A Call for a Diversified Pastorate
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.
The Credo House of Theology is open. Get the latest updates here.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- 16 Considerations About Entering the Ministry
- Where I stand on all things part 1
- Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God
- Why I am Proud to be a Protestant
- Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God?
Print This Post
Loading ...
John C on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:14 pm #
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.
Steven Moore on 12 Nov 2009 at 6:34 pm #
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
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:14 pm #
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.
Pantman on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:16 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:18 pm #
BTW: I seriously doubt most of my Dispensational Reformed tradition would follow this pattern. Sigh…
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:20 pm #
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)
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:39 pm #
Poll added.
Mike on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:40 pm #
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.
Steven Moore on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:40 pm #
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
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:44 pm #
Steve, you bet. As always, great to see you. When I get down that way, we need to get together.
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:45 pm #
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.
Dr_Mike on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:47 pm #
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.
Wm Tanksley on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:57 pm #
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
I got shoes on 12 Nov 2009 at 7:58 pm #
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…
Steven Moore on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:15 pm #
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
Eric Wright on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:26 pm #
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
Steven Moore on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:31 pm #
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
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:35 pm #
Thanks Eric.
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:35 pm #
I got shoes,
Not sure whether or not you posted on the right post. I simply did not understand what you said.
Please restate.
Dave Z on 12 Nov 2009 at 8:39 pm #
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?
Stuart on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:04 pm #
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.”)
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:20 pm #
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.
mbaker on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:21 pm #
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.
Dave Z on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:22 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:25 pm #
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!
iMark on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:39 pm #
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 got shoes on 12 Nov 2009 at 9:46 pm #
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.
kwilson on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:06 pm #
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…
cherylu on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:11 pm #
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.
Lynne on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:18 pm #
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)
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:29 pm #
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!
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:36 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:41 pm #
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.
Brian on 12 Nov 2009 at 11:51 pm #
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…)
cherylu on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:05 am #
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.
Dr_Mike on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:09 am #
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.
Brian on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:34 am #
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
Lisa Robinson on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:31 am #
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
Dave Z on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:43 am #
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.
Such a conclusion would not be a false assumption.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:49 am #
This is going in that seminary direction…I don’t want that. Aready did it.
Move on to the diversity issue please.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:00 am #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:07 am #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:13 am #
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).
Jeff Young on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:21 am #
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?
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:24 am #
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).
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:32 am #
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.
Marc on 13 Nov 2009 at 6:44 am #
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.
John T III on 13 Nov 2009 at 9:29 am #
Does “The Theology Program” count as formal training?
J.R. on 13 Nov 2009 at 9:55 am #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 11:02 am #
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…”
Michael L on 13 Nov 2009 at 11:37 am #
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
Jim W. on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:18 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:25 pm #
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.
Mike B on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:32 pm #
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!
Wilson Hines on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:32 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:32 pm #
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.
Jim W. on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:50 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:57 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:59 pm #
Wilson, good one!
J.R. on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:03 pm #
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?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:09 pm #
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!
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:12 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:13 pm #
Truth, you are learning. I almost want to say that you are calling on us to be irenic
Jim W. on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:25 pm #
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 Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:31 pm #
“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”!
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:34 pm #
It depends. Do you throw the rock and then run and hide? Or is it a preemptive action of “shock and all”?
Jeff Young on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:36 pm #
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!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:40 pm #
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?
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:42 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:45 pm #
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!)
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:46 pm #
Don’t leave without responding to #68!
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:49 pm #
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.
Jeff Young on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:51 pm #
Michael,
Sorry for the mistake in incorrectly addressing the last post. I agree with your thoughts on this issue very much.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 1:55 pm #
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!
Dick Probert on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:16 pm #
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.
Mike Beidler on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:16 pm #
#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.
Mike B on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:21 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:28 pm #
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.
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:28 pm #
Ok, I am really done!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:32 pm #
CMP: “Mike, I would not allow a theistic evolutionist either”
You’re a good man, CMP.
That is an irenic “no” to theistic evolutionists.
Mike Beidler on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:34 pm #
I would not allow a theistic evolutionist either.
And Bruce Waltke’s application is tossed into the “circular file” …
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:43 pm #
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!
Mike Beidler on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:48 pm #
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.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:54 pm #
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?
Jim W. on 13 Nov 2009 at 2:55 pm #
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.
Jeff Young on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:01 pm #
Jim W.
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for commenting outside of the primary discussion.
Wm Tanksley on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:09 pm #
“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
Mike Beidler on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:15 pm #
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?
Wm Tanksley on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:22 pm #
“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
Mike Beidler on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:22 pm #
Oh, yeah … Scot McKnight, too. But he might just be a little too emergent for CMP.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:26 pm #
Mike Beidler: “Shall I go on?
”
YES!!
C Michael Patton on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:30 pm #
Don’t go in the direction of evolution!
Mike B on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:33 pm #
To one and all – my deepest apologies for mentioning the “E” word.
Mike Beidler on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:35 pm #
Yes, as CMP said, “Don’t go toward the light!”
Wm Tanksley on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:40 pm #
“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
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Nov 2009 at 3:53 pm #
“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.
elnwood on 13 Nov 2009 at 4:55 pm #
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.
Jugulum on 13 Nov 2009 at 4:58 pm #
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!
Wm Tanksley on 13 Nov 2009 at 5:17 pm #
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
Dave Z on 13 Nov 2009 at 6:34 pm #
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.
Wm Tanksley on 13 Nov 2009 at 8:00 pm #
And in those interviews, references, and personal interactions you’d be applying wisdom by looking for preconditions, whether you’d stated them explicitly or not.
Meanwhile, again, the question “is this who God has sent?” doesn’t seem to be supported in the Bible. It’s closely allied to the common problem of “seeking God’s will”, by which we normally mean “looking for secret divine revelations made only to us by which we can forego personal responsibility and wisdom”. God sometimes communicates to us personally; when He did that in the Bible, though, He didn’t usually offer hints and guidance, but rather absolute commands. He didn’t tell people which fork in the road to take to get to their friend’s house; He told them to leave town and found a new nation.
Our job isn’t to seek out God’s detailed, hidden will; it’s to obey His revealed commands, and one of them is to use the discernment He gave us.
-Wm
Rick Wadholm Jr on 15 Nov 2009 at 5:26 pm #
Michael,
on the staff…how do you see this playing out in the MANY churches that have only one pastor? I have personally tried to include teaching about differing perspectives on various issues (even ones I STRONGLY disagree with), but to do so respectful of the different perspectives arguments. I guess what I’m saying is that I’ve tried to pastor from a varied perspective, while still stating (often) where I stand in the mix, but still trying to do justice to a different perspective. What would be your proposal in such a situation?
While I agree to diversity (I’m pretty sure a church will have it with more than one person automatically
C Michael Patton on 15 Nov 2009 at 6:30 pm #
Rick, that is a great point and question and I am surprised that you are the first to bring it up. When you get to a staff of one or two on the pastorate, I think that the method that must be followed is simply to be intentional about helping people to understand the diversity and, themselve, formulate a doctrinal taxonomy.
Dave Z on 15 Nov 2009 at 10:58 pm #
Yeah, tell that to John the Baptist when he asked exactly that question. Or to the apostles when they were looking to replace Judas.
Oh, yes – “seeking God’s will” – the height of foolishness.
And kindly stop making unwarranted assumptions about what I mean and what my motives are.
Wm Tanksley on 16 Nov 2009 at 11:53 am #
What an awesome reply! I’m serious — I like your tone and your logic, and your scriptural premises.
But John wasn’t looking for a coworker, but the long-prophesied Messiah. And notice what Jesus replied when John started doubting while in prison: he made a list of qualifications that He fulfilled, based on those prophecies and on the nature of His calling (if I may use that term). In addition, Jesus knew the “My sheep hear My voice…”, while your applicant doesn’t have any such claim on you.
And the apostolic example has two strikes against it. First, unlike you, the apostles weren’t acting with the Holy Spirit, since Pentecost hadn’t come; and second, they didn’t merely ask God for direction, but rather they set up a list of qualifications, and only when they’d reduced the number of candidates did they cast lots.
I could sympathize with anyone who, having two equally qualified candidates, cast lots to choose between them; but I have no sympathy nor agreement with someone who refuses to draw up a list of qualifications before starting the search.
I know you’re not foolish; I see that you allow for some qualifications. You speak of “minimizing” the prequalifications, though, and that’s what I’m warning about. Even Patton, with his desire to build an irenic pastoral staff, has qualifications.
No. The height (and depth) of foolishness is to not fear the Lord. But wisdom does not consist merely of avoiding foolishness; it’s listening to the whole counsel of God, not merely casting lots for every decision; applying the wisdom and teaching God put into your life, not asking God for new instruction every time any choice arises.
This isn’t about you; I’m replying to you only because you make a common error. I don’t know who you are. If you took offense at the problem I described, please consider whether my description might match a problem you actually have. If you think I’m wrong, you shouldn’t be offended, but should feel like I need correction.
If I’m wrong, and I may be, it’s not because I made assumptions about you or about your motives, because that’s not what I did.
-Wm
Matt B. on 18 Nov 2009 at 5:53 am #
“Must be formally trained in Bible and theology (sorry, no online stuff).”
That’s too bad; you might just find some folks that fall into this category that God has tremendously gifted. I’m attending Rockbridge Seminary right now and am amazed at the growth in understanding that I am seeing already. Of course, it is not based on the traditional style of seminary (http://www.rockbridgeseminary.org/learning-approach), but it is still a great place for growth in knowledge and ministry, IMHO. In addition, you have to be currently serving in ministry to attend and have a mentor for each class taken. While I see a benefit in a brick-and-mortar school, I don’t think that graduates from online/DL schools should be looked at any differently (or at least discounted from the start).
Yes, I’ve read the other comments here, but I think that just by your statement alone, you are discounting your own TTP program.
Lisa Robinson on 18 Nov 2009 at 7:41 am #
Matt, I don’t want to speak for Michael but the TTP program is advertised as seminary training in your own home meaning it brings the core theology courses that all DTS masters programs have to take. The actual degrees require substantially more classes from other disciplines, such as Bible exposition, pastoral ministries, Christian education, etc., especially for the ThM. Some of these classes are specifically for training in preaching/teaching where you are critiqued. (ThM has to take at least 2 preaching classes plus a teaching class through Christian Ed) That can’t happen on-line. I have taken a few of my classes at DTS on-line but it is not the same.
There is also the 4-semester Spiritual Formation curriculum, where we meet in a small group and go through a series each semester. This fosters spiritual growth in the context of community.
Matt B. on 18 Nov 2009 at 8:25 am #
I wonder what the Jewish teachers of the day would have said about the 12 disciples teaching – probably something along the lines of “nope, they haven’t gone through the rigorous testing required”.
===
Acts 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say.
===
I’m not trying to make light of the need for a solid educational background, but God prepares people many different ways for His work. When you discount a person just because he didn’t get a degree from a brick-and-mortar school, you might be missing out. There are other ways to check a person’s theological and leadership strengths and weaknesses than by looking at where they got their “pedigree”.
BTW – I took a couple of courses online through Denver Seminary and they left a lot to be desired from an interaction standpoint. Now on my second term at Rockbridge Seminary, I can attest to a world of difference it makes attending a seminary that is specifically geared towards an online audience of those already in ministry.