Jonathan, great question.  Just last night I sat with 3-4 other pastors and deacons discussing this very issue among others.  It was a spirited conversation, with some interesting differences emerging depending upon whether the men in question were from elder-led or elder-ruled congregations.

Why do we call these things "pastor searches" when it seems to me you don't have to do a lot of searching for pastors (they're everywhere, it seems) and few committees seem to really carefully search?  Want ads shouldn't be confused with searching.  They can have a certain graffiti on the bathroom wall quality.  And some of the things potential-pastors are subjected to aren't really searches as much as they are Gitmo-styled interrogations.

So we need something between want ads and witch trials.  Some quick thoughts not necessarily gathered from last night's conversation:

1.  The church's leaders, its elders, should lead the process for finding the new pastor, including examination of the man according to 1 Tim. 3, etc.  Personally, this rules out the traditional search committee.  I think you want the men most acquainted with the calling and work of pastors to examine the prospective candidate.  And perhaps the elders will have the demeanor that helps avoid the interrogation aspect that sometimes develops. 

2.  Running want ads seems a really bad idea to me.  Anyone who has had to hire someone in the work world using want ads knows how completely bogus the entire process can be.  Whatever the elders and congregation can do to avoid the "big prize bonanza" of the want ad lottery has got to be a good thing.  It seems this process holds a lot of potential for encouraging men to "audition" and "perform" and places the congregation in the position of pretending it knows more about a potential pastor based on his resume than it actually does.

3.  Instead of want ads, call like-minded churches and pastors you respect and ask for recommendations of faithful men they would be happy to see pastoring a church like your own.  It's more efficient and you increase the chance of learning something meaningful about potential pastors.

4.  Take the time to observe the men where they are currently serving, in their "natural environment," if you will.  Observe him preaching and serving at his current church.  And in this media-saturated age, a group of elders can listen to a man's entire preaching corpus before ever speaking with him.

5.  Consider one man at a time.

6.  The Lord's people need shepherds, but take your time to find one.  Don't be in a hurry to "get a pastor."  Consider the man's theological commitments, his practical commitments, his life and reputation, and so on.  That's not easily done in a couple of interviews.  It takes time.  If a congregation had no pastor and no prospects, it would do what it could to continue serving the Lord, preaching the word, administering the sacraments, etc.  It could not rush things, even if it wanted.  It's helpful to borrow some of that mentality when you do have options.  Pretend you didn't, slow down, and really ask the meaningful questions, the hard questions, and without becoming the Salem witch trial examine the man.  The next pastor will do much to press his own character (or lack thereof) on the congregation.  Don't skimp on testing his character.

Carrying on last week's discussion on "cool" and "edgy" I nominate two men - both in their 60's - for edgiest evangelicals alive today:

1. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

2. John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church and leader of Desiring God Ministries

But you won't find these men with exploding graphics and sound systems wrapped around them when they walk onto a platform--at least not by request. You won't find them spending a lot of time on their clothing. You won't find either of these men shortening talks and lightening the truth to accommodate anyone.

These men are edgy like Jesus and Paul were edgy. They take the whole truth of the gospel and stick it right in your eye.

Paige Patterson had the audacity back in the '70's to question the theology and practices of the leadership of an entire denomination (SBC) and then had the courage and energy over the next two decades to move out the liberals and bring in those who believe the bible to be inerrant, sufficient and trustworthy. Note that he didn't walk away and start his own church. He confronted the establishment and said "You're wrong...according to the Word of God." That is edgy.

John Piper for 30 years now has been using his mind and voice to make the Word alive. Creative? Yes! But not the way the marketers and emergents do "creative." He unpacks God's Word and then boldly puts it right in your face. Nothing about Piper will make you think the Christian life is a game. He doesn't offer "Your Best Life Now" but uses words like "suffer" and "sacrifice" as he holds up all the pleasure that can only be found in Jesus Christ.

Keep your boy bands and church coffee shops. I'm going with truth presented boldly and without embarrassment. I'm going with the 60 year olds for edgiest evangelicals in America today. Give me Piper and Patterson!

Many thanks to all of you who publicly (comments) and privately (emails) criticized my being critical of WiBo.

A couple of thoughts:

1. I agree with Mike McKinley that Ben A. did a great job organizationally and must live a mysterious life that allowed him to pull together such varied speakers.

2. I agree with Ben A. (see his comments) that any meeting or conference is going to have highs and lows.

3. For the record, I think 9Marks, the organization I lead, needs to do a better job in presenting its ideas. I think we are probably one of the most boring conferences around. The material is too often dense and can become tedious to listen to. I think the material is very good. I just don't think a normal person can listen for 12 hours without an intermission, graphics or a bathroom break.

4. I know it is common for this generation of parents to rarely criticize or correct their children, but that is ultimately hurtful. It is deceitful. It is not preparing the children well. Faithful parents and pastors need to be able to criticize and correct without having a critical spirit. We work hard in our little corner of the world to learn to take criticism. It is for our good. We grow by it. The goal of criticism is to bring discernment. So we invite and even seek out criticism. At Capitol Hill Baptist Church we have built it into our weekly schedule with a "Service Review" that is done among the staff and interns. We spend hours evaluating events and rehashing talks. We have changed some things we do and think because of it. Impossible without godly, constructive criticism.

5. Finally, we cannot simply think that all the different models and techniques that are being thrown at us are equally valid. I want to write more in the future about Hebrews 13:17. If you think you (pastor) are really going to give an account someday to God for how you cared for his sheep, then you must discern what is being offered up in the name of "church." There are vastly different models being floated. You have to pick. Traditional? Willow Creek? Purpose Driven? Emergent? Missional? You're not picking between five different brands of detergent that essentially get your clothes clean. It's not paper or plastic; either one caries the groceries. You, pastor, are picking a model that very well can change the message and in so doing lose the gospel.

Thanks for the criticism. Keep it up!

I couldn't agree with Mike McKinley more. We've lost our faith in the power (and even necessity) of God's Word, and we've put our faith in method.

And here's one reason it matters. In abandoning God's Word for method and experience, we're playing into the hands of a growing segment of our culture that is perfectly willing to make room for transcendent experience but is utterly opposed to the notion of a personal God who reveals Himself with truth claims on our lives.

This week I was listening to the Kojo Nnamdi show on my local NPR station. Kojo was interviewing Stuart Kauffman, a bio-physicist who on the one hand argues against the reductionism of modern physics, but on the other hand rejects the traditional notion of the God of the Bible.

Then there's the article by NYT columnist David Brooks that a church member just sent me, The Neural Buddhists. Brooks, with people like Kauffman in mind though he mentions a different list, describes a new atheism that, like Buddhism, is quite comfortable with a spiritual transcendent reality, but is completely at odds with a notion of Deity that is personal and able to reveal specific doctrines that have universal application.

What does all this mean? It means that in a post-modern world, in which science itself is increasingly comfortable with the notion that it cannot explain everything we experience, people are going to be at ease with our talk of spiritual reality and attracted to our services designed to produce an experience of the transcendent. What they are not going to be comfortable with is the exclusive claims of Christ (when have they ever been?).

As Brooks notes, that means the debate is likely to shift. It will shift from a discussion of the existence of God to a debate over "faith in the Bible." If he's right, and I think he is (we've been in one form or another of this debate ever since the hermeneutical turn of the mid-20th century), then ironically, our attempts to redefine and recommend the truth of Christianity through spiritual experience, or social engagement, or aesthetic innovation will simply give comfort to the new Buddhists, who

"feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits."

Where do we learn that behind our experience of the transcendent stands a personal God who has revealed himself concretely in the person of Jesus Christ? Where do we learn what the will of this personal God is? Where do we discover the objective means to experiencing a subjective relationship with this God? We don't learn it from our experience, our aesthetics, or our social engagement. We learn it from Scripture, which alone is "able to make us wise unto salvation." (2 Tim 3:14-16) If in the midst of the cultural shift which this new scientific revolution is precipitating we abandon the Bible, then we will discover that we have lost the battle before it's even been engaged.

Several folks at the Gospel Coalition responded to this question (HT:JT).  I wonder what you brothers would say in response.

Here's Mark's two cents:

"For pastors to know and understand what a local church should and can be and for pastors to teach this to their congregations. Much of the blessings and benefits of good teaching in evangelical churches in America goes into the hearts of individuals and then perhaps into the lives of their family and friend but is then largely lost in the sands of American individualism. If the preaching of the gospel and expositional preaching are the glorious founts of life, the local church is to be the bowl, the container, in which that life is caught and held up for display to a thirsty world. That pastors should know and understand and teach this is the most crying need in evangelical churches in America today."

Americans have a nasty addiction to success. Still worse, success seems only to be defined as growth, i.e. getting bigger and having more. In our addiction we want to measure our growth with better attendance, more programs and products. We see this in business, schools and churches.

It is the wise man who knows when to say enough is enough. Growth is not always good. Growth can distract and deplete.

Last Saturday night I was asked to "leave a charge" with the remaining board members and faculty of my children's school as I had come to the end of my term serving on the board.

I charged them to remain mere. It is defined as "being no more or better than what is specified." Do not become laden with programs. Do not bend to the pressures for more. Stay focused on the work specified.

If we can do this, we will mirror our Savior's life and work. Jesus was not about to accumulate things in this world or fight a war that was not his. He was about his Father's work. And only his Father's work.

Jesus said, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working." John 5:17

He also said, "As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work." John 9:4

So as the pressure comes to adopt this or that program, hire this or that specialist, attend this or that meeting, consider the charge to remain mere and in so doing mirror the One you serve.

"As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor." Ecclesiastes 10:1

This verse came to mind when I heard the announcement of NY governor Eliot Spitzer's resignation upon revelation of his adulterous activity. I don't mean to suggest that his behavior equaled "a little folly." Nor do I mean to suggest all his "legal" activity as attorney general and governor was above reproach; I have no comment on those issues.

I'm simply saying to all of you pastors, elders, deacons and seminarians that it doesn't take much folly -- just a little -- to wipe out years of otherwise faithful service. Folly is weightier, it seems, than wisdom and honor. We're called to avoid even a little of it.

How many pastors have been wiped out and sidelined from the gospel fight because of a little folly? I pray that this rising generation of men would be different. Flee, brothers, flee from folly!

Psalm 119:1 says, "Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord."

Aaron and Mike, thanks for helpful comments and guidance on a really good question.  This can be a tough issue because many of us are prone to equate some cultural position with the teaching of Scripture, or to argue that said position is the logically necessary outworking of some "biblical principle."  It's funny how often the position is associated with an abstract "biblical principle" rather than clear teaching.  So, Aaron, I'm really thankful for your emphasis on good exposition as an innoculation that undermines "better"/"worse" Christians. 

And Mike, I'm thankful for your example of leadership warding off these issues.  I don't address this kind of thing (alcohol being the exception) in membership interviews, but you've helped me to think about doing that.  And it's really important in this very diverse context. 

You've also brought to mind the importance of leadership (elders) who model charity and unity in non-essential and secondary issues.  As Mark has said on many occassions, a former elder at CHBC, Jim Smith, was great at that.  He had fairly strong views on an important but secondary issue, but was exemplary in how he extended charity to others, avoided prosletyzing in any way, and supported the church's leadership and direction in every way.  It reminds us that it's important in selecting leaders of the church to find men who are likewise committed to the essentials while modeling liberty and charity in secondary issues.

I think I agree with the folks in the comment section on the elders' wives question.  The question is posed as if the wife is a problem, but the description sounds pretty good to me.  I'm not sure what's being described there.  Any more background or clarity on the question?

Gents,

You probably saw that the new 9Marks eJournal is out. In the David Wells' interview, we asked him about the claim that churches frequently make about "same message, new methods" if in fact "the medium is the message." At one point in his answer, Wells says that,

I'm not saying that the Word of God absolutely cannot be preached from a barstool or with a cup of coffee in hand. But as a former architect, I think I understand how environments--that is, architectural environments--affect people. There are ways of confirming what is being said by what you see. Now what you see is not a substitute for what is said. So some of the beautiful gothic cathedrals are lifeless and dead spiritually, and all the beauty of those cathedrals can never substitute for the truth of God. But the other side of that also plays out. If we have nothing but Starbucks and light conversation around the Word of God, we will find that the Word of God disappears.

Do you agree, or is he pushing into adiaphora? Are there other places where you wonder if our attempts to be relevant compromise the message?