Pastors keeping theological peace?

[Harrison]

Pastors,

My family and I began attending a church recently in which the pastor has told me he is Reformed and has great respect for the Confessions. However, his preaching and teaching is often intentionally vague on points that could cause division within the church (and potentially have them leave an already small church). He has told me he does not want to risk upsetting people having different theological positions at the church. How often do you feel you have to be theologically vague to keep the peace within your church - or is this almost never OK?

Thank you for any insight you may be able to provide.

 

[Guido's Brother]

We have a confessional church where all the members profess to believe what's in the Three Forms of Unity. So, thankfully, never.

 

[W.C. Dean]

I would say that a Reverend doesn't need to purposefully make doctrines seem upsetting and preach them constantly, but he should never shy away from what a passage of Scripture teaches if he is preaching through it. Obviously, preachers who preach topically exclusively can avoid this. I don't have enough wisdom or experience to tell you what you should do in your church though. I will pray it goes well for you, your family, and church.

 

[SolaScriptura]

It’s kind of the exact opposite of how I am. I tell people that I’m not desperate for them to be in my church and if they would be happier elsewhere then I will gladly help them find a place to go. I want people who want to be there. So we are open about our commitment to the Word, I wear Calvinism on my sleeve, and try to be forthright with our confessional commitments. And we just keep on growing!

P.S. - It isn’t clear to me how avoiding clarity and precision is keeping the peace. Keeping the peace, in my mind, would involve how we deal with those in our midst who disagree with our confessional convictions... but if we aren’t clear as to our convictions, and especially if we are being vague in how we interact with Scripture, then it seems we’re intentionally keeping people in an immature state. Just because I keep people happy and ignorant doesn’t mean I’ve fostered biblical peace.

 

[B.L.]

However, his preaching and teaching is often intentionally vague on points that could cause division within the church (and potentially have them leave an already small church).

Would you be able to give a few examples? Some theological positions are core issues while others are arguably of lesser importance.

 

[Harrison]

Would you be able to give a few examples? Some theological positions are core issues while others are arguably of lesser importance.

Thanks for your question.

Here's one: from the church's Statement I could clearly see a Pretrib rapture from the wording - the order: (1) Jesus returning before a (2) tribulational period and then a (3) literal thousand year millennium. I asked the pastor about the statement being Pretrib and he said he did not see that, but when he did, he denied the wording of the Statement was intended to mean Jesus' second coming was before the tribulation - he said the word order of that part of the statement was not meant to be precise (1 as above could be read as coming before 2, or 2 as above could be meant as coming before 1, but 3 as above was in the place of 3 regardless - because the church does claim to be premill). He then said it was important to avoid theological arguments as people at the church have different perspectives (e.g some Dispensational, some not).

 

[Romans922]

Seems like the Pastor should seek more to be a herald of the truth rather than one who fears man in every wave of possible different opinion that might upset another. Just preach the Word!

But such is the state of the Church today. There needs to be reformation.

 

[Jake]

I feel like my pastor treats areas of disagreements well for the most part. An example is that our church and denomination has a long history of being teetotalers, so that issue has to be treated delicately when alcohol comes up in a Scripture text.

 

[David Taylor]

Pastors,

My family and I began attending a church recently in which the pastor has told me he is Reformed and has great respect for the Confessions. However, his preaching and teaching is often intentionally vague on points that could cause division within the church (and potentially have them leave an already small church). He has told me he does not want to risk upsetting people having different theological positions at the church. How often do you feel you have to be theologically vague to keep the peace within your church - or is this almost never OK?

Thank you for any insight you may be able to provide.

I don't think we should ever be theologically vague. Preach the truth and don't apologize for it.

 

[Jonathco]

But such is the state of the Church today. There needs to be reformation.

ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (the church reformed, always reforming).

Pastors,

My family and I began attending a church recently in which the pastor has told me he is Reformed and has great respect for the Confessions. However, his preaching and teaching is often intentionally vague on points that could cause division within the church (and potentially have them leave an already small church). He has told me he does not want to risk upsetting people having different theological positions at the church. How often do you feel you have to be theologically vague to keep the peace within your church - or is this almost never OK?

Thank you for any insight you may be able to provide.

As one who also attends a non-reformed/confessional church currently (discussed here), I can relate with preaching from the pulpit that is at-times, vague on specifics which are bound to offend some folks. Be it the WCF, LBCF, or 3 Forms of Unity, we who attend churches that do not hold a confession, are bound to face this challenge.

A church unwilling to bind itself to a confessional statement on paper, will also be unwilling to do so from the pulpit. I say that not in judgment (as I have clearly stated this is my dilemma as well), but as someone who has sadly watched this occur.

 

[B.L.]

As one who also attends a non-reformed/confessional church currently (discussed here), I can relate with preaching from the pulpit that is at-times, vague on specifics which are bound to offend some folks....we who attend churches that do not hold a confession, are bound to face this challenge.

Friend, I hate to pop the pretty balloon you're flying, but even those in churches that have a confessional heritage can experience teaching/preaching that is watered down in one area or another. I think this is particularly true of the larger big-tent denominations where I hear its increasingly common to have pastoral candidates take one or more exception to teaching found in their own confessional documents.

A church unwilling to bind itself to a confessional statement on paper, will also be unwilling to do so from the pulpit. I say that not in judgment (as I have clearly stated this is my dilemma as well), but as someone who has sadly watched this occur.

Yes, this is indeed a problem and one of the many reasons why so many churches that try to be non-denominational and broadly evangelical typically have the theological depth of a kiddie pool and are squishy on doctrine. However, again...just because a church has a robust confession of faith doesn't mean it'll be adhered to either.

 

[Jonathco]

Friend, I hate to pop the pretty balloon you're flying, but even those in churches that have a confessional heritage can experience teaching/preaching that is watered down in one area or another. I think this is particularly true of the larger big-tent denominations where I hear its increasingly common to have pastoral candidates take one or more exception to teaching found in their own confessional documents.

My statement was not that a confession is a silver-bullet for church issues; rather, that churches unwilling to commit to one are also more likely to be unwilling to preach on such specifics from a pulpit. That shouldn't surprise any of us on here.

 

[B.L.]

My statement was not that a confession is a silver-bullet for church issues; rather, that churches unwilling to commit to one are also more likely to be unwilling to preach on such specifics from a pulpit. That shouldn't surprise any of us on here.

Very well brother...but I think you would be surprised at the number of churches in "Reformed" denominations today that are fraught with the same problems despite their commitment on paper to a confession of faith.

 

[TylerRay]

Every pastor should hold his views on lesser matters with humility; however, when it comes to key doctrines (those outlined in the Reformed confessions), he ought to preach with boldness and confidence, but not so as to offend those who are uninitiated. His role is to teach.

 

[B.L.]

Pastors,

My family and I began attending a church recently in which the pastor has told me he is Reformed and has great respect for the Confessions. However, his preaching and teaching is often intentionally vague on points that could cause division within the church (and potentially have them leave an already small church). He has told me he does not want to risk upsetting people having different theological positions at the church. How often do you feel you have to be theologically vague to keep the peace within your church - or is this almost never OK?

Thank you for any insight you may be able to provide.

My apologies for responding to this thread. I just realized the OP is addressed to pastors. I'll back out at this point.

Blessings to all.

 

[Guido's Brother]

In our Reformed churches, taking up communicant membership involves answering these questions (among several others): "First, do you wholeheartedly believe the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions, and taught here in this Christian church? Do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this doctrine in life and death, rejecting all heresies and errors conflicting with God's Word?"

Additionally, parents, when presenting their children for baptism, answer the following question (among others): "Second, do you confess that the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church, is the true and complete doctrine of salvation?"

So, being a confessional church is more than just being committed to the confessions "on paper." We have means by which congregation members are trained to understand and embrace the Three Forms of Unity -- the two most important ones are catechism classes for the youth of the church, and regular weekly catechism preaching (usually in the second service). All these things together help to create a more doctrinally cohesive church. Reading this discussion makes me thankful for what we have.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

So, being a confessional church is more than just being committed to the confessions "on paper."

Wes, as you know this includes confessional worship. In this regard, do you have a publication date for your new book "Aiming to Please: A Guide to Reformed Worship". I am certain this will help strengthen confessional worship on both sides of the Tasman, and beyond. Thanks.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Wes, as you know this includes confessional worship. In this regard, do you have a publication date for your new book "Aiming to Please: A Guide to Reformed Worship". I am certain this will help strengthen confessional worship on both sides of the Tasman, and beyond. Thanks.

The book has been printed. The publisher is just sorting out a price-point and so I hope it'll be available really soon! When it is, I'll announce it on my blog and on my Facebook author page.

 

[Jack K]

The question of how strongly a pastor ought to speak out on a point of doctrine depends on the doctrine, of course. In the case the OP brings up, the specific issue in question is the order of events surrounding Christ's return.

Well, on that issue, there is a fair amount of disagreement even among scholars all of us would respect, because the Bible texts are simply not as straightforward as they are when it comes to other, weightier matters. So whatever position we find most compelling is probably a position we ought to hold somewhat loosely and humbly.

I could respect a pastor who, on that particular issue, decided not to present his view as a firm pronouncement from the pulpit, especially if he sensed it might cause infighting. Now, if such a thing would indeed split a church, it may mean there are deeper congregational issues that ought to be addressed. And on the broader issue of dispensationalism it will be more important to take a clear stand. But there is wisdom in knowing which doctrines must be defended whatever the cost and which should be less tightly held.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The book has been printed. The publisher is just sorting out a price-point and so I hope it'll be available really soon! When it is, I'll announce it on my blog and on my Facebook author page.

Thank you. I do follow your FB author page and have just set up a subscription for your blog.

 

[David Taylor]

he ought to preach with boldness and confidence, but not so as to offend those who are uninitiated. His role is to teach.

I agree, but it is a fine line. We should not live in fear of offending someone with our preaching if we are preaching the truth. Jesus, Peter, and Paul certainly didn't.

In the case the OP brings up, the specific issue in question is the order of events surrounding Christ's return.

Ah, I see this in a subsequent post. On that particular issue, yes, we should be flexible as these events have not happened yet and some of it is "guesswork" so to speak. We should not be so dogmatic on those things.

 

[TylerRay]

I agree, but it is a fine line. We should not live in fear of offending someone with our preaching if we are preaching the truth. Jesus, Peter, and Paul certainly didn't.

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. The pastor is to have grace and tact in leading the ignorant. He is not to beat them over the head with truths that they don't understand. Instead, he is to instruct them with patience and gentleness. Both the neglect of proclaiming the truth, and giving unnecessary offense by bludgeoning people with truth they aren't ready for, will leave them in ignorance. Neither can be called teaching.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Thanks for your question.

Here's one: from the church's Statement I could clearly see a Pretrib rapture from the wording - the order: (1) Jesus returning before a (2) tribulational period and then a (3) literal thousand year millennium. I asked the pastor about the statement being Pretrib and he said he did not see that, but when he did, he denied the wording of the Statement was intended to mean Jesus' second coming was before the tribulation - he said the word order of that part of the statement was not meant to be precise (1 as above could be read as coming before 2, or 2 as above could be meant as coming before 1, but 3 as above was in the place of 3 regardless - because the church does claim to be premill). He then said it was important to avoid theological arguments as people at the church have different perspectives (e.g some Dispensational, some not).

I dont see anyone interacting with your example (sorry if I missed it). I would think that eschatological views would not necessarily be an issue on which the minister must be clear and decisive from the pulpit if he feels that would bring disunity, it isnt a primary, or even secondary matter.

That said, if he believes that some in the congregation would consider the eschatological position so important as to be worth leaving the church over, then perhaps that attitude to a tertiary issue would be a more important to address.

Edit: sorry, I see Jack already addressed this more eloquently than I could.