"...either you tell us what we want to hear, or we show you the door." For what it's worth, if a pastor resigns/retires/transfers and the church looks for a new pastor, that church has every right to advertise "we are not Calvinist and have no interest in entertaining a Calvinist candidate." Then, if a stealth candidate lies to their face and then tries to slowly bring in Calvinism, it usually starts with an almost innocuous Spurgeon quote, then that church has every right to show him the door. I'm not asserting that Mr. Durham was a dishonest stealth Calvinist. Stealth Calvinists can be very patient, some have a 5 year plan, and I get the idea that Mr. Durham is more of a right now type.
I agree. I would add that any church OUGHT TO BE up-front about where they are on the theological spectrum. The same goes for the pastoral candidate.
If I'm a Doug Wilson supporter, and the church is not like that--either in theology, culture, or church governmental structure--then it is not a good fit for either of us.
And you're right: I've seen some Piper-Dever-MacArthurites play a long game with churches: they'll come into a more old-school SBC church that has a more congregational/deacon-led/committee-run governmental structure, and--over time--transform it into a 9Marxist, elder-run church where congregant don't get much of a say in anything.
Personally, I tend to look at the larger culture of a church. I'm a conservative, and that means both orthoDOXY and orthoPRAXY. My politics are conservative, but if I'm preaching or teaching, my lessons aren't going to have much, if any, political overtones. The rule I've developed on that front over the years:
If you're a pastor,
DO speak to ISSUES and POLICIES;
DO NOT endorse PERSONS or PARTIES.
Why? It's what I call the lesson of Billy Graham. He actively promoted Nixon, and paid dearly for that in the blowback from Watergate.
1) Hasty reporting & sloppy research. I HAVE provided the content of my sermon.
2. Personal bias as a former "rookie" y-pastor. This Youth Pastor was ALSO a Deacon, long-standing member, plus 20+ yrs my senior. (IOW. Power differential tipped entirely his way.)
3. You painted y- pastor & his wife as saints w/o substantiating. I have corroborated testimony from multiple people that he & his wife fomented division prior to my coming.
4. Ad Hominem. You attack my character. I've written about my use of serated age and its warrant. You seek to paint me as a rebel rouser.
Your sham of an article is overtly prejudiced. Zero objectivity. You obviously have an axe to grind and an agenda.
Tim, you'll be happy to know I DID preach the gospel in that sermon, as I do in EVERY Sermon. I've been doing this for 25 years, and I no longer need to write "gospel" in my outline as a prompt.
You'll also be happy to know that I would have gladly received admonishment from this older man.
Unfortunately, he didn't do that. He went behind my back and tried to have me fired, and then launched a smear campaign.
You'll also be happy to know that we tried very hard to establish a good rapport with this older woman. Sadly, instead of being a Titus 2 older lady to my wife, she played Herod's wife and demanded my head on a platter.
This older, "well-respected" couple, as you keep framing them, did not even have the common decency to resign in a respectful manner. They quit immediately, and left the church in the lurch that Sunday, scrambling to cover their various duties (youth, audio/video, finances). Another Deacon had to read his resignation letter in his absence. I'm also not the first pastor to leave (or be fired), due, in part, to them.
As far as hit pieces go, yours gets an F. You've really got to disguise your intentions better. You need to make us feel that you're NOT writing a thinly veiled smear. Your animosity and bias were simply too obvious.
It's hilarious to me that you appointed yourself as the arbiter of my case. You've never met me, and doubtlessly never been to this church or town. You also clearly don't know the first thing about preaching or ministry. Yet, you posture yourself as some kind of expert on these matters. It's laughable that you pretend to reconstruct and "assess' my sermon based on a short-hand outline. Both your ignorance, and your arrogance are astounding. Rest assured, nobody is buying it. Least of all, me.
"...either you tell us what we want to hear, or we show you the door." For what it's worth, if a pastor resigns/retires/transfers and the church looks for a new pastor, that church has every right to advertise "we are not Calvinist and have no interest in entertaining a Calvinist candidate." Then, if a stealth candidate lies to their face and then tries to slowly bring in Calvinism, it usually starts with an almost innocuous Spurgeon quote, then that church has every right to show him the door. I'm not asserting that Mr. Durham was a dishonest stealth Calvinist. Stealth Calvinists can be very patient, some have a 5 year plan, and I get the idea that Mr. Durham is more of a right now type.
I agree. I would add that any church OUGHT TO BE up-front about where they are on the theological spectrum. The same goes for the pastoral candidate.
If I'm a Doug Wilson supporter, and the church is not like that--either in theology, culture, or church governmental structure--then it is not a good fit for either of us.
And you're right: I've seen some Piper-Dever-MacArthurites play a long game with churches: they'll come into a more old-school SBC church that has a more congregational/deacon-led/committee-run governmental structure, and--over time--transform it into a 9Marxist, elder-run church where congregant don't get much of a say in anything.
Personally, I tend to look at the larger culture of a church. I'm a conservative, and that means both orthoDOXY and orthoPRAXY. My politics are conservative, but if I'm preaching or teaching, my lessons aren't going to have much, if any, political overtones. The rule I've developed on that front over the years:
If you're a pastor,
DO speak to ISSUES and POLICIES;
DO NOT endorse PERSONS or PARTIES.
Why? It's what I call the lesson of Billy Graham. He actively promoted Nixon, and paid dearly for that in the blowback from Watergate.
Flaws in your "reporting:"
1) Hasty reporting & sloppy research. I HAVE provided the content of my sermon.
2. Personal bias as a former "rookie" y-pastor. This Youth Pastor was ALSO a Deacon, long-standing member, plus 20+ yrs my senior. (IOW. Power differential tipped entirely his way.)
3. You painted y- pastor & his wife as saints w/o substantiating. I have corroborated testimony from multiple people that he & his wife fomented division prior to my coming.
4. Ad Hominem. You attack my character. I've written about my use of serated age and its warrant. You seek to paint me as a rebel rouser.
Your sham of an article is overtly prejudiced. Zero objectivity. You obviously have an axe to grind and an agenda.
Your conclusion is outright slander and sinful.
I factored in your notes.
https://oldreepicheep.substack.com/p/brandon-durhams-sermon-notes
My response to your "factoring"
Tim, you'll be happy to know I DID preach the gospel in that sermon, as I do in EVERY Sermon. I've been doing this for 25 years, and I no longer need to write "gospel" in my outline as a prompt.
You'll also be happy to know that I would have gladly received admonishment from this older man.
Unfortunately, he didn't do that. He went behind my back and tried to have me fired, and then launched a smear campaign.
You'll also be happy to know that we tried very hard to establish a good rapport with this older woman. Sadly, instead of being a Titus 2 older lady to my wife, she played Herod's wife and demanded my head on a platter.
This older, "well-respected" couple, as you keep framing them, did not even have the common decency to resign in a respectful manner. They quit immediately, and left the church in the lurch that Sunday, scrambling to cover their various duties (youth, audio/video, finances). Another Deacon had to read his resignation letter in his absence. I'm also not the first pastor to leave (or be fired), due, in part, to them.
As far as hit pieces go, yours gets an F. You've really got to disguise your intentions better. You need to make us feel that you're NOT writing a thinly veiled smear. Your animosity and bias were simply too obvious.
It's hilarious to me that you appointed yourself as the arbiter of my case. You've never met me, and doubtlessly never been to this church or town. You also clearly don't know the first thing about preaching or ministry. Yet, you posture yourself as some kind of expert on these matters. It's laughable that you pretend to reconstruct and "assess' my sermon based on a short-hand outline. Both your ignorance, and your arrogance are astounding. Rest assured, nobody is buying it. Least of all, me.