What Do You Do When the Vote To Keep You as Pastor is 499 to 237?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, March 10, 2008
- Viewed 80
- (34) comments so far
“We are a church in need of God’s healing,” said a statement released by deacon chair Kathy Madeja after today’s vote. “We will need to listen carefully to each other about the things which have divided us and brought us to this day.”
A members’ group, Friends for the Future of Broadway, called for the vote on Dr. Younger. The group argued that he had been an ineffective leader and had led the moderate church in too liberal a direction theologically.
“We respect the will of the majority and pray for the congregation’s healing, recovery and continued service to the community that befits a 125-year-old church,” said Robert Saul, spokesman for the group, in a statement.
But Mr. Saul’s statement also said that 300 people “have or want to leave” the church because of the past months’ turmoil. Mr. Saul declined comment on whether he would leave.
Dr. Younger asked the church to stick together.
“I hope that we will move forward and be the church together, and that others will come and share church with us,” he said. “Broadway is an amazing congregation that’s willing to talk about difficult issues. This is a church that challenges its members to think and serve.”
The church voted on Feb. 24, as a compromise, to have a directory with group photographs, as opposed to family photos.
FOR YOUR INPUT: The issue aside… if the vote to keep you was 499 to 237, what would you do? Stay and fight, or call it a day? Would it not be tough to lead when nearly 1/3 of everyone was on record as opposing your leadership.
Members of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth voted Sunday to keep Brett Younger as pastor. The vote was 499 in favor of retaining him and 237 against, representing about a two-thirds majority. The historic downtown church has been in public controversy for months, first over whether a members' photo-directory would include gay couples, then over Dr. Younger's leadership.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
BK on Mon, March 10, 2008
Thanks for posting that link CS
Todd Rhoades on Mon, March 10, 2008
“some people are going to have to die or leave,”
Sounds about right to me.
Todd
Peter Hamm on Mon, March 10, 2008
CS,
Thanks for that link. I read that article a long time ago, and I agree, it sounds right to me. Some will need to die or leave, and that’s OKAY! We all have a finite lifespan, and if a church is vital and active and in the “business” of reaching people for 50 or 60 years, but then just can’t effectively reach its culture anymore, and closes its doors, is it really so bad, if another church than can reach its culture has started and is doing it, it’s time to celebrate what that great church did during its life and not keep trying to put new wine into the old wineskins.
PT on Mon, March 10, 2008
I pastor a congregational church and fully belief in it as the best (though definitely imperfect) system of church governance.
However, when it comes to the question, “Why would you (the pastor) do in this situation?” isn’t this really a question about calling and God’s will? While I believe that the sentiments and vote of the congregation needs to be taken seriously and be given appropriate weight, the bottom line should always be “what does God desire?”
At the end of the day, the only thing that should determine whether or not a pastor stays in a given ministry should be a spiritual discernment of what God is calling the pastor to do! The peoples’ voice IS important, but God’s voice trumps all else.
If a pastor has 100% congregational support, but the Spirit of God is telling him to leave, he should. Similarly, if a pastor has 10% support, but the Spirit of God is telling him to stay and persevere, then he should as long as God enables him to.
CS on Mon, March 10, 2008
Peter:
“Some will need to die or leave, and that’s OKAY! We all have a finite lifespan, and if a church is vital and active and in the “business” of reaching people for 50 or 60 years, but then just can’t effectively reach its culture anymore, and closes its doors, is it really so bad, if another church than can reach its culture has started and is doing it, it’s time to celebrate what that great church did during its life and not keep trying to put new wine into the old wineskins.”
I would say that it is bad if the circumstances under which people are leaving or being asked to leave is when the preaching, teaching, and worship are not following Godly standards, and they stand for what is right. Which, sadly, is becoming a common reason why many people are fleeing the churches in which they grew up.
Now, if people are leaving the church because they cannot digest sound doctrine and the like, hey, the door is always open. Like some great preacher said, “The front door of a church should be harder to enter, and the back door of a church should be easy to exit.”
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Mon, March 10, 2008
CS writes
[Which, sadly, is becoming a common reason why many people are fleeing the churches in which they grew up.] That is a generality that I’m not sure you can back up.
But no, let’s not continue down the “sound doctrine” line of argument again. That’s not what the post is about, and it’s not what my comment was about.
CS on Mon, March 10, 2008
Peter:
“That is a generality that I’m not sure you can back up.”
The only thing I could cite are the blogs of people who have said that they felt they were pushed out / had to leave their churches when these occurred.
“But no, let’s not continue down the “sound doctrine” line of argument again. That’s not what the post is about, and it’s not what my comment was about.”
In light of Todd’s question for our input, I will avoid delving down the “sound doctrine” path for now.
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Mon, March 10, 2008
CS,
People are more likely to “blog” something that ticks them off than something that they find agreeable. On top of that, creating a public forum to air grievances that are supposed to be handled between individuals is pretty sloppy, ethically speaking, anyway. We’ve talked about that before here on these pages.
I could equally, by the way, cite examples of pastors I have known personally that have been hired by a church to bring them forward into the current time, and have been rebuffed on every side by people that do nothing but complain about everything they find the faintest bit disagreeable, often for reasons that are not theological, but stylistic.
Often these people facilitate extremely questionable church splits, based on style and not substance.
At our church, people who complain about the way that we do things here are often encouraged to find a house of worship that fits their tastes and personality better. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. But trying to force your own aesthetic tastes on others? I have a HUGE problem with that.
CS on Mon, March 10, 2008
(My apologies in going tangential here to everyone on the thread for a moment.)
Peter:
“On top of that, creating a public forum to air grievances that are supposed to be handled between individuals is pretty sloppy, ethically speaking, anyway. We’ve talked about that before here on these pages.”
In your own experience as a pastor over the years, here is something that I have been mulling over, and would like your insight. When do you believe a situation warrants a Matthew 18 response, and when do you believe a situation requires a more public Galatians 2 or 2 Timothy 2:17 response?
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Mon, March 10, 2008
CS,
Easy.
2 Tim 2 is an instruction to pastors, not to congregants. It doesn’t really apply to church people who find fault with the teaching of their leaders.
Gal 2 is a situation between two church leaders and is an account of confrontation between leaders who KNOW each other and are in relationship with each other and are working together. And, by the way, the specific issue in Galatians, excessive legalism, is very important. The grumblers I’ve known are, by and large, the legalistic ones Paul would oppose.
Matthew 18 is the model for all believers to assess grievances with each other, BUT, it MUST be done in a spirit of forgiveness and grace. The lesson, in other words, of Matthew 18: 15-20 is TOTALLY incomplete without 18:21 - 35.
Dan Moore on Mon, March 10, 2008
The church is following its by-laws. The pastor “won” the vote…that is if one can count losing up to one third of the church. Two-thirds do support his leadership. Should the pastor remain? It is tough. I time of prayer, as some suggest, should be done prior to any quick decisions. Also there should be an attempt to understand the complaints of “leadership style.” Any legitimate issues should be dealt with honestly. Sometimes there are folks who are actually upset because the pastor is leading and they are not. Why I resign? It really depends upon two factors for me: Is God calling me to stay or leave? Have I been faithful to my calling as a pastor in my actions?
Larry on Mon, March 10, 2008
You guys are missing the point, the vote was a referrendum on the pastor’s “leadership” that is taking the church in a pro-homosexual direction. It wasn’t about his leadership style, sermon quality, ethics, or denominational positioning. The vote was about whether or not the church had passed the point of “accepting” homosexuals and had in fact reached the point of “promoting” homosexual lifestyle. The church is out of step with the local, state and national denomination. But this pastor has “led” the church down a slippery slope and old-time members want to disavow the slide and the one who led them there.
The result is going to be a mass exodus.
And no.. I’m not a member, just a neighbor.
Ricky on Tue, March 11, 2008
Ryan: “A big part of the problem, in any situation like this, is that the congregation is given voting rights. I’ve never understood why a church would want to turn toward giving the majority rule, but the democratic system just doesn’t work in a church (and it’s debatable whether it works elsewhere either).”
So what is the alternative? A despotic “one-pastor” ruler whose edicts are the law?
You will probably disagree but the so-called “majority rule,” while not biblical, is closer to being so than the “one-pastor” ruler model you apparently support.
It’s the system that’s broke, folks, and until the system is thrown out and the New Testament method is embraced, you will always have politics in “church.”
Ricky on Tue, March 11, 2008
In my opinion, it’s all about obtaining the mind of Christ.
And, contrary to many who post on this forum, no one person can fully obtain the mind of Christ. Obtaining the mind of Christ is a corporate activity and those who disagree are the despotic, tyrannical rulers who honestly believe that their position is biblical.
The Jerusalem church is a perfect example of the ENTIRE church coming together to discuss a matter and, thus, obtaining the mind of Christ. Paul also alludes to this beautiful function of the Body.
And yet we think a hand or toe (i.e., “pastor”) knows what best for the Body, when in fact it takes the entire Body to move in obedience to the Head, which is Christ…alone.
Ricky on Tue, March 11, 2008
CS: “WWRWD? (What Would Rick Warren Do?)”
WCWRWD? (Who Cares What Rick Warren Would Do?)
He’s part of the problem, with his “covenants” and “oaths.”
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment