A Call for a Diversified Pastorate

The good part of this kind of reasoning is that it keeps the main thing the main thing, while allowing good and godly people to differ on non-essentials.

The hard part of this kind of thing is making sure to keep the main thing the main thing and not make diversity the main thing.

As a pastor, the ability to have a similar philosophy of ministry is also important, as well as a similar idea of how to serve Christ.

Michael,

Pretty good list. I find the last of your non-negotiables interesting for 2 reasons.

1) If one agrees with the other non-negotiables and has demonstrated the ability to lead, teach, etc – what are you concerned or afraid this person will do?

2) You’ve made a non-negotiable something that the disciples themselves did not, nor did they instruct others to do. They may well have broken fellowship with someone for the first items of the list, but formal teaching I find a big stretch. Certainly good, solid, and lots of instruction is called for in scripture, but to make formal instruction a mandate violates non-contradiction with your 2nd item, sola scriptura. :^(

None of this is to say that formal training is a bad thing, that is by no means my point. But bad formal training is far worse than good informal training and proven experience. ;^)

cheers,

-steve

Steve,

1. Don’t get me wrong. I would not disqualify someone because they agreed with me on everything!! I would just be intentional on trying to get SOME diversity.

2. Sorry. Have to stand my ground here. Is there any situation where I would allow a person who does not have training? Theoretically yes. Practically, with the availability out there and along with the way it trains someone, why not? No untrained pastors on my staff. Just like if I had a hostpital, I would not have any doctors who did not go through the rigor discipline and mentorship of medical school and residency. Could someone, theoretically, today, be a good doctor without it? Sure, but why would you do it? There are certian standards that society (which is part of the common grace of God) sets up that are good. This is one of them that, unfortunately, the church, sometime, does not take as seriously as they should.

But I DON’T want this to turn into a debate about whether formal education is necessary. You can comment on it, but don’t move the thread in such a direction. We have already had this discussion a few months back.

At our church we have diversity on staff and “on pew” on eschatology, calvinism and gifts of the spirit. It works well.

One non-negotiable I would add to the list would be sanctification – that the Spirit sanctifies through the truth of the Word.

BTW: I seriously doubt most of my Dispensational Reformed tradition would follow this pattern. Sigh…

Also,

As much a I might be intrigued by such a proposition in the local church, I would say that I am much more convinced that this is the way to go in educational institutions and seminaries.

I don’t think that Dallas Theological Seminary (hands down the greatest seminary out there 🙂 ) will ever seek or see the same degree of value in this kind of diversity. Sigh…(again)

Poll added.

Thank you Michael, I am in the throws of a start up church in Brooklyn, NY. I have held the same or similar thoughts as you have put down here…I hope you continue to post more on this topic. Unfortunately I think too many people have trouble finding a sense of security in this way of thinking because of fear. Fear that what they have been taught could be wrong, fear of what they have taught could be wrong, fear of losing respect, esteem, pride and dare I say Control or power in the church. Thanks again, please keep it coming.

Thanks for your thoughts Michael. I promise – I wont take the thread off focus, that is not my intent. You haven’t convinced me yet on the formal training aspect, but I will consider your thoughts and that is for another time, another post – thanks for the reply.

-steve

Steve, you bet. As always, great to see you. When I get down that way, we need to get together.

One thing: I would like to hear from those who do practice such diversity. The good, bad, and ugly if they are available.

I know that there are a lot of churches that practice this already, so it would be good to get their imput.

I’m glad you emphasized “Ideal”: actually leading and administrating such diversity would be akin to herding cats.

Personally, I’d rather have a staff around me that agreed in most doctrinal areas but who would continually challenge me to think through my position more thoroughly. The diversity I would want – and would allow freedom for in membership – would be among non-staff people.

Too many variant views might have the unintended and undesired effect of confusing people who are young or immature in the faith. We all need a place to stand before we begin to venture out on our own; if we lack that, we will surely be tossed hither and yon by various waves of doctrine. Protecting the flock, I think, includes grounding them in the doctrinal truths that I believe exegetically grow out of Scripture. Part of the problem in our cultural is a multitude of conflicting beliefs and ideas, leaving most people with their feet firmly planted in mid-air.

I went to a seminary (Denver Seminary, 1986) that taught most major views on almost every doctrine without taking a position itself. That was good for me because I had already worked out my theology before I went. Others, though, who lacked the foundation that I was blessed to have, suffered. More than a few graduated still not convinced where they stood on some important matters. Dallas Seminary has it right: at the Masters level, provide them with a foundation; at the doctoral level, don’t let them get away with vomiting back the company line.

So teach them one thing first. As they mature, alternative views should be introduced. Stronger Christians will be the result.

That’s a very good point; I like your perspective here. My initial answer would have been that I would like to focus the church on in-depth doctrine, for which a narrowly selected staff would be helpful; at the same time, I have to admit that such a focus might be self-defeating, since it would tend to allow staff members to teach shallowly because they weren’t being challenged.

The fundamental question is whether the church should teach a tightly unified doctrine, or whether it should be tightly unified only in the essentials, and very diverse in doctrine.

I can see both sides.

Here’s the other side, as I see it:

Even non-essential controversies like Calvinism versus Arminianism can have profound effects on the questions of how people act as disciples of Christ, what they preach, and how they witness. A non-essential difference such as whether every believer should evangelize (some churches teach that the Great Commission was given only to the Church as a whole, not to every individual Christian) results in some huge differences in what the church teaches about the meaning of discipleship, and the church shouldn’t be teaching multiple versions of how people should act.

Such non-essential differences therefore be taught in a uniform way within a single church, while acknowledging that there are true Christians who have legitimate differences.

I would propose that rather than having staff who hold those different positions, instead the staff should make a point of calling in staff from other churches who hold those differing positions and having them teach those positions. In some cases and for some churches, debates would be useful and informative (in other cases, they would be counterproductive; wisdom is called for here).

This removes the need of deciding which staff members could hold differing opinions, and it also removes the problem that you’re not going to be able to hire real specialists in all the different opinions. It also places all of the differing opinions on an equal footing (rather than giving the ones that are actually hired a special place): they’re not what the church officially believes, but they’re legitimate Christian beliefs.

-Wm

You’re talking out of your hat.

This is what happens (if you can forgive the martial metaphor):

You march out to fight with a team. You got some guys with small arms, somebody with .50 cal, some rocket launchers, etc. Everybody’s got something and they all deploy based on the terrain and with intent to gain strategic advantage over the enemy. Some die. Some desert. Some get transferred out. Reinforcements come, supply lines are good at times, non-existent at others.

But you fight with what you got.

You would prefer more of everything, but you’re happy to have someone at your side who knows how to use a weapon and isn’t currently in the fetal position.

This is overly dramatic, I know. But if you think church-planting is some dream-world where you get to pimp your theological ride…

Are you doing this just for fun?

Maybe I should have used the football metaphor – you’re committed to a 3-4 front, but God sends you 4-3 talent. Some quit, some retire… but you play with what you’ve got. Something like that.

Wait, I’ll be back with a metaphor with some feminine sensitivity…

Michael,

You bet. I’d love that. Let me know when you’re coming this way. I know you have some buddies at churches nearby.

-steve

Michael,

I have been lurking for about a week, and I really appreciate the desire for balance and diversity. As an arminian I appreciate the openness of your position, as you pointed out in a previous comment, many do not allow such diversity.

Also, I absolutely agree with the training aspect.

Thanks,
Eric

I tried to edit my post but couldnt… sorry. I forgot to answer the question. ;^)

Yes, we’re trying this at the church where I worship. It is one of the intentional goals. There are similar lists as you have outlined above, but at the present moment eschatology is the only area of diversity. It is handled much as Schreiner did in the mp3 you posted recently about his take on eschatology and this as served us well.

So far so good.

-steve

Thanks Eric.

I got shoes,

Not sure whether or not you posted on the right post. I simply did not understand what you said.

Please restate.

I’m curious Michael, would someone who had sucessfully completed The Theology Program meet your education qualifications? After all, aren’t a number of churches using it to get their existing pastoral staffs up to speed?

My church (EFCA), on the national level, has reframed their ordination process and standards because the fact is that many pastors who are already leading churches (especially hispanic and other non-anglo congregations) are not formally educated, or at least not degreed, so a process has been put in place to determine and recognize their level of theological understanding. This process, between 1 and 4 years long, ends in ordination with a recognition of “seminary level” theological understanding.

How would that strike you? IOW, would ordination through a recognized and credible organization meet your educational desires?

I appreciate your points about diversity, and I would be okay with some of those differences as well.

However, I am not a fan of intentional diversity, where someone has a quota in mind. It should be perfectly acceptable but not actively sought after in my mind (“This week, we’ll be voting on our pacifist elder.”)

Stuart, I would not let people “vote” for this either way!!!

Your congregation needs to represent the diversity in your community. It is a bad thing, in my opinion, if it doesn’t. If you community is black, white, young and old, so should your congregation. If you have all young, you need to be intentional about having the old represented. This does not need to come through a “vote,” it is just a proper way of doing church.

I think the same thing should be said about the pastorate. It needs to intentionally be diversified in the group it represents. In this case, an Evangelical church, such as what we are talking about, should be intentionally diverse.

This does NOT mean that we practice some sort of Evangelical affirmative action. There are greater priorities, including the essentials I listed above, and the ability to teach, hospitality, etc. However, all things being equal, in my proposal, I do think we should be very intentional here.

I like the idea of a more diversified church very much, while agreeing with some of the potential problems Dr. Mike and Wm. T pointed out. The early church was, after all, made up of a diverse group of apostles. They sometimes disagreed and rather pointedly so considering the exchange between Peter and Paul, and Peter and John as recorded in scripture.

However, this diverse group of men was united in presenting the gospel as faithfully and truthfully as Christ gave it to them. This has been something I think is lacking in the modern church. In our need to promote diversity, we have often simply divided and set up different denominations which reflect indivdual personal beliefs. Thus we have shot ourselves in the foot in some ways.

I too am wondering why that sort of diversity can’t be accomplished by having folks from other churches teach on a regular basis. A kind of theological exchange of ideas, such as we do here on this blog.

Definitely something to think about, CMP.

Maybe something that bugs me about the whole concept is it sounds like we’re telling God “Only send me people that meet my standards.” Are they called by God or not? If we say “I will only hire an Arminian for this position,” it seems like we’re really saying “God, I need you to do this my way.” It may seem like over-spiritualizing, but I think I’d just say “Send me who you want,” and trust him to do it.

Dave, maybe, but probably not. As intense as The Theology Program is, it does not prepare the way the formal 3-4 year setting and does not prepare broadly (pastoral leadership, biblical studies, Greek and Hebrew, etc. Most importantly, it does not have professors that are engaged in your studies to be very critical of your development. It is not just about what you know, it is the serious discipline and mentorship.

Having said that, I don’t think there are THAT many seminaries that are that good. So many out there are pretty weak, just attempting to get enrollments and graduates.

Boy, I am pushing up this requirement! Not only do they have to go to seminary, but a select seminary!

Michael,

I am a bit troubled and at the same time refreshed at your honesty that you do not think that your Theology Program is enough to meet certain training qualifications for the pastorate.

Where do you think one learns to pastor in seminary or in the local church?

I’m sorry for the lack of clarity.

I think your post on staffing a church-plant is overly idealistic, though I respect your intent and I have tremendous respect for you as a thinker.

Church-planting is much harder than that. You’re taking live rounds. There are casualties. Even if you were privileged to start with an ideal team, there is very little chance that your team will survive intact. Some will desert, some will transfer out, some will burn out.

What happens if your arminian theologian starts to date someone else’s wife? What happens when your paedo-baptist gets a burr in his saddle about your leadership and specifically targets your vision for small groups, undermining you at every turn? And maybe you can find someone with differing eschatology to run with you, but what happens if this person turns out to be great on paper, great in an interview, and yet completely unable to effect any life-changing ministry anywhere in the church?

Wisdom always works, and wise church-planters do better than the unwise. However, there is no one who plants churches unscathed. There will be hard days when you don’t care too much about the diversity of your team. You’ll just be glad to have a team. You will be incredibly grateful for the faithful few who have the grit to stick with it.

A platoon of soldiers starts a battle, ideally, with a certain number of guys in each role. By the end of the battle, and more so the end of the war, the soldiers and roles have seen incredible turnover. Church-planting has this same effect.

So you can target theological diversity, but unless it comes with some mettle, you’re shooting bottle rockets at the moon. You’ll never get there. After 2-4 months of uncertain giving, your “high church” staffer is going to be applying for a job with benefits in the suburbs and half the children’s ministry staff is going with him.

You’re designing your ideal staff, but I’m not sure you know what a church-plant needs to survive. When you talk about theological diversity, it sounds like you’re accessorizing to me – i.e. pimping your ride. These are great accessories for a plant but they definitely aren’t necessities.

I think you should carefully prioritize the character qualities in the pastoral epistles, look long and hard for true humility, check the track record for toughness and sacrifice, and pray for people who are committed to unity amidst changing circumstances. Then, and only then, should you give two hoots and a holler about theological diversity.

Some good ideas, though I would disagree with a black and white edict on formal training (there are a number of ‘formal schools’ now that omit any number of your justifying requirements).

Overall though, with this set up you had better order in a crate of antacids…

This is coming from a purely personal perspective based on a past experience. For many years I was a part of a small nondenominational church where the leadership held varied theoligical posititions in many areas except the basics of the Gospel.

The Senior Pastor, the main founder of the church, was a formally trained pastor, but the rest of the leadership was not as far as I know.

For a long time everything went along quite smoothly and while every one pretty much knew where the leaders stood on most issues, there was no conflict. That is, until an area came to light that caused a lot of concern on the part of a large share of the congregation and another issue, a particular theological subject, came up where there was great disagreement between several of the leadershp. At that point, we entered a time of what I have called “pulpit wars” where one would preach one way one Sunday and the other would totally refute what was said in the next week or two! It got to the point of being absolutely ridiculous. The combination of the two problems at the same time resulted in the church being pretty much polarized and a very large part of the congregation ended up leaving.

The whole thing was very difficult for everyone involved. I would be extremely hesitant about ever becaming a part of a church with such a diversity of leadership again for this very reason. “A house divided against itself can not stand.” I am sure that CMP’s approach could work, but it would have to be done very carefully and with constant care to avoid a “pulpit wars” situation. It was very much of a disaster.

One question not addressed here: would you be willing to have an egalitarian woman on the team, i.e. on who doesn’t see her role as purely for “women’s ministry”?

I ask as one such, presently weorking under a guy who believes in male headship, but is happy to let me slot in with my teaching skills. It’s early days yet, but I think healthy mutual respect and a good dose of grace can cover a lot of differences on secondary issues. He’s fairly cessationist, I’m semi-charismatic he’s a Syney Anglican calvinist, I’m more-or-less Arminian, I’m definitely more liturgical/sacramental, we’re both paedo-baptist, and, as far as I know, both a-mill (eschatology is pretty much a non-issue in Australia — probably because the dominant evangelical denominations are a-mill)

Cheryl,

That is why I said that this should be done intentionally. It would be unthinkable that there would be “pulpit wars” in this situation unless they were intentional to teach the congregation! (But then they would not be called “wars” except for fun!

Shoes,

Thanks for the comments, but your concerns do not in any way seem particular to my proposal. In other words, whether you are unified or diverse, your problems are problems. Just the way it is. This is not idealistic any more than hoping for a unified, discipled body is. It is an aspiration and all aspirations will have a plethera of troubles.

So don’t misunderstand that I think this proposal somehow settles all church and church plant issues. Those will be there nonetheless. What this represents is a particular nuance in theological discipleship that will have implications too many too number. Mostly good in my opinion.

iMark,

1. I believe the call to pastor comes from the church itself.

2. I believe the authority to pastor comes from valid ordination from the church.

3. I believe the training necessary comes through seminary (or something simular)

4. I believe that every pastor who has met these three then need to enter into a time of residency where they are trained and discipled “on the job.”

The Theology Program can only give a peice of the third. Having said that, I do think that The Theology Program is more extensive in its theological training than even most seminaries I know of. John Frame said that it was more in depth than they get at Reformed Theological Seminary. All that to say that I don’t want to discount the value of the program. But we are not intent on preparing pastors for leadership, but for ongoing education, pastors oversees, and lay-people.

I think seminary training can be beneficial for an aspiring leader, but I do not believe it is necessary. It would depend on each individual’s personal circumstances whether I would advise them to pursue seminary education. There are many reasons why I have come to this conclusion. I’ll list a few here.

1) The bulk of seminary training appears to be the accruing knowledge. Other than being “able to teach”, the Scriptures do not make the acquiring of knowledge a top priority in the selection of leaders. Character is the top priority. The reason character is so important is because the flock will not follow a man who’s life is undisciplined, regardless of the knowledge he has. A man called of God will have the innate desire to learn as much as he can. Today, more than ever, there are tremendous resources that can buttress a man’s learning for free (internet). Why do we need to cram as much information as we can in a three year period (only for him to forget much of it two years later), when the focus should be gradual learning over a lifetime?

2) The making of a Christian leader is much different than the making of a doctor or lawyer. The education that a doctor or lawyer receives is time-tested and proven to be effective for the task at hand. If it was the same for a Christian leader, then pretty much every school would have nearly the EXACT same curriculum, for to deviate from would be to jeopardize the education of the aspiring minister. But, of course, this is not the case. One school believes eschatology is important, the other doesn’t. One school says Hebrew should be taken along with Greek, while the other thinks Greek is sufficient. One school thinks studying Church history is important, while the other only has it as an elective. We are only studying what the school THINKS is important for preparation. Another school has a different perspective. I don’t think you find this in the fields of law and medicine.

3) It usually takes you out of the Church you are currently serving at and costs a ton of money. Additionally, many effective ministers throughout history were not formally trained (Spurgeon, Bunyan, Tozer, Moody, etc…)

CMP,

The funny, (or sad), part of the church situation I spoke about with the “pulpit wars” was that the whole premise behind that particular group was that there was a unity and fellowship that all Christians have that goes beyond all of our varied beliefs. So, although the group may not have set out deliberately to find staff that was diversified, the very basis for the group was that we could go past that diversity and thrive together as a Christian community. However, when it came right down to it, there was an issue that did become a real divider. After the large group left, the church continued on with the same leadership. But the one man’s position just didn’t seem to be taught or emphasized anymore if I understand what happened correctly. (I was one of the ones that ended up leaving.) So in reality, there ceased to be that diversity, at least as any official emphasis within the body.

It always amazes me that people who have not been to seminary feel qualified to speak authoritatively about whether or not seminary is necessary. It’s like me saying that medical school is not really necessary to be a good physician, even though I’ve never been to med school. My ignorance disqualifies me.

I’m not saying seminary is necessary or not, but if you haven’t been through the process – and that doesn’t mean just dabbling in it – then you really don’t know. You make false assumptions and base arguments on it.

If you’ve been to seminary, you know what it is and what it isn’t; if you haven’t been, you don’t know.

And seminary is more than just accumulating knowledge and debt. A lot more.

Dr. Mike,

Medical school has been shown to produce competent and well rounded physicians. A physician is judged stricly by his skill level in working with patients. Med school can teach and evaluate this.

Seminary has not necessarily been shown to produce competent and well rounded pastors. The development of the character qualities delineated in 1 Tim 3 and Titus is not something that can be packaged in a condensed seminary education. Learning and thinking through theological issues is merely half the battle for the aspiring pastor. Wait until he get a wife and kids and then we’ll see how good a leader he is, and if he is worth following.

Brian

Ugghh, seminary training is not just about taking a bunch of theology and language classes. I’m not sure how it gets disqualified from actually training in character also…ugghh

I’ll add another analogy. I’ve known musicians with advanced degrees that could barely play and I’ve known musicians with no formal education that play at exceptional levels. One of the key differences is TALENT. Some have it, some don’t.

The same is true in the church, with a twist. There, we’re not talking about human talent, but supernatural, God-given GIFTING. Gifting cannot be ignored and seminary education is no guarantee that an individual is either called or gifted. It MAY guarantee that a basic level of knowledge has been attained (which is a good thing) but I don’t believe it should be the primary qualification.

I find it interesting that Paul’s qualifications for overseers are primarily character based. Knowledge and ability to teach are certainly on the list, but are listed after character issues.

@Dr. Mike:
It’s fair to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of seminary by observing and interacting with those who have been through it.

You make false assumptions and base arguments on it.

Such a conclusion would not be a false assumption.

This is going in that seminary direction…I don’t want that. Aready did it.

Move on to the diversity issue please.

Lynne: “One question not addressed here: would you be willing to have an egalitarian woman on the team, i.e. on who doesn’t see her role as purely for “women’s ministry”?”

CMP would probably answer differently than I would.

But fwiw, my non-negotiables that weren’t on CMP’s list would include:

(1) Joyous affirmation of Complementarianism.
(2) Joyous affirmation of Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
(3) Joyful denial of Theistic Evolution in the Doctrine of Origins.
(4) Joyful affirmation of the Together for the Gospel Statement of Faith.
(5) Joyful affirmation of Monergism.

Yeah, I forgot about that.

I could have someone who was not a complementarian, but this does not mean we practice it. Does that make sense? In other words, if we practiced Egalitarianism, we would not be Complementarian. If we practiced Complementarianism, we would not be Egalitarian.

It is a diversity of beliefs that I am encouraging. This will not ALWAYS follow with a diversity of practice, for some things will not allow it by their very nature.

TAuD,

I thought about Inerrancy…

Here is what I would say: If someone denied inerrancy, I would have quite a time figuring out why. If it was because they had a misunderstanding (which, for most Christians, this is what I believe to be the case), then I would be fine. Some people are just unable to take what they believe to be a tainted concept due to misuse and misunderstanding (i.e. inerrancy does not mean one accepts ipsissima verba—which I don’t).

But if they simply believed that the Bible had errors, I would say no can do…The foundation of our preaching cannot be compromised. Sola Scriptura assumes the absolute authority of the Bible. The absolute authority of the Bible assume inspiration. Inspiration assumes that the Bible, when rightly understood, is always true.

While I do joyfully affirm monergism, I would not have that as a requirement. In fact, even some Calvinists don’t accept a monergistic understanding of regeneration (i.e. regeneration comes before faith).

Michael,

In reference to your final non-negotiable, I assume you are including ATS accredited distance learning programs in your “sorry, no online stuff” statement. I sense from prior posts that you don’t believe distance learning programs have much credibility. Is it the mentoring aspect that concerns you most? Is it not possible for DL students to engage in mentoring relationships with seminary graduates in the local congregation or community? Perhaps that is a service that you and others could provide to the DL students, like myself, in your area, allowing us opportunities to network with fellow DL students, seminary graduates, academicians, and church leaders. As a DL student, I feel fortunate to have mentoring relationships with several seminary graduates, each from different theological perspectives. Do you think it is worthwhile to search for ways to augment the DL model so that it can be more effective? Do you have other, deeper issues or concerns?

Exactly Lisa. This is one of the main things that people from the outside don’t get. It is not simply about reading books, but being guided, led, discipled, critiqued, forced to band together with other students, practition, and the like. It is about learning to fear the word of God so that you will be qualified to teach it.

People can bring up how they did it in the first century and I could bring up how doctors got trained in the first century. Just because it was different then, does not make it right in our context today. We are blessed to have an intense medical training that we can be confident in. We take advantage of it and require it. How much more so for ministry.

I am not saying that lack of theological schooling is the biggest problem with the Church, but I would challenge you to make a list of those who are turning Evangelicalism into a circus and compare them to churches and preachers that you feel are good and stable. There will be a stark contrast between those who went to seminary (a legitimate one) and those who did not.

We simply must have higher standard both in training and ordination. This does not mean that people cannot proclaim the Gospel without being formally trained (please don’t read it as such), it just means that if you are going to be in a position of recognized authority and influence in the Church, you need to have these credentials (among the others I listed above).

Jeff,

I am not beyond considering or changing my mind about this. I do think that DL is something that most places have conceded to because of pressure.

There are certain things that education needs to have that DL cannot provide. For one, just the fact of witnessing interaction, attitude, and mannerisms in teaching. A good prof will call you, discipline you, and encourage you on so many unspokens that come through your theological interaction. Students will do the same. Peer interaction, respect for your authorities, group projects, intentional times of preaching, case studies, and witnessing all greatly diminish through DL.

The intangibles are so hard to mimic through DL.

I appreciate so much DL. We do it quite a bit at RMM. In fact, I think that RMM does it better than any place I have ever seen (but that is not saying much).

So, to answer your question, I don’t know if it can be accomplished, am open to advancements, but don’t see, right now, how it could supplement all of these gaping holes.

You wrote: sola fide … i.e., no works-based salvation

This whole “works (i.e. good deeds) are bad and irrelevant to salvation (final judgement) of believers” movement (since Luther) is a big mistake – the very idea that we could do something good which is not from God (true self-righteousness) is strange but the idea that God abhors our striving is ludicrous.

What is this anathema about works-based salvation in evangelicals? Paul is so clear that the “works” which don’t contribute to justification are Toraic rituals such as circumcision, diet and Sabbath and Paul never means “good deeds” in this context. He is equally clear, with Jesus and the rest of Scripture, that we will be judged by our lives.

A man is justified in the present by (on the basis of) the faithfulness of the Messiah (not the mans own faith) and this is evidenced by his own faith (from God) in the lordship of Jesus and the resurrection. That same man will be judged according to his deeds and it will be seen if he walked in Christ, led by the Spirit.

The Gospel is not: works are out, it is: here is the Lord, work for him.

Does “The Theology Program” count as formal training?

CMP
With such a diverse group of orators how would you handle the ministry of the children and youth in areas of say, infant/adult baptism, young earth/old earth? Would you have a standard or would you allow for diversity at a very early age (maturity) in this imaginary church?

I can see parents with large essential circles having a lot of problems with how their children are being lead and taught.

It seems to me there would need to be one belief advanced until these children/youth mature to handle meat with a little gristle.

JR,

It works. I have experienced it. At Stonebriar, while the diversity was not to the degree which I spoke of here, we did have much diversity (even with divorce and remarraige!).

Ultimately, the head pastor is the one who sets the tone and people will always look toward him and the church will follow his beliefs in practice.

It was great. Practically, if they are all Evangelicals, there will be so much more than unifies you than divides you. You learn to leave out what you confess to be true! “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty…”