« What I did for...love? Part I | Main | What I did for...love? Part III »

What I did for...love? Part II

In Part I, I outlined conflict within the ministries of Calvary Chapel. My purpose was to note the lack of accountability present when those within the accountability structure have other interests besides actual accountability (a no-brainer, I know). Also to note that a great deal of harmful sin (yes, that’s a redundancy) goes on under the radar.

Some of the above-mentioned conflict occurred between founder Chuck Smith and his sons, Chuck Jr. and Jeff. That’s not surprising; conflict between parents and children is inevitable. But sin tendencies that might be tolerated or ignored, or hidden, outside of the home usually cannot be hidden within it. They come out in interaction (or lack thereof) with family members.

In Father, Son, and Holy Rift, Christopher Goffard of the L. A. Times writes of Chuck Smith’s certitude vs. Chuck Smith Jr.’s lack of it. Smith Jr. is quoted as being “more in a place of learning than of certainty,” and his conversation sounds, well, emergent. According to Goffard, he

grew up as a true believer in his father's Pentecostal world...his earliest memories involve an overpowering sense of sin. "You can never be good enough if you're Pentecostal or if you're fundamentalist...Jesus may even be upset if you didn't make your bed or brush your teeth."

(Confession: I myself can relate to this only too well.)

Smith Jr. was raised primarily by his mother since his father wasn’t around much. As a teen he found himself socially estranged and suffering from depression, which his father didn’t understand.

Reading this brought to mind the story of Bob Pierce, founder of World Vision, who, while tending to the materially poor children of the world, grossly neglected his own family. The link goes to a book listing with a brief description including this:

This gripping biography balances Bob's tragic mistakes with the great achievements God accomplished through him. It shows how God's grace and power can accomplish amazing things through less-than-perfect human vessels.

Yes, but...

Pierce sacrificed his own family for the “achievements God accomplished through him.” Is this the kind of sacrifice God requires, or honors? To whom was Pierce’s primary obligation? I think the answer is clear, and find it deeply troubling that someone would minimize what he did to his family simply because he did so much for others.

If I neglect my family for my blogging, how does God look upon my blogging? Even if it does actually benefit someone, somewhere in the world, I know in my heart of hearts that it is but a steaming pile in God’s eyes if it was bought at the price of care due my family. Perhaps even care due myself. Even if my family members forgive or perhaps even admire me for the stuff I write, this does not erase my accountability for any short-changing they've received.

It’s apparent that, though father and son Smith profess to, and no doubt do, love one another, there have been deficiencies in the living out of that love. Perhaps Chuck Sr. would’ve been better off learning how to develop a better relationship with his son than with building the empire of Calvary Chapel. Perhaps his own fundamentalist certitude was a way to put off dealing with his own real-life difficulties and uncertainties. It was something to hide behind.

This is not to say that Chuck Jr. is not responsible for himself, but it is clear that he did not receive adequate guidance from his father. And he still wishes for a unity that isn’t there. Of a line he speaks in a documentary about a former assistant to his father’s who was ushered out when it was discovered he was gay, Chuck Jr. says

no, he wasn't really speaking to Dad. Then he pauses. "Maybe I was," he says.

We are all hugely, immensely shaped by our parents. Our relationships with them will affect us deeply for our entire lives, as will those with our children. Obviously no parent is perfect, and sometimes mere personality dynamics can affect parent-child relationships in negative ways. But we are still accountable to our Father in heaven for our parenting, and as adults are accountable for how we deal with whatever difficulties may have arisen from the way we were parented (or not).

Another example of bad family blood is Franky Schaeffer, who goes by Frank Schaeffer now. Who knows what really happened, but he seems to be in a Huff, or rather, reaction mode against his parents lately – sort of a late teenage rebellion.

Much of what he says about fundamentalism is true, but when it comes to Christianity, based on what I’ve read of him, he’s thrown the baby out with the bathwater. As his parents perhaps did somewhat in the opposite direction. Really, Franky’s espousing a kind of fundamentalism himself..a screw-the-fundies kind. Surely this isn’t because of what his parents believed, but of how they lived, and how he now lives (pun intended).

So, what’s my point? Well, I wanted to see what could be learned from the Calvary Chapel–CSN mess. Perhaps one thing is that accountability starts with the individual, including said individual’s relationships, from closest outward. Before any of us can truly bring God glory, I believe, we must take care of first things first. This means that our own house -- meaning our selves, and then our family -- must come first.

In part III, hopefully, I can get around to asking the rest of my questions. Thanks for bearing with me.

Comments

Chuck Smith's "Moses model" seems like an invitation to trouble to me. It invites a pastor to become puffed up with pride, since he can rightfully claim credit for the empire he leads. And it isolates the pastor from accountability, which opens the door to secret sin and all sorts of hypocrisy. Ted Haggard is one of many examples of what happens to Christians who are alone at the top.

As for Frank Schaeffer, all children grow up with the freedom to embrace or reject the moral foundations their parents laid. He argues that any sort of extremism in a family is bad for children. I think he misses the point, which is that every moral position is extreme to the extent that it rules out the alternatives. Whether parents are fundamentalists or atheists or spiritually indifferent, they each embrace (and pass along) their beliefs with a certainty that the other possibilities are wrong.

So children listen and watch and consider, and as adults they make their own decisions. Frank has rejected his parents' faith, which is as old a story as the child who enters the ministry despite her parents' wish that she would become a surgeon.

You make an excellent point, Bonnie, about the primary importance of being good parents first and foremost. Men have often made their careers more important than their families. Women are beginning to make the same mistake. Children are deeply hurt by such neglect.

Looking forward to part 3.

Posted by: Charlie at March 7, 2007 11:23 PM

It is sad that as Christians we must tear each other apart. But then again, are you a Christian after all?

Posted by: Jeanne at December 8, 2007 5:12 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.