Pastors, what would you do?

Here are the issues that led to this pastor being removed. This church is not a Baptist Church. It is not a church that we fellowship with other than the association between members in the community.

The church uses the KJV exclusively in the pulpit. They are not KJVO, they believe the KJV is best available English version and have used only the KJV in the pulpit for many years. The new pastor agreed to use only the KJV.

A few years ago, the pastor began using the NKJV in the pulpit. He was asked about this and began teaching on the version issue on Wednesday evenings. He began to "correct" the KJV in his preaching. When he was removed, he was using the ESV in the pulpit. Remember, this was after he agreed to use only the KJV.

Would it have been more prudent to teach on the history of the English Bible and then present another version as a viable option? The way he did it, he alienated many people right at the start and the teaching was totally rejected.

The second issue was the introduction of Calvinism. The church immediately presented this pastor with the SOF that he agreed to when he took the church. He refused to discontinue his teaching and he refused to resign.

Pastor Dave wrote:

In my view the importance of the doctrine is irrelevant to the whole of this discussion.

Click to expand...

Then you are making my point. Some doctrines aren't worth selling the store over. How you interpret an insignificant detail of a parable is of far less importance than your belief on the inerrancy of Scripture. To equate all doctrine as having equal status and importance means that we have no source of doctrine, namely, that the doctrine of God and of Scripture is equal to that of close vs. closed communion or doctrine of atonement being equal to the issue of whether a man is mid trib or pre trib.

Pastor Bob wrote:

Would it have been more prudent to teach on the history of the English Bible and then present another version as a viable option? The way he did it, he alienated many people right at the start and the teaching was totally rejected.

Click to expand...

A thousand times, YES. To go from one Sunday using the KJV to the next using NKJV is a gargantuan leap for most churches that are KJVP. The fact that the man now uses the ESV shows that he could perhaps have some ambivalence about his own convictions about mss evidence, etc. Sounds like he may not have been able to teach them about translation issues because he was inept and ill prepared. I think it's pretty lame for churches to spell out a translation in their SoF, but if they do and you agree to do it, you'd better be able to persuade and teach with great patience, or else you're going to get axed.

You say he "introduced Calvinism." What did he introduce? Total Depravity? Perseverance? Unconditional or Irresistable election? I'm not wanting a debate on the TULIP, nor am I trying to belabor a point. Soteriology is important. I have no problem if a man is a five pointer or a two pointer. However, if you are pressed on the issue and do not share honestly, you only set yourself up for a fall if you try to lead a church to a healthier understanding of a doctrine (in the opinion of the pastor) down the road. Besides, the object of the game is not to make five pointers or two pointers, but to make disciples. So that's why I'm curious as to what the aim of the pastor was. What was he trying to persuade the church to believe? What did the church delineate in its SoF regarding Soteriology?

You say he "introduced Calvinism." What did he introduce?

Click to expand...

The way I understand it from a member that works on my football officiating crew, he began to teach election and irresistible grace quite predominately toward the end. He admitted to this very member that he was a 5-point Calvinist when he took the church nearly four years ago.

What did the church delineate in its SoF regarding Soteriology?

Click to expand...

I have never seen the SoF from this church. The former pastors have all been "baptistic" in doctrine. The pastor in question is a graduate of Criswell College. From what I understand it is a SBC school.

Originally posted by PastorDave
In my view the importance of the doctrine is irrelevant to the whole of this discussion. I can't get past the part that this pastor stated his agreeement with the church prior to coming when in reality he did not agree. That is an issue of character. It sounds like he was willing to say anything to land this particular church. How can this church trust this man's word when he so readily lied from the outset.

Click to expand...

That is my thinking as well. The man should have been open and upfront about what he stood for. I'm sure the Lord would have opened the door for him to pastor a church of like faith.

Pastor Bob wrote:

The man should have been open and upfront about what he stood for.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree. My contention about the importance of the doctrine at hand (I think we all need to read "What is an Evangelical" by Martyn Lloyd-Jones) is that far too many churches are being torn asunder by Satan over minutia, when the doctrine of God, Atonement and Bibliology are being allowed to slide down the slippery slope.

You are right about Criswell being a Baptist college. I am not sure if it is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Conservative Convention in Texas (I forget the name..it's not the BGCT). Criswell College is hardly Calvinistic, though

It appears that the church needs to take responsibility as well. Their SoF may or may not be clear. Even the best of SoFs can be ambiguous in places they shouldn't.

We, too, must remember this: a church has had to lose a pastor, and a pastor has had to undergo an unwanted termination. This will take a remarkable toll on the pastor, his family, and the local church for years to come. May God heal wounds for His glory and His kingdom's sake.

Most likely I would resign. Kick the dust off my feet and rolled on to where the Lord wanted me to be. If the Lord wanted him there the vote would have gone the other way even if there had to be a back door revival to get it.