Extemporaneous Ramblings

We are referring here to church-related preaching vs preaching the Word and Jesus. Good intent, often good message, even good results, but potentially the wrong focus. Why? The Lord takes care of today, not us! The Lord grows the church, not us. This, or course, flies completely in the face of the current church growth and emerging church frameworks.

What does ‘church-related preaching’ look like? Simply put, it refers to preaching that focuses mostly on congregation building (explicitly or implicitly), and what might be positively spun as congregational support matters. The counter pose to this would be preaching that is focused on Scripture in an interpretation or exegetical sense, or even a focus purely on the Word, centering on Jesus and life in Him alone.

Does this sound unrealistic and impractical in the real world. I hope so, because the Lord has been pretty clearly that worldliness, in all it’s forms, is not the road to church success.

Is this to propose that preaching on people issues and family support matters is bad? Not at all. However, when that becomes the consistent focus from any pulpit, exegesis of the Word of God and concomitant surrender to Jesus can easily fall from the front burner. In that situation, the world’s (remember that the world’s message is Satan’s) message that we can trust ourselves for at least the small matters can seductively make inroads. Once that starts to happen, we have the church inadvertently reinforcing the same messages that we are bombarded with constantly from the world. That is the quintessential slippery slope. Worse, this slippery approach is likely to be quite successful and therefor self-perpetuating.

The fact that it is the Word of God that changes hearts must always be front and center in our hearts and minds. It is not interpretation for living life. It is not application. It is not programs, workshops, seminars, nor fellowship groups. These are all good and have a place, but they are not the active agent in the quickening of the heart. They are not what calls the Saints from the world to the Lord. It is the Word of God that does that. And it is the outworking of Sovereign Grace.

Now, is this proposing the we hear only the Scripture read in Greek or KJV, irrespective of the linguistic abililites of the audience. Definietly not. Though the quickening of the heart is a supernatural occurance, and the understanding of scripture is revelational as well as intellectual, that work is certainly facilitated by simple understanding of the language that is being used. As such, a translation appropriate to the congregation or listener is the jsutifiable choice within reason. Some may ‘prefer’ one translation or another, just as some may have a denominational preference, but that is a tiffle compared to a focus on other than scripture.

Surely it is Jesus alone and Scripture alone that is the key. The Word is the one and only sword of the Lord, cutting the world from the heart of the Saint. So let us support our brother and sisters in the Lord, but always maintain the concentration on the Lord and the Word.

In recent (and most likely future) articles of this thread we have been examining what might appear to be shortcomings of the church, congregational life, and the focus of some preaching. Though these are real issues that need to be examined and hopefully corrected, let us not interpret this for even a moment as taking anything away from the difficult burdens of the preacher (or member for that matter) in today’s congregational environment.

In a world proactively preaching relativism, pluralism and the absolute sovereignty of modern thought (in other words, man) in all matters, the church is potentially the only remnant of truth and the sovereignty of God. The struggle of these two mindsets surrounds, and is a silent participant in, most interactions. God is sovereign in every case, but the conflict is nonetheless felt while living in the world.

The burden laid upon the preacher in the present day church is a difficult one. A sincere soul is often torn between the call of the Lord to preach the Word plainly and directly, and the call of the congregation that lives in the world, possibly with quite worldly expectations concerning church performance, growth, programs, services and more. The church may be view by some as a service organization as much as (if not more than) a conduit for the Word of God alone. This is not deliberate, but it is an understandable byproduct of organizational existence in the world. From this can arise great stress for those upholding the truth.

Further, the clergyman may be viewed as being ‘employed’ by the church, and is himself living in the world. He is not impervious to the call of the world, and he is a favourite target for Satan et al. It is all too easy for him to be lured by the expectations and performance values of world, as can any man. Every man is part natural man while living on earth, and as such requires continual protection from the earthly ways of the evil one. This is expecially so for the Preacher.

Let us give praise to our Lord for sustaining our Pastors, and credit to the Pastor who, in the face of wordly pressures encroaching on and in the church, can sustain a Biblical focus. Great encouragement is needed by each one, to help sustain the Biblical focus in the face of modern pressures.

As one views this senario, the singular value of the Biblical perscription of dependence only upon the Lord and Scripture comes sharply into focus. Everything else is suspectible, to one degree or another, to the world. The values of the world press in from all sides (including the inside). Since everything in the world is of the world, this can not be otherwise. Our only hope is the rock of faith, dependence upon the Lord, and concommitant attention to His Word. All else are the byproducts of men, and as such not of the truth.

As it is written in Scripture: “I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind.” Ecclesiates 1:14. The only path is through the Word and to the Lord.

Let us hold those who are called to preach and teach up to the Lord in prayer, that they may hold fast to the Word alone, depending upon Jesus alone, and leaving the result to the hand of the Lord alone. And let us thank them for their courage in the face of a daunting task.

Sola Christos. Sola Scriptura.

What battle would that be? Spiritual warfare, of course.

What do you mean forgotten? How can one suggest that the church is off doing something else?

Well, maybe forgotten is a tad strong. Maybe found more comfortable to overlook, or inadvertently unemphasized whilst working on increasing the local congregation, might be a better characterization. After all, when actually addressed, this topic might trouble some people (a definite possibility). In any case, let’s have a peak, shall we…

We regularly hear preaching about everyday struggles. However, they are often presented in the context of, or with overtones of, modern psychology, with some biblical references. They are definitely not present for what they are, the pitch battle between principalities and the forces of Heaven. But the Bible makes it clear that they are exactly that: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12. How much more clearly can it be spelled out?

Since this is spiritual warfare, the battle is certainly the Lord’s, and He has complete control. But the struggles are played out in the lives of the Saints and in the world. Those are the lives that the church is charged with assisting, whose arming for battle the church is charged with facilitating, and to whom (at least partially) preaching is addressed. That being the case, why do we not hear more direct discussion of the real battle, and exhortation for the only effective armour endorsed in Scripture - prayer and dedication to the straight, unvarnished Word?

The Lord has clearly layed out the proper attitude. It is to put on His Word, focus upon Him (”Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.” Ephesian 6:13), and to treat each other with love. In essence, that’s it.

What He has stipulated is actually quite simple, at least in terms of getting started. Rehearsing His Word is staightforward. Focusing on Him in frequent prayer and mindfulness is possible to start. And loving one another as we focus on Him together can be appreciated and worked upon, even if we struggle at times. The point of all of this is to basically put ourselves in the position where we stand behind Him, protected by Him, and the battle is His.

If we don’t do that, and if instead we draw common sense solutions and attitude towards life into play, then the battle becomes our own. When that happens we are in big trouble. We can not successfully fight the powers of the air and of this world. We are not strong enough. And so, people succumb. Only standing in the shadow of Jesus are we strong enough, because then it is not us, nor our battle. It is Him alone, and He is strong enough..

Ladies and gentlemen, I choose to stand in the shadow the Lord of all creation. I am weak and can not stand alone. He is my only armour, and I love Him alone. Let us stand together, safe beneath His cloak.

Sola Christos

We need Doctrine today more than ever, not less - particularly the youth.

Have you noticed that doctrine has fallen from grace in everyday church life, and from the pulpit? Maybe you haven’t noticed since the process is gradual and easy to overlook for a while. Doctrines may at times talked about, even referred to, but it is seldom if ever actually preached or offered as a significant part of church school.

In church society what appears to be happening (or already has happened) is that doctrine is being made synonymous with dogma. Dogma is a four letter word in the mind of relativistic, pluralistic society, equated with authoritarian control and the like. The evangelical church seems to be subtly adopting the same attitude, in what appears on the surface to be the fear that it will alienate non-Christians and reduce potential growth. The church would certainly differentiate itself from overt expression of this secular view, but living in the world brings a quiet inflow of ideas, attitudes and approaches. One of these is rejection of the fixed framework that doctrine represents (erroneously) to many people.

What does this indicate about the true attitude towards the Sovereignty of God in all these matters? What does it say about belief and dependence on the sufficiency of scripture and the sufficiency of the fundamental ideas therein?

In church life today it seems dated to insist that there are any fixed benchmarks aside from basic belief. As such, demoninational distinctives, and the rich history that preceeds them, are passe and are quietly jetisoned in favour of more up to date presentation and applications. But it bears remembering that a building in which the foundations are eroded by inattention, will weaken over time and eventually fail.

Before we expand into too wide a discussion, let us look narrowly at basic beliefs. I look from the point of view of a Reformed Baptist, but I suspect that most evangelicals would find the same symptoms to one degree or another.

If you were to ask the average church goer or even member:
What are denominational distinctives?
What are theirs?
Would they know why?
Would they think it was irrelevant? Dated? That they are all the same?
Would they know what a confession of faith is?
In this case would they know what the Westminster Confession is?
Would they feel that the doctrinal beliefs of church leaders were important?
Would they know what those leadership beliefs and tenants were?
Would they feel that leadership job performance was the over-riding criteria?

Do you see where this is headed? It is headed to where history, the structure of belief, and therefor the ability to defend or hold on to those beliefs in the face of adversity, comes into serious question.

The beginning of an answer to this is sound doctrinal preaching and teaching. It is not up to date. It does not utilize todays ‘relevant’ examples (it is timeless). And it does not necessarily directly address modern application. But it is absolutely essential for a faith based upon bedrock.

Nowhere is this more critical than in the church youth. No group is more challenged by society. No group is more suseptible to its wiles. Yet in no church group is the education in the structure of our beliefs and the reasons for them often more lacking.

The danger is that what may be created is a wonderful, vibrant, dynamic ministry that is built on sand. When the flood comes, and we all know that it will in some (worldly) form, a foundation of reinforced concrete is needed, not sand.

Moving away from the juggling analogy (Juggling and the Christian Life), where the perceptions of an error and it’s effect on participants can be clearly dealt with, let us concentrate on the discussed similarities in the Christian life. Here the lines are less distinct and divorcing oneself from the effects more difficult.

In comparing our perception of our personal walk with the Lord and the expectations directed at us from others in the guise of responsibilities (read that as optics), let us look for the end game. That would be the conflicting messages often propagated not only by non-believers, but in churches, and then adopted by extension through others in the Body.

Observation would indicate that the delivery of these contradictory messages is both consistent and common, with no surface indication that the deliverers have any insight into the conflict being communicated. That in itself is hard to fathom.

What am I talking about, you ask?

A believer is frequently exhorted to always act in a manner that will reflect wonderfully on the church and show the joy of Christian life. It is made a ‘responsibility’ of the believer by implication to show that conversion will bring clear outward indication of the “hope that is within us”. This demonstration is to draw the non-believer to see the value in conversion in the joy of the believer. This is certainly what the Lord said at various times, but the way it is interpreted in the Christian community can be a problem.

At the same time, the same believer is warned that the necessary correction, calling to attention of problems, pruning and regrowth of character, etc. will involve often great difficulty in life. This will at times render the believer rebellious and struggling, all for the glory of the Lord as the development later bears fruit, but nonetheless problematic at the time. In a nutshell, we often resist change and act badly in the throws of it. Since these are often big changes, the associated difficulties and behavioural struggles may also be big.

Do you see the problem?

On the one hand one is to act perfectly and reflect the beauty of thier calling, being made to feel guilty if they were to do otherwise. At the same time, one is exhorted to embrace difficult change in the clear realization that you may initially react and/or act badly. This is a Catch 22, and there must be fundamental error somewhere in the interpretation active in this situation.

I do not propose to have the complete answer, but part of it must be in the safety of the irresistible Effectual Calling of the elect. We are indeed called to preach the Gospel to the unsaved. But we are call to do it from where we are now - where our Lord has placed us. We may be fraught with problems and not act the best, but that is who we are in the Lord at that time. And that is okay! The Calling is His.

The responsibility for the conversion of others is the Lord’s, not ours. Not even a little bit is ours! If they are to be called, then they can not successfully resist any more that we can be other than who we are, in His process, at that moment. If the truth of us in the Lord meets with them, then we are presenting exactly what the Lord intended, irrespective of what a bystander might think. And they WILL be called if it is His will.

So to those who proposed that the believer put on a perfect face, presenting things in a better light – get over it. We are certainly called to reflect the Lord to the best of our ability, but that is as ourselves, as we are now. We may be rejoicing in his Calling but still not rejoicing in life at that moment. Some may say that is what they are saying. Possibly true, but from the pews what is often being ‘heard’ is the precursor to personal guilt and stress. That is error, plain and simple, and does not further the Kingdom

All Glory to our Lord.

“Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil” (Prov 3:7).

Am I advocating a cessation of critical thinking? Far from it. However, as we are natural men by nature, our Lord wisely provided a sphere of safety for believers within the Scripture. That provides a safe home from which to analyze, discuss and live. We have true freedom therein.

Once one steps outside that zone, as is the case it this senario where the wisdom of man is used to redefine that of the Lord, one steps outside that safety net which the Father has so graciously provided. That is clearly not as He wishes.

As with all events, these senarios play out for the benefits of the Lord’s plans. The question that must be asked is whether denial of the authority of the Lord’s Word (let us make no bones about it, for that is what this all implies) is the hallmark of those who are actually His…

For believers, the only acceptable safety is in His hands, and He made it clear that being in His hands involves the acceptance of His rule. The rule is not related in any way to our common sense, nor anything else of us.

All glory be to Him.

My recent posts about the “Alone’s” and the reality that all is solely for the Glory of our Lord, lead me to recount an experience of a few months ago. These experiences leave me not only with dismay at the events themselves, but with concern that what they represent is more common within our Christian circles than we might think.

Through some para-church activity I met a fairly senior clergyman from a mainline denomination, a denomination that variously professes a reformed belief set. With many years experience and solid credentials, I made what I considered reasonable assumptions about his beliefs (we could jump to a new thread about ASSumptions, but we won’t go there for now).

In the course of events and interactions, and because of my own reformed persuasion, I asked casually one day in conversation about a doctrinal difference that had arisen. Let me also add though I hold strong views on the subject, my way of approaching this is to ask for clarification, as in “I think such and such, but I am eager to hear alternate doctrine base upon scripture”.

What I expected was a discussion of scripture or doctrine or the like, possibly with alternate thoughts on interpretation or even translation. Call me naive if you will, but what occurred shocked me.

The one and only explanation he gave was that “God has common sense. God and scripture must be seen with common sense within our context”. No theology, no scriptural reference to the matter at hand or the situation, nada. Just belief above all else that interpretation must be based on God’s common sense in relation to the situation at hand today.

Now folks, common sense is nothing of God. It is absolutely of Man. With that in mind, it could be renamed Natural Sense, as in, coming from the natural man - “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Cor 2:14).

So this fellow is basing his life, theology and ministry on beliefs relative to man’s common sense (presumably his common sense in most instance, but that is actually irrelevant). This is relativism in a both seductive and insideous form! There are no real precepts from the Lord that can not be conveniently re-thought in this mindset. Faith and the action based thereon is now in man.

We have been warned and admonished about this repeatedly in scripture: ” Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding” (Prov 3:5), “Do not be wise in your own eyes” (Prov 3:7), and that the ways of God are not the ways of man. There are many other instances, but the natural man’s common sense is demonstrate to in many case to be antithesis of the ways of the Lord. Sola Scriptura!

In the situation at hand, on the surface, it looked like a simple dissagreement over biblical interpretation, and the effect of that on the activities of church life. What it was in reality was the illumination of Spiritual Warfare, and the subtle inroads of Satan in the body of believers. Does that go too far? I don’t think so.

The effect is actually massive, for once that Relativistic view is taken, many tenants of obedience fall quickly away. It is the first domino falling in a long series. Scary indeed.

Does this imply that there is no room for family discussion within the body of believers? In the words of Paul “May it never be” (Rom 6:2a). But let us hold fast to the Word as the only source, interpreted by His grace alone.

John Calvin and John Wesley, of course!

Continuing on Spiritual Warfare, let us now turn to responsibility and consequences. With the outworking of life as a reflection of that warfare, and active actualization of the battle between principalities and saints, where does personal outcomes as a result of individual actions fit in?

The Reformed premise of saving grace is that it is not of us: ” For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” Ephesians 2:8 (NASB). We can not save ourselves, even a little bit, so what implication does this have in living in the world after He has called us to Himself?

We have already seen that we are actively involved in the divine struggle. Looking at the principalities involved, and our human affinity for the world of Natural Man, if we do not subscribe to the Perserverance of the Saints (the P in TULIP), we are in big trouble indeed.

Those who know that salvation is not of ourselves, but of the Lord, also know from Scripture that “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand;” John 10:27-28 (NASB). Thus they can rest in the knowledge that in the ongoing battle they are safe in His arms for eternity, worldly outworking notwithstanding.

For those who take the Wesleyan view, and see a human role in salvation, and more importantly a human role in maintaining that state, there are big worries and loads of jepardy.

Since we are born to sin, and for all intents and purposes can not help ourselves in this regard, requiring His quickening in order to consider the promise of salvation other than foolishness, then even once we are His how could we maintain that state if any of the responsibility was ours? Clearly we could not, and we would be in constant danger if the end should approach at the wrong moment.

Thankfully, it is all of Him alone (Solus Christus), through His Grace alone (Sola Gracia). Since His will can not be thwarted, we as believers shall perserver into Glory.

Now, does the fact that the Wesleyan does not believe this mean that he, once saved, is in any actual jepardy? An interesting question.

And assuming that there is a fight to be undertaken through our participation, how do we as believers proceed?

Scripture states that the real struggling that is occuring as life plays out is one of Spiritual Warfare. The events of this world occur in the context of this battle playing out. The secular world writes this off as foolishness, as we would expect, since our Lord has said ” But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him” 1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB). We expect this from the world. But what about the body of believers on this matter?

It should be different. Again, from Scripture “But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 (NASB). So the those in the Body are to appraise things spiritually and thereby stand with the Lord.

When it comes to major, obviously evil events, Christians in general (even nominal adherents) will usual make reference to evil in the world. Even then, however, it usually never goes beyond a casual reference in most instances. They do not see the “Prince of the Power of the air” Ephesians 2:2 (NASB) as the active agent in the world.
What about day to day life? The scripture passage at the beginning of this post does not differential between large events and small, nor one circumstance or another. It simply states that the struggle on earth is one of spiritual warfare more than just circumstance.

Looking back to the world in biblical times, this particular reality was seen quite a bit more clearly. Althiough there were complications due to the their lack of understanding of some nature phenomena, their conceptual acceptance and grasp of the individual participation in and the effects of spiritual warfare in daily life were clearer.

This is not to say that the Christian community has not swung to the other side of the pendulum at times (for example, the dark events of the Puritan era, despite their brilliance in other theological areas). However, even there, the core concept of warfare involving principalities beyond the natural actualizing in daily life was more accurate to them than that which we see today within the Christian community.

It is as if the Christian community tries to trumpet the reality of the Kingdom, while at the same time applying postmodern philosophy to the event of daily life, assuming that these world views are compatible or complimentary. They simply do not combine. They do not intersect.

So how do we see this within life in the world?

And so another Christmas comes upon us. In a sermon last week, the preacher posited that Christmas should by biblical definition be more contemplative, with the model of this being Mary as she “treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart.” Luke 2:19 (NASB).

He suggested that in the hustle and bustle of this time we find even a brief time to ponder the reality of these events of 2000 years ago. To carry this further, let me go further and add that these events surely shape our lives more that anything that might occur in the false immediacy of the present moment. Nothing is more important than the reality that we are His and that that is so only because He made it possible, through “the kind intention of his will” Ephesians 1:5 (NASB).

We must never forget this and all that it implies!

Please also see our Christmas 2006 page.

The theme from a well know hymn, and a clear message in countless Scripture passages, regardless of the circumstances. Again in Psalm 40:16 we have “rejoice and be glad…”

But as I noted in Confusion of Focus, we often don’t. We are mired in worldly circumstance, at times even including the circumstances of relationship with other believers.

What have we forgotten in our haste to make things work as we assume they should?

We have forgotten who is in charge, of course. As Christmas approaches and we are confronted by the Lord of all creation, fullfilling the promise of a redemptive paradigm, let us dwell on the implications of that act.

Everything is (note the active voice) created by Him, and in His mercy He is redeeming in the world according to His will. All the capital H’s are important.

The elect have reason to celebrate for His hand is permanently upon them. The world has reason to celebrate since His common grace permits the dynamics of creation to continue from moment to moment. Without the dynamics of that act in the present moment, neither would continue.

In this there is joy. We see it in our play (and playing is important for everyone at every age) as we loose ourselves in what He has endowed us with. Let us carry that joy into all of our lives and rejoice…

Let’s talk about gifts, spiritual gifts that is, and the ownership thereof…

Scripture makes it clear that all gifts are from the Lord and that activities using those gifts within the body of believers are appointments from the Lord (1 Cor 12:27-29). As a Calvinist, for whom Tulip is not just the name of a flower, I believe that there is no coincidental placement within the body of believers.

Where it gets interesting is how the use of ‘gifts’ is applied to believers within congregations, and the differentiation (or not) between secular vocational skills and ‘gifts’. Many church bodies, having a determined mandate centered pragmatically on church operation and growth, tend to view the vocational skills or talents of congregants as their gifts, to be utilized in add of the church. Very convenient, a little too convenient me thinks. This seems particularly prevalent within the church growth movement for obvious reasons.

Vocational skills and secular success may have little or nothing to do with an individual’s real spiritual gifts or calling. They can at times be at odds with it. At best, the appropriate application of the gifts may be only tangential to their secular application, related in that they happen use the same base talent set.

What that means in practice is that demonstrated competence in a secular area (though at times it may seguay into church service) is NOT an appropriate starting point for guiding a congregant to their productive and best ‘calling’ in the body of Christ. This is the exact opposite the approach most often taken and is made worse by the use of conventional talent or gift questionnaires.

Sadly, use of the obvious and too convenient secular skills is all to often the area of church work that a congregant is pressured into because of local need. That local need has nothing to do with that person’s true calling, and to the degree that this is true represents an abuse of that person’s placement in that body. It may be well intentioned in the larger sense, but it is nonetheless inexcusable.

Where am I going here? Well, the ‘church’ has to learn that a person will only find the place to which they have been ‘called’ when encourage to explore what the calling is, not to fill a need in that particular organization.

We must guard against asking people to fill a need, other than in an emergency and then only very temporarily, unless they feel called to it, irregardless of the convenience of their skills.

My recent experiences led me to recall an interesting ecclesiastical puzzle that a friend brought up some time ago and that I have observed several times in congregations.

Case 1: The Pastor of a protestant church (I have no Catholic experience to offer) announces that he has been ‘called’ to a new church and will leave shortly.

Although people may be sad and regret the situation (or not in some cases), they do not question for a moment that the ‘call’ is devine. He is wished well and sent off into the sunset as an obedient servant.

Case 2: Same senario except that this time a congregant member of a protestant church announces that he doesn’t fit at the church for one reason or another, and is moving to or looking for a new church.

In this case, the congregant is more often than not told that he or she has been placed in that congregation by the Lord for a reason and shouldn’t ‘run away’ from problems. His or her reason is assumed to be a man-centered one and certainly not devine in origination. If they do leave, the well wishes are often grudgeing, possibly judgemental and assume that the congregant has the problem.

So, what is wrong with these pictures?

In many (I won’t go so far as to say most) instances, the pastor in Case 1 was less than happy with the current church or he wouldn’t have bothered with the new offer. The legitimacy of that unhappiness is not relevant to our discussion here. The new ‘call’ may legitimately be a better devine utilization of pastoral gifts. It may also be just a more comfortable fit for the person. In either case, no fault is attributed.

The situation in Case 2, however, present a problem. Why can a Pastor feel a calling to a new situation (even one that suits better) and it is okay, even a blessing for all, while the same move by a congregant is treated as man-centered and a problem in the congregant?

It just doesn’t wash, folks.

Is the Pastor intrisically closer to the Lord? I don’t buy it as universal. Is the congregant intrinsically farther from the Lord? Again, makes no sense.

If the congregant should be working through whatever the issues are, then the pastor should be doing no less. If the pastor can hear a new and exciting call, then the congregant can do likewise and should have equal blessing. The congregant and Pastor should be regarded with unanimity.

Now, that doesn’t mean that there is not a clear time to go, or to stay. That is alway between the believer and the Lord. The problem illuminated here is the use of man-centered values and reasons to treat two situation differently.

Just something to ponder…