Is this steeple-jacking? Is it ethical?

[TimbauxRioux]

Though this doesnt apply to me.... you can get a pretty good idea of where someone is heading by looking at where they went.

One church west of here had produced many missionaries and pastors (still active to this day, some 25 years later) and then the pastor felt called to plant a church somewhere else.

They brought in some guy from a non-denom school and though he played fair a good while, eventually, he became so flimsy. I went to that church no less than 10 times... one of the most dry preachers i ever encountered. in time, the church went way down, lost probably 80% of the congregation, then sold out to some business.

Sad. I guess that wasnt a takeover..the guy just did not show where he was heading until he was there for 15 years.

 

[TimbauxRioux]

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.

Reformed comes from Reformation. Reformed evangelicals seek to get back to the foundational theology lost and replaced by modernism.

Yes. thats fine. But to go to a church with the secret plan to transform it into something it was not previously, that is unethical and not Christ-like.

I truly believe anyone wanting to set up a reformed church should go and plant a new church, go through all the rituals of doing so, rather than find a church and try to transform it, getting themselves a building (most likely paid for) and a congregation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yes, that is unethical, and the exact thing happened to a church in my neck of the woods with a Macarthurite Calvinist that took over an IFB church that was definitely not Calvinist.  I like the pastor, but in the interest of full disclosure he should have let the pulpit committee know that he was a flaming Calvinist when he interviewed, and that he would take them in that direction.

 

[Mathew Ward]

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.

Reformed comes from Reformation. Reformed evangelicals seek to get back to the foundational theology lost and replaced by modernism.

Shouldn't they be forthright and honest in wanting to do so?

 

[Mathew Ward]

Anyone stepping into a new ministry should try to be a close match.

With that said, what if the pastor wants to move the church from using the KJV to a NIV?

What if the church has been used to fluff amd the new guy is expositional?

Then he should tell them so.

Then he should tell them so.

If he is the pastor and comes to this conclusion then he tell them so. If they are not willing to make those changes, he should resign if he thinks he will make it an issue.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Anyone stepping into a new ministry should try to be a close match.

With that said, what if the pastor wants to move the church from using the KJV to a NIV?

I would have to say that would depend on the congregation. Look, I am answering a proposed question, not about to get into a KJV debate in this thread, but here is how I see it. If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why. Same goes both ways. If the people are set on it, even if their reasoning lacks depth, I will hurt the church by trying to mold them to my particulars.

What if the church has been used to fluff amd the new guy is expositional?

Now you are talking about style, not doctrine. Let each man be himself.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Anyone stepping into a new ministry should try to be a close match.

With that said, what if the pastor wants to move the church from using the KJV to a NIV?

What if the church has been used to fluff amd the new guy is expositional?

Then he should tell them so.

Then he should tell them so.

If he is the pastor and comes to this conclusion then he tell them so. If they are not willing to make those changes, he should resign if he thinks he will make it an issue.

You only have to deal with such issues if you have One Pastor to rule them all, One Pastor to find them,
One Pastor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why.

What if the congregation thinks drinking in moderation is not a sin, but you do (or vice versa)?  Would you withdraw your candidacy, or use the bully pulpit to preach what you believe is the truth? 

 

[FSSL]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why. 

agree.

I would disagree with some on this board that if you were stepping into a church that used the KJV (without the KJVOism), then I would teach the church about new versions through its usage and expositional preaching. I would (and have) move them that direction.

Often, inside these churches, you will find a rabid KJVO. We even had one on this forum last year. He was trying to overthrow a church.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why. 

agree.

I would disagree with some on this board that if you were stepping into a church that used the KJV (without the KJVOism), then I would teach the church about new versions through its usage and expositional preaching. I would (and have) move them that direction.

Often, inside these churches, you will find a rabid KJVO. We even had one on this forum last year. He was trying to overthrow a church.

I think this would be subjective to where the church is/was at on the issue. Myself, I would head the other direction with the teaching, but whether I would allow my candidacy to stand would be subjective to where the people were on the issue at hand.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why.

What if the congregation thinks drinking in moderation is not a sin, but you do (or vice versa)?  Would you withdraw your candidacy, or use the bully pulpit to preach what you believe is the truth?

I am not sure if there is any answer that will satisfy you TRT, but this is another issue that should be discussed at the candidacy stage.

You obviously picked an issue you thought was important, which btw shows your attachment to alcohol.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why.

What if the congregation thinks drinking in moderation is not a sin, but you do (or vice versa)?  Would you withdraw your candidacy, or use the bully pulpit to preach what you believe is the truth?

I am not sure if there is any answer that will satisfy you TRT, but this is another issue that should be discussed at the candidacy stage.

Well, I imagine you can't cover every possible issue at the candidacy stage.  So, if at any point you discover that you disagree with the congregation on any issue, you'll resign? 

You obviously picked an issue you thought was important, which btw shows your attachment to alcohol.

Yeah, right.  Nice try.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why.

What if the congregation thinks drinking in moderation is not a sin, but you do (or vice versa)?  Would you withdraw your candidacy, or use the bully pulpit to preach what you believe is the truth?

I am not sure if there is any answer that will satisfy you TRT, but this is another issue that should be discussed at the candidacy stage.

Well, I imagine you can't cover every possible issue at the candidacy stage.  So, if at any point you discover that you disagree with the congregation on any issue, you'll resign? 

You obviously picked an issue you thought was important, which btw shows your attachment to alcohol.

Yeah, right.  Nice try.

You can't, but you should try to be as thorough as possible. And if the issue was important enough, yes. I would also have to realize I accepted a church that existed, so it is unethical of me to radically change it in anyway.

Consider this. You take a church, and you find out there is someone that is a member that isn't baptized. (Now TRT, I have no idea what oddball idea you may have about this, but baptism is a requirement for membership in a sound church), or that person was baptized by another mode. What do you do now?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why.

What if the congregation thinks drinking in moderation is not a sin, but you do (or vice versa)?  Would you withdraw your candidacy, or use the bully pulpit to preach what you believe is the truth?

I am not sure if there is any answer that will satisfy you TRT, but this is another issue that should be discussed at the candidacy stage.

Well, I imagine you can't cover every possible issue at the candidacy stage.  So, if at any point you discover that you disagree with the congregation on any issue, you'll resign? 

You obviously picked an issue you thought was important, which btw shows your attachment to alcohol.

Yeah, right.  Nice try.

You can't, but you should try to be as thorough as possible. And if the issue was important enough, yes. I would also have to realize I accepted a church that existed, so it is unethical of me to radically change it in anyway.

Consider this. You take a church, and you find out there is someone that is a member that isn't baptized. (Now TRT, I have no idea what oddball idea you may have about this, but baptism is a requirement for membership in a sound church), or that person was baptized by another mode. What do you do now?

What do I do now?  Nothing.  I'm a member of the body of Christ, not some organization with rules and regulations about club membership.  The assembly I attend is made up of members of the body of Christ, not some organization with rules and regulations about club membership. 

But from your answers, I have to assume you don't teach anything (which would probably be a blessing to all).  After all, the congregation already agrees with you on everything that matters, so what's the point? 

 

[Mathew Ward]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why.

What if the congregation thinks drinking in moderation is not a sin, but you do (or vice versa)?  Would you withdraw your candidacy, or use the bully pulpit to preach what you believe is the truth?

I am not sure if there is any answer that will satisfy you TRT, but this is another issue that should be discussed at the candidacy stage.

Well, I imagine you can't cover every possible issue at the candidacy stage.  So, if at any point you discover that you disagree with the congregation on any issue, you'll resign? 

You obviously picked an issue you thought was important, which btw shows your attachment to alcohol.

Yeah, right.  Nice try.

You can't, but you should try to be as thorough as possible. And if the issue was important enough, yes. I would also have to realize I accepted a church that existed, so it is unethical of me to radically change it in anyway.

Consider this. You take a church, and you find out there is someone that is a member that isn't baptized. (Now TRT, I have no idea what oddball idea you may have about this, but baptism is a requirement for membership in a sound church), or that person was baptized by another mode. What do you do now?

What do I do now?  Nothing.  I'm a member of the body of Christ, not some organization with rules and regulations about club membership.  The assembly I attend is made up of members of the body of Christ, not some organization with rules and regulations about club membership. 

But from your answers, I have to assume you don't teach anything (which would probably be a blessing to all).  After all, the congregation already agrees with you on everything that matters, so what's the point?

So do you believe that folks after getting saved should be baptized?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If the congregation is KJVO, then ETHICS require me to withdraw myself from candidacy if I am not, and explain why.

What if the congregation thinks drinking in moderation is not a sin, but you do (or vice versa)?  Would you withdraw your candidacy, or use the bully pulpit to preach what you believe is the truth?

I am not sure if there is any answer that will satisfy you TRT, but this is another issue that should be discussed at the candidacy stage.

Well, I imagine you can't cover every possible issue at the candidacy stage.  So, if at any point you discover that you disagree with the congregation on any issue, you'll resign? 

You obviously picked an issue you thought was important, which btw shows your attachment to alcohol.

Yeah, right.  Nice try.

You can't, but you should try to be as thorough as possible. And if the issue was important enough, yes. I would also have to realize I accepted a church that existed, so it is unethical of me to radically change it in anyway.

Consider this. You take a church, and you find out there is someone that is a member that isn't baptized. (Now TRT, I have no idea what oddball idea you may have about this, but baptism is a requirement for membership in a sound church), or that person was baptized by another mode. What do you do now?

What do I do now?  Nothing.  I'm a member of the body of Christ, not some organization with rules and regulations about club membership.  The assembly I attend is made up of members of the body of Christ, not some organization with rules and regulations about club membership. 

But from your answers, I have to assume you don't teach anything (which would probably be a blessing to all).  After all, the congregation already agrees with you on everything that matters, so what's the point?

So do you believe that folks after getting saved should be baptized?

It's the right thing to do, if that's what you're asking. 

 

[TimbauxRioux]

Yes...ETHICS...that is one class everybody needs to attend. A class on ETHICS....

When my former church asked the candidate...do you have any skeletons in your closet?? He answered NO...but a year later a deacon from his former church called to ssay our pastor had an affir for 14 months. When confrotned the pastor said the reason he didn't say YES to that question was because his wife was sitting beside him and he hadn't told her yet.

That 1500 member church split three ways and really never recovered. They got about 250 people now.

 

[subllibrm]

and personal hygiene ... wait, wrong thread, never mind.

 

[Ransom]

Anyone stepping into a new ministry should try to be a close match.

With that said, what if the pastor wants to move the church from using the KJV to a NIV?

What if the church has been used to fluff amd the new guy is expositional?

Even though my sympathies generally lie with the people who are trying to revive the SBC's traditional Reformed roots, I also tend to agree with the people who say they should be upfront about their intentions.

The church I attended in university changed senior pastors about two years after I started attending. When the new guy was candidating, the evening service was part Q&A. The church had its small cadre of KJV-onlyists, and they asked a question about his translation preference, which he shot down with sound reason. Another question asked what he was going to do to stem the "heresies" that were rampant in the church. There were none, and he said so.

He then pointed out that questions like these two were symptoms of problems within the church that needed to be addressed and corrected. He was a candidate, and he wasn't afraid to tell us where we were wrong and what he was going to do about it.

In the end, the church called him. The constitution required an 80% "yes" from the quorum of members in attendance at that meeting, and he got something like 82%, which was considered "close." He was pretty good, too - I liked him and wish I'd stayed in touch.

An added bonus was that the KJVers and heresy-hunters also walked out.

 

[TimbauxRioux]

... and logic.... and theology

Hey now, you trying to make trouble?!