Both.
Maybe a topic that's not been discussed here EVER before......maybe, pastoral candidate assessment.
- Thread starter ALAYMAN
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,066
- Reaction score
- 2,155
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
In my experience, we typically hear from them two or three times. A lot of "guest speakers" turn out to be candidating.
Of course there's a lot more going on behind the scenes, with the elders and selection committee scrutinizing not only his preaching and theology, but personal and family life. The quality of his sermons isn't the only important thing, after all. If it all passes muster, they will make a recommendation that he be called.
Of course there's a lot more going on behind the scenes, with the elders and selection committee scrutinizing not only his preaching and theology, but personal and family life. The quality of his sermons isn't the only important thing, after all. If it all passes muster, they will make a recommendation that he be called.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,951
- Points
- 113
Very interesting.
The way you phrased that, “typically hear….guest speakers”, it would seem that you must be a member of a fairly large church that has a pastoral staff turnover every five or 10 years, is that about right?
Not sure exactly what you’re getting with that subtle description, but we thought about doing the “guest speakers” thing but it just did not work out that way. What is your assumption or perspective about the idea of a guest speaker turning out to be an actual potential candidate?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,951
- Points
- 113
Yep, no offense, but he would be quickly shown the proverbial door with any or all of those beliefs.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,951
- Points
- 113
Did the one being groomed to take over seem to agree with the philosophic position of the ministry prior to him taking over as senior pastor? Were there any signs of him having a maverick spirit before the about-face?
As far as I know, he seemed in step with everything his predecessor held to.
His differences were more procedural than doctrinal. Some came out and accused him of being on a power trip when he took over.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,066
- Reaction score
- 2,155
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
You're right about "fairly large church." I believe we're the largest church in the city, at least amongst the Protestant ones, with ~2500 adherents. At Canadian scale, we're a megachurch.
I've been attending here for 25 years and our current senior pastor is the third in that time. (The middle one was only there a year--he preached about missions a lot, believed his own message, and quit to become a missionary.) We expect the senior guy to be there for the long haul, but there's a bit of turnover amongst the junior staff due to retirement, relocation, change of career--the usual things that people move on for.
Simply that the elders/deacons/search committee are doing their job vetting candidates. Many--and I'm sure they're fine people--won't be suitable. When the field of candidates is narrowed down to the one or two that they're seriously considering, we're kept informed. It's not that the process is secretive--just that in the early stage of the search, every member doesn't have to have his hand in.
Excellent strategy. In a similar vein, my uncle, who owns a business, will purposely put an extra $20 bill in the cash till as a means of testing new employees for counting receipts at the end of the day. If they pocket the surplus, he knows that he needs to either start looking for someone new or closely monitoring them at all times. He never directly confronts them, he just uses it as a means of testing their honesty. In your situation, there’s no cash till, but other similar scenarios could work.Take him golfing. Does he play it where it lies? How does he act when he misses a putt?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 2,578
- Reaction score
- 1,386
- Points
- 113
i don;t know much about pulpit committees or a pastoral selection process.... but i can see how a healthy church would not want a militant calvinist or hyper-legalist either one dividing the church and stirring up one half the membership to burn the others at the stake.... it would be difficult enough to have one among the general congregation... much less giving them authority in the church...
having a heart willing to follow as Christ leads is much better than coming in with a pre-planned agenda.... but those are just my opinions... ..and you are right..... it;s a very intersting topic that has never been discussed much on the fff... if ever at all before....
Note the editing.
A deeper dig into the situation revealed a different set of information than I understood.
The situation involves Calvary Chapel affiliated churches, of which I have been a part of for just over 20 years.
A topic perhaps worthy of well thought out and informed discussion but not on this particular thread and not at this time.
It goes both ways. A "Free Willy" should not be misrepresenting himself in order to candidate for a pastoral position in a reformed congregation either.
Churches that have adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith typically expect strict adherence from all elders and pastors. The WCF is not on the same level as scripture but they believe that the WCF is a faithful expression of what the scriptures have to say regarding theological and ecclesiastical matters. If there are any points to which one does not agree, such is documented along with a careful and thorough articulation pertaining to where they disagree. From there, the congregation can make a determine whether such an exception is tolerable and apt to be overlooked. I am not privy to this process but it seems much like what I did in the engineering world where I would review engineering specifications in order to prepare a technical proposal.
While the discussion is good, the majority of the comments in this thread show the problems that congregational rule (polity) has in a local church. If anyone can show it. please do, but there are no biblical examples of this style. IMO, the Presbyterian polity is interesting, but can you be "independent" under such?
en.wikipedia.org
Ecclesiastical polity - Wikipedia
I do not believe that the scriptures are dogmatic regarding one polity over the other. There are some general guidelines we can take into consideration such as the biblical offices and I also believe that a "Plurality of Elders" is clearly spoken of. What is decidedly unbiblical is a single "Man-O-Gawd" who has absolute authority over the rest of the congregation and is not to be questioned or criticized in any manner!While the discussion is good, the majority of the comments in this thread show the problems that congregational rule (polity) has in a local church. If anyone can show it. please do, but there are no biblical examples of this style. IMO, the Presbyterian polity is interesting, but can you be "independent" under such?
Ecclesiastical polity - Wikipedia
The scriptures do declare that we are to "Obey them that have the rule over you" (Heb 13:17) but what exactly does this mean? I believe the context is clearly those in the position of an "Overseer" and those who one day must give account themselves. We also have the "Elders that Rule well" of whom we should acknowledge are worthy of double-honor. But to whom are the elders accountable?
We also see congregational rule in action when the Holy Spirit said "Separate me Barnabas and Saul..." (Acts 13:2) and when the first deacons were selected (Acts 6:2-6). It is the congregation which recognizes the gifting and calling of a man for ecclesiastical offices and for the work of the ministry. I believe it is the congregation that decides whether a candidate for elder or deacon meets the qualifications of 1 Tim 3 and Tit 1.
A few weeks ago, I shared a video clip of John MacArthur stating that he has no authority whatsoever over his congregation. We also understood clearly his implication that he had no authority aside from the authority of the scriptures. If you receive solid, biblical counsel from anyone, you HAD BETTER take heed to what they are saying! I believe that a pastor has authority as he is speaking on behalf of the elders and the elders have authority as they are speaking on behalf of the Church. The Church has authority when it is solidly rooted and grounded in the authority and sufficiency of the scriptures (1 Tim 3:15; 2 Tim 3:16). The "local" Church is THE ULTIMATE place of authority in the life of a believer and each of us MUST submit themselves to this authority. Elders are to submit themselves to the authority of Church and a believer is to submit themselves to the authority of the eldership as they speak and operate in behalf of the Church.
Whether you are a Pastor, Elder, Deacon, or Pew Pounder, you are "Sheep" that needs to be "Shepherded!" We all receive such shepherding as we submit ourselves to the authority of a local congregation. I would further assert that Gal 4:19 ought to be the primary if not the SOLE "vision" a pastor should have for those who are under his care!
I believe a system of "Checks and Balances" will be operative in every healthy and biblical Church to ensure that Christ is the one who has the preeminence in all things (Col 1:18).
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,066
- Reaction score
- 2,155
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Well, no, because churches in the presbyterian system aren't meant to be independent. It was designed during the Reformation to allow the church to continue functioning under persecution. (And it isn't "biblical" insofar as it was invented by Calvin rather than being derived directly from biblical teaching.)
In the presbyterian system, authority flows both from the top down and the bottom up. If the authorities attacked a local congregation, the synod could continue to give oversight to the rest of the church. If the synod itself was attacked, the local churches appointed their own officers and could still operate.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,951
- Points
- 113
I served on the pulpit committee as the chairman 20 years ago. It’s a lot of work but very rewarding. I just think that the average person in the pew often has very little basis for evaluating a pastor based on a couple sermons, which is why it’s all the more import for the committee to do their due diligence in the vetting process. Having been through the process twice now I think that if I were yo be in a different position, sitting in the pew, I would want to participate as much as allowable in the process. In my experience, though certain efforts were made to be inclusive, most people keep their distance, and the only “participation” (other than their actual vote on the candidate) they engage in is talking with other members to see what their opinions of the sermon were.
It's just sad that things have to be this way. OK gathering of believers or what we call a church need a new leader. They may not know anything about the man what type of spirit he even has or how strong his fellowship is with the Lord. OK he preaches a good sermon. Maybe he even got that online? How close is the man in relationship with God? I think for the most part one can only really know that as to when that person lives among you and I mean for a few years.
Seeing leaders arise from within a group you know what you're getting and the people can feel good that they HAVE the reputation of good report by seeing them live out their lives.
Make sure he (or she) has a doctrinal statement. The last church i was in, the pulpit committee ignored it.... never asked for it.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,951
- Points
- 113
Yeah, that’s an absolutely bare minimum to even get the process started. The fella who is candidating now said our process was quite the contrast to his last pastorate where they pretty much just asked him to come preach for a bit then they voted
, resumes and doctrinal statements unnecessary.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,951
- Points
- 113
Ideally I agree, as I said earlier in this discussion, that the congregation should look to fill from within (though intellectual and spiritual “inbreeding” could be a pitfall here) , but as people of the book we also must concede that Scripture makes no such explicit demand.
I agree. Back in the early church for the most part I think most believers stayed in their general regions.....it was a more simplistic set up but just something that sounds good about people within one's ranks being discipled and matured and stepping into their leadership as they grew to become such.