When to 'back off'

People point out something that is off in your post and there must be something wrong with us

It could never be that you were just wrong, huh?

 

J.R. NEVER NEVER NEVER!! If I had a deacon come to me with that request I would know I'm hitting home. Won't build big churches that way but you will be doing the right thing acording to the Word of God.

 

Its not necessary to assume that those who feel beat up by the pastors preaching are always bucking godly preaching. As if pastors are never wrong.

"Deal with it or get out!" Is an ungodly attitude and fails to meet the biblical standard for Christians much less pastors.

That attitude is not authoritative, nor does it represent God. It does create division, and hurt. Repentance surely is needed.

 

Let me stir up the pot a little and say that Pastors should be ready with the attitude as WinDork describe but not display it openly. Jesus had no problem cleanse the Church and I don't see anywhere that he did it in a PC way. A Pastor needs to be ready to stand by his guns and should absolutely always be preaching the truth and not worry about pleasing people. BUT we are in our Father's profession...the PEOPLE Business and need to be approachable and tenderhearted without compromise. I understand and can agree with WinDork's point and think that too...too many Pastor's nowadays are sugar coating God's Word and compromising too much in our preaaching and teaching. And I'm saddened by hearing of some of the issues with some of ya'lls Deacons and Staff...the Lord has blessed me with the wisdom to find good Churches everywhere I've been and we've not had any issues like this from leadership (the occassional member but never leadership).

WinDork do/did you actually 'appoint' your own Deacons when you started as Pastor? Did you start this Church yourself or assume the leadership of it? I've never really heard of this 'Deacon Appointment' concept...so I'm curious. I don't I'll ever do it because I like the concept of checks and balances. The basic concept in many facets of life...the wife keeps the husband honest, the Judicial keeps the Congress honest, and the Church Leadership keeps the Pastor honest...if all of this is done right and according to Scripture then no problems but let one area get out of whack with the other...whoeeee nothng but problems...just ask my wife when I get out of line

And WinDork this Board is a "Baptist Board" but sadly not all Baptist are the same....so be patient and you'll figure out which fights to fight, which discussions to join, and which posters to ignore

 

Let's see. Questions are, to me...
1. is the problem a content thing, or a style thing?

2. If the content is the issue, then is it because you are getting off the track of God's word, or you are hitting the nail on the head too often for the comfort?

3. If it is style, then can you make some adjustments in your delivery?

Be sure to preach the Word, but perhaps be careful about your approach. Many times, we can deliver a message in different ways. Some preachers thing that abrasive is the only way to make a point. Most of them are the KJVO extremeist, so-called fundimentalists. The same guys that say that only the oldhymms are saredenough to use in church... (all tunes are contemporary when they are first written, regardless of style... ans dont get me started on the old great hymns of the faith which were written to old bar tunes.

sorry, rabbit trail....

ask the man who raised the concern to give you an example and enlist his help to point out times he sees the "issue" occuring... Did that with the person most resistant to me as soon as I figured out who that was. The person is now the biggest supporter and help I have. ( ask the critic to help you) and try taping or even video taping the sermons and ask yourself if you would like to have you in the pulpet. expression conveys more than most peoplebelieve.

 

I can see both sides of the issue.

Now that I am a missionary pastor, I get my share of complaints. I have always looked at it like this- maybe God is trying to tell me something through them. Psalm 141:5- 'Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.'

I pray about it and honestly search my heart to see if there is something to their complaints, and if God does not direct me to some fault in my preaching then I just 'keep on keeping on.'

There has been a (very) few times that someone has approached me about something and God has used them to show me a fault in my manner of preaching. I am almost always the better for the critiques.

 

Sorry my friend, that is false information:

I just LOVE messin' with the devil's false information with the truth.

 

I stand somewhat corrected. I will have to research this more, so I retract my comment on the old bar tunes comment.

 

Deacons are to be APPOINTED, Not elected and are to serve UNDER the authority of a Pastor, and should NEVER, EVER tell a Pastor how to preach!

End of Story.

Argue with the Bible, Not me

TheWinDork </font>[/QUOTE]I don't argue with the Bible. I argue with your faulty interpretation. If you will carefully read verse 3, you will see that the APOSTLES told the CONGREGATION to "pick out from among you seven men," and that these men were brought before the twelve (v. 6). So, you see, the body still picked out the seven. Now argue if you'd like the distinction between "elect" and "appoint," but you're splitting hairs that Scripture does not.

Furthermore, SBC was pointing out that the harshness of your statement, set against the pastor's role of "shepherd" as espoused in 1 Peter a difficult point of resolution. You responded to him by saying he believed in "letting the deacons tell him what to preach." He in no way intimated that point.

Also...do you believe yourself to never need correction? I have people who can let me know if I am straying. Do you? Your attitude means that your deacons cannot help in accountability. That's dangerous ground. I want someone in my church to be able to let me know if I'm not doing what I should be. I'm NOT saying that sermons of rebuke or correction shouldn't be done...but come on, it is possible that a minister can be off-track.

Finally...when I responded to the harshness of your "sissified sinners, like it or go to a compromising church" post, you responded to me with,

...suggesting that perhaps I want to live in sin and don't like the word of God being preached. That is offensive, rude, and untrue. I just believe in the words of Paul,

Colossians 4:6..."Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."

 

I don't argue with the Bible. I argue with your faulty interpretation. If you will carefully read verse 3, you will see that the APOSTLES told the CONGREGATION to "pick out from among you seven men," by RBell
-------------------------------------------------
The Bible says "appoint" in verse 3. The "Congregation" didn't appoint or pick out the deacons the disciples did.
1. Either way, when is the one appointed over the ones appointing?
2. A deacon is to serve nothing else, Acts 6:1-3
3. Read ITim.3:4,5, now read vs.12& 13. What is missing? God never meant for thew deacon to rule or "take care" of the church.

 

Sorry, Shiloh.

From Acts 6:3-5:
"Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles:"

The congregation was told to find seven. "Whom they set before the apostles" is important...this distinguishes who the "they" is that chose. "They chose" indicates the congregation.

It may be surmised that the apostles "appointed" the first deacons to their tasks, but the deacons were chosen by the body.

 

Here is another perspective.

Our church went from an expositor preacher to a topical preacher to an expositor preacher to our current pastor who is a topical preacher. IMHO, when the type of preaching changes, it takes from one to three years for some people to leave because they are primarily fed by the other type preaching.

Having some leave when the preaching style changes could be a natural thing. Hopefully, others who a hungry for the currently preachers's style will replace them from another church that went to the other style.

I like expositor style preaching, but many people get fed primarily by topical style preaching. Since my current pastor is a topical style preacher, I get fed here on BB and expositor style preaching on the radio.

It is too bad that pastors don't bring on an associate pastor with the other style preaching to provide a more balanced ministry. However, if not handled right, that could cause problems.

Just a thought.

 

Sorry my friend, that is false information:

I just LOVE messin' with the devil's false information with the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually J_Barner is partially right in his statement and you are wrong. Here is an academic source for you. Take particular note of the last paragraph.

Legend has it that Martin Luther and John & Charles Wesley (of the Methodist Church) rewrote popular music from the taverns to accompany some of their hymns. Recently, church scholars have presented pretty convincing proof that Luther and the Wesleys did NOT do so, and that the legend arose from a misconception about the word "bar tune" or "bar form," which seminary students assumed meant a tune sung in local drinking establishments, but is actually a form of poetry popular in Medieval times -- a different kind of bar altogether.

Although Luther and the Wesleys may not have used parodies, the founder of another very influential evangelical denomination did. William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, an extremely evangelical organization that did much to help the poor and the drunks in the streets, used the music of popular tunes for hymns. In the biography, "William and Catherine Booth: Founders of the Salvation Army," by Helen K. Hosier, it states the following:

"Satan would have to be battled within his own strongholds, and any means was justifiable, William decided, if it would attract sinners to listen to the message of salvation ... Thus it was that as the work grew, the music and street parades attracted increasing crowds of people who scorned the regular churches. 'Why should the devil have all the best tunes?' Williamreplied when chided for appropriating music of popular tunes for his hymns ... "

"The saying that 'the devil has no right to all the good tunes' has been attributed to both William Booth and Charles Spurgeon. But it was George Scott Railton, who was to become William's lieutenant general in 1873 and was well-known as an author and songwriter, who concluded an article 'About Singing' (1874) with this impassioned plea: 'Oh, let us rescue this precious instrument from the clutches of the devil, and make it, as it may be made, a bright and lively power for good!'"

The people in the Salvation Army weren't the first to use secular music for sacred purposes, though. Note the following:

"[The absence of contrast between 'secular' and 'sacred' styles of music in the Middle Ages] 'can be shown simply by the observation that a secular song, if given a set of sacred words, could serve as sacred music, and vice versa. Only recently has it been recognized how frequently such interchange took place, and the more we learn about medieval music, the more important it becomes. The practice of borrowing a song from one sphere and making it suitable for use in the other by the substitution of words is known as "parody" or contrafactum.'

(Source: Manfred F. Bukofzer, 'Popular and Secular Music in England', inThe New Oxford History of Music 3: Ars Nova and the Renaissance, 1300-1540, ed. Anselm Hughes and Gerald Abraham (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 108.)

 

Sorry my rabbit trail led this topic off track, Brother.