A Casual Chapel Pastor found something offensive in an article about his preaching. His response was typical of all clergy devoted to their own authority.

He wrote:  “To whomever you are, you have chosen to take a message, distort it, and use it as a soap box for your pet issues. Your comments are ridiculous. I don't care if this is posted or not, I only hope the author reads this. In the love of Christ, I feel I must tell you that you display a very critical spirit. If you were just passing through this church, then I hope you find a church which shares your views, for surely you will not be content until you do. If you attend this church, why? Perhaps you should start your own church. It seems you have judged the rest and found them wanting.”

As you can see, there is no reference to what matters he found offensive. I can guess what articles he read, I can guess what he found offensive in them, but I can only guess and therefore cannot engage in any meaningful dialog that might prove edifying. There are no specifics; only a well-worn condemnation using generalities. I said in one article that I was not distorting anything, so if he says I was distorting his message, then once again, there is no meaningful dialog, no specifics, no way to reconcile, no way to love. This is how Casual Chapel and most churches run their show. They feel that once their prestige is questionable, the entire gospel of salvation goes down with them. 

This is the sort of thing Martin Luther and John Huss and William Tynedale fought. The Mother Church was seen as the only authority and all gospel and life and fellowship must come through Her. If we cannot see a parallel here, then we must arrive at one of three conclusions. One, I am comparing myself to great men and I’m puffed up (the pastor’s foregone conclusion). Two, Casual Chapel and all the other newborn churches are not subject to criticism any more than the Mother Church, Rome. Or Three, I have a point and it should be taken seriously.

Just as when Luther and Huss and Tynedale tried to take Rome to task, Rome avoided straight Scriptural refutations, of course.  She based her authority on her clergy’s interpretation, of which there is a mountainous storehouse. She has the only authority to baptize (same as the pastor), she has the only authority to teach (same as the pastor) she has the only real gospel (same as the pastor), she controls the spiritual ministrations (same as the pastor), she controls the money (same as the pastor), she controls the agenda (same as the pastor),  she performs the sacraments (same as the pastor) and she can wave her hand and dismiss the rebellious (same as the pastor).  

This happens in almost all churches. The pastor (or the board he/she controls) does everything. He is the clergy; we are the laity: same as in the Great Mother. He should be equipping the saints to do battle against the enemy by allowing them exercise of gifts (yes, there are gifted men and women besides the pastor and his favorites). He should be teaching them by example how to defend oneself against the attack of the enemy by proving himself pure in doctrine. He must refute specific lies by Scripture. Instead, we find him avoiding specifics at any cost, so that the doctrines he teaches remain universal in appeal but ambiguous in application.  

As far as I can tell, there are no hints at scriptural thoughts or ideas anywhere in his short reply. He says, “In the love of Christ,” but these are mere words, quotable by anyone who needs to appear loving because there may be something else behind the scene (assumed to be fear of the light). What does he mean by a “critical spirit”? Does he mean I have a mental condition, or worse, a bondage under a devilish spirit? Or is he just using a psychological term that condemns anyone who reveals bad doctrine in his preaching? At either rate, this is a seriously condemning charge, but he does not support it from scripture.  His words are also critical, but he can always plead innocence because he didn’t really say anything. And that’s how Casual Chapel operates. Pretty soon, words have no substance, no specifics, only an intolerance for anything that challenges authority. This is fear, not love. And yet he must preface his self-righteous defense by using the phrase, “In the love of Christ.”

Hopefully, I will learn from this and not do the same.

The smart-aleck suggestion that I start my own church is his own downfall. He’s the one who started his own church. Once his denomination left the Roman Catholic fold and started its own church apart from her dominion, he cannot use this argument. Martin Luther wanted to stay with the Roman Church, but the more he revealed of her wickedness, the more they tried to boot him out (they really wanted to burn him at the stake, but Germany would not have it, and so there you have it, the Reformation in a nutshell).  

When the pastor kisses the pope’s ring, I’ll kiss his. But he won’t, because he inherited the work that Luther and Calvin and others like them put into crushing the false authority in the church. In the meantime, I will exercise my God-given ability to see and point out false doctrines, false brethren, false authority and false love whenever and wherever I see fit, not bound by Casual Chapel’s authority, or any other Johnny-come-lately denomination. This is the Protestant heritage - otherwise, let’s all go be good little Catholics.

- Chris Simonson

We encourage you to email the author to prove or disprove, from the Scriptures, the intent, meaning, purpose or doctrine of this piece. email Chris