UPC, ALJC, PAW, etc.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by n david

He said, it's so simple. The Gospel demands a response - it's natural, so when it's presented to unsaved people, they respond.

And saints need to hear it often lest they become complacent and forget why we are in this to begin with.

[derAlte]

Originally Posted by Antipas

This might be an unpopular question. So, let me apologize up front if it rubs anyone the wrong what. That isn't the intention.

We've talked about pastors holding the line and preaching the line and the challenges they face. And they certainly do face significant challenges. Let's not ever assume that they don't.

But what about those pastors who sincerely are dealing with challenges going the opposite direction?

For example, what if a pastor has sincerely studied Scripture and sincerely feels that a given "standard" is more tradition and isn't biblical or necessary?

How would this pastor shed these traditions off the congregation while facing being called a compromiser by some in the congregation or being slandered throughout his district as "going charismatic"?

What about the heart and soul of the "moderate pastor" (if that's a good description) who is being called to a more strictly "biblical" approach?

I have to say this is a really good question. I think everyone needs to know why they believe what they say they believe...and also be able to justify it by Scripture. I once heard a very conservative pastor state many years ago that God never changes as justification for preserving his church as a time capsule of the 1960s Pentecost that he grew up in. He is absolutely correct when he states that God never changes. Not only does God not change, but the Word is forever settled in heaven. But this good pastor misses the point. The God of Eternity never changes nor do His principles but our interpretation of those principles and our subsequent response to the ever-changing world around us does. The responses by 1960s ministers to the world they lived in made sense at the time but are not all forever settled in heaven. There is a difference between cultural Pentecost and Biblical Pentecost.

Biblical doctrines and Biblical holiness lifestyle principles really are in that old Bible of ours, and can withstand scrutiny. It must be a living part of our walk with God. But it is unnecessary to hang onto lifestyle choices encouraged by the ministry in response to 1920s issues only because we are trying to defend tradition. I've heard don't move ancient landmarks. I agree, but some things that are called ancient landmarks aren't really. On the other hand, there may be good reasons why something was preached against back then. Those reasons may still be valid. But one doesn't need to sacrifice their intellectual honesty defending something that isn't relevant anymore.

I've seen groups among us that have such a watchdog mentality. Instead of looking at a lost world, their eyes are on each other and they spent all their time nitpicking any tiny deviance from their particular version of groupthink.

There are foundational doctrines that simply cannot be compromised. If a pastor in all sincerity no longer agrees with certain doctrines the rest of the fellowship deems unmovable, he should, with a good spirit, find another fellowship he is more in tune with. Ultimately, we will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ who will judge our motives. For the non-foundational stuff, we need to let God be Judge and stop trying to work above our pay grade.

[derAlte]

Originally Posted by Ehud

The relatively small congregation size is very much a reason to do things more privately. When you live in a small town, and name something over the pulpit, either everyone knows who it is, or even worse, they start trying to guess who it is.

In a church I used to attend when I was much younger, the young couples would grin at each other and make shoveling motions.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Come to LA area and tell me that facial hair has no roots in rebellion. We have gang members ( including some of my family ) and you can just about count them having mustache and goatees.

Brother, if I came to your church knowing this is how you felt, I would be clean shaven out of respect to you. But if you came to my area and tried telling all us hicks about facial hair, rebellion, and gangs, you would be run out of town in short order. Gangs are nonexistent in these backwoods. If you insisted on maintaining that stance without bible to back it up, you would be laughed at every time you spoke.

So if I accept your statements about your area as true, I think it is all the more reason we — without additional evidence — should accept a pastor’s efforts as sincere. If facial hair in his congregation isn’t viewed as rebellion, who are we as outsiders to say otherwise? Jesus is one size fits all. Congregation wrangling is not.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by derAlte

In a church I used to attend when I was much younger, the young couples would grin at each other and make shoveling motions.

Haha! Yep!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Bingo. Can't we give the guy some credit for getting them in the doors and keeping them around so they can hear the Word? It's as if the pastor is assumed incompetent until proven otherwise. How about we give him room to operate and see what the results are?

It's all on the pastor, he is breaking big rocks into little rocks. He is doing all the heavy lifting while he and the Mrs are eating mayonnaise sandwiches. Meanwhile some drive by shooters are making comments about his congregation.

[derAlte]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It's all on the pastor, he is breaking big rocks into little rocks. He is doing all the heavy lifting while he and the Mrs are eating mayonnaise sandwiches. Meanwhile some drive by shooters are making comments about his congregation.

Yep. So true...

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It's all on the pastor, he is breaking big rocks into little rocks. He is doing all the heavy lifting while he and the Mrs are eating mayonnaise sandwiches. Meanwhile some drive by shooters are making comments about his congregation.

“If only I had received the unsolicited advice of complete strangers with no firsthand knowledge of any situation facing my saints, things would have turned out for the better,” said no pastor ever.

Don’t we as saints have to bear some responsibility in all of this? Didn’t Paul admonish the Corinthian church to not even eat with those who claimed to be brothers but were openly doing X, Y, and Z? If a sin is truly as blatant as is being proposed, the pastor shouldn’t have any need to blast it from the pulpit because the whole congregation should have already made it clear that stuff isn’t tolerated.

But we probably aren’t talking about REAL sin, now are we? No, we have pew-sitters that want the pastor to enforce personal preferences, and visiting ministers who will “take care of those things” for the pastor before leaving town, never to return, leaving a mess for the pastor to clean up.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I understand what you're saying.

But I think Apostolic1ness was pointing out a pastor's challenge with such a tradition, seeing that there are still many older saints in the congregation with deep convictions about the issue... because they lived it. To just embrace beards full hog in some churches could seriously cause a crisis of faith for some who were always taught that it was a "sin" and it was "rebellion". So, the pastor has to be sensitive to that reality.

Now, is that reality the fault of the congregation? No. Of course it is how it was preached back in the day. I think we face a lot of unnecessary hurdles to unity, confidence, bible focus, and organizational politics because of the way things were preached.

A teacher is to teach Thus Saith The Lord, book, chapter, and verse. Just because the teacher suddenly gets "new light" on something doesn't mean anything, rather instead everything has to be presented book chapter verse. And the congregation accepts book chapter and verse regardless of their personal preferences, history, whatever, cause a congregation of Christians is a congregation of dead folks who's personal wants and wishes have been buried and replaced with God's Will.

If not, if book chapter and verse butts heads with personal wants wishes and issues, and book chapter and verse don't prevail? That person or congregation has much bigger issues and needs to get saved all over again. Because either Jesus, the Incarnate Word, is Lord of ALL, or not at all.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Yes it is. They will preach against ungodliness in generic terms without naming sin so a lot of times saints think they preach hard against sin but in reality it’s not named. I know you can’t name everything but the best way to let a spirit get into the church is just simply stop preaching against it when it shows it’s ugly head. The problem with doing it privately is there is a good chance others are also struggling with it and it never gets dealt with since they never got “ caught “ in sin. Preaching is what will expose it and repentance is what will fix it. Yes God can convict them without it being preached but that’s the method God chose to save them that believe ( talking about saints not sinners).

And suppose the pastor preaches, exposes, names it, etc... and the people still won't let go of it? Does the pastor disfellowship half the church? Resign and move on? What?