Nepotism, choosing a new pastor, etc

[TimbauxRioux]

Years ago, back on the old FFF, I posted a similar message to what I am about to do here....some were not happy with it... some thought i was taking a swipe at Hyles for choosing Schaap.......

Anyway.. not too far from where I live, there is a church whose pastor has been there a long, long time. Says he cant go on forever and HE himself will choose his successor. Turns out to be his son. Half the church left. His son, really, is a good man. Nothing wrong with him....

One of the members of the church is a construction contractor, and he did some work on the Family's property out of town. I had some time to talk to him...and he was telling me the church constitution requires a vote from the congregation.

I think most of us agree that its not ALWAYS wrong if the son takes over for the father. Some cite Falwell's case. i really dont know much about that, but I dont think it turned out bad.

thoughts??

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Years ago, back on the old FFF, I posted a similar message to what I am about to do here....some were not happy with it... some thought i was taking a swipe at Hyles for choosing Schaap.......

Anyway.. not too far from where I live, there is a church whose pastor has been there a long, long time. Says he cant go on forever and HE himself will choose his successor. Turns out to be his son. Half the church left. His son, really, is a good man. Nothing wrong with him....

One of the members of the church is a construction contractor, and he did some work on the Family's property out of town. I had some time to talk to him...and he was telling me the church constitution requires a vote from the congregation.

I think most of us agree that its not ALWAYS wrong if the son takes over for the father. Some cite Falwell's case. i really dont know much about that, but I dont think it turned out bad.

thoughts??

Now imagine this scenario playing out that way in a home church or a church with no lead pastor and multiple elders. 

Oh, that's right, you can't. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Years ago, back on the old FFF, I posted a similar message to what I am about to do here....some were not happy with it... some thought i was taking a swipe at Hyles for choosing Schaap.......

Anyway.. not too far from where I live, there is a church whose pastor has been there a long, long time. Says he cant go on forever and HE himself will choose his successor. Turns out to be his son. Half the church left. His son, really, is a good man. Nothing wrong with him....

One of the members of the church is a construction contractor, and he did some work on the Family's property out of town. I had some time to talk to him...and he was telling me the church constitution requires a vote from the congregation.

I think most of us agree that its not ALWAYS wrong if the son takes over for the father. Some cite Falwell's case. i really dont know much about that, but I dont think it turned out bad.

thoughts??

Now imagine this scenario playing out that way in a home church or a church with no lead pastor and multiple elders. 

Oh, that's right, you can't.

Nope, the owner of the house would just say "get out", and that would be the end of it. No house, no church.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Years ago, back on the old FFF, I posted a similar message to what I am about to do here....some were not happy with it... some thought i was taking a swipe at Hyles for choosing Schaap.......

Anyway.. not too far from where I live, there is a church whose pastor has been there a long, long time. Says he cant go on forever and HE himself will choose his successor. Turns out to be his son. Half the church left. His son, really, is a good man. Nothing wrong with him....

One of the members of the church is a construction contractor, and he did some work on the Family's property out of town. I had some time to talk to him...and he was telling me the church constitution requires a vote from the congregation.

I think most of us agree that its not ALWAYS wrong if the son takes over for the father. Some cite Falwell's case. i really dont know much about that, but I dont think it turned out bad.

thoughts??

Now imagine this scenario playing out that way in a home church or a church with no lead pastor and multiple elders. 

Oh, that's right, you can't.

Nope, the owner of the house would just say "get out", and that would be the end of it. No house, no church.

Yeah, the rest couldn't possibly meet at some other house.  It's scientifically impossible. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]Nope, the owner of the house would just say "get out", and that would be the end of it. No house, no church.

Yeah, the rest couldn't possibly meet at some other house.  It's scientifically impossible.
[/quote]

Appears that someone has a fundamentally broken definition of church as the Bible uses the term. They seem to think it is a building and not a people.

 

[T-Bone]

When troubled times come to this country, will our churches survive. They won't if one defines church as a building, a denomination, or an organization.it will when we understand the church is the living Body of Christ here on earth.

 

[prophet]

Years ago, back on the old FFF, I posted a similar message to what I am about to do here....some were not happy with it... some thought i was taking a swipe at Hyles for choosing Schaap.......

Anyway.. not too far from where I live, there is a church whose pastor has been there a long, long time. Says he cant go on forever and HE himself will choose his successor. Turns out to be his son. Half the church left. His son, really, is a good man. Nothing wrong with him....

One of the members of the church is a construction contractor, and he did some work on the Family's property out of town. I had some time to talk to him...and he was telling me the church constitution requires a vote from the congregation.

I think most of us agree that its not ALWAYS wrong if the son takes over for the father. Some cite Falwell's case. i really dont know much about that, but I dont think it turned out bad.

thoughts??

Now imagine this scenario playing out that way in a home church or a church with no lead pastor and multiple elders. 

Oh, that's right, you can't.

You mean , imagine it being a Biblical NT church?

Where's the drama in that?

We need  "all in the family"!

 

[subllibrm]

Back to the OP. Ask Frag.  8)

 

[bgwilkinson]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]Nope, the owner of the house would just say "get out", and that would be the end of it. No house, no church.

Yeah, the rest couldn't possibly meet at some other house.  It's scientifically impossible.

Appears that someone has a fundamentally broken definition of church as the Bible uses the term. They seem to think it is a building and not a people.


[/quote]

Yah, that's why James I of England and VI of Scotland commanded his government translators, via Bancroft, to render the word ecclesia, Church, in support of his amalgamation of religion and government, unlike that pesky Tyndale. The Catholics choked and burned him for it. Hay maybe that's where that Baptist distinctive came from.

For James it was long live the divine right of kings doctrine.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]Nope, the owner of the house would just say "get out", and that would be the end of it. No house, no church.

Yeah, the rest couldn't possibly meet at some other house.  It's scientifically impossible.

Appears that someone has a fundamentally broken definition of church as the Bible uses the term. They seem to think it is a building and not a people.


[/quote]

A building based on a business, complete with budget and board members.  And the business is structured like a country club where you have to be approved by your betters in order to become a member. 

One way you can really tell it's just another country club is by listening to what people talk about after the paid orator's lecture and sing-along is over.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

To answer the OP, assuming a church with a Head Pastor, I don't think that Nepotism comes into play nearly as much as people think.

Remember nepotism is showing favor on the basis of family relationship or in this case choosing a successor because they are family and not because they are the most qualified.

In most churches with only 1 pastor, the pastor's son is quite often the only qualified person around to assume the leadership of the church. Most of the time, he's been there the longest of any of the candidates so he knows the people and the culture of the church the best. Most of the time he shares the same vision as his father so presumably he shares the same vision as the people. Most of the time his doctrine most closely matches the direction of the church. Most of the time his father has trained him and discipled him more than anyone else at the church.

Now, is a 1-pastor church the Biblical model? Likely not, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

 

[subllibrm]

To answer the OP, assuming a church with a Head Pastor, I don't think that Nepotism comes into play nearly as much as people think.

Remember nepotism is showing favor on the basis of family relationship or in this case choosing a successor because they are family and not because they are the most qualified.

In most churches with only 1 pastor, the pastor's son is quite often the only qualified person around to assume the leadership of the church. Most of the time, he's been there the longest of any of the candidates so he knows the people and the culture of the church the best. Most of the time he shares the same vision as his father so presumably he shares the same vision as the people. Most of the time his doctrine most closely matches the direction of the church. Most of the time his father has trained him and discipled him more than anyone else at the church.

Now, is a 1-pastor church the Biblical model? Likely not, but that's a discussion for another thread.

If the pastor was doing his job there would be more than one qualified man. Just sayin'

 

[Bruh]

To answer the OP, assuming a church with a Head Pastor, I don't think that Nepotism comes into play nearly as much as people think.

Remember nepotism is showing favor on the basis of family relationship or in this case choosing a successor because they are family and not because they are the most qualified.

In most churches with only 1 pastor, the pastor's son is quite often the only qualified person around to assume the leadership of the church. Most of the time, he's been there the longest of any of the candidates so he knows the people and the culture of the church the best. Most of the time he shares the same vision as his father so presumably he shares the same vision as the people. Most of the time his doctrine most closely matches the direction of the church. Most of the time his father has trained him and discipled him more than anyone else at the church.

Now, is a 1-pastor church the Biblical model? Likely not, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Most of the time the Pastors son has no manhood and would be unable to support his family if asked to step down and go get a job. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

To answer the OP, assuming a church with a Head Pastor, I don't think that Nepotism comes into play nearly as much as people think.

Remember nepotism is showing favor on the basis of family relationship or in this case choosing a successor because they are family and not because they are the most qualified.

In most churches with only 1 pastor, the pastor's son is quite often the only qualified person around to assume the leadership of the church. Most of the time, he's been there the longest of any of the candidates so he knows the people and the culture of the church the best. Most of the time he shares the same vision as his father so presumably he shares the same vision as the people. Most of the time his doctrine most closely matches the direction of the church. Most of the time his father has trained him and discipled him more than anyone else at the church.

Now, is a 1-pastor church the Biblical model? Likely not, but that's a discussion for another thread.

If the pastor was doing his job there would be more than one qualified man. Just sayin'

Excellent point.

 

[ddgently]

To answer the OP, assuming a church with a Head Pastor, I don't think that Nepotism comes into play nearly as much as people think.

Remember nepotism is showing favor on the basis of family relationship or in this case choosing a successor because they are family and not because they are the most qualified.

In most churches with only 1 pastor, the pastor's son is quite often the only qualified person around to assume the leadership of the church. Most of the time, he's been there the longest of any of the candidates so he knows the people and the culture of the church the best. Most of the time he shares the same vision as his father so presumably he shares the same vision as the people. Most of the time his doctrine most closely matches the direction of the church. Most of the time his father has trained him and discipled him more than anyone else at the church.

Now, is a 1-pastor church the Biblical model? Likely not, but that's a discussion for another thread.

If the pastor was doing his job there would be more than one qualified man. Just sayin'

Excellent point.

Interesting thoughts here. Our church has been investing in a replicable discipleship model over the past few years that is really starting to pick up momentum. I think the idea that leaders would be ready when a pastor is ready to retire is probably more biblical than the "Church seeks pastor" classified ad method.

And a son taking over the church from his father, no matter how qualified the son, just looks really, really screwy.

 

[Walt]

Years ago, back on the old FFF, I posted a similar message to what I am about to do here....some were not happy with it... some thought i was taking a swipe at Hyles for choosing Schaap.......

Anyway.. not too far from where I live, there is a church whose pastor has been there a long, long time. Says he cant go on forever and HE himself will choose his successor. Turns out to be his son. Half the church left. His son, really, is a good man. Nothing wrong with him....

One of the members of the church is a construction contractor, and he did some work on the Family's property out of town. I had some time to talk to him...and he was telling me the church constitution requires a vote from the congregation.

I think most of us agree that its not ALWAYS wrong if the son takes over for the father. Some cite Falwell's case. i really dont know much about that, but I dont think it turned out bad.

thoughts??

Good topic.  I have often considered this.  Most of the Baptist churches I have been with have had a congregational system, on which most business is voted on by the congregation, including selecting an new pastor.  Some of them require a 75% agreement on a new pastor.

I think that if a pastor is leaving for decent reasons (no thievery or immorality or apostasy), I think it is good of him to help the church to choose a new pastor, but I don't think he should designate his successor, especially if it is someone in his family.

I can see the worry of an outgoing pastor; a new man (if insecure) may attack the old pastor and run him down - or, if the new man drives the church to bankruptcy, the church may cancel the old pastor's pension (assuming he has one).

But hand-picking a successor smacks of dictatorship.

A lot of churches have not had a smooth succession no matter what method was used.

 

[bruinboy]

My opinion is that it is almost always wrong fro a pastor to choose his own successor, especially his son, or SIL.  It is seldom effective and does not reflect well on the church membership.
That being said, there are places where it has worked well. Someone mentioned the Falwell example.  The church did vote Jonathon in as pastor, but don't believe there was anyone else who was considered. The fact that Jonathon was extremely well educated, holds a law degree, and was on the staff of the church for several years before his dad passed, helped with a smooth transition.
On the other side of the coin, you have the Hyles disaster. Saaaaap was under-educated, ill prepared, chosen by his FIL, probably had pictures of dr. jack and the secretary, etc.  This is bolstered by the fact that saaaaaaaaaap's son was promoted to a "professor" and department head at hac, based solely on his last name. He had no qualifications to become a professor at any accredited institution.  The same can be said for the Jones (BJU )family to a lesser degree. The recent change they made, is probably too little too late, but at least the guy they chose, was a Citadel grad and not an incestuous mind-numbed robot. We will soon see about the mind-number robot part, first reports are not hopeful. 

 

[TimbauxRioux]

good posts, i have enjoyed reading responses...

(I am working on a federal job, electrician, and am not as free as when I worked for myself, now I am doing both the federal job, and my own electrical contracting business, so i dont have the time I used to).

A few points...

1. There is a GREAT difference between a pastor who looks around and sees his son is the most qualified, etc...and a pastor who has had it in his mind and his agenda to make sure his son took over, just like the kings in the old Testament (  I know, that sounds silly doesnt it?) . I have seen such pastors of the latter type who have gotten rid of every potential replacement, making sure his son was the only one left.

2. The question is WHO chooses the replacement/successor? A lot of pastors think they do, and I'd be the first one to let them know they don't. One of my former pastors is supposed to be so GREAT, the guy he INSTALLED as next pastor pillaged the church of is money. Way to go, big man!

3. IF the congregation decides, and I am the pastor, on my way out, i'd feel very awkward nominating or giving reference to my own son. It just feels funny. Even if I thought he was the right man, I don't think I could push him.

4. I am one of those wackos who believe there is a such thing as the will of God. I notice many of you talk about "qualfications" and training those who will be qualified, but there is a such thing as a calling, an anointing to preach. Just because someone is qualified, it doesnt mean (a) that he is a preacher called of God, and (b) that he is God's will for that church.

PRAYER becomes the key.

5. We must admit that, regardless of how the new guy is chosen, there is a good chance half the people are going to be upset...its like...the chicago bulls winning the title gives the people this desire to loot stores...same thing..when a pastor leaves, and the new guy comes in, people take it as a chance to disappointed.

More to say, but i gotta write up a bid.

 

[HeDied4U]

To answer the OP, assuming a church with a Head Pastor, I don't think that Nepotism comes into play nearly as much as people think.

Remember nepotism is showing favor on the basis of family relationship or in this case choosing a successor because they are family and not because they are the most qualified.

In most churches with only 1 pastor, the pastor's son is quite often the only qualified person around to assume the leadership of the church. Most of the time, he's been there the longest of any of the candidates so he knows the people and the culture of the church the best. Most of the time he shares the same vision as his father so presumably he shares the same vision as the people. Most of the time his doctrine most closely matches the direction of the church. Most of the time his father has trained him and discipled him more than anyone else at the church.

Now, is a 1-pastor church the Biblical model? Likely not, but that's a discussion for another thread.

If the pastor was doing his job there would be more than one qualified man. Just sayin'

Well said!!