Mike,

This is something I've been thinking about lately, and I'm really intersted to read the discussion that will hopefully follow. Two situations I've confronted recently have made me consider how I would respond.

1) A Baptist church that practices elder rule as opposed elder-led congregationalism. Would it violate my conscience to serve as an elder there if so called? Obviously this is a personal question, but I'm interested to see how others would think it through.

2) Baptist churches where the invitation is used as a way of receiving new members. There are a lot of troublesome things about the invitations, but this aspect seems particularly thorny to someone who is concerned about meaningful church membership. What do you do if the expectation of a church is that you will give such an invitation at the end of every service?

Thanks for this post.

I would add a simple, single point. A church is reformable when it can be led, really led. If a church is willing to follow its leader as they follow Christ the leader can actually rescue them from a terrible mess. But even a theologically sound church will be mired and unable to be reformed and changed and developed if it does not allow its God-appointed leaders to rule and govern by the scriptures, and yes to introduce that much feared word "change!"

Hmm. Great questions.

As one who labored as senior pastor in a reforming capacity for 6.5 years to no avail, I may be a bit biased in my church plant situation.

I agree with Adrian, leadership is huge. Not just to find a church that wants leadership from a pastor (most do not), but has the structure in place that allows leadership to happen.

It's imperative to know the organizational structure and ruling documents. I got hosed by the articles of incorporation that gave the trustees full power (none for the membership), with which they scrapped our bylaws removing the leadership of the church.

If you have differences, it's only fair and wise to discuss them. For example, one of the things I divulged was a desire to move to a plurality of elders at some point. That was fine ... in theory, but any move in that direction via teaching or discussions among leadership brought me trouble.

I would make sure you can live with the church not ever getting to the place of reform you desire, for it may never do so.

In fact, I might be in the minority here, but if we use the common marriage analogy, don't pick a spouse that you expect to be able to change to your liking. If there's not a great enough of a "fit" beforehand, you'll be frustrated more often than not. You'll always be imagining what it would be like to be with another (albeit really a different version of that same church).

I don't think it's impossible to reform a church, but it's a special calling and requires a great deal of patience. I saw great reform during my time there, but it all came tumbling down, which was very sad.

One of my boys is on his way out of another Baptist church where he got the rug pulled out from under him when he tried to biblically employ church discipline ... in a church where they were all on board with doing all things biblical and so on a year earlier when they hired him. He's said he can never go to a church not governed by a plurality of elders.

I think you're right about the doctrinal statement and central practices being huge, but some times even side issues can become huge.

Meaningful membership is a big deal as well.

I would love to see church reform as the default, but that may be the materialist in me talking. It's hard starting a church from scratch, but I think there's a reason denominational associations and groups pour more resources into plants instead of declining churches.

Personally, I'm happier pastorally than I've ever been. It's not all about happiness, but there's something invigorating about being able to actually be who I am in a context of likeminded believers and elders.

Gunny Hartman, pastor
www.ProvidenceChurch.info (SBC)
Garland, Texas

I have a question to add to this discussion. Rather than either/or, can both reform and planting be done at the same time? Or would it be wiser to focus on one process at a time? And which would you approach first? If considering as separate topics, my instinct would lean toward reform first since the direction of the plant might be negatively influenced by the elements being reformed at the parent church. However, I certainly can see pros and cons to either approach.

Mark,

I think both can and should be done, though my limited wisdom would suggest reform might not be as easy for a younger man, which is to say it could be easier for one more seasoned.

He would have greater ethos in suggesting & leading reform.

Church planters tend to be younger. I wonder, just thinking out loud here, if experience might play a role in who might be better suited for which.

In a perfect world, a pastor would go in and reform and then start planting churches, as opposed to just making another mega church (no offense intended, however).

What I have been wanting to know for some time is Mark Dever's thoughts on this. I know he came to CHBC and it was far different than it is now.

For some time now, I have really been wanting to know the story of what issues and differences he faced when he candidated at the church, how he addressed them then, and what the negotiables and non-negotiables were for him in coming to the church.

I think that if he would share this, it would prove to be very helpful for guys looking for churches to pastor, and who are facing the very question posed by this blog.

Thanks,
Scott W. Kay

Dear Scott,
That's what we go over at the Weekender. Check it out at the 9marks website, and see if you could come to one. Hope that's helpful,
Mark Dever.

Mark,

Thanks for the response. I've been considering that for some time now. But I'll give it greater consideration now.

Scott W. Kay