God's Effectual Call?

If you intend that if we had a less than 95% success rate in secualar education then we would have a tax revolt ... I can agree with that

 

"On the basis of results"

Statistics shows that in all denominations (Christian) that most pastors are INEFFECTIVE. Often, weak, and ineffective pastors make up for their weakness by blaming the church.

God appointed (gave) some to be pastors (Eph 4: 11), God did not give alllll to be pastors.

We have lowered the standard for pastors over the last 50 years, & now we want to remove the calling (appointment) from God pertaining to pastors.

Should we expect God to bless (results) the men that HE DID NOT CALL?

[Sadly, there are men that have been effective by just implementing good business principles, but that is a different thread.]

 

But, most importantly, men that are not called of God to lead His people JUST PLAIN DO NOT COMMUNICATE HIS TRUTH VERY WELL. Then the sheep get restless and begin moving towards the voice of the Chief Shepherd. And then they bounce back and forth between the two.

We look at the commotion and blame the sheep for being restless.

It is the Pastor's RESPONSIBILITY to encounter GOD and then communicate HIM to the followers ... Not the other way around.

 

I get excited about this because of the breakdown in our leadership.

More than 80% of our(*) 'godly men' (those men that claim 'they are called'(**) and are trained in our seminaries) will fail in ministry. We want to fix that by removing a felt 'call from God'. This is not the Army, more cannon fodder will not win this. We need specialists. We need specialists called (by God) to give their lives in the defense of the sheep.

We (the churches - Believers) do not need HIRELINGS. We need authentic men of God. To offer God anything less, is IMHO a sin.


(*) For those not SBC, I do humbly apologize. The SBC is the only Bapitst denomination that I have found results for. Being SBC, it is also the easiest for me to discuss.
(**) SBC seminaries REQUIRE that applicants write out 'their divine call'. I know this for 3 of the 5 seminaries.

 

That means nothing when 2/3 of the churches in the SBC are plateaued or dying.

Take a look at a different vantage point. Don't always blame it on the pastors. I do believe if the majority of pastors were willing to be without a job and require accountability by the leaders in chruches we would see a very different scene. There just might be a lot of churches without pastors.

Leadership Journal, Winter 2003

Preacher in the Hands of an Angry Church

Jonathan Edwards's church kicked him out after 23 years of ministry, but the crisis proved his greatness was not merely intellectual.
by Chris Armstrong

As messy dismissals of ministers go, the 1750 ejection of Jonathan Edwards by his Northampton congregation was among the messiest. The fact that it involved the greatest theologian in American history—the central figure of the Great Awakening—is almost beside the point. The fact that it took place in a New England fast moving from theocratic "city on a hill" to democratic home of liberty is more relevant.

But another aspect is worth a closer look: Friends and enemies alike agreed that in the long, degenerating discontent, Edwards continued to love and pray for—or at least tolerate and refrain from attacking—his people, even when they bared their fangs.

Salary controversies and power struggles marked his ministry during the 1740s. In the infamous "bad book" episode of 1744, some teen boys in the church distributed a midwife's manual, using it to taunt and make suggestive comments in front of girls. When the culprits were summoned before the church, their response, according to documents of the proceedings, was "contemptuous . . . toward the authority of this Church."

Edwards chose to read before the church a list containing, indiscriminately, the names of both the young distributors as well as the purported witnesses. Some parents were outraged at Edwards.

Another issue was Edwards's personality and style as a minister. At the outset of his ministry at Northampton, for example, he decided that he would not pay the customary regular visits to his congregants, but would rather come to their side only when called in cases of sickness or other emergency. This made him seem, to some in the church, cold and distant.

An Edwards "disciple," Samuel Hopkins, later wrote that this practice was not due to lack of affection and concern for his people: "For their good he was always writing, contriving, labouring; for them he had poured out ten thousand fervent prayers; and they were dear to him above any other people under heaven."

Rather, Edwards had made a clear-eyed assessment of his own gifts and decided that he was unable to match the graceful gregariousness of those ministers who had a "knack at introducing profitable, religious discourse in a free, natural, and . . . undesigned way."

Thus he would "do the greatest good to souls . . . by preaching and writing, and conversing with persons under religious impressions in his study, where he encouraged all such to repair."

Edwards's ministry might yet have endured, however, were it not for the death of his uncle, Colonel John Stoddard, in 1748. Born in 1682, 21 years before Edwards, the colonel had built a friendship with his nephew. A sharp thinker, a county judge, and a savvy politician, John was a militia colonel who had become commander-in-chief of the Massachusetts western frontier by 1744. Stoddard wore—at least in the secular sphere—the mantle of his father and Edwards's grandfather, "pope" of the Connecticut Valley, Solomon Stoddard.

Edwards found himself often leaning on his uncle's influence to navigate the affairs of the church. Thus when Stoddard died, Edwards lost not only an uncle but a powerful ally and confidante.

As Ian Murray put it in his biography of Edwards: "There would be no open criticism of Edwards as long as Stoddard sat appreciatively in his pew beneath the pulpit in the meeting-house Sunday by Sunday." Once the colonel was gone, however, that changed dramatically.

Stoddard's heir-apparent as Hampshire County's leading figure was Edwards's cousin Israel Williams, a Harvard graduate, imperious in manner and implacably set against Edwards. In his early nineteenth-century biography, descendant S. E. Dwight named Israel and several others of the Williams clan as having "religious sentiments [that] differed widely from" those of Edwards. Their opposition soon became "a settled and personal hostility." Williams served as counselor and ringleader to Edwards's opponents. Joining this opposition were another cousin, Joseph Hawley Jr., 21 years Edwards's junior.

Visible saints, hidden agendas
The same year John Stoddard died, an event finally pushed the hostile faction into open revolt.

For years, Edwards had been uncomfortable with the lenient policy on membership and communion set by his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, Edwards's predecessor at Northampton. Stoddard had allowed almost anyone to join and to partake, hoping that membership and communion might encourage true conversion. In 1748, Edwards changed the policy and told an applicant for church membership that he must first make a public "profession of godliness."

Thus Edwards rejected the "Halfway Covenant"—the longstanding compromise of the Puritans who had, generations after planting their religious colonies, found their church membership dwindling. That compromise had reversed the traditional Puritan requirement that new church members be "visible saints," godly in word and deed.

When the congregation saw that Edwards intended to return to the earlier, stricter Puritan position, demanding not only a profession of faith, but also evidence of repentance and holiness, a firestorm arose. Many of the church's leading members felt Edwards's innovation was a direct threat.

Two revivals had produced many converts, but, as biographer Patricia Tracy put it, "Men and women who had been recognized as visible saints in Northampton still wallowed in clandestine immorality and flagrant pride."

Though Edwards knew, as he notes in his letters, that he was likely to lose his pastorate as a result, he stuck to his principles.

A council of the congregation put a moratorium on new memberships until the issue of criteria could be resolved. Edwards told them he planned to preach on his reasons for changing the policy. They forbade him to do so. Edwards began to write a book on the matter. Few read it, and too late to do much good.

In 1750, a council was called to consider whether the congregation would dismiss its minister. No one doubted what the conclusion would be.

Edwards's friend David Hall noted in his diary the minister's reaction when on June 22, 1750, the council handed down its decision:

"That faithful witness received the shock, unshaken. I never saw the least symptoms of displeasure in his countenance the whole week but he appeared like a man of God, whose happiness was out of the reach of his enemies and whose treasure was not only a future but a present good . . . even to the astonishment of many who could not be at rest without his dismission."

46 and unemployed
Edwards wrote that he now found himself a 46-year-old ex-minister "fitted for no other business but study," with a large family to provide for. Although he knew "we are in the hands of God, and I bless him, I am not anxious concerning his disposal of us," he fretted over his situation in letters to friends. Yet neither the distressing conditions nor the continuing antagonism of his opponents drew him out to open attack.

Remarkably (and partly because of financial need), Edwards agreed to continue preaching at the church while they searched for a replacement. But his Farewell Sermon also indicates he acted out of continued concern for the flock. He continued through mid-November, despite the Town maliciously barring him, a month after his dismissal, from using its common grazing land.

Finally in December 1750, after an anxious autumn during which he had even considered removing his entire family to Scotland to accept an invitation there, Edwards accepted a charge in Massachusetts's "wild west," the Indian town of Stockbridge. There he would labor the rest of his life, pursue his theological thinking to its most brilliant heights, and create one of the most enduring missionary biographies of all time, the life story of his young friend David Brainerd.

Belated praise
In 1760, his former enemy, cousin Joseph Hawley, wrote to Edwards's friend David Hall, confessing that "vast pride, self-sufficiency, ambition, and vanity" had animated his leadership in the "melancholy contention" with Edwards. He repented of his earlier failure to render the respect due Edwards as a "most able, diligent and faithful pastor."

Hawley concluded, "I am most sorely sensible that nothing but that infinite grace and mercy which saved some of the betrayers and murderers of our blessed Lord, and the persecutors of his martyrs, can pardon me; in which alone I hope for pardon, for the sake of Christ, whose blood, blessed by God, cleanseth from all sin."

On June 22, 1900, exactly 150 years after Edwards's dismissal, a group gathered at the First Church in Northampton to unveil a bronze memorial.

H. Norman Gardiner, a professor of philosophy at Smith College and chairman of the memorial committee, characterized Edwards's ejection as "a public rejection and banishment" that remained "a source of reproach to his church and people." He noted the "hatred, malice, and uncharitableness which characterized the opposition to him," for which, to Gardiner, no apology either contemporary or modern could atone.

Edwards would have disagreed, arguing instead that even such deeply wounding actions as the aggravated and wrongful dismissal of a pastor from his pulpit of 23 years are not unforgivable. In that understanding, as in so much else, Edwards was far ahead both of his enemies and of many of us today.

For 2003 Christian History magazine is publishing an issue commemorating the 300th anniversary of Edwards's birth. For information visit www.christianhistory.net
Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal.
Leadership Journal, Winter 2003, Vol. XXV, No. 1, Page 52

 

Well

I stand as I stood.

Great theologian or not, your application to SWBTS included a description of your call. Bible-boy included a description of his call for Southeastern. Or did you guys skip that block?

The GNT attests to God giving the church men to fill specific leadership roles.

But, you give argumentation as to why we do not need leaders under the divine call of Almighty God.

IMHO, that is not worthy of debate. God called those whom he called. If He did not call you, that is HIS CHOICE (sovereign choice).

I am still humbled that He called me. But, that is not the purpose of this thread.

 

God has called me to apply Mt. 28:19,20 in making disciples. If pastoring will allow me to do that in an obedient capacity, great. If not, then I will not pastor a church. Nobody can pastor a church that runs off people and be disobedient vessels. Pastoring is not just teaching. It is mentoring. You cannot mentor people who are lazy and do not want to learn and grow in ministry. Life is too short ot spend trying to coax people when there are many others who are serious and weant to grow. Everywhere I go people are wanting help badly while there are pastors who are beating their head against the wall because of problem with someone who just wants to cause trouble.

A few years ago a friend of mine told the church he was leaving and they wanted to know why. He told them about one of the people who was causing such problems. They took care of the problem. The person is still there and not causing problems. The church is doing very well today.

SWBTS never once asked about me making disciples or if I had made disciples. That should precede the qualifications of pastor. It is implied in the NT. If a man cannot make disciples then how can he lead a church. They never once asked about my relationships with outsiders. Isn't that one of the qualifications of a pastor? I submitted a recommendation from a non-believer and they told me they would not accept that because it was from one of my neighbors who was not a Christian. So I had to get another from someone else in the church.

 

I agree.

I asked questions about that then and few I asked who were in ministry could give me a distinct answer.

I can tell you from what I saw working with other seminary students some of who believed God called them to be pastors and would show up to work late and have a poor attitude because "it was not ministry."

If one were to take a look at the results he would see many who are walking with God today because of the investment I have had in the lives of many.

Sometime read http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm118_8.htm

then ask yourself was that man who started a parachurch organization called? He never once pastored a church.

Was Jesus called? He never pastored one church.

 

gb

I am counting to ten. In japanese, spanish, & then english.

 

Jer 23: 21ff I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied.

22 But if they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds.

31 Yes," declares the LORD, "I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare, 'The LORD declares.'

Jer 35: 12, 15 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying: .... Again and again I sent ALL my servants the prophets to you

John 20: 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

Eph 4: 7, 11 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.....It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

 

Phil 1: 15 - 18

It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.[a] 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

 

I rejoice because the Gospel is preached.

 

Bible-boy

But, because God has not called you, you eisegete into His Word meaning that He did not place there.

You play with fallacy ...

 

Bible-boy & gb

I must assume that you two are playing semantic games to try to make me angry and lead me into sin.

 

Not at all. I have been down that road a long time ago. You would be surprised at how any of the professors I had at SWBTS who would disagree with what many of the leaders in the SBC said about being called.

Just take a look at 1 Tim 3:1, "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do."

Later in that chapter are qualifications about many facets of his life. Just because someone can preach doesn't make him qualified. Making disciples is the primary qualification according to Mt. 28:19,20. If he cannot make disciples he is disqualified automatically. He can have all the desire in the world but his life'e results speak for themselves. No disciples means no results and no leadership. If he has not made any disciples shouldn't that be a clue about his leadership at the time? If he is not a leader with one or a few then what indicators are there that he will lead the congregation to make disciples when he has not.

 

You have got to be kidding.

After all of these years of traditional definition, you want me to believe that God is redefining what He has said, through men that are NOT called.

I really do not think you understand the irony in that statement.

You are not called, but you want the called to submit to your interpretation of Scripture ...

This has to be a JOKE.