tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7447614062504068128..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Some Preliminary Advice for Bivocational PastorsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8841626549332142142011-04-16T13:35:01.948-04:002011-04-16T13:35:01.948-04:00Abe,
First off, the church is designed for the fl...Abe,<br /><br />First off, the church is designed for the flock. It was intended as a place for the edifying of believers, not for the evangelism of unbelievers. It is where believers gather together to worship God, to glorify Him, and to fellowship with both Him and each other. It's not a place to become buddies with the world.<br /><br />Secondly, the issue of Communion is extremely important. Those who partake unworthily eat and drink judgment on themselves. Paul even states that there are some who have died because of that. The result is that the church should do all it can to ensure that those who are engaged in these activities are not furthering judgment on themselves; in other words, that they should be true believers.<br /><br />Now, I suppose that you could do this without having a definition of "membership" in place, but *functionally* you are going to be making these determinations regardless. As soon as you say, "Non-believers cannot partake in Communion and cannot dictate the worship of God" then you are making a distinction between those in the church who *can* do those things and those who *cannot*. Call it whatever you want, it's functionally "membership."Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1836030819306037652011-04-16T12:43:38.763-04:002011-04-16T12:43:38.763-04:00What is the biblical case that churches should hav...What is the biblical case that churches should have "memberships"?varietyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04197587758094541983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74649317055573507362011-04-14T09:09:14.967-04:002011-04-14T09:09:14.967-04:00Wenatchee the Hatchet,
Great caveats and well app...Wenatchee the Hatchet,<br /><br />Great caveats and well appreciated. I'm not discouraging thematic preaching through O.T. historical books or poetic lit.; I'm just focusing on trying to get the bivocational man (who is terribly strapped for time) to emphasize teaching/preaching through the Biblical text rather than doing what many typical, small-church bivocational evangelical pastors do, which is bouncing back and forth from week to week by using a Biblical text as a springboard to discuss what <i>they</i> want to discuss rather than waiting to get to the point in the Biblical text where the text itself makes the point for them. Nevertheless, there is certainly is a place for topical messages (i.e., pertinent current events like 9-11, etc.).<br /><br />Re: false converts in our membership, please remember that my article was directed to the bivocational pastor who will generally be the pastor of a *small* congregation, not a church like Mars Hill that has thousands in attendance each week. Nevertheless, it is true that there will always be tares among the wheat until the return of Christ; but all I'm advocating is avoiding admitting into membership people who are obviously lost per Paul's illustration with "Richard Dawkins" in his comment above. Many evangelical churches are actually full of people similar to that and it is because they don't have the spine or the wherewithal to put into practice Biblical church discipline. I know, for I "pastored" some like them in the past and they will make your life miserable, especially if the "church" you are pastoring has *never* done church discipline and thinks you're a big meanie for even considering it.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60606949095026853762011-04-13T19:10:57.216-04:002011-04-13T19:10:57.216-04:00The caveats I mention to Dusman's advice it...The caveats I mention to Dusman's advice it's that despite this checklist odds are that false converts and false teachers could STILL show up. It depends on how large the congregation is. When I was at Mars Hill despite a fairly thorough member interview process at least one full-blown Pelagian made it into the church membership. He signalled his true colors pretty quickly in an on-line discussion forum I was part of. It wasn't very long before the Pelagian was off the membership listing but that was still maybe half a year. The importance of 3 is that eventually they are the primary frontline defense regarding 1. <br /><br />I would suggest, having sat under a lot of allegedly expository preaching that topical preaching often disguises itself in the books of the Bible a pastor decides to preach through. <br /><br />Topical rants also still work their way into the application segments of otherwise expository preaching. Beware of your "application" of narrative literature! I have heard more than one pastor turn Nehemiah into an excuse to trumpet this or that church renovation project in increasingly lengthy application segments of sermons. Theoretically verse by verse expository preaching prevents a pastor from soap-boxing but it WILL happen. <br /><br />At the other extreme, topical preaching can hide a weakness a pastor has. I spent a decade in a church where a pastor focused a great deal on epistles, wisdom literature, and some gospels but never touched the psalms even once. People were impressed by what a great pastor the guy was (and he's a capable speaker and well-read) without noticing that in his entire preaching career he's never preached from a Psalm. If there is a whole genre of scripture you avoid that's going to be a big weakness even as an individual Christian, let alone as a pastor.<br /><br />I also think that topical preaching tends to get short shrift from Reformed preachers. Mark Driscoll committed to verse by verse expository preaching but when you settle on a book like Revelation where wildly contrasting and competing schools of thought pervade secondary literature and interpretation there comes a point where you have to concede that topical preaching can be the wiser move, especially in a church setting where making everyone agree on historicist vs dispensationalist or premil vs postmil eschatology is a pastoral waste of time. I think Driscoll was very smart to take a chiefly topical approach in going through Revelation. I also think Mark Dever was very smart to take a functionally topical approach in preaching through the book of Job. Verse by verse preaching is actually not practical or suitable for certain kinds of biblical literature and even those preachers who claim to do it will skip or merely summarize lists of generations in Numbers or census results in Chronicles.<br /><br />Other than those rambling caveats I'd say I agree with the gist of what Dusman posted. :)Wenatchee the Hatchethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13208892745502555715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47530218576961742252011-04-13T10:37:50.358-04:002011-04-13T10:37:50.358-04:00RVDS,
Dustin isn't a Presbyterian, a paedobap...RVDS,<br /><br />Dustin isn't a Presbyterian, a paedobaptist, or a Hartian Confessionalist.<br /><br />And I, as a paedobaptist, have no problem with the children of believers (appropriately qualified) as church members, regenerate or not. Of course, they're not received as communicate members, but we can call them members[1] not members[2]. Like American citizen[1] and American citizen[2].<br /><br />However, your claim merits some investigation:<br /><br />Suppose you had Darryl Hart and Richard Dawkins both come to you and desire membership. Would you let both in, regardless of profession?<br /><br />Now suppose Dawkins says, "Yeah, yeah, I believe that stuff about Jesus. He died for me and stuff. Only by believing on him can I get to heaven. [snicker]." Would he get in?<br /><br />Now suppose Dawkins said the above very seriously. But your elders reported back to you that they found him drunk and at a strip club. You question him and he says he doesn't think it's a sin and doesn't have a problem with it, and he'll be doing it again. If anyone tries to stop him, he'll take a baseball bat to their head. Other than that, he tells you with a straight face that he believes the gospel and holds to the Westminster Confession. Does he get in?<br /><br />Lastly, do you demand a confession for communicate membership? Apparently you don't think any should take the supper in an unworthy manner. Apparently you don't think the supper is for unbelievers. Apparently you think it is *only* for believers. You probably believe that believers are regenerate. Which apparently implies you believe communicate membership is only for the regenerate. However, you believe the best (only?) means to decipher whether one is the proper subject of communicate church membership is, say, a credible profession of faith before the elders and then congregation. Since that's the only way to tell, then you do believe, with Dustin, that we should do "all that is humanly possible" to tell who are proper subjects for communicate membership (a principle that implies you tacitly accept that they're regenerate). Thus you don't disagree with Dustin *per se*, you simply disagree, maybe, with the available means at our disposal for finding out such communicate desiderata.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64602152151495912002011-04-13T10:23:48.365-04:002011-04-13T10:23:48.365-04:00Not to mention that one of the things the church i...Not to mention that one of the things the church is to do is to protect those who would try to partake in the Lord's Supper unworthily, since they would be eating and drinking <i>judgment</i> on themselves.<br /><br />One step in doing that is to guard who you accept as a member. My own church (which is PCA) specifically points out it's only for those who are a member in good standing of a church that teaches the fundamentals of the Gospel. If someone is excommunicated (again, from a broadly evangelical church) and the my church knows about it, they will refuse to grant Communion to that individual until he or she repents.<br /><br />There are very important reasons that the local church should know, as best as they can, who has made a credible profession of faith. But this is not to say that you don't want non-believers to come to church at all; but rather, it's to accept the fact that <i>the church is not your mission field</i>.<br /><br />If sheep cannot be fed at their church, where can they be fed?<br /><br />The worst thing in the world that any church can be is seeker-sensitive. A seeker-sensitive church is just a seeker-<i>centered</i> church in drag, and leads to the starvation of the flock, who are then shipwrecked in their faith since they have no roots (I think that sufficiently mixed enough metaphors).<br /><br />The church is to make disciples, not converts. Disciples then go to evangelize and make converts. But, again, if the church does not feed the flock, <i>who does</i>? The church is what God intended to us for His people, not for the world, and to allow non-believers to dictate the way the church goes is, bluntly, insanity.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21324469686324483092011-04-13T08:20:19.084-04:002011-04-13T08:20:19.084-04:00RANDALL VAN DER STERREN SAID:
"What kind of ...RANDALL VAN DER STERREN SAID:<br /><br />"What kind of uber-Baptist, presumptive, Gathered Church nonsense is this?"<br /><br />Actually, I think Dustin is simply demanding a credible profession of faith as a condition of church membership. That's a pretty standard Presbyterian position. <br /><br />It's true, though, that Dustin is Baptist. So what?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41454787616749406462011-04-13T07:37:17.284-04:002011-04-13T07:37:17.284-04:00Right, RVDS,
Since we can't do it perfectly, ...Right, RVDS,<br /><br />Since we can't do it perfectly, it shouldn't be attempted at all. (/sarcasm)<br /><br />If only our Bibles gave us some reliable indicators of genuine faith to go by.<br /><br />Thanks, Dusman, I was called to an SBC congregation that had dwindled to about a dozen folks, and it is truly amazing how much time one or two "trouble-makers" can steal from you, without giving it a second thought.<br /><br />I would add to your point 1, not only must you do this, but you need to keep in mind that you have been called to feed the sheep, not to herd the goats or try to cajole them back into their sheep costumes for another week. When expository preaching makes them react badly, wave goodbye to them politely and thank God for their removal.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23630898891511106452011-04-13T05:52:38.749-04:002011-04-13T05:52:38.749-04:00What kind of uber-Baptist, presumptive, Gathered C...What kind of uber-Baptist, presumptive, Gathered Church nonsense is this?<br /><br />"Do all that is humanly possible to avoid receiving unregenerate people into your church membership."<br /><br />Oh, please, super-anointed Anabaptist Holy Man, please tell me how you have access to Our Lord's divine decrees!<br /><br />Look, I have no problem with serious Church discipline. The Reformed faith demands it. Yet you had better demonstrate some special charismatic gift before you can start talking like you know who belongs to Jesus in regeneration and who doesn't.Randall van der Sterrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08618509337299843429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64544152679087983372011-04-12T23:14:16.262-04:002011-04-12T23:14:16.262-04:00TUAD is right. Good advice even for vocational pas...TUAD is right. Good advice even for vocational pastors.<br /><br />Point #2 has a time benefit for bivocational pastors. I would think that topical sermons would take a whole lot more time to prepare and that one would run out of topics and have to repeat them periodically. Preaching verse-by-verse would seem to take care of itself. You don't have to worry about what you are going to preach the next week. It's the next passage. Passage-oriented topics may repeat, but the context is always different so there's always something new.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56453429886749297682011-04-12T19:39:47.989-04:002011-04-12T19:39:47.989-04:00Excellent article and advice. Having myself being ...Excellent article and advice. Having myself being a bivocational pastor for more than 20 years until I retired from other jobs.Charles e. Whisnanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08110548370691986584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13147642878775725602011-04-12T14:20:57.929-04:002011-04-12T14:20:57.929-04:00I'm not a bi-vocational pastor, but the counse...I'm not a bi-vocational pastor, but the counsel here is fantastic for just about anyone!!!Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com