Being an ex-Catholic, I once asked a pastor what the church's stance on Catholicism was. Instead of giving me a direct answer, he urged me to attend the church's multi-week teaching seres on Catholicism instead. I don't wish to sound harsh, but it bothered me that a church leader wouldn't answer this question, even when I directly asked him if he thought that Catholics and evangelicals preached the same gospel! (I later learned that many of my acquaintances from the Chapel had a non-commital view on the same topic.)
I wish I could say that this was the only distressing experience I had with the Chapel, but it wasn't. In some ways, the teaching was quite good and even inspiring. In other ways though, it was weak or careless. I think it suffers from a problem that's common to many large churches -- having some good teachers, but also having some that are weak or inadequately equpped.
To be honest (and I say this cautiously), I think that many large churches, it also suffers from trying to hard to cater to non-believers. My impression is that it has bought into Bill Hybel's "seeker-friendly' paradigm a little too much, without embracing it outright. (Do a Google search on the terms "seeker-friendly" and "seeker-sensitive" if you're unfamiliar with this method.) Indeed, Pastor Larson credits C. Peter Wagner (an influential proponent of these church growth tactics) with part of his ministry philosophy. I appreciate some of Pastor Larson's work, but I find this disappointing.
Again, I say this hesitantly. I know that there are good things about the Chapel; however, I'd recommend various smaller churches like Calvary Chapel instead.