A little help

Certainly, B4L, I will talk with anyone about an issue and try to work it out. I'm not that kind of pastor. But, does that mean that I will cave to every complaint or offense. No!

 

There's an old proverb, "try to please all, and please NONE" that applies here.

Were I a pastor, I would NOT compromise my beliefs cuz someone disagreed with them. However, I would be open to listen to anyone who disagreed, long as they were using a legitimate argument.

That's why I don't compromise about KJVO. I KNOW (not merely GUESS) that it is NOT supported by Scripture, even in the KJV itself, so I therefore reject it in toto as I am sola scriptura.

So, were I a pastor preaching from another version, I would have a ready answer that cannot be refuted for that lady, especually since I have already read just about every pro-KJVO book there is, with the exception of GAR's latest. (As I refuse to contribute a penny to any false ministry, I shall keep checking the local flea markets & yard sales until a copy shows up.)

I would apply these principles to ANY question of what I believe and teach were I a pastor, not just KJVO. When a pastor compromises his beliefs to accommodate and not "offend" someone, his pastorate is on a slick downhill slope!

 

Preach the truth of God's Word! If someone disagrees that is the nature of soul liberty. That person can talk to the pastor later. They can have a willing heart to hear and be taught. Or, they can come to the place to agree to disagree. Or, if all else fails they can find a church that is in more agreement with their beliefs. A pastor should not compromise his beliefs, his convictions for the sake of any individual in the church, whether it is offensive or not. The gospel, in and of itself is an offensive message. For years, it has been referred to as "a bloody message," by liberals.
But it is the blood of the cross that saves.

 

Nobody's talking about a pastor compromising his beliefs. We're talking about the ATTITUDE of sag38, which I found shocking to say the least. What he posted is not what a pastor should think about one of his members or another pastor. He seems very uncaring, and unconcerned about one of his flock, and apparently has no problem demeaning fellow pastors. This has nothing to do with KJVOism. Whitewash it anyway you want, I don't believe God would find his attitude Christlike. As a pastor, he is held to a higher accounting than someone else. Why would he not take the time to sit down with someone, and explain why he's doing what he's doing? I'm not asking any pastor to go against what they believe, but why not talk to the member, instead of just saying what he said? If after talking to the person, they choose to disagree, then it's them that leave on their own, while, hopefully still respecting the pastor who at least cared enough to give them the time to discuss it. I guess it's just me, but I expect more from someone who carries the title of "PASTOR".

 

You might not have said it as diplomatically as I would, but I agree. Too many folks want a God, a pastor, and a church that they can control.

 

BFL, you are looking for a reason to be offended. You are trying to read into my post that which isn't there. I work very hard and exercise compassion with my congregation. With that said, I don't allow one person to dictate what version of the Bible I use nor any other issues. I have very little tolerance for someone who tries to disrupt the unity of the congregation with petty matters. And yes, I consider KJVO'ism to be a petty matter that divides God's people rather than bringing them together.

 

The OP did not have the word "offense" or "offend" in it at all. No one has suggested that the Gospel should not be preached. No one has suggested that convictions should be compromised. No one is suggesting that pastors should be bullied about by members of the congregation.

In his own words, this "dear lady" has approached her pastor "in love". The pastor will need some time to read her material as he promised (and gather his rebuttal material). They should probably set a couple of private appointments to discuss this issue. They should each pray about the issue. Meanwhile, why shouldn't the pastor reciprocate in kind by setting his NASB aside until the matter has had the opportunity to be adequately addressed with her? What's the harm in that?

Real world example: When a peace officer is involved in an incident where their weapon is discharged, the officer is placed on a 'desk' assigment or leave. Why? It is not because of a suspicion of guilt, but because the Public deserves the courtesy (respect) of the Department conducting an orderly investigation.

 

Thanks for pointing us back in the original direction.

On the flip side of that coin, why should he change? What harm would there be in that?

Surely the OP was already using the NASB when he was a candidate as pastor, or has been using it for a while now (this is an assumption). Either way, his use of the NASB is not a surprise in this case and was known beforehand. This lady, whether in love or not, or in innocence or not, is asking him to change what was already known, and is wanting him to read her "sources" of this man-made doctrine in an effort to get him to see her point of view.

Shortandy sounds like a smart guy and one that loves the Lord. As such, I figure he would rather follow the Lord than a man-made doctrine any day. The books out there that promote KJVO are all the same, using the same old dogged lines that all came from the same place. None of it is scriptural, appealing to tradition and "tried and proven for 400 years."

I wish you well, Shortandy. I am praying for both you, the lady, and you congregation, and have been since you posted this topic. Go with the Lord, no matter what, be it by staying with the NASB, or going with the KJV if He so leads. Just make sure it is the Lord doing the leading and not pressure from anyone else... or a KJVO author.

 

I guess you could find no harm in my suggestion since you just flipped the question back to me. I thought I already explained some reasons why he might (not must) acquiesce for a period.

Basically, this woman is asking the pastor to cease using the NASB for the sermons; probably on the basis that she believes that the KJV is the 'best' Bible in some way. When a person asks another person to cease from some activity because they think they have a legitimate reason (even if it turns out to be wrong) any reasonable person being ask to cease would suspend the action long enough to discuss the issue (non-moral). To continue with the action (preach from the NASB) would be an extreme form of disrespect and arrogance; this behavior is not conducive to any future communication between the two parties.

Knowing that your position is 'right' (if that indeed is agreed upon) is not an excuse to mistreat people; this should be especially true among Christians. I can't believe I'm having to explain what should be recognized as basic civilized behavior.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the pastor endorse or even facilitate a false doctrine.

 

Does that happen to you, too?

(BTW, if you're gonna abbreviate Baptist4life you should probably use B4L since BFL can mean Big-Fat-Liar)

 

There's where we disagree, then. Unless it was obviously wrong (and not a gray area like this one) would I immediately cease and desist; otherwise it is bowing to the wishes of another. As a pastor he should not be abdicating his position as leader of the flock to any member of the congregation... especially in a matter of personal feelings/opinion.

 

My last remark on this subject is:

As a pastor, you are performing your duties as God gives you the light to perform them. If you have explained this to that person, & she finds that unacceptable, it's time for you to just keep on keepin' on, and for her to either accept your explanation or change churches.

 

I agree with you. Put the scenario in perspective. If a pastor pastors a church of approximately a thousand people on a Sunday morning--most or perhaps all using the NASB, and just one is offended because she is KJVO, should he stop using the NASB for her sake and ignore the other thousand, and the apparent questions that would arise in their minds?
He's the pastor of the church. If she has a problem with the practice or the way things are done in that church then she needs to contact the pastor. If she can't reconcile things she needs to look for another church.

 

Y'all are pretty quick to send her over to a KJVO church. That'll be real good for her.

Jesus taught that the shephard should leave the rest of the flock to restore just one that had gone astray. (Matthew 18:12)

 

Another exaggeration? Did I suggest that the pastor 'abdicate' his position as leader? Is giving preference to another person for brief time really so horrible? I get the sense that there is a lot of pride out there.

 

Do you regularly engage in "obviously wrong" behavior? No! (at least I hope not) You see, it is difficult for us to recognize our own faults. We should listen carefully to others when they risk coming to us with an issue. Listening and considering is much harder to do when your busy exerting your 'rights'.

 

I'm wondering, if the pastor was KJVO and preaching each week from the KJV and it had been the dear lady member that was suggesting that he use the NASB how this conversation might have been very different. Hmmm.

 

I would be afraid to know... especially if she didn't "convert".

 

Yes, you would likely be consistent on that part. I was wondering at the how the other possible result would have been taken: that is, I doubt there would been the same outcry if the pastor had decided to stop preaching from the KJV.