People ask me all the time if I ever think about starting a church. My answer? No, not much. Only about twice per day.
I have thought through quite a bit what an “ideal” church looks like. You know the old saying, “once you find the perfect church, you better leave since your presence makes it no longer perfect” . . . or something like that.
No, I am not talking about the “perfect” church. There is no such thing. Ideal. That is the key. How would it be structured? How often would you take the Lord’s supper? Liturgy? Type of preaching? All of these are great questions. But I want to talk only about one here today. Maybe we will follow this up with other issues, but let’s focus now on my (loosely held) opinion concerning the pastorate:
Michael, what would your pastoral staff look like theologically? Calvinistic? Premillenial? Memorialist Lord’s supper?
No, none of these. I would propose a call for a somewhat theologically diversified group of pastors. I would not only allow for freedom in many areas of theology, but I would intentionally attempt to build a diversified staff, many of whom would disagree with me on issues about which I have very, very strong opinions.
I would have to distinguish between those issues upon which I have strong opinions and those which I am convicted are necessary for the proper functioning of the local church.
Non-negotiables:
- Belief in the central elements of the Gospel: The person and work of Christ (who he is and what he has done).
- Belief in sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian.
- Belief in sola fide: Faith is the only instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) that brings about justification (i.e., no works-based salvation).
- Belief in the future coming of Christ: i.e., cannot be a Preterist.
- Must be formally trained in Bible and theology (sorry, no online stuff).
(Oh, and then there is the 1 Tim requirements, but that goes without saying here).
Pretty Evangelical Protestant so far.
Some areas I might seek diversity in:
- I would want an Arminian on my staff.
- I would seek someone who has a different eschatology.
- I may seek someone who disagrees about infant/adult baptism.
- I would seek someone who is more liturgical (high church) than me.
- I would allow for someone who has a different view of creation (i.e., young earth/old earth) as long as they were not militant about it or too self-assured about their position (Don’t turn the comments into this debate again!)
Okay, those are some good representative doctrines that give you an idea of what I am talking about.
Why would I seek such diversity? A few reasons:
1. It would better represent the broad tradition of Evangelicalism. I don’t believe that there is a good or compelling reason to separate locally (i.e., with extensive traditional doctrinal statements) when we don’t separate conceptually as Evangelicals.
2. It would be didactically (educationally) beneficial for the congregation. I want to illustrate to all the people, young and old, how Christianity is built around key central beliefs (I am a centralist!). I want to demonstrate how Christians can disagree meaningfully and strongly on certain issues, but still serve the same God together in a united purpose. I would even do special sessions/sermons where I and another pastor defend our positions. Then we would hug. (Well, shake hands.)
3. It is a better presentation to the world of our unity. The outside world needs to see such focus. It would, in my opinion, charge the Gospel with the power of its message as the message could no longer be obscured in secondary issues.
Of course, there are some things that are negotiable that cannot be demonstrated in the same way. For example, I may have someone on my staff who is a congregationalist, but the church would not be congregational.
In the end, it is my proposal that churches should be intentionally diversified in their pastorate.
108 replies to "A Call for a Diversified Pastorate"
Must be formally trained in Bible and theology
I noticed Dave picked up on the same thing and your answer in 25:
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.
Drat….. 😉 So why did I take these 6 classes 😉
I’m definitely trying to be aware of your admonition to steer away from the seminary discussion in 40, unfortunately I do have one clarification I would need.
Is there a difference, in your opinion, in qualification for pastoral ministry as to whether someone has a Th.M or an M.A. (let’s say in BS, CE, etc..) ? I personally think there’s room for both. It may somewhat influence my choice though… I’ve been trying to decide
An MABS who takes some Greek and Hebrew as electives could be an associate pastor, minister (think young groups, couple groups, mens’ ministry, etc). I concur it would probably not be sufficient to lead the Church leadership, but I think there’s value in having people like that to ensure you have “diversified pastorate”.
Finally, one thing you didn’t consider: Elder led ?
Personal experience ?
Elder led, Bible oriented Church with fairly historical Christian traditions such as Lord’s supper every week, Nicene creed as statement of faith, awareness of Lent / Advent (observance is left up to the member but encouraged). Not dogmatic, a Calvinistic pastor, some Arminians on the elder board (I’m sure).
Main motto: “The main thing is that the main thing remains the main thing”. There’s room for discussion and disagreement on some of peripheral practices / doctrines, but the main thing is pretty much accepted to be well explained in the Nicean Creed.
Not doing a commercial, but for those in the Dallas area, feel free to let me know if there’s interest and I’ll ask CMP if he’s ok posting the link to the website.
As an ex-RC married to an ex-baptist, our experience has been fantastic ! Well-balanced leadership, loving and caring members, we wouldn’t have been where we are today without the support of this Body !
In Him
Mick
I think the diversity ideal is commendable but I’m not convinced it is wise. Pretty much I echo the thoughts of Dr_Mike and Wm Tanksley here. Having intentional theological diversity within the church may create a “I am of Apollos”, “I am of Paul”, “I am of Christ” division within the church. I’m thinking the potential harm may outweigh the potential good.
Also, it seems this ideal is being mainly discussed in terms of larger church contexts where there are several “professional” leaders capable of being supported by the church. In larger church contexts this ideal may be more workable but in smaller churches (especially, church plants) you will typically have only one or two “professionals” avialable. I don’t see this ideal being practical in such situations until the church grows, but generally by that time it would have developed an identity that would probably resist diversification.
Jim,
I get it. But hear this out. You said: “Having intentional theological diversity within the church may create a “I am of Apollos”, “I am of Paul”, “I am of Christ” division within the church. I’m thinking the potential harm may outweigh the potential good.”
Isn’t that explicitly and exacly what it is to the ninth degree when you don’t allow for such diversity? Its just you have decided to take the next step and start the first church of Apollos, the second church of Jesus, etc.
I very much enjoy reading this blog – it makes me think.
Jumping in I think I have to agree with Dr Mike (#12) and WT (#13) and JR (#49), that a church should be elder led and that the leadership should be united on major doctrinal areas. I have no problem with diversity among members, pushing all members of the body to revisit and think through positions, or even classes/conferences that invite other views to debate/teach on topics. I for one have taught a series on RC in our Bible church (I am an ex-RC). I think good teaching involves pushing everyone to understand why they believe, not just know what they believe. Of course applying it is good too. 🙂
However teaching conflicting views from the pulpit and children’s classes could (I am tempted to use would) certainly create a lot of problems and concerns. I have been in classes in churches where there is strong and unified leadership and things can get heated when members start debating different view points. That is just our sin nature popping up. A church we minister to in another country is near to the point of splitting over differences in charismatic/non-charismatic doctrine.
Also in an area with lots of other churches to attend would likely lead to a lot of turnover in membership – making growing relationships difficult.
In your view who gets to decide what diversity is OK? For example why is OK to leave out preterists? What about charismatics? What happens when the elder board starts to add more diversity then you are comfortable with?
Thanks for posting! Keep on blogging!
Michael, I have to pick on you a little and to do so, I shall now quote my favorite historical preacher/scholar/educator:
“Give a man an open Bible, an open mind, a conscience in good working order, and he will have a hard time to keep from being a Baptist.” – A.T. Roberston
Seriously, now. I agree with quite a bit of what you have to say here in this post. That would be an interesting church to attend.
Mick, I have not had any exposure to the elder led. However, the government of the church can be done in many different ways. The “elder” as I see it needs to have the qualifications to led and needs to be able to concentrate all of his time on this job (Acts 6:4, et al).
It depends on the MA program. I know the one at DTS was not originally intended for pastors, but was sort of a lay version of a masters degree. I believe that at DTS the ThM is the only designed for the pastorate.
CMP says:
“Isn’t that explicitly and exacly what it is to the ninth degree when you don’t allow for such diversity? Its just you have decided to take the next step and start the first church of Apollos, the second church of Jesus, etc.”
Except that you haven’t put the flock through the divisiveness, and that experience can (and does) turn a lot of people away from participating in any church. As an elder, my first concern is for them.
You have to excuse me, I’m the Eeyore elder on the elder board of my church. I balance our gung-ho pastor and other elders. Generally, it works pretty well. I’ve seen a lot that was tried and failed and I know what damage can do to a church. “Professionals” tend to move on, even when they are good, but elders don’t because they continue to live and interact with the people in their church. As such, I think of these kind of questions more in terms of long-term continuity.
I appreciate your point, I just believe the potential harm of divisiveness in a church outweighs the potential harm of being too narrow.
Jim,
Please humor me for a moment as I think out loud to some degree.
Aren’t you thinking only inside the box we have been handed. I am not saying get rid of all denominations and such, but look at it this way. You said: “Except that you haven’t put the flock through the divisiveness.”
My point is that they are already in divisiveness by not allowing it. You are just conceding to it. The congregation has just been protected from seeing or engaging with the church of “Apollos” down the street who emphasize this or that or believe this differently.
Obviously, there will always be those who flock to the place that thinks and does exactly as they already believe.
Again, I am not calling for any sort of radical diversity, but some intensional diversity on the issues that might unnecessarily divide over issue that we can have strong opinions about, but we should not divide.
Wilson, good one!
Michael, reply to post #50
Although I think this is a good idea I see the diversity more in theory than in practice in this church scenario. As many of us here have witnessed lately (thru the blogs recently) the debates in nonessential issues quickly draw lines in the sand.
If you, being the head pastor sets the tone, where does the diversity witness its self? Is it thru the congregation, pastorate, teaching ministry, or all three? What “tone” would be set for things like: young earth/old earth, baptism, Calv./Arm., and eschatology when teaching children/youth? Would all views be equally taught (kinda like TTP) and then let the little ones eventually come to their own understanding/beliefs as they mature or would the most closely held belief be the tone?
I think a diversified pastorate should provide a diversified “tone” in their sermons, counseling, exhortations, rebukes, affirmations, and in disciplinary measures!
After all, the Bible has diversified “tones”!
Therefore, let’s not make a false idol out of the tones of Political Correctness and Christian Correctness.
Diversity in “Tones”!! Yeah baby, serve it up!
Mike,
Thanks so much!! Good to have you interacting.
I don’t think it would be too hard to teach diversity even to children. I do. What you want to do is to prepare them for what is out there in the real world. One thing you have to know about kids is that if you obscure the truth, “protect” though silence, or overstate your beliefs, they will find out in this information age. Postmodernism is built on the fact that the church is becoming illegitimized as a source of information due to our obscurantist mentality. We just need to be honest. When the issues are not so clear, we need to represent them as such. When there is legitimate disagreement, why act as if there is not. Because it will confuse the children? Don’t you think it is much more confusing later when they broaden their understanding without us?
“In your view who gets to decide what diversity is OK? For example why is OK to leave out preterists? What about charismatics? What happens when the elder board starts to add more diversity then you are comfortable with? ”
Good question. I think that is why people need to have a firm understanding of what is essential and what is non-essential for Evangelicalism. I don’t think it is too hard. Attend any Evangelical Theological Society Meeting and you will see. Look to the history of the church and you will see. I have written much on this before.
Preterists would not be included simply because they deny the second coming. This represents a historic heterodox view of the second coming. Again, there are essential components to every doctrine of the historic Christian faith. And even more for Evangelicalism in particular. The circle would still be tight. I am not advocating mass liberalism or radical ecumenicism at all. In fact, I am very much against that.
Truth, you are learning. I almost want to say that you are calling on us to be irenic 😉
CMP,
I think we are using the term divisiveness in somewhat different ways.
I am more concerned with the way divisiveness manifests itself. Remember high school and the cliques that would form? Remember the way those in Clique A were treated by those in Clique B and vise-versa? That’s where I’m concerned about division – because it has a tendency to goad the sinful man in us. We don’t handle division too well on a personal level.
I’m not concerned with theological diversity, per se, though I think there is a danger of confusing immature believers like Dr_Mike said above. I don’t have a problem with the flock being exposed to or even having different theological viewpoints, though I would see that diversity more on the congregant level. I fail to see how my insistence on more theological uniformity within the core leadership would prevent the flock from engaging the “Church of Apollos” down the street. They are free to do so. As someone else suggested we may even invite someone from Apollos to inform us on what the differences are. I’m just not convinced it should be from within our own leadership.
“Truth, you are learning. I almost want to say that you are calling on us to be irenic.”
Heh.
If an undershepherd who identifies and throws rocks at a wolf with the purpose of protecting his sheep, and yet he can also still be considered “irenic” for his rock-throwing, then yeah, I’m calling on y’all to be “irenic”!
😉
It depends. Do you throw the rock and then run and hide? Or is it a preemptive action of “shock and all”?
Jim W,
I appreciate your pragmatic concerns, but must politely disagree. I hate to argue from ‘personal experience,’ but the door has been opened. I agree with you when you say that, “‘Professionals’ tend to move on, even when they are good, but elders don’t because they continue to live and interact with the people in their church. As such, I think of these kind of questions more in terms of long-term continuity.” However, it is my opinion that as many churches age, their elder leadership simply ‘ages-in-place,’ exacerbating the growing age-stratification pressures already existing in the church, provided the church isn’t already dying. Especially in congregations that choose a ‘staff-led, elder-protected’ model, which I currently suffer under, these elders interact with an ever decreasing portion of the congregation, becoming passive administrators, not even actively teaching, let alone exercising church discipline. My experience is that most congregations (at least mine) are so theologically vacuous, including its eldership, that Michael’s idealized approach (which I agree with) would have no chance for success. Furthermore, in situations like mine, the only formally trained leadership in the church is the senior pastor, and beneath him, a series of myopic functionaries, bible college graduates of the same theological tradition as the senior pastor. (I do not mean this last statement to be pejorative). Just thoughts!
Dear CMP,
Did your old mentor Chuck Swindoll ever have to protect his flock against wolves? Did he ever throw rocks at those wolves (figuratively speaking)? Did those wolves and their supporters consider Chuck’s actions against them as being irenic?
Jeff, thanks.
But I think you were responding to someone else. I did not say what you had in the quotes.
One thing: While I said this way MY idealized approach, I was not saying that this is not already going on and very successful in many churches. Some people commenting here have already expressed that. As I said, Stonebriar Community Church allowed for much more than most.
Therefore, this is far from talking “out of the hat.” But it is what I have considered would be the best. Not perfect. Not without problems. But causing the least amount of problems and having the most benefits in the long run of discipleship.
OK, as always, my normal 24 hour window of engagement (which I don’t always, unfortunately, have time to take, is up).
Please keep things civil. I will keep a distant eye on things and our mods will be watching!
However, compared to the last few posts, this has been a breath of fresh air. See how productive things can be when we are not talking with out emotions?
(Proof positive about the veracity of the last few posts!… or it could be that the mods booted the “trouble-makers” from before!)
Don’t leave without responding to #68!
😉
TAuD,
Yes he does as do I. (Evidenced through hundreds of posts on this blog and through The Theology Program). But this does not mean he is not irenic.
Michael,
Sorry for the mistake in incorrectly addressing the last post. I agree with your thoughts on this issue very much.
Good! I love it!
Rock-throwing undershepherd Chuck Swindoll can be still considered “irenic” despite throwing rocks at wolves.
May Chuck be an example for all of us. We can still identify and call out and throw rocks at wolves and still be considered “irenic” in our way of throwing rocks.
Yaaaayyyyyyy!
I’m learning!
😉
I concur with Dr._Mike’s statement” Too many variant views might have the unintended and undesired effect of confusing people who are young or immature in the faith.” I think you would be in trouble here and those folks described above would be poorly discipled.
#62,
Michael, you wrote: Preterists would not be included simply because they deny the second coming.
This is patently untrue. Preterists deny the timing of Jesus’ Second Coming as proffered by those who hold to a futurist eschatology. They do not deny the occasion of Jesus’ Second Coming, which is taught throughout the NT.
If futurist eschatology is correct and, in the course of time, Jesus’ Second Coming occurs, you will (of course) find yourself beyond that historical occasion. By definition, you will be a Preterist. Do you also become a denier of the Second Coming?
Of course, I think you meant to say something else, but you really should be more careful of your words here.
CMP
“What you want to do is to prepare them for what is out there in the real world.”
Agree 100%
I think an important focus should be on how to read and study the Word so that they can be better Bereans an essential skill in the information age.
“One thing you have to know about kids is that if you obscure the truth, “protect” though silence, or overstate your beliefs, they will find out in this information age. … Don’t you think it is much more confusing later when they broaden their understanding without us?”
As a parent I certainly understand this. 🙂
In regards to children’s ministry there are certainly blocks of ages where different things can/should be presented and dealt with. I think that the church can do youth a dis-service if they never deal with diverse views. The literature in this area attests to it being a real problem. In fact a curriculum that builds on strong essentials, how to do good biblical interpretation, stresses critical thinking, and exposes the older groups (Jr/Sr High) to apologetics/diverse views would be a great way to equip the youth to deal with the information they will be exposed too. That is very different than having a leadership that holds all of the diverse views.
ie) I can address evolution, theistic evolution, and creation/age earth in a class and deal with pros/cons of these views but would not necessarily want a proponent of theistic evolution on my elder board.
Mike, I would not allow a theistic evolutionist either, but I did not mention that as I know that would require explaination and this thread would be 500 comments about evolution! However, I, like you, would teach how people do believe it.
Ok, I am really done!
CMP: “Mike, I would not allow a theistic evolutionist either”
You’re a good man, CMP.
That is an irenic “no” to theistic evolutionists.
I would not allow a theistic evolutionist either.
And Bruce Waltke’s application is tossed into the “circular file” … 😉
Yeah Mike, if I am placing you correctly, you would have two strkes against you on my staff! Don’t worry, you could still watch from the court of the Gentiles! 😉
I appreciate your generosity, Michael! You can be sure that, if I ever come your way, we’re going out for beers (you’re not a good Calvinist if you don’t partake), listening to U2 all the way.
Oh, come on. Beer and U2 doesn’t make up for me being on polar opposites with you on the, um, polar opposites of the Bible? Some emergent you are. 😉
And Bruce Waltke’s application is tossed into the “circular file”
Too bad, soooo very sad. Who are some other theistic evolutionists who would get tossed into the circular file?
😉
Jeff Young
Not real sure what your disagreement is about except for experience with elder-led churches which is off-topic. My point in bringing up my personal experience was to provide context for how I was looking at the issue that CMP brought up. Nothing more.
My contention is that it isn’t wise to intentianally plan for theological diversity within your core leadership. I don’t hold this position strongly since I’ve never really considered it before today, and I may change my mind on it in the future. However, at this time, it seems to me to be the “safer” course for the well-being of a local church to not plan for such diversity.
Jim W.
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for commenting outside of the primary discussion.
“What is this anathema about works-based salvation in evangelicals?”
It’s perhaps possible that you don’t understand what Michael is saying. He’s not saying that we won’t be judged by our works (we will, on Earth and in Heaven); he’s saying that we aren’t saved by them. Christian salvation, in distinction to every other religion, comes from our faith in the work of Christ alone. Any view that claims that our works will be what saves us is not Christian, but rather is a syncretism of Christianity with other, man-invented religion.
Those who repent and accept Christ’s work by faith will be saved. Those who are saved — by the previous means — will be known by their fruit, but God forbids us to “pluck the tares” out for that alone, and Paul mentions that some people will be saved by the skin of their teeth. That doesn’t mean that those people have barely more good works than bad; it means that those people were truly and completely saved, but their works failed the test.
-Wm
TUAD,
Who are some other theistic evolutionists who would get tossed into the circular file?
Of professionally trained theologians? Alister McGrath, for starters. Mark Noll, of Wheaton College, leans in that direction. Heck, C. S. Lewis assumed evolution of mankind to be a fact, and Billy Graham didn’t have a problem it.
Shall I go on? 😉
“ie) I can address evolution, theistic evolution, and creation/age earth in a class and deal with pros/cons of these views but would not necessarily want a proponent of theistic evolution on my elder board.”
As a brand new theistic evolutionist I agree with this (and I accept the lack of invitation to be your pastor with the greatest respect; if I had been your pastor when I changed, I would resign). And this is what makes me think that Patton’s idea isn’t the greatest one. I’d rather have a coherent, strong, detailed doctrinal teaching from my elders, which would include the teaching that some of those things aren’t essentials, but are rather the result of humans trying enthusiastically but not infallibly to understand more about God.
THEN, I would learn from Patton by inviting people who disagree into the church to teach about their beliefs; that teaching would be clearly introduced as “not what our church teaches, but well within the range of orthodoxy.”
(BTW, I’m not qualified to be a pastor; just had to make it clear that I’m just using myself as an example.)
-Wm
Oh, yeah … Scot McKnight, too. But he might just be a little too emergent for CMP. 😉
Mike Beidler: “Shall I go on? ;-)”
YES!!
Don’t go in the direction of evolution!
To one and all – my deepest apologies for mentioning the “E” word.
Yes, as CMP said, “Don’t go toward the light!” 😉
“Isn’t that explicitly and exacly what it is to the ninth degree when you don’t allow for such diversity? Its just you have decided to take the next step and start the first church of Apollos, the second church of Jesus, etc.”
I don’t think that outcome is inevitable (or innate) for either side. I have nothing against deliberately-diverse churches, but I would warn them to watch out for the opposite dangers of shallow doctrine and needless division. I prefer narrowly defined churches, but I would caution them against the sin of schism.
But simply wanting to explore the depths of a specific doctrine doesn’t mean that one is rejecting the others as being heresy.
-Wm
“To one and all – my deepest apologies for mentioning the “E” word.”
Apology not needed. Just irenically lob rocks at these theistic neo-Darwinians and keep them off the pastoral staff.
😉
There’s a BIG gap between poll options one and two: united on essentials, not united on every doctrinal issue, but not intentionally seeking out diversity.
I would seek unity on those things that cannot be demonstrated in a church diversely. This could include things like the structuring of the worship service, position on infant baptism, and church government.
Patton: I take you believe in independent, elder rule. If you allow positions you disagree with on your pastoral team, would you allow a majority of the pastors to hold a position you disagree with, such that the position of the church could change?
Wouldn’t you have to put a cap on, say, the number of paedobaptists, or egalitarians, such that they do not change the position of the church?
This is why I would prefer unity on these topics on the pastoral staff. I do not want a pastor who has theological disgreement with the way the church functions.
Michael,
Ooooh, that’s so interesting. (In my view, as long as a TE allows for a historical Adam & Eve, all the most substantial biblical problems are shared by both Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism.) I’m curious about your explanation.
If only it were possible to have a tight, focused discussion about it!
If this worked as an objection, you wouldn’t be able to reject anyone based on an interview — you’d just have to pray and trust the resulting feeling.
No, there has to be wisdom and discernment, both gifts granted by the Holy Spirit but exercised by each particular person in his or her own particular way.
So what you’re actually doing isn’t overspiritualizing; you’re actually rejecting the gifts the Bible says the Spirit gives (wisdom, discernment, learning) in favor of ones the Bible says nothing about (sending you only qualified people and you never having to worry about it).
-Wm
You’re taking that farther than I intend. I don’t mean that there would be no attempt to use wisdom and discernment – just that I would minimize pre-conditions. My primary condition would be “Is this who God has sent?” But that would be determined, at least in part, through interviews, references, personal interaction, prayer and the like.