info@9marks.org | http://www.9marks.org

Contents

Editor’s Note

Jonathan Leeman

PASTORS GOING

Leave Your Church Well

In light of his recent transition from one church to another, 9Marks asked Michael Lawrence how to candidate, interview, and say goodbye wisely.

An Interview with Michael Lawrence

Prepare the Church for the Next Guy

Someday your ministry will belong to another pastor. Here’s how to set him up for success.

By Matt Schmucker

Book Review: Handle That New Call with Care

By David Campbell

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson

PASTORS COMING

What’s Wrong With Search Committees? Part 1 of 2 on Finding a Pastor

Search committees are fraught with dangers and pitfalls, including risk-aversion, wrongheaded secrecy, and a beauty pageant mentality. Why? It turns out the problem is in their very premise.

By Mark Dever

What’s Right About Elders? Part 2 of 2 on Finding a Pastor

Why should elders lead a pastoral search rather than a search committee? Because they’re charged to raise up leaders and are best qualified to assess a man’s preaching and character.

By Mark Dever and Bobby Jamieson

What Not to Do When You’re the New Guy

Beginning a new pastorate is tough. So we asked a veteran pastor what pitfalls the new guy should avoid.

By Walter Price

You Might Have the Wrong Candidate If…

There are a lot of men out there you wouldn’t want to pastor your church. Here’s a few ideas of what to avoid.

By Dennis Newkirk

Tips for an Interim Pastor

The interim pastorate is a tough gig. You have the role of a pastor but not the authority. How do you do it well?

By Jonathan Leeman

PASTORS STAYING

Staying to the Glory of God: One Preacher’s Death Wish

It may sound morbid, but this preacher tells you exactly where he wants to die.

By Jeramie Rinne

Staying to the Glory of God: The Sibbes, Simeon, and Stott Model

What do three Cambridge, Anglican, bachelor “S’s” all have in common? They each planted themselves in one place and stayed. Here’s why you should consider doing the same.

By Mark Dever

MISCELLANEOUS BOOK REVIEWS

Book Review: God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment

By James M. Hamilton, Jr.

Reviewed by Stephen Dempster

Book Review: Church 3.0

By Neil Cole

Reviewed by Geoff Chang

Book Review: Marks of the Messenger

By J. Mack Stiles

Reviewed by John Starke

AUDIO - LEADERSHIP INTERVIEWS

Understanding the Bible and Ministry with Bruce Winter

New Testament scholar Bruce Winter jumps into the fray over cultural contextualization in ministry, the importance of historical background for interpreting Scripture, and bad contemporary ideas of leadership. *Listen online Now »

Posted on January 1, 2010

Engaging Your Generation with Matt Chandler

Matt Chandler discusses his past year, his approach to preaching, and what it takes to engage this generation with the gospel. *Listen online Now »

Posted on December 1, 2010

This audio might not be supported by your particular device

Jonathan Leeman

Editor’s Note

Quick, before you make another move, pastor, read this Journal!

If you’re thinking of leaving your church for another, start with Michael Lawrence’s article on leaving wisely. In fact, look at Matt Schmucker’s even before you think about leaving. Have you looked yet? Okay, what about now? I’ve seen enough pastors come and go to know that Lawrence and Schmucker just might shift your paradigm.

Or maybe the process of searching has begun. Mark Dever, Bobby Jamieson, Walter Price, and Dennis Newkirk will help you to avoid common mistakes and pursue the next pastor wisely.

Then again, maybe you should not make a move at all. Jeramie Rinne and Mark Dever will tell you why. Pastor Rinne, in fact, would rather see you dead right where you are. What a pastor!

How to Leave Your Church Well: An Interview with Michael Lawrence

In light of his recent transition from one church to another, 9Marks asked Michael Lawrence how to candidate, interview, and say goodbye wisely.

9Marks: After eight years as associate pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church [CHBC] here in Washington, DC, you’re about to take up a pastorate at Hinson Baptist Church in Portland, Oregon. Talk us through how you went from point A to point B.

Michael Lawrence: Three or four years ago I began to desire to preach more than I could in my current role. So I began a discussion with my wife: Should we be open to leave? Then, about two and a half years ago, I brought this up with the senior pastor Mark Dever, and at that point he agreed that I should be open to moving on. Yet we also agreed that I shouldn’t go out and shake the bushes and send out resumes, but pray and see what the Lord brought along. Shortly after that, I learned that Hinson Baptist Church in Portland Oregon needed a pastor. I’ll spare you all the details, but eventually we began a candidating process.

9Marks: How did you handle communicating with both Hinson Baptist Church and Capitol Hill Baptist Church during the candidating process? When did you let CHBC know about this?

ML: First, I made it clear to the search committee at Hinson that I was going to involve the senior pastor and elders of my church, and eventually the congregation as a whole. They were accustomed to dealing with pastors who wanted to do it in secret, and so were surprised when I said I wanted to do it in the open. I didn’t want to do it the usual way, because the church is my family and I want to know what they think. I value their counsel. And I’ve covenanted with them—I’m not at liberty to abandon them at will or spring something on them.

Several months before any visits were made by either party, I let CHBC know that I was in discussions with another church. I explained why I was talking to another church, and I asked for the church’s prayer and feedback.

Then, when it was almost time for the search committee to visit, I let the congregation know: “The search committee’s going to visit next week, and I’m going to introduce them, and I want you to engage them.” I also warned the search committee that I was going to introduce them to the whole church.

On the Sunday they came, I had them stand up in the service that I was preaching at, and I prayed for them publicly.

That weekend, the search committee also met with elders and staff and other members of the congregation. In effect, I was interviewing them even as they were interviewing me. But more importantly, my church was interviewing them, and they understood that. If I was going to go, it would be because this church sent me, not because I ripped myself away from them.

“What I said to the elders was, ‘Look, you already have a culture. But I don’t know that culture. And I don’t want to be constantly offending you unintentionally because I haven’t had time to learn. Instead, when I offend you, I want it to be on purpose!’”

9Marks: So what happened after the search committee came to CHBC?

ML: After the search committee came to CHBC, they invited me to come out for a visit. And of course, since we had been so public on our end, they realized that they should be more public about what they were doing. That led to all sorts of fruitful conversations with elders, staff, and church members during our visit.

It also gave their church time to think and pray. Search committees often spring a nomination on the church. They work in secret, and then suddenly show up one Sunday with the news, “We’ve got a nomination, and he’s going to preach here next Sunday, and then we’re going to vote!” That leaves the congregation scrambling to catch up.

9Marks: Is it true that you told them in October that you wouldn’t come until August?

ML: It’s true. I wanted to end things at CHBC well, and I didn’t want to move my children in the middle of the school year.

I learned later that some of the elders initially thought, “That’s a deal-breaker. We can’t wait that long.” But then they thought about it again and realized, “There’s a man who’s caring for his family, and that’s the kind of man we want. So we shouldn’t penalize him for doing the very thing that we’re going to expect him to do once he gets here.”

9Marks: And you told them that, even though you were coming in August, you wouldn’t start preaching until October?

ML: That’s right. What I said to the elders was, “Look, you already have a culture. But I don’t know that culture. And I don’t want to be constantly offending you unintentionally because I haven’t had time to learn. Instead, when I offend you, I want it to be on purpose!”

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? MISTAKES MEN MAKE

9Marks: What are some common mistakes men make in the process of deciding whether or not to leave one church for another?

ML: First, they make a private, individual decision. Maybe they talk to their wife, old seminary professors, buddies from seminary, or fellow pastors of other churches, but they will all be people outside the church. They fail to talk to the people that matter the most besides their wife, and that is their own congregation: the leadership of the congregation and the whole congregation.

Second, they make the decision in terms of all the negatives they see at their current church and all the potential positives at the other church.

Third, they can think purely in terms of, “Bigger equals better.” More money, more staff. Some of those things are fine things in and of themselves, but they’re not fundamentally how you decide whether to go to another church.

Now, if you’re currently in a church, and you’re not able to adequately provide for your family, that’s another matter. If they’re able, a church should free up the pastor from worldly concern and care. But assuming that they are caring for you, you shouldn’t go simply because it’s opportunity to acquire more of the treasures of this world.

Fourth, men too often believe all the wonderful things that the search committee is saying to them about themselves, and believe everything their critics say about them at their current church. Neither are telling the whole story.

Even godly search committees can tend in the direction of trying to close the deal at all costs. Maybe they’ve been without a pastor for a while, and they’re afraid that if they don’t flatter you or if they let you see what their church is like, you won’t come!

TIPS FOR DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO LEAVE YOUR CHURCH

9Marks: What tips do you have for men who are in the process of deciding whether or not to leave?

ML: First, this needs to be a matter of sustained prayer.

Second, early on, you need to pull wise counselors into the conversation: your wife, your senior pastor (if you’re not the senior pastor), your fellow elders, other key church leaders. Eventually, the congregation as a whole needs to be a part of the decision-making process.

Third, you need to be clear on why you want to leave and what constitutes a sufficient reason to leave.

9Marks: What are some sufficient reasons to leave?

ML: Maybe the door has been closed to ministry. Maybe your gifts are not being given good scope and freedom to be used, and so there’s a stewardship issue. That was the case with me. I wanted to preach full-time which obviously you cannot do as an associate pastor. Maybe you’re no longer in accord doctrinally with the church. Maybe the church is not able to adequately care for and support your family.

“I wanted to be as cheerfully angular as possible. I tried to think of every reason why they wouldn’t want to call me and bring those out into the open.”

ADVICE ABOUT CANDIDATING

9Marks: How did you approach the candidating process?

ML: I wanted to be as cheerfully angular as possible. I tried to think of every reason why they wouldn’t want to call me and bring those out into the open. I didn’t want to sugar-coat myself for them. Even as the church is tempted to sell themselves to me early in the process, the temptation existed for me as the pastoral candidate to try to sell myself to them.

9Marks: How are you tempted to sell yourself as a pastoral candidate?

ML: To downplay doctrinal convictions or pastoral practice convictions that I have which might be offensive to them.

9Marks: Can you give a few examples of what you did?

ML: I made sure that they understood that I’m a Calvinist—five points. And I explained what I meant by that, just to make sure we were on the same page.

They needed to understand that I am convinced of the regulative principle of worship: I think Scripture is sufficient to tell us how we should worship God in the gathered assembly.

In all of this, the elbows were out—not in order to hurt anybody, but to make sure that they don’t come back to me six months after I get there and say, “You never said that you believed this!”

9Marks: So let’s sum this up. What basic tips to you have for others in candidating?

ML: First, be clear about your doctrinal convictions. Be clear about the doctrines and the pastoral practices that you are willing to be fired over. If you’re not, you will be blown by the wind.

Second, make the process as transparent as you can. This is one of the things that characterizes Paul’s ministry; he points out that his ministry was not done in secret. Be transparent with your own church. And then be transparent with the church you’re thinking about going to. That’s part of what I mean by “be very clear on what you’re willing to be fired over.” Try to think of all the reasons they’re not going to like you, and tell them.

HOW TO LEAVE A CHURCH POORLY

9Marks: How do you leave a church poorly?

ML: One way to leave a church poorly is to spring it on your congregation. You show up one Sunday and tell them that next Sunday is the last Sunday that their beloved pastor is going to be there.

On a related note is the failure to replace ourselves first. Part of our job is to ensure we have been replaced well before we leave. Ideally, a pastor who is leaving—particularly if he’s the senior pastor—should play a significant role in the whole process of thinking through who is going to be next.

Another mistake, this time in relation to your family, is to think, “Okay, I’ve been called to a new work, so we gotta go! It doesn’t matter that it’s February and I’m going to be ripping my kids out of school.” I think that’s a pretty serious mistake. Part of the Lord’s calling is for you to be a good husband and father. And so you need to manage the transition well for your family.

Another common mistake, of course, is to just kind of check out. Yeah, you’re still on the payroll. But practically, you just go on vacation until you move.

You can go too far in the other direction and continue to be the indispensible man until the very last minute. That’s also a bad way to leave.

Ideally, you want to plan a transition that allows your departure to perhaps be sad, but the ministry should keep going strong. That means humbly extricating yourself from the ministry, not precipitously, but in a way that serves the congregation well.

TIPS ON MAKING THE TRANSITION TO ANOTHER CHURCH

9Marks: Let’s say you’ve decided to leave, you’ve accepted the call, what do you do now? Give us a quick list.

ML: First, you need to sit down and plan the transition on both ends. Nobody is going to do that for you. For the church you’re leaving, ask yourself, “How can I gradually remove myself from the ministry here, so that when I finally leave, they may be sad but in a few days they almost don’t notice because I have replaced myself?” In the new place, they will want you to hit the ground running, but you need to ask, “How can I manage this transition for the long haul? What am I going to need, so that when I take up the yoke I can sustain it?”

Second, I think you need to be prepared, for a season, to have two jobs and only get paid for one. You need to be able to bear that cheerfully.

Third, you will probably need to enlist the leaders’ help at the church that you’re going to, to set up some reasonable boundaries of communication and access.

9Marks: Anything else about setting your successor up for success?

ML: You need to be that man’s biggest fan. Part of your job on the way out is teaching your congregation to rightly value and appreciate his upcoming ministry.

Your congregation’s ability to profit from the next man will largely be a function of how well you have prepared them for that. Have you taught your congregation over the years to listen to the Word, rather than the man? Have you encouraged them, long before you ever thought about leaving, to listen to other men in that same pulpit? That is going to prepare them to listen to your replacement. Or have you built a cult of personality around yourself which will yield a painful transition, no matter what?

9Marks: What about transitioning specific relationships? How do you hand off specific discipleship and counseling relationships?

ML: One of the things I did at CHBC with all my individual discipling relationships was to look at my schedule and figure out when our last meeting was going to be. Then I had a series of deliberate conversations during those final meetings. I used it to bring closure to each relationship by telling them how I valued and appreciated them. I sought to encourage them. But another conversation was, “Who are you going to meet with next? Who’s going to take my place? And who are you going to start mentoring?”

With the counseling relationships I worked to prepare them for my departure by thinking about who was going to step in after me. This gets back to not leaving precipitously, but leaving well, in a way that demonstrates you’re not indispensible. You’ve been used of God for a time, and now your last use is to prepare people for the next men who come in and pick up where your work left off.

About the author

Michael Lawrence is the senior pastor of Hinson Baptist Church in Portland, Oregon, and the author of Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church (Crossway, 2010).

Matt Schmucker

Prepare the Church for the Next Guy

Although it’s easy to develop tunnel vision in the crush of daily ministry pressures, pastors should always be thinking ahead. How far ahead? To when you’re either gone or dead and your church has a new pastor.

How you pastor your church now will have a serious impact on whether the church continues to prosper under that man’s ministry or whether it folds after you leave. With that in mind, here are seven things (and six more) that a pastor can do to prepare his church well for the next guy:

HOW TO PREPARE YOUR CHURCH FOR THE NEXT GUY

1. Preach the Word

First, preach the word. “Of course!” you say. But what I mean is that you should make sure you’re building into your flock a love for the Word of God. You want your congregation to be so hungry for the Scriptures that it doesn’t matter whether you or another man is preaching—they want the Word! Be a conduit of faithful expository preaching and you will pave the way for the next guy.

2. Let others preach

Second, let others preach. By letting other men preach, you will subtly teach the congregation that it is the (living) water that matters, not the faucet from which it flows.

3. Let others lead

Third, let others lead. Break down misplaced dependence on you by demonstrating your own confidence in other church leaders. Let them lead in prayer, Scripture reading, leading meetings, and more. If you’ve been a one-man band till now, it may take some time for these other leaders to get their sea legs, so persevere with them and see how both the church and the other leaders grow.

4. Recognize the good work of others

Fourth, publicly recognize the good work of others. Have you ever been in a church where only the achievements or good work of the pastor are recognized? It wrongly exalts his position and carves out a kind of “super-priesthood” among the brothers and sisters. Instead, frequently recognize the good spiritual work of others in public and in private. In so doing you will better prepare your church for your absence.

“Building your church’s practices on personal preferences rather than biblical principles builds the church around you instead of God. If you build your church on biblical principles, the next guy can comfortably slide right in.”

5. Build the practices of the church around biblical principles, not personal preferences

Fifth, build the practices of the church around biblical principles, not personal preferences. How many times have I heard the line, “We’ve never done it that way because Pastor always wanted…” Building your church’s practices on personal preferences rather than biblical principles builds the church around you instead of God. If you build your church on biblical principles, the next guy can comfortably slide right in.

6. Clean up your (and your predecessor’s) messes

Sixth, clean up your (and your predecessor’s) messes. Here are a few crucial areas:

a. Membership: Clean up the membership rolls such that the membership closely aligns with those who regularly attend. The membership rolls (should) represent sheep. Remove wolves as well as you can, and take non-attenders off. Help the new guy get off to a good start by knowing exactly which sheep he is called to shepherd.

b. Church leaders: Strive to appoint qualified leaders and remove unqualified ones. I’ve known too many cases where the last pastor never did the hard work of removing a corrupt leader. In fact, sometimes the pastor departed because he didn’t want to deal with the corrupt leader anymore. Not a way to help the next guy!

c. Staff: Same as “b” above. Don’t let a bad employee sit for the next guy. Take one on the chin for the sake of your church and for the sake of the next guy, and in so doing build the kingdom.

d. Debt: Nobody feels the burden of debt like a new pastor. Sure, he loves the new building the previous pastor built, but he is hamstrung by the debt: it consumes too large a portion of the church’s budget and it blocks necessary initiatives for building a healthy church. Do all you can to pay down or remove the debt.

7. Get elders

Seventh, get elders. This might be the most important thing you do. A plurality of elders will help in the transition so that the knowledge of the congregation’s spiritual state doesn’t disappear with the moving van.

ONCE YOU’VE DECIDED TO GO, CONSIDER…

“Make the transition wisely brief.”

What if you’ve decided to move to another church? Once you’ve decided to go, consider the following:

1. Hold your tongue, theologically speaking. Don’t inoculate your congregation against a biblical doctrine or practice they’ve not yet embraced by blasting them with it on your way out. If you do, it will build up their immunity against that good teaching in the future.

2. Limit your knowledge. Don’t keep taking in and storing up knowledge of the congregation once you know you’re leaving. That has to go to the next guy or a fellow elder who is staying. Yes, take the pastoral calls, but bring another leader with you so that care can be given after you’ve left.

3. Hold your tongue about “problem sheep.” Don’t sour a new pastor’s fresh beginning by demonizing your church’s members. In other words, don’t prejudice the new pastor against any existing sheep; give them an opportunity to change and grow and re-build pastoral trust.

4. Warn the new pastor. Having said #3 above, you should warn the new pastor about immovable wolves.

5. Get out. Make the transition wisely brief. Take enough time to help the church transition smoothly, but don’t create a traffic jam for the new pastor.

6. Be available to the new pastor after you’ve left.

THERE’S ONLY ONE CHIEF SHEPHERD

In all of this, your goal is to lead your church in a way that demonstrates that there’s only one chief shepherd: Jesus (1 Pet. 5:4). So prepare your church for the next guy and pray that God will grant your church to faithfully proclaim the gospel long after you’re gone.

About the author

Matt Schmucker is executive director of 9Marks.

Reviewed by Bobby Jamieson

Book Review: Handle that New Call with Care: Accepting or Declining a Call to a New Congregation

David Campbell, Handle that New Call with Care: Accepting or Declining a Call to a New Congregation. Day One, 2009. 99 pages. £5.

Few decisions in a pastor’s life are more important—or more difficult—than whether or not to accept a call to a new congregation.

Yet, as David Campbell points out in the introduction to his book Handle that New Call with Care, very little has been written on this subject (9). Campbell, who was the pastor of Geneva Road Evangelical Baptist Church in Darlington, England for fourteen years before becoming the senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, writes as one who has personally wrestled through this question. This book was written to help pastors, their fellow elders, and church members consider the issues that arise when a pastor receives a call from another church (10).

A NARROW FOCUS

At the book’s outset, Campbell clearly delimits the scope of his discussion: “Its starting point is the call itself: a pastor serving a particular congregation has received a call to another. Nothing is going to be said about the steps leading up to such a call” (10). While Campbell does the reader a great service by clearly defining the scope of his work, one could wish that he had at least offered a few reflections on the steps which tend to precede receiving a call, since these steps offer more than a few pitfalls for pastors. (For some helpful reflections on the whole process of leaving a church, see “Leave Your Church Well: An Interview with Michael Lawrence”).

A COMPILATION OF PASTORAL WISDOM FROM THE PAST

After a brief introduction, the book consists of seven short chapters. Apart from chapter one and several short scriptural discussions elsewhere, the book is mainly a compilation of pastoral wisdom from the past. He finds much of this in ministers’ letters and autobiographies and their record of wrestling with whether or not to accept a call to a new church.

In chapter one Campbell briefly discusses the biblical role of pastors, whom he places within the larger category of “ministers of the Word.” Chapter two asserts the sovereignty of Christ over all pastors, which means he has the authority to move them to another church or keep them in one place. Chapter three examines the reasons for uncertainty, the pain it causes, and the confidence we can have in God’s faithful guidance. Chapters four and five explore good reasons to stay and leave, while chapter six provides practical guidance for actually making the decision. Finally, chapter seven looks at the sorrow, difficulties, and excitement which may all attend a move from one church to another.

“As with a number of other intensely practical subjects (suffering comes to mind), this is a topic best thought through before you have to experience it, and pastors certainly stand to profit from working through this little book.”

A HELPFUL RESOURCE—WITH JUST A FEW QUALIFICATIONS

This book is a generally helpful resource for a pastor who’s considering going to another church. As with a number of other intensely practical subjects (suffering comes to mind), this is a topic best thought through before you have to experience it, and pastors certainly stand to profit from working through this little book.

Some highlights include a useful discussion of the preciousness of “pastoral capital” as a good reason to stay in one’s current church (46-47), several helpful exhortations about how to make the final decision (ch. 6), a good list of questions to ask one’s potential future church (71-72), and a balanced discussion of the potential pros and cons of leaving (chs. 4 and 5).

Some Faulty Precedents

My most serious concern with the book is that at several points Campbell sees too much continuity between modern-day pastors and the apostles and their appointed delegates. The explicit point of continuity he identifies—that all are ministers of God’s Word—is of course legitimate (14). But he frequently derives precedents for pastors from the apostles or their delegates which seem to run afoul of other biblical principles.

For example, after a long and favorable discussion of the Free Church of Scotland’s former practice of having a man’s Presbytery determine whether or not he should accept a new call, Campbell suggests that, “It is clear…from the instances of Titus and Timothy moving on Paul’s instructions that, in principle, a minister’s decision to move from one place to another may properly be taken by those who have lawful authority over him” (77). I understand the New Testament to teach, however, that a pastor is not under the authority of any extra-ecclesial body or individual. While he should certainly seek counsel from fellow elders and other trusted pastors, this means that no body or individual outside of his local church has the authority to command him to go or stay.

Sheep Without a Shepherd?

A couple less significant issues are also worth mentioning. First, concerning a pastor’s responsibility to ensure a successor if he moves on, Campbell writes, “If, therefore, he has no colleague to step into his shoes and there is no immediate prospect of a replacement, he may well be uncertain as to whether it is right for him to leave” (36). Campbell is surely on the right track here but I wish he’d go further. If a shepherd had no colleague to step into his shoes and no immediate prospect of a replacement, would he be merely uncertain about whether it was right for him to leave?

A Little Soft on Secrecy

Regarding the decision itself, Campbell suggests that some men will choose to involve their fellow elders in the decision, but this will depend on a number of situational factors (78). Certainly, there may be circumstances in which a man’s fellow elders will not be the most helpful counselors when considering a call to another church. But, assuming a certain level of maturity and like-mindedness among the elders, wouldn’t we all agree that a pastor should seek the counsel of his fellow elders about a matter as weighty as this? As it is, I’m afraid that Campbell’s neutrality at this point leaves the door a little too open to the kind of self-serving secrecy which too often governs pastors’ approaches to deciding whether or not to accept a new call.

A USEFUL STARTING POINT

Despite these relatively minor issues, Handle that New Call with Care provides a useful starting point for thinking through in advance how to respond to another pastoral opportunity which may arise. If you’re a pastor, I’d happily recommend that you read this book.

About the author

Bobby Jamieson is assistant editor for 9Marks.

By Mark Dever

What’s Wrong With Search Committees? Part 1 of 2 on Finding a Pastor

Click here for the second of two articles: “What’s Right About Elders? Part 2 of 2 on Finding a Pastor”

Some very godly folks serve today in such committees around the country, and even around the world, giving freely of their time to help their congregation find a new pastor. The decision is a momentous one for the sake of their church, and therefore those on the committee give their time prayerfully and with a sense of a being given a sacred privilege. Thank you to those who have approached this task lovingly and dutifully!

But here’s the problem: if churches were healthier, we’d never need to call together such a committee. The last guy would have helped the elders to make sure that this was taken care of before he left. Indeed, the last guy would have realized that one of the most important parts of his ministry in a church is ushering in his replacement! Failing that, the elders of a church still should have taken the lead in ushering the church toward choosing a man who meets the biblical requirements and deftly handles the Word.

“But here’s the problem: if churches were healthier, we’d never need to call together such a committee. The last guy would have helped the elders to make sure that this was taken care of before he left.”

Sadly, too many pastors and elders have failed to discharge this crucial responsibility, and so congregations have been left with no choice but to create a committee. But this is like making the teenage son and daughter parent their younger siblings because mom and dad are absent. The teenagers can get the job done, and how grateful we are for them. But they inevitably do the work with a limp because they lack the natural resources and advantages of the parents.

Let’s consider some dangers and pitfalls that may await the average search committee. Then in the next article we’ll consider why the church’s elders, including the outgoing pastor, are best suited to leading the search for a pastor’s replacement.

THE DANGERS AND PITFALLS OF SEARCH COMMITTEES

1. The basic problem. The basic problem with search committees is that they are typically built to do the wrong thing. They’re built—again, typically, not always—to represent different portions of the congregation in the process of finding a pastor. So you get some women on the committee to represent the women’s perspective, men to represent the men, young and old to represent different ages, the businessman, the deacon, the musicians, and so forth. In other words, search committees are built to put the principle of representation to work. And it makes sense that corporate-minded, democratic Westerners would think this way, doesn’t it!

There’s nothing wrong with incorporating the interests of different kinds of people, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. The most important criteria which the people responsible for nominating the next pastor should meet is an ability to represent not the interests of different kinds of people but the “interests” of the Bible, if I can put it like that. This group needs to understand the Scripture well—how to “rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15)—so that they will prioritize what Scripture prioritizes in looking for a pastor. Yes, these individuals should be interested in finding someone who knows how to love and serve men and women, young and old, and every other group in the church, just as Paul instructs Timothy about how to love different kinds of people in the pastorals. But this group must approach their job asking first what Scripture says. And then they should have the pastoral wisdom and experience necessary for differentiating between those candidates who meet the biblical criteria in a two-dimensional or three-dimensional fashion.

Since the committee’s search engine uses the wrong principles, it’s more likely to hobble along, stuck with the following problems that produce a limp:

2. Undue influence from outside denominational leaders. If your church belongs to a denomination where the authority of Scripture is under attack, consider very carefully the interests that denominational leaders have in making sure you get a pastor who’s acceptable to them. They may have unsavory theological or political reasons to want to install certain people in your congregation, and they can exercise undue influence on committee lay people who humbly want to defer to “the professionals.”

Will the influence of denominational leaders always be bad? Certainly not! But as a congregationalist I believe that those men who have been given a specific biblical charge to lead a congregation—the elders—are at least less likely (and maybe I’m being idealistic!) to be susceptible to unsavory outside influence.

3. Wrongly-guided members of the committee. Sometimes members of the search committee are the biggest hindrance. This is more likely to occur when the committee is not chosen fundamentally to represent the Bible’s “interests.” Sometimes a church will have a businessman who wields great influence in the church. More than once I’ve heard of such men who basically set out to “hire a preacher for their church.” Such people view the church as their own private property. Too often committees can be dominated by such folks, rather than being led by the elders (Heb. 13:7, 17).

4. A suspicion of pastors. Some of you may feel uneasy about pastors leading in finding good successors because it could seem like giving the current pastor too much influence. Maybe you view the interim time between pastorates as time for a congregation to catch its breath, or be rejuvenated, or recover, or whatever may be the need after the last pastorate.

But what if the pastorate has gone well? Is it proud of the elders (along with the senior pastor) to try to serve the congregation in one of the most monumental decisions it will ever make? I’d say just the opposite. I’d say it’s part of their very job as elders! And keep in mind 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13!

Finally, it’s the present leaders who will be in a good position to harvest and apply lessons learned during previous pastorates.

5. A beauty pageant mentality. Too often search committees will look at a number of different candidates, rank them, and conduct a kind of pastoral skills tournament, all while sincerely wanting the best for their church. But does our church really need to have a good pastor who is better than other good pastors? Wouldn’t we really be better off simply looking one brother at a time for someone who could serve us well? We don’t want to turn our search process into a kind of pastoral beauty pageant.

Consider how a man looks for a wife. He doesn’t line them up, glance over their resumes, and then compare them to one another. Through natural relationship networks, he gets to know them one at a time. He takes time to know a woman’s character. Why should finding a shepherd to lead and feed God’s people be treated with any less care?

Admittedly, elders can approach a pastoral search as if it were a beauty pageant too. But hopefully, as elders, they will know better!

“God raises up young men who watch their life and doctrine closely and are gifted to teach his Word publicly. Hire them when they’re a cub. Let them chew things up around the house for a while, and you’ll have a lion that loves you for life!”

6. Risk aversion, which prioritizes experience over character and giftedness. Search committees tend to be too risk-averse. Again, the very nature of the committee is to represent the congregation, which means they’re designed to look for a candidate that pleases the congregation. And the only way to satisfy everyone—often—is to find the middle-of-the-road, milquetoast candidate.

Most commonly, committees prefer experience over character and giftedness. It’s true that young men tend to have great acuity, but poor depth perception. They see truth sharply (and often accurately) but don’t have experience in knowing how to implement things well. But that’s not true of all of them. And a humble character which seeks wisdom from older, godly men is a sign of a good leader.

God raises up young men who watch their life and doctrine closely and are gifted to teach his Word publicly. Hire them when they’re a cub. Let them chew things up around the house for a while, and you’ll have a lion that loves you for life! Young pastors make mistakes. But young pastors—if they’re called and equipped by God—can stay for a long time, and have deeply fruitful ministries for decades. Committees, frankly, just don’t have this long-term perspective.

7. An inordinate hunger for résumés. Search committees also tend to have an inordinate hunger for résumés! They’ll take hundreds! But wouldn’t it be easier and more immediately productive to get a single reference from a trusted pastor? If there is no one in your congregation suited to be a regular teacher of God’s Word in every-Sunday preaching, then find a church you like, with a pastoral ministry you like, and approach that pastor for a suggestion. Pursue that person until you are certain he would not be good. You’ll save yourself a lot of time and energy.

Now, elders looking for a pastor can be resume-happy, too. But again, the elders—as men chosen to lead a church because they can ably teach the Word—should know better. On the other hand, the very business-like premise of a “search committee” veers them toward vetting résumés.

8. Patterns of secrecy. Often search committees travel with some secrecy to other churches, hoping to observe a pastor in his natural habitat (his current church) in order to see how he operates, all unbeknownst to his present congregation with whom they are worshipping.

One of my favorite memories is, one Sunday morning in the service, asking a visiting pulpit search committee to stand so that we could pray for them. Don’t worry; I had told them I would do this, though they didn’t believe me!

I also remember talking to one search committee about various folks they were considering—each of whom were flourishing in their current churches—and asking them to consider carefully why they would ask them to leave such flourishing ministries.

Such committees should understand that this kind of ladder-climbing really tempts some men in ministry. But why do we think God loves our congregation more than the one whose pastor we would take? Why would we be so secretive? Does this suggest that something may be amiss? Do you know where your pastor was preaching last weekend? What does this suggest about how this potential pastor might treat your congregation one day?

9. A fixation on credentials. Search committees also tend to require credentials. And this makes sense: They don’t know the person and want some validation of their abilities. Degrees provide a commonly accepted currency of pastoral proficiency.

But again, what may commonly be the case isn’t always the case. Such artificial criteria for sorting through the volume of résumés can hide choice servants of God. While I generally encourage young men to train at a seminary, some of the best pastors I know don’t have MDiv’s.

CONCLUSION

Keeping these problems in mind, we can try to make our search committees better. Or, we can do something different and, I’d say, altogether wiser: let the elders lead!

Churches typically don’t set up search committees composed of members of the congregation to choose elders from within the congregation. So why do they do this when choosing a lead elder (aka “senior pastor”) from outside of the congregation? The fact is, God has charged leaders with raising up other leaders (2 Tim. 2:2). That’s part of the very job description! Why take it away from them for this most important task of finding the senior pastor?

To think more about this, you’ll have to turn to part 2 on finding a pastor: “What’s Right About Elders?”

About the author

Mark Dever is the senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where he arrived as a young cub and chewed things up for a while.

By Mark Dever and Bobby Jamieson

What’s Right About Elders? Part 2 of 2 on Finding a Pastor

Click here for the first of two articles: “What’s Wrong with Search Committees? Part 1 of 2 on Finding a Pastor”

As I mentioned in the previous article “What’s Wrong with Search Committees?,” a pastor should feel a strong obligation to help find his successor before he goes. What shepherd waves good bye to his sheep, wishes them luck, and skips off to greener pastures?!

Sometimes the Lord calls shepherds away precipitously, as when a man dies. Generally speaking, however, a shepherd shouldn’t assume his charge is complete until he does everything within his power to secure a worthy successor. Does he love the sheep or doesn’t he?

Beyond the pastor’s own work, it’s the elders who should lead a church toward finding the next pastor. They have the character and biblical understanding to lead out in making this momentous decision. Biblical understanding and pastoral discernment are key, and biblical understanding and discernment are the very qualities which should define elders as elders in the first place.

WHY ELDERS SHOULD LEAD THE PASTORAL SEARCH

Elders won’t be perfect in this, and they can fall prey to some of the same pitfalls listed in “What’s Wrong with Search Committees?” But God has charged this biblical body with leadership in the local church.

Now, the New Testament does teach that the congregation as a whole has responsibility for its membership, discipline, and doctrine (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; Gal. 1). In line with this, it seems that there is good biblical precedent for viewing the congregation as owning final responsibility for recognizing its leaders (Acts 6:3). Yet within this congregational framework, God charges elders to teach, shepherd, and lead the congregation, and the congregation is to submit to its elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-5).

With this basic structure in mind, here are a few reasons why elders, rather than a search committee comprised of a demographic cross-section of the congregation, should lead a church through the process of searching for a new pastor.

1. Elders are best qualified to assess a man’s preaching and teaching.

The Bible charges elders to teach sound doctrine and to ensure that no false doctrine is propagated in the church (Tit. 1:9), which is why all elders must be apt to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). Further, since a pastor is simply an elder who is set aside to preach full time, his most important job is to preach the Word faithfully (2 Tim. 2:15, 4:2). This means that the elders should be the best qualified group in a church to judge the soundness of a man’s preaching, and the soundness of a man’s preaching is absolutely central to his being a good pastor.

2. Elders are best qualified to assess a man’s character.

Another crucial issue when considering a potential pastor is the man’s character, and here again the elders are best qualified to lead.

Elders are men whom the church has recognized as possessing exemplary character (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9). Through their godly character, elders serve as examples for the whole flock to follow (Heb. 13:7; 1 Pet. 5:3). As they teach, disciple, counsel, and chase down errant sheep, it’s the elders who share many of the same day to day ministry burdens as the senior pastor.

“This means that the elders should be the best qualified group in a church to judge the soundness of a man’s preaching, and the soundness of a man’s preaching is absolutely central to his being a good pastor.”

It’s also the elders who may well have had confidential conversations with members of the congregation, such that they would best recognize which issues a new pastor would face as well as any matters that might disqualify a man from eldership or even from playing a large role in choosing an outside pastor. By virtue of regularly having such conversations, they are probably most prepared to have the kind of careful conversations which a church should have with any prospective pastoral candidate. They should have a more practiced ability to detect weak spots.

By both qualification and experience, a church’s elders are best able to assess a potential pastor’s character.

3. Elders are charged to raise up other elders.

In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul writes, “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” God intends for those who teach the Word in the church to raise up others who will be able to teach the Word as well. While Scripture doesn’t tell us whether Timothy held the office of elder in the church in Ephesus, this verse clearly seems to establish a pattern which elders are to follow today. After all, if Timothy was to teach reliable men who would be able to teach others, those men would have understood from Timothy’s example that they were to raise up other teachers themselves.

This means that elders should always be raising up other elders. So what about when the church needs to find an elder who is particularly gifted in preaching, whom we often call a “senior pastor”? Of course a pastor who is leaving should have already raised up a replacement for himself. But if he hasn’t, there should be a whole group of biblically qualified men who are already in the habit of recognizing and cultivating godly men to be elders. When the need arises for the church to find a particularly gifted elder to set aside to preach full time, shouldn’t the group who have already devoted themselves to the business of raising up elders take the lead?

Finding a new pastor requires wisdom, discernment, theological acuity, and more. If you’ve got elders, this is when you need them most!

TIPS FOR ELDERS LEADING A PASTORAL SEARCH

So then, if elders are the ones who should lead in the process of finding a new pastor, how should they go about this work? Here are a few tips.

1. Involve the current pastor.

First, assuming that the current pastor is leaving on reasonably good terms, involve him as much as possible. He should have taken the lead in identifying and training a successor before he ever had plans to leave, but even if he didn’t, he should be involved in the process now. So, ask your current pastor if he has anyone to recommend. Ask him to tell you other people to ask for recommendations, like old seminary professors or likeminded friends in ministry.

“Faithful pastors should be raising up other faithful pastors. So think of a pastor whose life and ministry you trust, call him, and ask him who he would recommend.”

2. Ask other trusted pastors for recommendations.

Faithful pastors should be raising up other faithful pastors. So think of a pastor whose life and ministry you trust, call him, and ask him who he would recommend. The sober judgment of a seasoned minister will be a far better guide to a good pastor than an impressive résumé.

3. Ask probing questions about the man’s character, theology, and philosophy of ministry.

When it comes time to assess an individual candidate, focus your efforts on learning as much as you can about the man’s character, theology, and philosophy of ministry. Ask probing questions about each of these areas, and be ready to follow up with more. Here’s a list of questions to get you started.

Click here for the first article: “What’s Wrong with Search Committees? Part 1 of 2 on Finding a Pastor”

About the author

Mark Dever is the senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church and is the author of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Crossway, 2000). Bobby Jamieson is assistant editor for 9Marks.

By Walter Price

What Not to Do When You’re the New Guy

I must admit that I was surprised to receive this writing assignment. What do I know about being the new guy? I haven’t been “new” at my church in over twenty-six years.

Then again, maybe I can gather a few morsels from personal experience and observation, some of which falls into the category of what I wish I’d done differently. There is no priority of order here, except perhaps the first one.

So what shouldn’t you do when you’re the new guy? Here are seven things to watch out for.

1. Don’t forget the needs of your wife and family.

You’re establishing a job, but you are also helping your wife establish a home. Help her in every way you possibly can with her God-given “nesting” desires. Certainly, make sure she is content with the order of the house before you attend to your home office.

Be sensitive to the needs of your children, especially their need to be with dad. But, you say, there is so much to be done to get started at the church. Stop! Start at home. Actually, new pastors ought to think of moving into their new home at least a couple of weeks before assuming any duties at the church, just to be able to help their family transition.

2. Don’t abuse the honeymoon.

Consider the marriage analogy. The honeymoon is for the purpose of taking a quantum leap forward in the intimacy of the relationship and for setting the course of the marriage. So also in the church, the new pastor’s honeymoon period is not for getting a free pass to do whatever you want.

Use this time to get to know them as much as you let them get to know you. Establish your relationship with the congregation. Set the tone for your ministry. Read Richard Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor. You will be challenged by his intimate care for God’s flock.

3. Don’t disparage your predecessor, publicly or privately.

The title of this article presupposes that you are not the planting pastor of the church. Therefore, unlike the Apostle Paul, you are building on another’s (often many others’) foundation. More often than not your predecessor was a man just like you who was doing the best he could in spite of his own shortcomings. So be gracious to him in your own mind and make a hero of him before the church. Look for ways to compliment him publicly.

In the rare cases where the previous pastor was ousted for moral failure and you need to address this publicly, try to find something to commend him for prior to his sin. And communicate your sadness that his ministry ended the way it did, both for his sake and the sake of the church.

4. Don’t make big changes too quickly.

If you were to ask me how quickly you should make major changes, I would say that it depends on whether you would like a long honeymoon or a short one.

Take the long view. See yourself as a shepherd who gives his life for the sheep rather than as a corporate turn-around specialist—here today, gone tomorrow. Changing things immediately suggests to your church that they’ve been doing it all wrong.

We need to constantly remind ourselves throughout our ministries, but especially at the beginning of a new one, that we’re leading a church, a family of God’s people, not a corporation.

“Your ministry should not be ego-centric, but Christo-centric. Let it be driven by the Lord’s desires for your present church, not by the problems of your former church.”

5. Don’t project the problems of your previous ministry onto your new church.

If you must focus on things that shouldn’t happen again, let them be your mistakes, not others’. Too often a pastor who is transitioning to a new place remembers all of his former church’s issues and sets his face like flint, saying, “I’m never going to let that happen again.”

Your ministry should not be ego-centric, but Christo-centric. Let it be driven by the Lord’s desires for your present church, not by the problems of your former church.

6. Don’t share intimate details about members of your former church in your preaching.

Any pastor who leaves a church brings a storehouse of potential sermon illustrations with him. Be very careful how you use them. The way you talk about your last church will tell your new congregation how you might talk about them to your next church. Too much talk will prompt them, perhaps subconsciously, to hold you at arm’s length.

7. Don’t think of yourself more highly than you ought to think (Rom. 12:3).

As human beings who like to be loved and appreciated as much as the next person, we pastors can get swept up in the glow of the congregation’s excitement over their new pastor. There is nothing wrong with their feeling this way. Reality will set in soon enough. But it is extremely dangerous for you to join them in their unrealistic estimation of how wonderful you are.

Keep in mind that they have had pastors before you and that they will have pastors after you. The relay race of shepherding this church is long; this is simply your leg. Receive and carry the baton carefully. You will pass it to another new guy.

Finally, be steadfastly faithful. Preach the Word. Love the flock (1 Cor. 15:58).

About the author

Walter Price is the senior pastor/teacher of Fellowship in the Pass Church in Beaumont, California.

By Dennis Newkirk

You Might Have the Wrong Candidate If…

Bob slammed the car door and stomped through the house in a rage. “I’ve had it with those ungrateful people! They’ve pushed me far enough. I told them that the church would fall apart and they deserve it. We’re moving!”

MEET DR. BOB

Just 22 months earlier, Dr. Bob had accepted the pastorate of First Church. He came to the office with a list of changes that needed to happen quickly. Bob knew how to pump up those baptism, attendance, and budget numbers. All that the church had to do was follow his directions. This pastor was committed to making a name for himself.

Dr. Bob was offended when church members expressed concern. Apparently, they didn’t know their place. Staff meeting became more like ranchers counting cattle than pastors seeking ways to watch over the souls of their flock. Sermons offered three easy steps to changing marriages and five keys to a happier life. The worship music was the latest and greatest, and the services ran like a well-oiled machine. Yet it didn’t take long for the crisis to boil over.

“You might have the wrong candidate if he only has three references: his mother and two brothers.”

At the members’ meeting following Bob’s resignation, the church wondered how they should go about their next search. How should they get started and what should they do? It was a daunting task. What questions had they asked Dr. Bob? Did they check his references? No good answers were offered, but a search for a new pastor began.

Selecting a pastor is one of the most important decisions that a church can make. Unfortunately, few churches receive any training on how to conduct their work. It can be a tragedy waiting to happen. A failure in the search process damages some churches and destroys others. With that sobering reality in mind, let’s consider the task not so much in terms of who churches should look for, but who they want to avoid.

YOU MIGHT HAVE THE WRONG CANDIDATE IF…

Jeff Foxworthy has made redneck jokes an art form. There are thousands of them. You know how they go, “If you mow your front yard and find a car, you might be a redneck.” Trust me, they get worse! While the following considerations are by no means meant to be funny, we’re going to borrow that format: “You might have the wrong pastoral candidate if…”

He only has three references: his mother and his two brothers.

You might have the wrong candidate if he only has three references: his mother and two brothers. A search committee must check references, and then ask the references for referrals to others. If you’re on a search committee, listen carefully to what the references say—and don’t say. Ask questions about the man’s theology, personality, work ethic, morality, spiritual maturity, and people skills. Don’t be afraid to dig deep. Every candidate has flaws, but you owe it to the church to know everything that you can about those issues before the candidate comes in view of a call.

He isn’t clear about the basics.

Another way to recognize the wrong candidate is if he isn’t clear about the basics of theology and ministry. How does he describe the inspiration of Scripture? What does he believe about creation? Check his understanding of the person and work of Christ. Expect that the pastor will give you a biblical and passionate account of his salvation and call into the ministry. Request that he explain how he would know if he is succeeding in ministry. If his definition is all about nickels and noses, you have the wrong man! Inquire about his understanding of the gospel. (Read Greg Gilbert’s book What is the Gospel? to pinpoint the major issues so that you’ll be prepared.)

OTHER MATTERS TO CONSIDER

With those big pieces in place, here are several other matters to consider:

• You might have the wrong candidate if his values differ from the church’s. Does his understanding of church governance fit your church’s practice?

• How much time off does he take, and what does he do on his time off? Avoid a man who neglects his family.

• What would he want to do during his first six months as pastor? If he discounts meeting church members, praying, and seeking to understand what God has already done in the church, run as fast as you can!

• Ask him what he wants you to call him. Does he insist on an academic title? If he does, beware of a potential problem with pride or insecurity.

• Listen to as many of his past sermons as you can. Look for content more than style. Also, remember that it is possible to be a great preacher and terrible pastor.

• Avoid pastors who are constantly moving, who think that member care is a secondary issue, and who talk extensively about what is wrong with their current church. These habits often betray that a man has problems relating to people. You might have the wrong candidate if he inquires about his potential salary during your first phone call.

• You might have the wrong candidate if he continually checks his iPhone during the interview process.

• You might have the wrong candidate if he carries a concealed weapon while preaching.

• You might have the wrong candidate if you ask him about humble, servant, leadership and he doesn’t understand the question.

You get the idea.

About the author

Dennis Newkirk is the senior pastor of Henderson Hills Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma.

By Jonathan Leeman

Tips for an Interim Pastor

The interim pastorate is a tough gig. I’ve done it twice, once for four months and once for three. Both times it felt similar: you have the role of pastor, but you don’t really have the authority. It’s an in-between zone, almost like a baby-sitter who steps in for the parents but ain’t the real thing.

So if you’re one of the five people who will read this article because you find yourself in this situation, here are five tips on approaching an interim pastorate:

1. Don’t change anything. Before my first interim pastorate, Mark Dever gave me this one word of advice: “Jonathan, let me give you this one word of advice: don’t change anything! You’re not marrying the church; you’re just there to help it get to the next guy.”

That means you don’t lead them from one leadership structure to another. You don’t initiate new strategies or vision plans. And you don’t try to change the church into what you think it should be.

Sometimes university boards hire an interim president to do the dirty work so that the next president doesn’t have to. But a church should work differently. Whoever thinks such dirty work needs to be done (the elders?) should have the courage to do it themselves. Leadership in a church, of all places, should be transparent and honest. There shouldn’t be a “power behind the power.”

I cannot say you must never make such changes, but generally speaking you should use whatever time God gives you positively to set an example in the following two ways:

2. Preach the Bible expositionally. The most important think you can do as an interim pastor is preach expositional sermons. It might be tempting to preach a topical series on something you think the church might need to hear, like “How To Find a Good Pastor” or “What Is a Healthy Church?” But in most cases it’s better to exemplify what they should be looking for in a pastor—an expositional preacher. Don’t just tell them, show them.

In my first interim pastorate, I spent four months walking the congregation through the Gospel of Mark. The elders told me the church had never gone straight through a book of the Bible like that before. Gratefully, the church called an expositional preacher shortly after my departure. I’d like think that, by God’s grace, I helped prepare the way for that man.

3. Love the people. I don’t need to explain this, right? This is what you’re called to do simply as a Christian. But here are two reasons why it’s especially important to do this as an interim pastor. First, it will help offset any disgruntlement they may feel about expositional preaching if it’s their first exposure to such preaching.

Second, it will earn their trust and open opportunities for you to advise them on what to look for in the future. They’ll see that you really care for them, and not just your ideas, and begin to ask for your counsel.

4. Don’t feel compelled to do everything they ask you to do. I advised you not to make changes, but there may some things the church asks you to do which you believe are unwise. For instance, I was once asked to do altar calls because the church had always had altar calls. I explained that I preferred not to, and gave my reasons.

Now, hopefully I did this in a gracious way and, honestly, if they had been more adamant, I might have deferred…I’m not sure. But since they were not adamant, and since I figured I was helping the next guy have the freedom not to do altar calls, I didn’t do them. I did, however, look for ways to be even more vocal and explicit about inviting people to repentance and faith throughout the sermon.

“So after you have begun building relationships, and after you have earned some trust, and after an opportunity presents itself, then look for quieter ways to serve your successor by speaking the difficult word.”

5. Maybe do just a little discipling dirty work. Okay, so I said churches shouldn’t follow the university model of hiring an interim to do the dirty work. There I was talking about big changes, like firing a staff. But as an interim pastor you have a unique opportunity to speak an occasional hard word in the context of personal relationships.

I often found that church leaders spoke more freely with me because they knew I was leaving in a couple of months. For instance, one lay leader expressed his concern to me over lunch that the former pastor had asked for a lunch budget. That was an opportunity for me to shepherd this lay-leader in prioritizing discipleship as part of the church’s ministry, and encourage him to enable the next pastor to pursue this kind of discipleship.

So after you have begun building relationships, and after you have earned some trust, and after an opportunity presents itself, then look for quieter ways to serve your successor by speaking the difficult word.

But if you forget all this, just remember these two things: preach the Word and love the people.

About the author

Jonathan Leeman is editorial director for 9Marks and the author of The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love (Crossway, 2010).

By Jeramie Rinne

Staying to the Glory of God: One Preacher’s Death Wish

On September 22, 1967, Dr. Raymond Edman, then retired president of Wheaton College, was preaching at Wheaton’s chapel when he suddenly collapsed and died in the pulpit. Amazingly, his sermon was entitled “In the Presence of the King.” I’ve sometimes thought that if I could choose my end as a pastor, it would be to die in a pulpit like Dr. Edman, proclaiming God’s Word with my last breath.

THIS PREACHER’S DEATH WISH

However, today I would like to amend that death wish. At the risk of sounding morbid, I would be more specific. I would choose to die not just in any pulpit, but preaching in my current pulpit at South Shore Baptist Church in Hingham, Massachusetts.

By God’s grace, I’ve had the privilege of serving SSBC as the senior pastor since September, 1997. After more than a decade here, I increasingly see the value of long-term ministry in one church, and I increasingly want to stay.

“However, today I would like to amend that death wish. At the risk of sounding morbid, I would be more specific. I would choose to die not just in any pulpit, but preaching in my current pulpit at South Shore Baptist Church in Hingham, Massachusetts.”

WHY STAY AT YOUR CHURCH?

Sadly, extended pastorates are uncommon. Various statistics place the average pastoral tenure at anywhere from two to six years. While God uses every gospel ministry for his glory, regardless of its length, I’m discovering that some blessings and opportunities to glorify God come only with time. Consider a few with me:

Staying increasingly reflects the glory of God’s faithfulness

First, staying increasingly reflects the glory of God’s faithfulness.

Under-shepherds model the Good Shepherd’s devotion to a flock by staying with them and ministering to them year after year. When we persevere with a congregation, we present a dim yet tangible reflection of our covenant-keeping God who never leaves us nor forsakes us.

I think for instance of the impact this has had on children in the church. After 13 years I’m seeing students whom I taught in our children’s ministry now graduating from high school. These kids (and we adults) inhabit a consumeristic culture where transience, lack of commitment, and personal fulfillment overshadow every sphere of life, from jobs to marriages to churches. What a gift for them to grow up in a church where they find not only an unchanging gospel, but also a steadfast minister who proclaims that gospel and in some small way exemplifies its permanence.

A college freshman who grew up at SSBC recently shared his sense of calling to pastoral ministry. As he told his story, he referenced my faithfulness to expository preaching as a factor contributing to his love for the Word and vision of pastoral ministry. I was profoundly humbled, especially when I consider all those times I have griped about the challenges of ministry! Such glimpses of God’s goodness make me want to stay longer and see what else God will do.

Staying creates opportunities to glorify God through more strategic gospel ministry

Second, staying creates opportunities to glorify God through more strategic gospel ministry.

Young pastors tend to overestimate what they can do in the short term and underestimate what they can accomplish over a long, diligent tenure. When I first became the senior pastor, I was brimming with ideas and dreams, new initiatives and ministry overhauls, all complete with handouts and diagrams. I had lots of energy to create and change, but my efforts tended to be shortsighted and impulsive. Looking back I realize how patient the church, elders and my fellow staff members have been with me!

After thirteen years, I haven’t lost my drive to dream. Not only does my idealism remain, but the gospel goals I have today are bigger than in the early days. But I find my plans now have longer, more realistic timetables for their communication and implementation. In part, this is because I’m not in a rush. When you visualize yourself shepherding one church for several decades, you gain the mental space to plan more strategically and work more patiently for gospel-multiplying goals like church planting, pastoral training, or positioning your church as a regional resource. These kinds of plans don’t typically develop in a church with a revolving door leadership.

Similarly, effective church reformation takes time. We recently adopted a new doctrinal statement. The process took almost three years. We’ve slowly moved toward more biblically-shaped Sunday services without declaring a worship war. We’re raising the bar of church membership by gently but consistently pruning the membership rolls, working on a new membership covenant, and gaining a deeper understanding of church discipline. This all takes time, the one thing a short-term pastor does not have. The best way for a pastor to inoculate a church against biblical reform is to strong arm the members too quickly toward a vision they’re not ready to implement.

Perhaps most importantly, I’ve discovered that it takes time for a congregation to understand and trust their pastor, and for a pastor to love and appreciate his people. Much can be attempted for God’s glory when a church and its leaders trust their pastor, the pastor has the best interests of the church at heart and a deep knowledge of the congregation’s unique character, and both pastor and congregation are committed to each other and the gospel for the long term.

Staying challenges a pastor to make God’s glory his motivation for ministry

Further, staying at one church for many years challenges a pastor to make God’s glory his motivation for ministry.

Eventually the wedding reception ends, the honeymoon is over, and the new couple must learn to flourish together amidst the rhythms of daily life. And at some point the honeymoon between a church and new pastor ends, and the pastor must discover how to carry on a faithful gospel ministry there year after year.

After thirteen years in one place, what will keep me going and the church spiritually growing? I’ve lost my faith in well-marketed ministry fads. My personality and youthfulness can’t carry the load. The church knows me way too well by now, and what little youthful “coolness” I once had evaporated long ago. Perhaps I could go to another church that doesn’t know me and surf a wave of novelty. I could re-preach some of my better sermons, re-introduce some of my more effective programs, and re-dazzle a new congregation with a few of my better insights. But to what end?

Only an expanding delight in God’s glory can dispel such thoughts and fire the soul for a long-term commitment to one church. Only love for God’s infinite worth inspires us to cherish his beloved people, not just in theory, but in a specific congregation and for a long stretch of time. Only when we treasure God’s name supremely can we overcome our instincts to build a resume, climb a ladder, and eject when we hit turbulence. Only a deep conviction about the sufficiency of God and his Word will steel us to preach expositionally Sunday after Sunday, so that our people’s confidence may increasingly rest in God’s power rather than in our wisdom.

To be sure, lengthy pastorates bring temptations as well. Over time, laziness, complacency, and stagnation can threaten a man’s ministry. But again, a vision for God’s glory is the answer. When God’s glory drives us, we can still summon courage to confront a longtime friend in the church who has fallen into sin. We can still dream and pray for the church after years of service, because we long to see the congregation cherish Jesus more. To quote C.S. Lewis, God’s infinite worth always calls us “further up and further in,” even when we inhabit the same parsonage year after year.

“That said, I’m arguing that instead of asking, ‘Why stay long-term?’ we should be asking, ‘Why leave?’”

THE REAL QUESTION: WHY LEAVE?

Is it possible to leave a church for God’s glory? Of course. In fact, I know brothers who have been fired for the sake of the gospel.

Furthermore, many pastors long to find a healthy church and stay put, but in God’s mysterious providence that has not been their journey thus far. Even though I’ve written this article, I can’t guarantee that I will still pastor South Shore Baptist a year from now. God is sovereign.

That said, I’m arguing that instead of asking, “Why stay long-term?” we should be asking, “Why leave?”

Why not come to a church mentally committed to an extended tour of duty and leave the leaving to God’s sovereign timing? Why not enter a church with the assumption that you will pour your life out “like a drink offering” on one pulpit, rather than always holding something back for a better opportunity? As God permits, let us embody the gospel by staying with a particular flock, for the glory of God.

About the author

Jeramie Rinne is the senior pastor of South Shore Baptist Church in Hingham, Massachusetts.

By Mark Dever

Staying for the Glory of God: The Sibbes, Simeon and Stott Model

Many times I’ve heard a conference preacher introduced like this: “Dr. Foreman is an internationally sought after preacher. He has pastored churches in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee.” Reciting them all together makes it seem like this is an accomplishment—“his pastoral skills have been recognized everywhere!”

I must admit that the skeptical side of me just won’t be quiet. What were his pastorates like in those churches in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee? How long were they? Why, each time, did he make the decision to leave? Unless he’s very, very old, those were some pretty short pastorates!

This moving around—generally from a smaller church to a larger one—is the ladder that many ministers spend their lives climbing. We tell our old church that we’re leaving, ultimately, for the greater glory of God. We tell our new church that we’re coming, ultimately, for the greater glory of God.

But do we consider staying for the glory of God?

THREE MEN WHO STAYED FOR THE GLORY OF GOD

When I’m asked about my models for pastoral ministry I’ve often said, “Three Cambridge Anglican bachelor S’s—Sibbes, Simeon, and Stott.” Each of these men found a strategic location, began expounding God’s Word, and stayed. Expositional preaching is foundational to a Christian ministry, and it’s worth thinking about finding a strategic location and even remaining single. But for this article I want us to consider that other matter of longevity.

First, the facts about these three. Richard Sibbes (1577-1635) began preaching in Cambridge in the early 1600s, and had a continuous ministry in London at Gray’s Inn from 1617 until his death in 1635. Charles Simeon (1759-1836) preached at Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge from 1782 until his death in 1836, a remarkable 54-year ministry! And John Stott (b. 1921) began preaching at All Souls’ Church, Langham Place, in London from his appointment as curate (1945) and rector (1950), and he preached there regularly until just a few years ago—a ministry that, remarkably, even exceeds Simeon’s in length!

CONSIDER STAYING

Why have I chosen these men as my models? Because I think there are good reasons for pastors to stay put at one church for as long as that serves the congregation.

Now, I’m not saying that Scripture presents a uniform pattern of how long God uses a leader—Moses led the people for forty years, Jesus led his disciples in person for three. The apostle Paul, in his unique role as church planter among the nations, would stay in a place from a few weeks to a few years, and then move on. The Old Testament priests would serve the Lord at the Temple for decades.

Yet one of the chief attributes of God’s love is its steadfastness, its unchanging unmoveableness. And permanence is one of the things that seems to distinguish the important relationships from the passing nature of casual ones.

“Why have I chosen these men as my models? Because I think there are good reasons for pastors to stay put at one church for as long as that serves the congregation.”

\Also, I’m not saying that pastoral moves are wrong by nature. I have pastored and left a church in Massachusetts in order to further my education, and pastored and left a church in England in order to become a senior pastor in the church I currently serve. I have been here for sixteen years at the time of this writing. And I don’t assume that I should never leave here (though I have no plans to). I assume instead that I should leave this congregation when it would be best for the congregation. But I also assume that it would normally be best for me, as for other pastors, to remain where I am.

BAD REASONS TO LEAVE

Sometimes, pastors will move for reasons that aren’t very good: a larger church, a larger salary, boredom over the current situation, unresolved staff issues, being out of ideas, conflict with the congregation, interest in more prestigious location, or an empty barrel of already prepared sermons. Even as I regularly hear of pastors making heroic sacrifices to care well for their congregations, so I occasionally hear of charlatans, hypocrites, immoral men, and others who need to be exposed and brought to repentance before divine judgment overtakes them.

Congregations may get rid of pastors, but that’s not what I’m thinking about here. I’m thinking about pastors deciding to be done with congregations. Staying with a congregation through thick and thin helps the church to see that you’re not with them because it’s easy, or because everything goes your way. You’re with them because you love them and you rely on God. You endure for his sake, for the love he has given you for his people. You continue, like the prophet Ezekiel, even though the people’s hearts are hard. Charles Simeon endured years of opposition to his ministry before there was obvious fruit. Adoniram Judson endured years of apparent fruitlessness before God gave him converts. How are people to observe the outcome of our lives and faith (Heb. 13:7) if we don’t stay long enough for them to know us?

I fear that too many pastors have let market-driven thinking put a premium on new, novel, and innovative, and thus they undervalue faithful, reliable, constant, and certain. No doubt, sometimes it’s the right thing to move on. But more often, our penchant to move shows that we’re relying on programs more than preaching. We’re looking for seed that springs up quickly rather than the slower-growing and hearty fruit of elders and ministers, faithful mothers and fathers, and generations of blessing to a community through a faithful ministry.

WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT ACCOMPLISH IN A SHORT PASTORATE

Consider the things that you can do if you are only at a church for a year or two. You can introduce new songs and some new ideas. You can preach. You can start afresh on some relationships in the community. You can perhaps bring new people into leadership, and very quickly give people a chance to serve on yet another pulpit search committee.

“Just like children require years of slow, patient, repeated teaching in order to grow, so too, normally, does a congregation.”

Now consider some things you cannot do in a brief pastorate. You cannot do the funerals of saints you’ve known and loved for years. You cannot comfort those who are in their declining years, having known them in the days of their fuller service to the congregation. You cannot see men you led to Christ getting married, going into the ministry, and becoming fruitful in their own lives and ministries. You cannot see long-term changes in the way a congregation thinks or is structured.

Just like children require years of slow, patient, repeated teaching in order to grow, so too, normally, does a congregation. That’s why Paul exhorts Timothy to “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2). This kind of long-term perseverance is the way God normally rebukes our own faithlessness, humbles us, and then shows us his sufficiency and grace as he supplies for us yet again, far beyond what our own resources could do.

HOW TO PASTOR FOR THE LONG HAUL

If you agree with me that longevity is normally better than quick, short pastorates, how do you bring it about? Here are two simple ideas that I’ve found useful, both of which relate to the pastor’s rest.

1. Regularly take sabbaticals in which your congregation gives you weeks (or months!) off for rest, relaxation, reading, and perhaps writing.

2. Raise up other men in your congregation to teach and preach. Work on creating a textured leadership that is not dependent on you, so that new workers are constantly identified and raised up and other voices bless the congregation. This brings in some of the freshness that may often be associated with a new pastor; and it makes it possible for you to share the teaching load, which will help you to bear your part longer.

Sometimes it’s good to consider leaving for the sake of the gospel. But for the sake of the gospel, and for the glory of God, it’s good to consider staying, too.

About the author

Mark Dever is the senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, and the author of What Does God Want of Us Anyway? (Crossway, 2010).

Reviewed by Stephen Dempster

Book Review: God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology

James M. Hamilton, Jr. God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology. Crossway, 2010. 626 pages. $40.00

In this in-depth review, Stephen Dempster commends James Hamilton for skillfully engaging in a quest that many consider quixotic: defining the center of biblical theology. Dempster expresses appreciation for Hamilton’s exaltation of God as God, sensitivity to literary structure, exegetical insights, and prophetic application of Scripture to contemporary culture. On the other hand, Dempster suggests that Hamilton could have better addressed the multifaceted nature of Scripture’s unfolding story, that he sometimes overstates the presence of his main theme, that his exposition should have been more influenced by the Trinity, and that he should have drawn attention to the priority of mercy over judgment in the character of God. Yet, Dempster concludes, “in stressing the glory of God in salvation through judgment,” Hamilton has “certainly pointed us all in the right direction.”

When Don Quixote embarked on his quest for the impossible, it was a humorous and tragic adventure. He tilted at windmills which he thought were giants. He looked at peasant girls and saw noble ladies. And he thought an old dilapidated tavern was a castle. Obviously, Quixote was carrying “a few bricks short of a load.”

Some might think that James Hamilton Jr. follows in the footsteps of the knight-errant from La Mancha. In his book God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment, Hamilton sets out in pursuit of the holy grail of biblical theology—the elusive centre, the main point of the Bible. This theologian-errant is not deterred by the countless attempts before him, nor by the admonitions of contemporary scholars to give up such a quixotic quest.

As a biblical theologian, Hamilton comes with good background knowledge, which is evident throughout his 600 plus page volume. It is also abundantly evident that he is not a few bricks short of a load. Over the last few years he has been distinguishing himself with publications in the area of biblical theological themes.[1] This book is in fact a sort of culmination of his studies to date.

What makes Hamilton’s attempt at writing such a biblical theology impressive is the vast amount of knowledge required. In an age of increasing specialization, the academy boasts not just Old and New Testament scholars, but Torah scholars, Wisdom Literature scholars, Chronicles scholars, Johannine scholars, and so on. Very few feel up to the task of treating the entire Bible as their specialty. In this day and age the task is downright daunting.

THE QUEST

This theological knight-errant begins his quest for a unifying theme with a thoughtful discussion of the vast literature of biblical theology. In the last few centuries, scholars have proposed nearly one hundred themes for a biblical centre. Thus, calling Hamilton’s quest quixotic would seem to be an understatement. Yet Hamilton observes that many scholars may have abandoned this quest not only because so many writers before them have failed, but because of the prevailing spirit of the postmodern age. We’re inherently skeptical toward the possibility of certitude as well as the possibility that any overarching theme might unite life’s fragmented diversity. But Hamilton proposes to do for biblical theology what Kevin Vanhoozer has done for interpretation and David Wells has done for evangelical theology—not only restore a measure of certitude to the interpretive task but “to help people know God” (2). Although this may sound quixotic in today’s theological climate, surely no theologian worthy of the name could argue with knowing God as a theological goal.

Hamilton observes that if the Bible is just a hodge-podge of literature culled from disparate sources, any quest for a unified meaning is doomed before it starts. But if the Bible is not just a collection of stories of ancient Jewish literature, but presents a coherent Story, we should try to find its main point. And if so, it should be possible to know the main purpose of the Divine Author. Accordingly, Hamilton, citing Robin Routledge’s recent work on Old Testament theology, argues that “it is possible to discern a single divine purpose: to reveal God’s holiness and glory throughout the earth so that it is acknowledged by all peoples.”[2]

In his introduction Hamilton announces his theme: the purpose of God is that he seeks to be glorified in salvation through judgment. God seeks to display his glory through both his saving and judging work. The methodology that Hamilton uses to depict this central theme is a literary one. He considers the structure of each book in the Bible in canonical sequence and seeks to trace the respective themes by “describing the literary contours of individual books in canonical context, with sensitivity to the unfolding meta-narrative.”

To see his proposed theme as the organizing principle of the entire Bible, Hamilton realizes that he has to show how all other themes relate to it. He finds useful an important distinction Jonathan Edwards made between two types of ends: ultimate and subordinate. In biblical theological terms the subordinate ends (sub–themes) are the means by which the ultimate end (central theme) is accomplished. Thus all the variety of data found in the Bible, the story-line, the prophetic commentary, the didactic letters, the genealogies, the prayers, and so on all emanate from and support the main theme: “Having originated from their center, all other themes exposit and feed back into it” (17). Thus, many of the proposed centers of biblical theology are seen as subordinate ends that serve to highlight the ultimate end—the glory of God—whether they be covenant, election, promise-fulfillment, the holiness of God, or the steadfast mercy of God. These are all sub-themes which are controlled by and subordinated to a larger theme. This larger theme finds textual expression in the revelation of the divine name to Moses in Exodus 33-34 in which God reveals that he is a saving and judging God. This is the “gravitational lodestone” of the Bible—a God who “defined himself as a saving and judging God, a God who saves through judgment” (30).

As Hamilton embarks on his journey through the Bible he utilizes the Hebrew structure of the Old Testament, which was probably the structure that the early Christian church used: The Law, the Prophets and the Writings. He seeks to describe each book and then show how each of the books and each major division contribute to the main theme of God’s glory in salvation through judgment. Thus, for example, he describes the centre of the theology of the Torah, the first five books of Moses, in the following way:

From the Garden to the plains of Moab, the Torah proclaims the glory of God in salvation through judgment. Yahweh speaks the world with a word and it is. When his word is broken, the creation itself is subjected to futility. In the judgment, though, comes a hint of future salvation. Some few hold to that hint, and the hints and promises grow, waiting for the day when the seed of the woman arises to crush the head of the serpent and his seed…the faith the Pentateuch teaches is faith in a God who is just and merciful, and it is not faith that is ultimate but God’s glory in the salvation through judgment that he will accomplish. (96-97)

This is classically shown in God’s salvation of his people from Egypt and in his judgment of the oppressive Egyptians. Salvation and judgment are the two sides of the same theological coin.

As Hamilton explores the Historical Books the quixotic quest continues. The conquest demonstrates the glory of God both in salvation—the gift of the land to the Israelites—and in judgment in the destruction of the Canaanites. Hamilton does not flinch from the difficult passages:

The total destruction of the inhabitants of the land is only just if the deity who calls for such a measure is worthy of all honor. If Yahweh’s worth is not so great that those who reject him have committed a crime that cries out for infinite justice, then the zero-tolerance policy against the people of the land is a brutal, unjust, ego-maniacal atrocity. (105)

Writing like this does nothing to please modern sensibilities, as Hamilton notes, but it needs to be borne in mind that the Bible was not written to cater to the sensibilities of twenty-first century postmodern, western culture. In Judges, the spiraling into sin of the Israelites leads to both judgment and salvation when the people repent. The book of Samuel becomes a virtual litany of the same when the mighty are brought down and judged and the lowly are lifted up and saved. In Samuel and Kings Yahweh shows mercy, promising an eternal dynasty to David, but David falls and his sins “were exaggerated in the sins of his sons; adultery to rape; murder to fratricide; several wives to hundreds of them” (150). The exile at the end of the Kings is a solemn reminder of the judgment that God brings upon human sin.

Following Miles[3] and Dempster,[4] Hamilton argues that with the beginning of the Latter Prophets the story-line of the Old Testament is suspended and commentary is provided by largely poetic books—the Latter Prophets and many of the Writings—before the narrative is resumed again by either Daniel or Esther and is continued until its end in Chronicles. The commentary section provides a dramatic pause to explain the storyline and to provide some perspective for its continuation into the future.

Thus, Isaiah provides a picture of a God exalted in justice and holiness, who judges but also saves his people from exile. In Ezekiel’s vision, God is transcendent both in judgment and salvation and he acts for his own glory. Jeremiah’s God smashes, uproots, pulls down and obliterates before he builds and plants. And the God of the various Minor Prophets does the same. The exile is clearly God’s judgment but it is not his last word.

In the Writings, the quest continues as Hamilton, citing Mays, points out that the “Psalms themselves …contain more direct statements about God than any other book in the two testaments of the Christian canon…The works of God and the attributes of God are the constant agenda of the Psalms” (237). The beginning of the Psalter shows two ways to live: the way of the righteous, which leads to salvation, and the way of the wicked, which leads to judgment. In Proverbs the order of the universe is such that the wicked are judged and the righteous live lives that glorify Yahweh. Similar points are made regarding Ecclesiastes and Job and are nuanced accordingly. In my judgment, some problems are encountered in the quest in books like Lamentations where the negative note of judgment predominates and there is little of the note of salvation, and in the Song of Solomon where the positive note of union and blessing proliferates while judgment is largely absent.

My description of the New Testament will be rather brief since I am not a New Testament scholar and I do not wish to expand this review to inordinate length. A similar narrative structure is observed in the New Testament with the Gospels and Acts functioning as narrative, the Letters functioning as commentary and the Apocalypse resuming the narrative to continue to the end of time. Each of the Gospels provides its own treatment of the life of Christ, but in each the passion narrative is crucial in which judgment is suffered by Jesus so that salvation can come to his people. Similarly, in Acts the early church preaches this message to the ends of the earth, and in the Letters there are further expansions and elaborations of this essential message. The Apocalypse brings everything to a grand conclusion with a return to Eden as the world is both judged and saved and Eden is restored. A final chapter considers some objections of contemporary theologians to this theme.

EVALUATION OF THE QUEST

What is to be said about this quest? Is it successful? I think that there are many good points about Hamilton’s book. And I will focus on the strengths first and then suggest ways where the analysis could perhaps be sharpened.

Strong Points

Hamilton observes a strange but obvious omission in our narcissistic culture: that God is God is God. As such, God being concerned for God’s own glory is a function of God’s unique transcendence. This means that he will act for that glory to show who he is—and therefore what is really true—by judging and by saving. The saving aspect gets a lot of attention in theologies and sermons but not so much the judgment. To speak of God’s judgment nowadays consigns one to the asylum. But it is important to note that judgment is the reverse side of salvation. This is not the dark, “wild, unruly” side of God,[5] but is endemic to his nature. The holiness and justice and “God-ness” of God are revealed in the punishment of sin which violates God’s own character and the way he has ordered the universe. There is no question that in a culture like ours which trivializes sin, this is a relevant point in Scripture. Hamilton performs a needed service in highlighting this point. A similar concern preoccupies a recent Old Testament theology of sin which utilizes the same literary methodology as Hamilton: Mark Boda notes that sin is not merely forgiven in the Old Testament, it is judged. And forgiveness should result in an impetus to a new way of life.[6]

Secondly, Hamilton does not write as an obscurantist who is preaching only to the choir. He interacts with many scholars, Christian and Jewish, conservative and liberal. He provides concise, often irenic, evaluations of their work in footnotes. This secondary research is also extremely current. I appreciated very much this interaction which provides scholars and lay persons alike with opportunities to pursue other themes that Hamilton encounters on his quest.

Hamilton’s book also provides many exegetical insights. His description of Genesis against its ancient near eastern context highlights the majesty and unique glory of the biblical God. He demonstrates that the depiction of the creation of Eve in its ancient context shows the radical dignity of the female in the Bible. He exposes the revolutionary nature of the command to love God in Deuteronomy since anything like it is off the theological radar screen in the ancient world. He argues that the depiction of the creation as a temple in which the image of God is placed as the last act of creation shows that the greatest creative act—the creation of humanity—is about doxology. Hamilton deftly points out the significance of the fall narrative which is downplayed if not denied by many Old Testament interpreters. He observes in the giving of the Decalogue that the absolute power of Yahweh deabsolutizes every other power and makes Israel a unique phenomenon in the ancient world. He makes a number of references to the contemporary relevance of texts, including his observation that the idolatry in Isaiah’s time might have its counterpart in the cult of the female body today, which is worshipped by all and sundry, leading women to define their identity by a cultural standard which leads to psychological disease which inevitably destroys their own bodies.

Places Where the Analysis Could Be Sharpened

Nevertheless, there are some ways that the analysis could be sharpened, and I make these observations in the spirit of another knight-errant in biblical theology who believes in the quest.

A vital insight of the book is the study of the narrative structure of the Bible which helps to discern “the unfolding drama of redemption” as Graham Scroggie once described it.[7] While Hamilton methodically provides insightful inductive analyses of each book in canonical sequence and shows how each book contributes to the major theme, I think that this could be further developed. The larger Story is not one-dimensional. And although the Bible is a coherent Story, it is a sprawling one, a sort of ramshackle narrative with many stops and starts, dead ends and detours, and any number of high and low points.[8] Often it is only the perspective gained from a later point in the story that enables one to see the overall shape of the narrative. This perspective would indicate that the revelation of the divine name in Exodus is one of the early narrative peaks. In fact one scholar has pointed out that everything before this revelation could be called the Old Testament of the Old Testament.[9] Hamilton unpacks this revelation nicely but it would be helpful to see its place in the big picture of the overall Story itself. God is now revealing his name! And the enigmatic character of that name (I am who I am/will be who I will be) anticipates the further filling out of its content as the narrative unfolds. Thus the revelation of the name which sets the bush near the mountain on fire, and later sets the mountain itself on fire, and later still sets Moses’ face on fire is an amazing development. For, as Moses learns, the meaning of the name is unpacked in terms of grace and mercy as well as judgment, and he descends the burning mountain with the tablets of the law, not to smash them but to provide the basis for a new society which is granted a second life because of God’s mercy. Similarly, when the New Testament begins by continuing the narrative of the Old Testament in Matthew, it rewinds itself four times to give four different pictures of the life of Christ! There is nothing like such repetition in the entire Bible. The reader of the larger Story is being told in clear and plain terms: “This is important!” And within the Gospels themselves it is no accident that John, the Gospel of glory, concludes the meditation on the life of Christ. Here there are clearly four huge theological Everests in succession making the centre of biblical theology absolutely clear. The content of the divine name has been filled out finally in Jesus Christ the Lord. This is what Jesus himself said, that everything in the Old Testament was about this event.[10]

As I see it, this understanding of the entire shape of the Story clarifies an important difference between biblical theology and systematic theology. Biblical theology gives a sense of integration to the biblical message because it connects all the dots in the story, but it also is able to discern a sense of proportion so that at the end of the study one is able to see that one set of facts is more important than another. When Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for losing sight of the forest for the trees, he was engaging in biblical theology.[11] Thus it is an important “bridge” discipline connecting exegesis and systematics, and it should show the major points on which systematic theology should concentrate. Without biblical theology, systematic theology has no sense of proportion.

As I alluded to before, sometimes Hamilton overstates the presence of his main theme. I don’t think it is necessary to repeat the theme after each book study but that is more of a stylistic matter. But there are clearly some books where salvation is emphasized to the virtual exclusion of judgment and vice-versa (e.g. Lamentations, Song of Songs, Philemon), and there are other books where I think the glory of God is shown in very different ways than what one would normally think. I think that Irenaeus’s statement that “the glory of God is man fully alive” could help more fully describe the statements about the wise and the foolish in Proverbs. The virtuous wife is thus a culminating, powerful display of this glory at the end of Proverbs, where human and divine glory shine through in all her activities, and the adulteress in Proverbs 7 is the negative image of this glory, a woman who lurks and preys in the dark, whose bed is found in hell itself. Similarly Job in all his suffering and lament is a reflection of the glory of God, while the polar opposite is Satan, who does not believe anyone can truly love God for who God is in himself.

Finally, there are two further points I would like to make about the book. Hamilton astutely deals with the criticism that for God to seek his own glory would make God the greatest egotist of all, and thus God engages in an activity that he condemns for human beings. As Hamilton indicates, this criticism does not really understand the “God-ness” of God. To seek to honor someone or something above God would make God not God and would be idolatry.

The idea that God is the only being who can be full of himself without leading to pride is an important observation, but this is because not only does all power reside in God but all love as well. When power is separated from love in human beings, as it nearly always is, then this results in further corruption. In the words of Lord Acton, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But God is the only being who can legitimately be full of himself because in love he is constantly emptying himself. Consequently, this has tremendous implications for what happened at the centre point in the Story: the cross. The greatest exaltation of God’s glory is found in his emptying himself, taking the form of a servant…and being obedient unto death, even to death on a cross” (Phil. 2:7-8). This, of course, is an area where biblical theology needs help from systematic theology. It is the doctrine of the Trinity which can clarify this emptying and filling, for God is a being in relationship who can be described as Love, and Love cannot exist apart from relationship.

One final note concerns the “theological lodestone” which Hamilton discovers in Exodus 34:6-7. I agree that he has found an important piece of the theological puzzle. But I only note that there is a sense in which judgment is God’s strange work.[12] His first desire is to shower mercy, salvation, and grace. When Yahweh recites the meaning of his name to Moses after the sin of the golden calf and Moses’ successful intercession, he says,

6 The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation. (Ex. 34:6-7)

Traditional Jewish theology counts thirteen attributes of God here (the divine name is counted twice). But it is important to note that the attributes of mercy greatly outnumber the attributes of justice. Furthermore, the attributes of mercy are all “front-loaded.” Similarly, in the helpful tracing of this “Apostles’ Creed of the Old Testament” throughout Scripture which Hamilton provides, there are some twenty references to it in the Old Testament. Thirteen of these twenty focus on grace alone. I think there is something fundamental here about the divine nature, that God’s first move is always grace and that judgment is a last resort. This is why the gospel is gospel—good news! God takes the judgment on himself so that there can be salvation. Of course the gospel is preceded by the bad news of the human condition and impending judgment, but nevertheless the dominant strain is good news.

CONCLUSION

In his novel Life After God, the Canadian author Douglas Coupland writes about a few blind tourists in Stanley Park, Vancouver getting off the subway and handing a camera to a stranger while requesting that he take their picture.[13] Coupland notes that even though they are blind, they still believe in sight. There is a note of instruction here for theologians and lay people alike as we seek to study the Bible. All our best efforts can be described as seeing through a glass darkly.[14] The fact that no theological centre has been found does not mean that there is none. It points to our human condition. I personally think that it is far from pejorative to refer to James Hamilton as a “theologian-errant” in the manner of Don Quixote. He believes in vision, and he believes in the quest. While God and his word are inerrant, all our theology partakes of errancy. As Hamilton has come back from his quest, in stressing the glory of God in salvation through judgment he has certainly pointed us all in the right direction.

About the author

Stephen Dempster is Professor of Religious Studies at Crandall University in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada and is the author of Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (IVP, 2003).

Reviewed by Geoff Chang

Book Review: Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church

Neil Cole, Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church. Jossey-Bass, 2010. 304 pages. $24.95

In a world of constantly advancing technology, obsolescence is many people’s worst nightmare.

According to Neil Cole’s book Church 3.0, that is the danger that the church is currently facing. We live in a time in which the “world has changed in dramatic fashion, right out from under us” (10), fundamentally altering our vocabulary and our way of relating to one another. Therefore, the church needs to “leave the old ways of doing church for new, more relational and viral churches” (10). This is the vision Cole seeks to implement in Church 3.0.

A NEW OPERATING SYSTEM FOR THE CHURCH

Using the analogy of a computer operating system, Cole describes the first-century churches as operating under Church 1.0. Though there were minor differences among the early churches, they were all similar in that they remained largely a grassroots movement. However, all this changed with Constantine as the church institutionalized and transitioned to Church 2.0, which has remained the standard operating system since the fourth century. Though there have been incremental upgrades, such as the Reformation (Church 2.1) or the Anabaptists (Church 2.2), “the actual system of church has gone relatively unchanged. You have priests or pastors, the Sunday service with singing and a sermon, the weekly offering, the pulpit with pews, and the church building” (7). Clearly, this is quite a broad category that allows Cole to group a medieval Roman Catholic mass with the latest contemporary mega-church service!

However, according to Cole, what’s needed today is not a return to Church 1.0, but further improvement, a re-thinking of what the church should be like. What’s needed is Church 3.0. “The change to Church 3.0 is a shift from a program-driven and clergy-led institutionalized approach of church to one that is relational, simple, and viral in its spread” (11).

Cole outlines this change in three sections: first, the changes that are taking place in our world today, namely globalization and postmodernism; second, the structural changes that need to happen within the church, including new ways to think about the church’s mission, growth, models, and corporate gatherings; and finally, how these changes work out in the areas of evangelism, the ordinances, children’s ministry, dealing with heresy, and church finances. Each chapter, then, is a discussion of what it would look like for the church to make this transition in each of these areas.

TROUBLESHOOTING CHURCH 3.0

There are all kinds of problems with Cole’s presentation of church history, not least of which is the suggestion that his conception of the church is the biggest revolution since Constantine. But despite this, Cole does provide some accurate observations about problems local churches presently face. Pointing to cumbersome, business-like structures, a lack of personal relationships, an excessive inward focus, and the professionalization of the ministry, Cole joins many others in arguing that something is seriously wrong with a large number of churches today.

“In all this, there is one glaring question that Cole leaves unanswered: What is a local church?”

Cole says that the root of all these problems is the institutionalization of the church, which is a caricature that’s too broad and vague to be of any help. Still, this is what he says Church 2.0 is all about, and it has resulted in ineffective and even unspiritual practices which plague the church today. In response, Church 3.0 strips the church of its institutional structures and presents decentralized house churches and house church networks as the way forward.

What is a Local Church?

In all this, there is one glaring question that Cole leaves unanswered: What is a local church?

The closest thing to a definition that Cole gives is: “the presence of Jesus among His people called out as a spiritual family to pursue His mission on this planet” (57). Cole admits this is a broad definition, but this is intentional, in order “to lower the bar of how church is done so that anyone can do it” (65). As a result, high school students singing songs in a living room can be a church. What would normally be a small group or a campus fellowship can be a church. Dozens of churches can easily be planted and just as easily disbanded over the course of a few weeks. Such an imprecise definition of the church will have many implications for how church is practiced, but in the end, all this contributes to the organic, unstructured nature of Church 3.0.

Christians over the centuries have wrestled with the question of what constitutes a local church. The Reformers, under persecution from the dominant institutional church of their day, studied Scripture and found two marks of the true church: the true preaching of God’s word and the right administration of the sacraments. Though inhabiting diverse cultures and contexts, Christians over the years have arrived at these two marks from Scripture again and again, so they should be helpful diagnostic tools for us to use as we troubleshoot Church 3.0.

Does Church 3.0 Practice the True Preaching of God’s Word?

First, does Church 3.0 practice the true preaching of God’s Word? The answer seems unclear.

In Church 3.0, the preaching of the Word is not central to the life of a church. While Cole does emphasize personal discipleship and one-on-one study of Scripture, he finds the Sunday service and sermon to be “a less than effective way of making disciples and transforming the world” (137).

Even more concerning, however, is that the gospel is not explicitly at the center of the church. Historically, the true preaching of the Word was understood to exist wherever the gospel is faithfully and authoritatively proclaimed. Yet throughout Church 3.0, it’s not entirely clear what the gospel is, nor is there an emphasis on how churches need to be faithfully proclaiming it. The message of God’s holiness, man’s rebellion deserving God’s wrath, Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice and resurrection, and the need for repentance and faith is never explicitly shown to be at the heart of the local church. To be fair, one could probably piece together all the main aspects of the gospel from this book and demonstrate that Cole is at least not denying the gospel. But in failing to show how essential the gospel is for the church, Cole obscures the heart of the local church and its mission.

Does Church 3.0 Rightly Administer the Sacraments?

Second, does Church 3.0 rightly administer the sacraments?

Through the phrase “right administration of the sacraments,” Christians have historically set out the biblical teaching that the sacraments are gifts to the local church, but are not to be viewed as saving; rather, they are symbols of the gracious salvation God had performed. As a result, church membership and discipline are inextricably bound up with this mark, as only those who know this grace are allowed to partake.

So what about Church 3.0? While Cole is careful to affirm that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not saving acts, he significantly distorts their meaning by removing them from the authority of the local church and placing them in the realm of everyday life. In Church 3.0, baptism is something to be performed by any individual Christian, wherever he might be. Even more radical is that the Lord’s Supper is longer a celebration for the gathered church, but an everyday meal celebrated in private homes by any who attend, whether they are Christians or not.

So, while Cole does not teach that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, he undercuts their significance for the local church by removing them from that sphere altogether. Rather than being ordinances given by Christ to the church that mark entrance (baptism) and ongoing inclusion (Lord’s Supper) in the covenant community, these practices are now individualistic and therefore are divorced from any meaningful authority. At best, Cole is advocating an extremely unwise practice of both of the ordinances. At worst, he is presenting a confused message to the world about what it means to be a Christian.

CHURCH 3.0 MISSES THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION

Although it strives to solve problems facing the church today, Church 3.0 misses the fundamental question of what it means to be a church at all. Both at the center (the gospel) and at the boundaries (the ordinances), Cole fails to articulate what the Bible teaches about the local church. Rather, his attempt to de-institutionalize the church removes the very substance of the local church. Like many others, he seems to assume that the Bible has very little to say about how we should “do” church and therefore is driven by various pragmatic concerns, only turning to Scripture for the occasional proof text.

If you want to acquaint yourself with one of the leading voices of the house church movement, read this book, but then turn elsewhere for what Scripture teaches about the local church.

About the author

Geoff Chang is associate pastor of Hinson Baptist Church in Portland, Oregon, where he lives with his wife and daughter.

Reviewed by John Starke

Book Review: Marks of the Messenger: Knowing, Living and Speaking the Gospel

By J. Mack Stiles. InterVarsity Press, 2010. 127 pages. $15.00

It’s popular in reformed circles to be unhappy with most evangelism books.

While there are some remarkable exceptions, such as J. I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God and Mark Dever’s The Gospel and Personal Evangelism, this sentiment I’m afraid is validated by the method-centered approach of many, if not most, popular books on evangelism. Despite their concerns about pragmatism, however, pastors still read books on evangelism because their consciences are pricked by their own lack of evangelistic fervor.

Marks of the Messenger by J. Mack Stiles, general secretary for the Fellowship of Christian UAE Students in the United Arab Emirates, is a welcome guide not only for speaking the message, but also for the messenger’s life. Stiles insists that we have paid too little attention to the life of the evangelist, producing a sub-biblical gospel message and witness. Thus each chapter of the book covers a different aspect of the heart, life, or mind of the evangelist that somehow affects his message.

GETTING THE GOSPEL RIGHT

Stiles spends the first handful of chapters making sure we get the gospel right. The tendency of many Christians in evangelism is pragmatism: being results-driven at the expense of gospel faithfulness. When we are motivated by “what works,” we tend to manipulate the gospel, accommodating it to our hearers’ tastes to make it more palatable: “we begin to subtract the need for turning from sin and unbelief,” which is “one of the most clearly articulated parts of the gospel from the mouth of Jesus and his apostles” (31). That’s why Stiles says that the first step in evangelism is to make sure we understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and not add to it or subtract from it.

Another way we can get the gospel wrong is by assuming the gospel. Stiles has some difficult words for certain branches of evangelicalism in which the gospel has become synonymous with the surrounding culture (or cultural Christianity). When we assume the gospel we can forget to speak the gospel and confuse it with moral and cultural norms (46). When we assume the gospel, it’s only a matter of time before we lose the gospel.

LIVING AND SPEAKING IN LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL

The majority of the rest of the book is spent on living and speaking in light of the gospel. With the use of helpful illustrations, Stiles maintains that the life of the evangelist must be in step with the gospel. This should be evident in how we think about and act upon the needs of our society. Borrowing from J.I. Packer, Stiles argues that it is the nature of gospel love to relieve need, including physical needs. Yet Stiles is careful not to confuse meeting physical needs with sharing the gospel. He writes, “Caring for others represents the gospel, it upholds the gospel, it points to the gospel, it’s an application of the gospel, but it is not the gospel, and it is not equal to the gospel” (69).

What keeps many from evangelizing the lost is a lack of boldness, or as Stiles puts it, an overwhelming fear of man. Stiles doesn’t give any fanciful advice about overcoming fear. He simply tells us to pray. He leads us to the prayers of Paul where we not only learn about his “bold heart,” but his fear of the Lord and consuming desire to see the gospel spread.

TWO CORRECTIVES AND A MANIFESTO

Stiles has two important correctives for areas where many Christians have let popular culture inform our understanding instead of the Bible: the church and the love of God. These chapters are not too different from what you will find in D. A. Carson’s The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God and in much 9Marks material. Still, it’s helpful to think about these issues in light of the challenges of evangelism.

Stiles ends his book with a manifesto. It’s a basic summary of the previous nine chapters, with a practical guide to getting started in practicing evangelism. Stiles’ take on evangelism is simple and very straightforward and he is sincere about the joy that comes with it.

“Stiles is effective: he packs a strong punch into a small book. His arguments are persuasive and his stories are compelling. It’s a handy book for young Christians and the most seasoned of pastors.”

STILES PACKS A PUNCH

The strength of Marks of the Messenger is that it addresses the fitness of the evangelist, whereas most evangelism books assume or neglect the topic. And Stiles is effective: he packs a strong punch into a small book. His arguments are persuasive and his stories are compelling. It’s a handy book for young Christians and the most seasoned of pastors.

Some may fear that the book’s emphasis will develop into an unhealthy introspection that will neglect evangelism, rather than encourage it, but there should be no such fear. Rather, readers will be emboldened by the gospel that saves. Stiles reminds us that we may not have the power of persuasion, but if we are faithful to the biblical message, we have the power of God.

About the author

John Starke is an editor at The Gospel Coalition and managing editor of TGC Reviews, the book review site of The Gospel Coalition.

January/February 2011

©9Marks

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.

[1] E.g., “The Glory of God in Salvation through Judgment: The Centre of Biblical Theology?,” Tyndale Bulletin 57 (2006) 57-84; “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10 (2006) 30-54; “The Messianic Music of the Song of Songs,” Westminster Theological Journal, 68 (2006) 331-45; God’s Indwelling Presence. New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006; “The Seed of the Woman and the Blessing of Abraham,” Tyndale Bulletin 58 (2007) 257-73.

[2] Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Downer Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 313.

[3] Jack Miles, God: A Biography (New York: Vintage, 1996).

[4] Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

[5] Walter Brueggemann, Theology Of The Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 271.

[6] Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009).

[7] W. Graham Scroggie, The Unfolding Drama of Redemption (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1995).

[8] For the words “ramshackle and sprawling” to describe narrative see D. Steinmetz, “Uncovering a Second Narrative: Detective Fiction and the Construction of Historical Method,” in Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, The Art of Reading Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 54-65.

[9] R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992).

[10] Luke 24:25-27.

[11] Matt. 23:23-24.

[12] Isaiah 28:21.

[13] Douglas Coupland, Life After God (New York: Washington Square Press, 1995), 338.

[14] 1Cor. 13:12.