spirit. Many of Dave's books mix good apologetics with debatable eschatology. I once told him that I thought this weakened his otherwise powerful apologetic works, but he said that he felt it was his mission to expose the antichrist in this way and alert the church to the fact that these are the last days (this conversation occurred twenty years ago—I guess we are still in the last days).

I am not aware of any major differences in the beliefs of Dave Hunt and Calvary Chapel. I have not been in touch with him for years, and he may be fellowshiping at a Calvary Chapel in Oregon, where he now lives, for all I know. He would fit it comfortably there.

[Guest]

As a person who once fellowshipped with the brethren (the so-called "Plymouth Brethren who did not regard themeselves as a denomination, but an expression of the Church which Christ founded), I checked out the history of the circle of fellowship. I found it all started over the question of communion. At the time George Mueller lived, denominations tended to forbid communion to anyone who was not a member of a church of that denomination. Thus Mueller, Craik, and other brethren decided to forget denomnationalism, and to meet in the name of Christ alone, and to "break bread" in remembrance of Him "in His own appointed way". Eventually, it seemed J.N. Darby became divisive. He refused to "break bread" with certain brethren who didn't agree with him. Then he carried his divisiveness much further. He also refused to break bread with any brethren who were willing to break bread with those brethren that he refused. Today, there are still some who follow Darby's exclusive ways. They are known as the "Exclusive Brethren". The majority of "Plymouth Brethren" today are known as the "Open Brethren".

In their practice (during the "breaking of bread" meeting) one or two elders greet at the door all who enter. If any are strangers, they are asked about their relationship to Christ. If the elders judge that they are true Christians, they are invited to participate fully in the meeting, to take communion, and to share in the "body ministry" if the Lord leads them to do so. If the elders judge that a stranger is not a Christian, he is invited to sit on a bench at the back and observe. The bread and wine are not passed to anyone on that bench. But neither is the collection bag!

In my first experience with "the brethren", I entered an assembly of exclusive brethren mistakenly. I asked them if this was a Plymouth Brethren assembly. He replied, "That's what they call us." I asked whether it was Arlington Street Gospel Chapel (an "open" brethren assembly as I described above). He replied, "No. No. We don't fellowship with them. They break bread with anybody."

In between these two extremes are assemblies known as the "Tight Brethren". In order to take communion with them, one must apply to the elders with intent to fellowship with them.

There are actually 9 different circles of "Plymouth Brethren", all identical in theological belief. the 9 groups are separate only on the basis of whom, and on what basis, a person is accepted to take communion with them.

I understand that J.N. Darby picked up his pre-trib view from the Catholic Apostolic Church, and brought it home and spread the view among "the Brethren" everywhere. Today, all 9 groups are dispensationalist pre-tribbers.

In the morning meeting of the "Open Brethren" where I fellowshipped, any brother who was led by the Spirit, could pray, suggest a worship song, give a short exhortation, or give thanks for the bread, or the wine.

The whole meeting was centred around the person of Jesus, and the giving of thanks for His sacrificial death on our behalf. No unrelated topics were brought up.

The practice of sisters wearing the devotional headcovering (I Cor 11) was observed. Paul's statement, "I do not permit a woman to speak in the assembly" was strictly observed. The only time women opened their mouths in the assembly was in singing congregational hymns.

[Guest]

As a person who once fellowshipped with the brethren (the so-called "Plymouth Brethren who did not regard themeselves as a denomination, but an expression of the Church which Christ founded), I checked out the history of the circle of fellowship. I found it all started over the question of communion. At the time George Mueller lived, denominations tended to forbid communion to anyone who was not a member of a church of that denomination.

Is the "Plymouth Brethren" basically Anabaptist or what??

Wasn't Jim Elliot (Ecuador missionary) part of PB?? J. Hudson Taylor??

[Guest]

...as were the noted scholars W.E. Vine (of "Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words") and F.F. Bruce (regarded to be the greatest evangelical New Testament scholar of the 20th century. He remained Plymouth Brethren affiliated until his death, though he did not embrace dispensationalism. Like Hank Hanegraaff, he was amillennial, but eschewed the label).

All churches that do not baptize infants are "anabaptist", though many, like the modern Baptists, Evangelical Free and Plymouth Brethren, are not direct outgrowths of the original anabaptist movement, as are the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish. Most of the original Plymouth Brethren came out of the Church of England (as did the Methodists). As Paidion said, the Plymouth Brethren did not see themselves as a new denomination, but as a communion of brothers in Christ—hence their label "Brethren."

[Guest]

Somewhere in my mind I am associating the Plymouth Brethren and Darby to the "Non-Lordship" side of the Lordship controversy. What's the connection there if there is one?

[Guest]

Darbyism, and especially its more extreme form, Bullingerism (ultra-dispensationalism), do tend to relegate the responsibilities of the kingdom of God (i.e., obedience to the King) to another dispensation, and think of the present age as an age of grace. Unfortunately, they often then interpret grace as the opposite of duty, and come up with a form of antinomianism.

John MacArthur is an example of a dispensationalist who has resisted and opposed this trend. Most dispensationalists, I think, would say that he does so only by being inconsistent in his dispensationalism.