Maybe a topic that's not been discussed here EVER before......maybe, pastoral candidate assessment.

[aleshanee]

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.

don;t worry.... . my name is not up for consideration anywhere.. .... besides... i would have to hide a lot more than my belief in free will to get picked for the pulpit in a church either one of us would feel comfortable going to.....

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.

and what do calvinists call it when adherence to an extra-biblical set of writings occurs in any other religion or sect?.... .. but from what i have seen when calvinists write or speak about the westminster confessions it looks to me like they do consider it on the same level as scripture..... and no amount of double speak or shifting definitions in their explanations convinces me otherwise.....

but it;s very unlikely that church members like me would be selected to serve on a pulpit committee anyway.... . so what i thought of a pastoral candidate wouldn;t weight much in the selection process... .... the most effective vote i would have would be a vote of the feet if someone i could not in good conscience sit under was given the pulpit or other high leadership position.... and that vote would be exiting the church never to return....

 

[Edwards]

Our church is currently going through a pastor search and this upcoming week we will have a man come and candidate for that senior pastor position. My question...

In your opinion, as a conscientious voting church member, how many timar

Go to where the candidate preaches every week to see what you will be hearing on an average Sunday morning. It is easy for a pastor to pull out his best sermon and present it.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I believe that the way churches obtain Lead/Senior Pastors is flawed, but confess I don’t know the definitive answer to make the process better.

When I retired from Pastoring the church we planted 43 years ago, we had a 2 year transition to a new Pastor. It worked very well and the church continues to prosper under the new leadership. We had a congregation of 1000+ people and it was not an easy ‘sell’ at first, even to our 20 Deacons. However, in hindsight, even the critics now agree it was the best for us.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

don;t worry.... . my name is not up for consideration anywhere.. .... besides... i would have to hide a lot more than my belief in free will to get picked for the pulpit in a church either one of us would feel comfortable going to.....

and what do calvinists call it when adherence to an extra-biblical set of writings occurs in any other religion or sect?.... .. but from what i have seen when calvinists write or speak about the westminster confessions it looks to me like they do consider it on the same level as scripture..... and no amount of double speak or shifting definitions in their explanations convinces me otherwise.....

but it;s very unlikely that church members like me would be selected to serve on a pulpit committee anyway.... . so what i thought of a pastoral candidate wouldn;t weight much in the selection process... .... the most effective vote i would have would be a vote of the feet if someone i could not in good conscience sit under was given the pulpit or other high leadership position.... and that vote would be exiting the church never to return....

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a thoroughly written out set of beliefs and doctrinal positions. It is not scripture but what people believe the scriptures say and teach. Saying "I believe the Bible is the Word of God" is one thing. Saying "I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith" tells someone what you specifically believe the Bible says and teaches and therefore says a whole lot more about you than just slamming your King James Bible down on the desk and saying "I believe this book!" Other Confessions include the Belgic Confession, the Book of Concord, and the London Baptist Confessions of 1644 and 1689. Southern Baptists typically refer to either the current Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 or the older BFM published in 1963.

Being a "Suthren Babtist" myself, the BFM 2000 is the main document of which I am concerned. It is somewhat broad in certain respects to accommodate differing beliefs in soteriology (Election vs. Free Will, Etc.), eschatology (Pre, Post, A-Millennial, Rapture, Dispensationalism, Etc.), and ecclesiology (differences in church government - Elder led, congregational rule, roles of deacons, Etc.). Most positions in the SBC organization require one to hold to the tenants of either the BFM 2000 or 1963. The BFM 2000 has more specific standards and guidelines regarding the role of women in leadership positions. A Church may refer to the BFM as their "Statement of Faith" but they often condense some things down and articulate more specifically where they stand regarding (for example) a "Pre-Tribulation Rapture," their position on election, and so forth.

I have never been on a "Pulpit Committee" myself but my understanding is that it is generally comprised of the deacons, elders, trustees, Etc., and likely a few regular joe "Pew Pounders" as well. I believe it goes without saying that you want men and women on this committee who are highly knowledgeable in the scriptures and matters of theology and practice. There may be some who give greater attention to matters of personal character whereas others are looking into matters of doctrine and philosophy of ministry. For me, I would be quite thorough with a pastoral candidate regarding the Baptist Faith and Message and for him to be very candid with myself and the rest of the committee regarding anything to which he may take exception. I don't expect one to agree with EVERYTHING in the BFM. There may be a matter or two which I would be in disagreement but any such disagreement must be well thought out, biblically solid, and a position acceptable to the committee. The best candidate should not only have moral integrity, good doctrine, and competency to lead and teach, he should also be a GOOD FIT for the congregation which may be somewhat difficult to quantify.

My personal opinion on the matter is that a pastor need not agree 100% with me regarding their views on the doctrines of grace (Election, Predestination, Etc.) but I do not want them to be overly antagonistic to the point of "Evangelizing" the Church to one side or the other. I therefore do not want someone like James White, Jeff Durbin, or anyone else who would likely make the "Doctrines of Grace" central to their teaching and preaching. I also would not want a rabid anti-Calvinist like Leighton Flowers who distorts and misrepresents the Calvinist view and therefore would also make the "Doctrines of Grace" central to their teaching and preaching! I would much rather have full liberty to expound upon Ephesians 2 and Romans 9-11 and simply state that there are matters in which good men have agreed to disagree upon throughout Church history!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Edwards said:
Go to where the candidate preaches every week to see what you will be hearing on an average Sunday morning. It is easy for a pastor to pull out his best sermon and present it.

Ironically, I was just thinking about you and hoping all is well with you when I posted this. Thanks for contributing.

Your suggestion is a very practical and wise one where budgetary constraints aren’t an issue, but financial constraints within many small churches prohibit the ability to travel long distances to hear a potential candidate. The good news, unlike when I did this 20 years ago, is that the digital presence of many preachers is often easily viewable via the internet, thereby allowing for a wide sampling of sermon types and occasions.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a thoroughly written out set of beliefs and doctrinal positions. It is not scripture but what people believe the scriptures say and teach. Saying "I believe the Bible is the Word of God" is one thing. Saying "I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith" tells someone what you specifically believe the Bible says and teaches and therefore says a whole lot more about you than just slamming your King James Bible down on the desk and saying "I believe this book!" Other Confessions include the Belgic Confession, the Book of Concord, and the London Baptist Confessions of 1644 and 1689. Southern Baptists typically refer to either the current Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 or the older BFM published in 1963.

Being a "Suthren Babtist" myself, the BFM 2000 is the main document of which I am concerned. It is somewhat broad in certain respects to accommodate differing beliefs in soteriology (Election vs. Free Will, Etc.), eschatology (Pre, Post, A-Millennial, Rapture, Dispensationalism, Etc.), and ecclesiology (differences in church government - Elder led, congregational rule, roles of deacons, Etc.). Most positions in the SBC organization require one to hold to the tenants of either the BFM 2000 or 1963. The BFM 2000 has more specific standards and guidelines regarding the role of women in leadership positions. A Church may refer to the BFM as their "Statement of Faith" but they often condense some things down and articulate more specifically where they stand regarding (for example) a "Pre-Tribulation Rapture," their position on election, and so forth.

I have never been on a "Pulpit Committee" myself but my understanding is that it is generally comprised of the deacons, elders, trustees, Etc., and likely a few regular joe "Pew Pounders" as well. I believe it goes without saying that you want men and women on this committee who are highly knowledgeable in the scriptures and matters of theology and practice. There may be some who give greater attention to matters of personal character whereas others are looking into matters of doctrine and philosophy of ministry. For me, I would be quite thorough with a pastoral candidate regarding the Baptist Faith and Message and for him to be very candid with myself and the rest of the committee regarding anything to which he may take exception. I don't expect one to agree with EVERYTHING in the BFM. There may be a matter or two which I would be in disagreement but any such disagreement must be well thought out, biblically solid, and a position acceptable to the committee. The best candidate should not only have moral integrity, good doctrine, and competency to lead and teach, he should also be a GOOD FIT for the congregation which may be somewhat difficult to quantify.

My personal opinion on the matter is that a pastor need not agree 100% with me regarding their views on the doctrines of grace (Election, Predestination, Etc.) but I do not want them to be overly antagonistic to the point of "Evangelizing" the Church to one side or the other. I therefore do not want someone like James White, Jeff Durbin, or anyone else who would likely make the "Doctrines of Grace" central to their teaching and preaching. I also would not want a rabid anti-Calvinist like Leighton Flowers who distorts and misrepresents the Calvinist view and therefore would also make the "Doctrines of Grace" central to their teaching and preaching! I would much rather have full liberty to expound upon Ephesians 2 and Romans 9-11 and simply state that there are matters in which good men have agreed to disagree upon throughout Church history!

I agree with the majority of what you wrote, where I would split hairs is that I tend to agree with the sentiment that aleshanee expressed where she pointed to creeds as being nearly or practically equivalent to scripture, in effect producing a form of hard creedalism that thwarts the principle of the priesthood of the believer and individual soul liberty. Here’s a good summary of the difference between relying upon confessions (like the BFM) as an arbiter of the meaning of Scripture vs a general awareness of what Scripture *may* be agreed to mean, and the binding nature of each respective system.
(Confessional vs Creedal)…

Link

 

[ALAYMAN]

I believe that the way churches obtain Lead/Senior Pastors is flawed, but confess I don’t know the definitive answer to make the process better.

Care to expound on what you think some of those mistakes are?

 

[abcaines]

I think all this discussion about creedo blah blah blah or confession blah blah blah or whatever other monikers you want to use points up humans' imperfect understanding. No one is going to produce a creed, confession, statement, or anything that doesn't somehow fall short and when it does someone will be sure to point out the deficiency. Therefore, I would be reticent to engage in signing a statement of absolute agreement.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think all this discussion about creedo blah blah blah or confession blah blah blah or whatever other monikers you want to use points up humans' imperfect understanding. No one is going to produce a creed, confession, statement, or anything that doesn't somehow fall short and when it does someone will be sure to point out the deficiency. Therefore, I would be reticent to engage in signing a statement of absolute agreement.

Sure, but EVERYBODY has a creed and/or confession. It's just how they use it to bind other people's consciences where things get interesting, which is essentially what the article pointed out.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Care to expound on what you think some of those mistakes are?

I’m not sure I’d call them mistakes, but, as has been pointed out already, even I have one or two good messages….but hearing the same guy every week, you’d want him to be a serious student and teacher/preacher of the Word. Topical sermons and recurring illustrations get old quick.

When calling a Lead or Senior Pastor, there are basically 3 elements to consider:
The man- his character, characteristics and personality. What is his reputation? How has he handled his finances in the past? Has he left former churches in good standing? Is he serious minded or does he use humor?

His message- his preaching/teaching style. Does he preach expositional sermons? Topical? A mixture? What’s his soteriology, including his emphasis or lack thereof of evangelism or soulwinning? His eschatology?

His ministry- what is his philosophy of ministry? Church growth? Deeper life? Missions emphasis, how often/ how much? Small groups and/or Sunday School. His music preference and what is the atmosphere he prefers in public worship services?

None of this is exhaustive, but you get the point. It’s very difficult to get a grip on all of this y simply hearing a few sermons and having a Q&A session or two. I do not have an answer but know that the candidate system we now mostly use is flawed.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I agree with the majority of what you wrote, where I would split hairs is that I tend to agree with the sentiment that aleshanee expressed where she pointed to creeds as being nearly or practically equivalent to scripture, in effect producing a form of hard creedalism that thwarts the principle of the priesthood of the believer and individual soul liberty. Here’s a good summary of the difference between relying upon confessions (like the BFM) as an arbiter of the meaning of Scripture vs a general awareness of what Scripture *may* be agreed to mean, and the binding nature of each respective system.
(Confessional vs Creedal)…

Link

Let me try this once more:

1. Saying "I believe the Bible" is a very broad statement and can literally mean anything.
2. Saying "I hold to the basic tenants of ______ (Insert WCF, BFM, Belgic, London Baptist, Etc,)" and I will have a general idea of whether you are a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or whatever.
3. Saying "After careful study of (confession in question) in light of the scriptures, here is an itemized list of things I do not completely agree with and why" tells me that you have a high view of the scriptures, are diligent to search matters out, and seek to be "Fully persuaded" in your own mind (Rom 14:5) and likely desire this of those you are potentially pastoring.

Believe me when I say I have far more respect for a man with a long list of things he takes exception to rather than one who just says "I believe the confession in every point!" Its kinda like Van Halen and their "Green M&Ms" clause. They don't really care about the green M&Ms, they just want to make sure someone has actually done their diligence and read the contract!

Since I am an SBC Baptist, I guess I would need to do my diligence and thoroughly familiarize myself with the BFM 2000 and carefully take note of and study out any point in which I may not be in full agreement. I would then use such to rake over the coals any candidate who is flippant towards such matters!

I believe that Chuck Smith published a book called the "Calvary Chapel Distinctives." I'm not sure it was intended to be "Creedal" or "Confessional" in nature but it does outline what makes a Church a "Calvary Chapel" Church does it not? Would you not want to seek out a pastor of a Calvary Chapel Church that holds to these Calvary Chapel Distinctives? If there were a point or two where he may desire to take a little "diversion" would you not want to be made aware of this?