Calvary Chapel Distinctives #1

This is the first of numerous posts blogging through Chuck Smith's book, "Calvary Chapel Distinctives: The Foundational Principles of the Calvary Chapel Movement". In this post I will be going through the first two sections of the book entitled 'Preface' and 'The Call To The Ministry'.

Preface:

The first sentence in the book is as follows:

What is it that makes Calvary Chapel different from other Bible-believing, evangelical Churches?

Smith goes on to explain that there are indeed important enough differences to not merge with the church across the street. So, he sets the book up as a confession of faith, a "what we believe" of sorts, of which I am all for. I think it is a very good thing that this book was written for the purpose it was written for. A lot of churches, mostly congregations who are not affiliated with any particular denomination, do not have a standard, a starting point for pastors and members to adhere to. So again, I am glad Calvary Chapel has separated itself from other denominations.

The Call To The Ministry:

To start out the section, Chuck Smith makes it clear as to whom he is addressing this book to. He often uses pronouns like 'our', 'we', and 'us'. This whole section is dedicated to "the vital subject of our calling and commitment to the ministry". So this book is written to/for Calvary Chapel ministers.

Smith writes,

If there is one characteristic that is absolutely essential for effective ministry, it's that we must first have a sense of calling- the conviction in our hearts that God has chosen and called us to serve Him. The Bible tells us to make our calling and election sure. Are you convinced that God has called you into the ministry? (Italics mine)

Here is the books first exegetical error. He references 2 Peter 1 when he speaks of us making our calling and election sure. There is just one problem, the 'calling' that Peter speaks of, has nothing to do with a "conviction in our hearts that God has chosen and called us to serve Him" in pastoral ministry. Smith takes this verse (2 Peter 1:10) out of context and uses it for his purpose in this chapter. This is not to be taken lightly. Peter had an intention for the words he used in his letter. We, 2000 years later, should not take the words he used and make them mean what we want then to mean.

Smith moves on to give some practical examples of how ministering/serving God's people works out. He tells of how he hates picking up peoples cigarette butts off the ground. Every time he would pick one up outside of the church building, he would grumble in his heart and think unloving thoughts about the person dropping them. Then Smith says something odd,

Then the Lord spoke to my heart. He simply said, "Who are you serving?" I said, "I am serving You, Lord." And He replied, "Then quit your gripping."

Now, I don't actually think he heard the very voice of God saying these things to him. At least I hope not. I get the point hes trying to make. But why not use God's actual voice, His word? Why not use scripture to make the point? What does "the Lord spoke to my heart" even mean? This lingo of conversations with God is popular in evangelicalism. People claim to have heard a still, small voice. They claim they have dreams and visions from God. My question is this: If Chuck actually hears God speak to him, shouldn't we be typing this stuff out and stapling it in our Bibles just after Revelation?

He goes on to explain the right attitude and commitment ministers should have in ministry work. He says,

We must not only maintain a commitment to Jesus and to serving His people, but there must also be a commitment to the Word of God. I believe that anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is the inspired, innerant Word of God has no business being in the ministry. And if you do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that it's your duty to preach it, then, by all means, know it. Be committed to it.

Here is a clear affirmation to the innarency and total inspiration of the Bible. Smith takes a firm stance in his position against ministers who downgrade the Word of God. On this issue, he stands on the shoulders of giants of the Christian faith. I am extremely grateful for his insistence on this subject. I know, and am thankful to God, that Chuck Smith would wholeheartedly say with the prince of preachers, C.H. Spurgeon:

We care little for any theory of inspiration: in fact, we have none. To us the plenary verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture is a fact, and not hypothesis. It is a pity to theorize upon a subject which is deeply mysterious, and makes a demand upon faith rather than fancy. The coin of inspiration comes from the mint of infallibility.