Accepting a Pastor position

I teach expositionally, so there is nothing I avoid in preaching. Thus, if I am hitting on a controversial text, I preach the text. In that sense, I never determine what I will and will not teach.

On the other hand, I also do not believe I will always and immediately enact change. I cannot expect the church to change overnight and be convinced of the same truths of the Bible. I know one Pastor who waited 15 years before the church was to the place where they changed their Constitution to reflect a Biblical view. He never compromised his teaching but was patient with the people of his congregation.

I know another person who was asked to become a Pastor of a church. He informed them he could not and spent the next 6 months, at their request, telling them all his "controversial" beliefs that they may not like. After that time, they still wanted him. He would not until they completely changed their Constitution. They did and he has been their Pastor knocking on 10 years.

 

The OP makes the assumption that those who would be pastors have a perfect set of beliefs. Perhaps some of the things that are compromised are more tradition & preference than eternal Biblical truths. Therefore, the question of whether comprise is always bad depends on what it is that is being compromised. Should a pastor hold to Baptist Briderism, works sanctification, when to practice communion, standards of music, dress, gluttony(the ever compromised sin), etc?

 

Charles Spurgeon, "Ministers Sailing Unders False Colours":

 

More from Spurgeon:

"when I accepted the office of minister of this congregation, I looked to see what were your articles of faith. If I had not believed them I should not have accepted your call; and when I change my opinions, rest assured that, as an honest man, I shall resign the office; for how could I profess one thing in your declaration of faith, and quite another thing in my own preaching?"

"Are you biding your time till you can, without risk, renounce your present creed and tell out what your dastardly mind really holds to be true? Then are you fallen indeed, and are baser than the meanest slaves. God deliver us from treacherous men, and if they enter our ranks, may they speedily be drummed out to the tune of the Rogue's March. If we feel an abhorrence of them, how much more must the Spirit of truth detest them!"

 

If Compromise is Needed to Be Hired...

...I would have to decline. I preach the text(s) as the spirit leads. Enough said!

Pastor Paul :godisgood:

 

Do pastors not grow in their understanding of the Word? Where is the understanding that nonsalvational doctrines may & should change as the man matures? It is an arrogant man who does not accept that his own beliefs will change if he is being conformed to the image of God. The man whose beliefs(nonsalvational) are the same as when he left seminary is not studying the Word to the exclusion of his own bias. He was indoctrinated, not educated, and his spiritual growth should be questioned.

 

I wouldn't. It just wouldn't be worth it for me. I became a pastor because I have a passion for the local church and for the preaching and teaching of God's Word. If I were to compromise, then I'd be nothing more than a hireling and if that were the case, I'd just as soon do something else.

That having been said, I think there are somethings we have to extend a little liberty to our brothers and sisters in Christ to disagree over, but never on the essentials or at the cost of the Gospel.

 

I am not sure which pastors you are talking about of course freeatlast but not only would I not compromise, but I know several pastors who have stepped down from large full time churches for the same reason. Not only would they not compromise to take a new church, but when their understanding grew and they found themselves in disagreement with their churches they stepped down. I would not want a pastor who did compromise. I would have more respect for a man I disagree with who stood by his convictions then one who wavered to avoid conflict, that is not standing for the truth.

Perhaps we are not understanding the type of compromise you are talking about, but you said pretty clearly not teaching a doctrine or allowing something contrary to the word of God. Can you give us some more specific examples. Your women deacon example I would not call a compromise because there are women deacons in scripture. Of course some pastors on this board would disagree with me and for them to take a church that had women deacons would be compromise. I would have no problem taking a church that had all male deacons as I also don't see a clear bible doctrine that requires them. In fact I have never pastored a church that had women deacons, I just don't feel the bible forbids them. Would I be a compromiser to you?

Now that I have written this I do remember a fellow pastor a few years ago when I pastured in South Carolina who told me he could not preach against gambling because some of his members owned video poker parlors. I was horrified at the time. I would never be able to serve under his leadership or recommend his church after that. Now he was a compromiser and pastor of a large Baptist Church.

 

Like others have said, I preach expositorily and the Lord tells me which passages to preach, therefore I could not avoid any particular teachings, even if I wanted to.

I became a pastor, because the Lord told me to and I go to the Churches He sends me to(been at this one 18 years); Therefore, I don’t concern myself very much with where they are when I arrive, but where the Lord will want me to lead them.
--------------------------------------------------
Compromise(as described in the OP), is always wrong, because it is lying.
But honestly warning a Church that unBiblical practices will have to change(in time), is not compromise.

 

Never compromise... never, never, never.

My ministry rests in God's Word, therefore my preaching/teaching/pastoral care must be carried by God's Word.

No position... no church... could move me regardless of the status or package.

 

I am confused on your stance. If someone takes up the pastorate of a church, do they not at the same time become a member of that church (unless they were already in membership)? How could they become a member if they could not agree to the Constitution?

 

David,

I have never belonged to a church where I agreed 100% with the stated church confession or constitution. I doubt I will ever find such a church.

I believe that even the "purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error" (LBC XXVI.3) Thus, when looking at churches, I do not expect complete agreement on every issue. I evaluate the church by issues with the idea that there are more important issues than others for conformity. Even within a church there may be some disagreement with the Confession or Constitution which is deemed appropriate. There is also some disagreements that cross the line.

Thus, members can belong to a church where they have some important disgreements on some important issue. Yet, conformity to the Constitution is not always needed.

 

I agree that such must be the case. Each of us is still tainted with remnants of what Paul calls "the old man". However, I thought that this thread was about more major disagreements between the beliefs of a potential pastor, and the beliefs of the church. I have probably misunderstood the OP.

 

Perhaps Ruiz could recount to us what happens when a church believes in biblical congregationalism, while its pastor is committed to installing some presbyterial scheme.

 

I don't know... I know of no Pastor who has tried to install a presbyterian government into a non-Presbyterian Church. I believe in Elders but I do not believe in the Presbyterian system and believe they are distinct. In fact, I only know of one church that has gone to Presbyterianism, they were a community church in Virginia that joined the OPC. That too, they did before they called their Pastor. I do not know the specifics of this situation.

As for Elders, the two situations I metioned (in my first e-mail on this topic) both dealt with the issue of Elders (though, this was not the main issue). My friend who did not go into a church and taught on Elders (among many other things), and the church voted for Elders before bringing him on as Pastor. The Church has more than tripled since he got there. The other man waited about 15 years. They didn't lose one person and there was none who dissented. BTW, both of these men believe in congregationalism, thus I do not have an example of non-congregationalism eldership except perhaps John MacArthur's Church (they are very low congregationalism but may technically be considered congregationalists).

Are there people who go about change in an unwise manner? Yes! However, this does not mean everyone goes about it in an unwise manner. Yet, to answer your question, I have never personally witnessed a church moving from Congregationalism to Presbyterianism.