Is this steeple-jacking? Is it ethical?

[TimbauxRioux]

Is this ETHICAL?

If there was one class I would say is a MUST, outside of biblical teaching, interpretation, preaching, etc… I would say everyone who wishes to work in a church or ministry receive ample instruction in ETHICS.

About six months ago, I was reading a Facebook friend’s blog and going through some names he listed (all SBC folks) and I stumbled upon this website.

My understanding is that this is the Founders group, a Calvinistic group of people in the SBC who wish to transform churches into a more Calvinistic type. I picked out, from a list of about fifteen points, three points that I wanted to ask your opinion on.........

“The principle of restraint. Don't tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform.”

“ Don't use theological language that is not in the Bible, in the pulpit, such as, Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about.”

“I would suggest that you check the history of your church in respect to early constitutions or declarations of faith. Often you will find, particularly, in older churches, a statement expressing the doctrines which you desire to establish. A gracious appeal to this document will help to give you credibility, at least they will know that you are not coming from Mars. Hide behind these articles of faith. Hide behind our Baptist fathers, such as Bunyan, Spurgeon, Fuller, Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, Manly, W. B. Johnson, R. B. C. Howell and B. H. Carroll.”

http://www.reformedreader.org/chapter_3.htm

My question..IS THIS ETHICAL? Does this amount to steeple-jacking?

I am not interested in bringing up Calvinism per se’, I am asking if these secret tactics amount to UNETHICAL behavior?

I am sure, somewhere in this country, a non-Calvinistic preacher is pastoring a church that is Calvinistic, like he used to be.. but he “saw the light” and is now going to transform the church into something “more biblical”.

Labels don’t bother me. I don’t care if they change the name. I am not interested in the theological debate over Calvinism.. all I am asking is….

IS THIS ETHICAL…to secretly plan to transform a church into something on the other end of the theological spectrum?

How about if this was a charismatic preacher in a church. Suppose the church was not charismatic, and neither was the pastor, but then he got “baptized in the Spirit”, evidenced by speaking in tongues… and now, he is going to secretly introduce charismatic teachings into the church.

Is it right? Should such a person stand up and offer his resignation?

I realize the church belongs to God. I know that… just want to ask what you think about these secretive tactics.

I will be gone until next Monday (family member having surgery) at least. I just wanted to throw this out before I head out of town. if i can poke my head in and respond, i will. ciao

 

[T-Bone]

If the intent is to be devious and underhanded rather than up front with your beliefs then it is unethical, dishonest & unbiblical.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This part bothers me.

“The principle of restraint. Don't tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform.”

This part doesn't.  It makes perfect sense.  Not only will many people not know what you're talking about, some of those who do will reject what you're saying because anti-Calvinists have poisoned the well. 

“ Don't use theological language that is not in the Bible, in the pulpit, such as, Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about.”

This part is just stupid.  The truth stands on its own.  You don't need declarations of faith or appeals to authority to make it effective. 

“I would suggest that you check the history of your church in respect to early constitutions or declarations of faith. Often you will find, particularly, in older churches, a statement expressing the doctrines which you desire to establish. A gracious appeal to this document will help to give you credibility, at least they will know that you are not coming from Mars. Hide behind these articles of faith. Hide behind our Baptist fathers, such as Bunyan, Spurgeon, Fuller, Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, Manly, W. B. Johnson, R. B. C. Howell and B. H. Carroll.”

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

If the intent is to be devious and underhanded rather than up front with your beliefs then it is unethical, dishonest & unbiblical.

Agreed. Subversive and Christian are not synonymous.

The term "Reformed" explains much. Their goal is to reform churches into what they see as correct as opposed to simply gathering together or gathering with those who are like minded.

 

[ChuckBob]

Kind of like that "purpose driven" garbage that invaded churches a few years ago. What I'd love to see are church leaders that actually have an original thought on how to run the place.

ChuckBob

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Kind of like that "purpose driven" garbage that invaded churches a few years ago.

That was the first thing that came to mind when I read the OP.

 

[TimbauxRioux]

Kind of like that "purpose driven" garbage that invaded churches a few years ago. What I'd love to see are church leaders that actually have an original thought on how to run the place.

ChuckBob

Down here...and I am not trying to pick a fight.. i am just speaking from what I SEE....
there are two major players here in steeple-jacking... the Calvinists and the Charismatics.

They will join a church, and keep quiet... slowly bring friends in..when they have a majority, they will then surprise everyone with the changes they want to make. that,, is steeple-jacking.

As for what ChuckBob is talking about... yes, the church in Alabama i used to preach at each year... they did the Purpose Driven stuff, the pastor himself was behind it. Imagine my surprise when a church that had, for the longest time, demanded a coat and tie for preachers... when I walked in one sunday morning, after being gone for 2 years, the pastor comes out with a Hawaiian shirt. The interrpeter looked at me and said, "He LOVES Rick Warren, wait till you see the youth group."

The church was transformed. I dont know how they doing now.. but that was a very radical transformation.. Purpose Driven. Big difference. I am sure many of the older people were upset.

 

[ChuckBob]

Yeah, I think that infiltration with an eye toward conquest is definitely unethical and downright sneaky to boot. If you want to have a church that believes a particular way then start one or join one that lines up with your beliefs. Don't steal one from people that given their lives to it.

ChuckBob

 

[TimbauxRioux]

ChuckBob..

PREACH!

there is a church that was at one time more like a Bible church, great reputation.. great church.. one of my girlfriends was a member there... then the pastor resigned to go plant a new church in another area.

The new guy came in.. a little different... then slowly his old members from his old church started coming in and joining... and in time, they had lured others in and outnumbered the older crowd, changed it into a charismatic church and just changed it all. Numbers were up for a while.

Guy who played on my softball team was a member, told me when the people got tired of the same old song and dance, the crowd dwindled, the pastor left.

After going for a year or so without a pastor, a new one was brought in. He eventually turned it into a calvinistic church. I have no idea how they are doing.

to me...steeple-jacking is the way of the weasel, not Christ.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

ChuckBob..

PREACH!

there is a church that was at one time more like a Bible church, great reputation.. great church.. one of my girlfriends was a member there... then the pastor resigned to go plant a new church in another area.

The new guy came in.. a little different... then slowly his old members from his old church started coming in and joining... and in time, they had lured others in and outnumbered the older crowd, changed it into a charismatic church and just changed it all. Numbers were up for a while.

Guy who played on my softball team was a member, told me when the people got tired of the same old song and dance, the crowd dwindled, the pastor left.

After going for a year or so without a pastor, a new one was brought in. He eventually turned it into a calvinistic church. I have no idea how they are doing.

to me...steeple-jacking is the way of the weasel, not Christ.

IMO, there's an important difference between steeple-jacking and a new pastor with a following, and that following changes the demographics of the church. 

There's also a difference between steeple-jacking that deliberately converts the accepted doctrines of a church, and a church changing its doctrines simply because the blind sheep follow whatever the pastor says. 

Which brings us back to the whole problem with today's model of what church is. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=TimbauxRioux]there is a church that was at one time more like a Bible church, great reputation.. great church.. one of my girlfriends was a member there... then the pastor resigned to go plant a new church in another area.[/quote]

How many girlfriends do you have?

 

[TimbauxRioux]

haha.. *girlfriend's*

but since you asking i did date about six or seven girls from one big church,,, and about that many at seminary

 

[Holy Mole]

Is this ETHICAL?

If there was one class I would say is a MUST, outside of biblical teaching, interpretation, preaching, etc… I would say everyone who wishes to work in a church or ministry receive ample instruction in ETHICS.

About six months ago, I was reading a Facebook friend’s blog and going through some names he listed (all SBC folks) and I stumbled upon this website.

My understanding is that this is the Founders group, a Calvinistic group of people in the SBC who wish to transform churches into a more Calvinistic type. I picked out, from a list of about fifteen points, three points that I wanted to ask your opinion on.........

“The principle of restraint. Don't tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform.”

“ Don't use theological language that is not in the Bible, in the pulpit, such as, Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about.”

“I would suggest that you check the history of your church in respect to early constitutions or declarations of faith. Often you will find, particularly, in older churches, a statement expressing the doctrines which you desire to establish. A gracious appeal to this document will help to give you credibility, at least they will know that you are not coming from Mars. Hide behind these articles of faith. Hide behind our Baptist fathers, such as Bunyan, Spurgeon, Fuller, Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, Manly, W. B. Johnson, R. B. C. Howell and B. H. Carroll.”

http://www.reformedreader.org/chapter_3.htm

My question..IS THIS ETHICAL? Does this amount to steeple-jacking?

I am not interested in bringing up Calvinism per se’, I am asking if these secret tactics amount to UNETHICAL behavior?

I am sure, somewhere in this country, a non-Calvinistic preacher is pastoring a church that is Calvinistic, like he used to be.. but he “saw the light” and is now going to transform the church into something “more biblical”.

Labels don’t bother me. I don’t care if they change the name. I am not interested in the theological debate over Calvinism.. all I am asking is….

IS THIS ETHICAL…to secretly plan to transform a church into something on the other end of the theological spectrum?

How about if this was a charismatic preacher in a church. Suppose the church was not charismatic, and neither was the pastor, but then he got “baptized in the Spirit”, evidenced by speaking in tongues… and now, he is going to secretly introduce charismatic teachings into the church.

Is it right? Should such a person stand up and offer his resignation?

I realize the church belongs to God. I know that… just want to ask what you think about these secretive tactics.

I will be gone until next Monday (family member having surgery) at least. I just wanted to throw this out before I head out of town. if i can poke my head in and respond, i will. ciao

I would call into question any movement that needs to resort to this type of practice. It reminds me of some of the deceptive practices of some of the AMWAY pushers.

 

[subllibrm]

Small town baptist church. Pastor has been excused for financial misconduct. Interim man in place for about a year.

Interim tells leadership that it is time to seek a new man. He knows someone who would make a great candidate. Candidate process starts.

Leadership does due diligence as far as interviewing and asking the pertinent questions:

"Do you have any specific changes in mind for our church?"

"What is your position on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?" and so on.

Candidate and interim assure leadership that there is no agenda everything will be the same.

Vote is taken. Candidate is called. Installation is complete.

And then ....


I would love to know what you all think happened next!

 

[TimbauxRioux]

right before he answered that he didnt have any changes in mind, he crossed his legs... freeing him from telling the truth..and in a short time....

he introduced them to "the baptismwiththeHolyGhost"

???? right?

 

[subllibrm]

right before he answered that he didnt have any changes in mind, he crossed his legs... freeing him from telling the truth..and in a short time....

he introduced them to "the baptismwiththeHolyGhost"

???? right?

Nope. Nice guess though.

Anyone else?

 

[Holy Mole]

Small town baptist church. Pastor has been excused for financial misconduct. Interim man in place for about a year.

Interim tells leadership that it is time to seek a new man. He knows someone who would make a great candidate. Candidate process starts.

Leadership does due diligence as far as interviewing and asking the pertinent questions:

"Do you have any specific changes in mind for our church?"

"What is your position on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?" and so on.

Candidate and interim assure leadership that there is no agenda everything will be the same.

Vote is taken. Candidate is called. Installation is complete.

And then ....


I would love to know what you all think happened next!

... announced his intent to pull the church out of the SBC and go "independent"?

 

[subllibrm]

right before he answered that he didnt have any changes in mind, he crossed his legs... freeing him from telling the truth..and in a short time....

he introduced them to "the baptismwiththeHolyGhost"

???? right?

Nope. Nice guess though.

Anyone else?

ummmmm...... let;s see..... ???.....  he made an announcement he believed in gay marriage and intended to use the church sanctuary to perform gay weddings?........  ??? ........

Nope, you are getting colder.

 

[subllibrm]

... announced his intent to pull the church out of the SBC and go "independent"?

Never was SBC but you are the warmest so far.

 

[subllibrm]

Man is King James Only?

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

Also instituted a no pants on women rule. A hair length facial hair standard for the men. Told the youth director to make all the teens comply with the new dress code (the largest youth group in town went from 50-60 to a dozen in a month). Church membership dropped by 60% and all but two deacons left the church. Total victory so to speak.