Counter-cultural recommendation for pastors learned from @MarkDever: when you're thinking about leaving your church for another opportunity (pastorate; overseas; etc), consider telling your church BEFORE you make the decision, not AFTER. Invite them to pray with you about it.
A pastor friend recently did this. Asked the church to pray with him about moving overseas for a missionary opportunity. His church, though sad, felt blessed and loved to be involved in the process of praying and decision-making.
I also know brothers have done this when thinking about leaving one church for another. Had both churches praying about the possible transfer.

Why might you do this?
1) It models for the church what it means to be committed to a church: we don't come and go lightly, but love the body and want them to be a part of discerning God's calling in our life.
2) It presents a de-professionalized view of the pastorate. The pastor is not a free-agent or professional looking to move upward. You're a family member among other family members; a part of the body among other parts; a shepherd among sheep. It's only natural to involve them.
3) It shows the body that you love and cherishe them. Instead of showing up one Sunday and announcing a departure, it says, "I cherish you, and only want to leave if God is calling me elsewhere. But this opportunity has come up. Can you help me discern that?"
4) It gives the church an opportunity to prepare themselves relationally and communicates the message that a church is built on relationships of friendship and love, not transactions of convenience.
5) It works against turfiness, teaching everyone that "our church" and "their church" are playing for the same team. None of us should be building our kingdoms but Christ's kingdom. If it's better for Christ's kingdom that you leave, all should be excited, even if sad.
As I understand it, this practice of churches praying together about pastoral transfers used to be more common. I'm not saying it's the right course of action for every situation, especially contentious ones. But it is a practice our churches should recover.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jonathan Leeman

Jonathan Leeman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JonathanLeeman

17 Nov 20
Sunday's piece from @DavidAFrench on the risks of over-identifying Christianity with a political party may provide a good conversation-starter for church elders to have. Some questions you and your fellow elders might discuss: (1/7) frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-cultural…
1) What problems come from letting ourselves be identified with a political party?

2) What steps can we as a church take to work against over-identification/subversion?
3) Is it possible any of the unity we feel as a church comes not from the gospel but from our shared partisan convictions? IOW: is there room in our church both for Matthew the tax collector (can work with Rome) and Simon the Zealot (can't work with Rome) to follow Jesus?
Read 7 tweets
31 Aug 20
Three wrong postures for a Christian toward politics and one right posture:
1) The Jonah option--withdraw. Forget those nasty Ninevites. Flee to Tarshish.

2) The Judah option--capitulate. Make peace with the world for the sake of its silver.
Probably the biggest temptation for evangelicals:
3) The Peter-with-a-sword-in-the-garden-of-Gethsemane option--utopianism/worldliness. We mean well, but give short-term political outcomes an outsized importance and fail to see the bigger realities at stake.
A better posture:
4) The Daniel option--represent. We have a pagan king who might feed us to the lions. But we serve him with honor, never fearing him, because we know the Lord holds the king in his hands, and we represent the Lord.

(From How the Nations Rage)
Read 4 tweets
9 Jul 20
The idea of “human dignity” has become a bedrock principle in contemporary jurisprudence (see esp. Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion). Yet what happens when we do not ground our ideas about human dignity in God via the imago dei? Three things... (1/16)
First, we will define “human” and “dignity” on our own secular terms.
Second, we will feel morally constrained to impose those secular views…at almost any cost. After all, we image-bearers have been designed by God to desire justice, and those secular views of dignity now seem just. (IOW: our view of justice roots in our view of human dignity.)
Read 16 tweets
1 Jul 20
Let me connect two conversations you may have never thought to connect: church polity and structural injustice.

(Haha! Only from a 9Marks guy, right?)

If you recognize the reality and relevance of one, you should be able to recognize that of the other. 1/7
For years, 9Marks has been teaching that church polity shapes individual Christian discipleship. Church polity teaches me that my Christianity is not about just me and Jesus. It means being a church member, which is to say, part of a family and body, with various duties. 2/7
The "rule structure" that is a church's polity broadens my sense of identity, shapes my values and ambitions with respect to Christ and his followers, and enumerates my responsibilities and obligations to this body. 3/7
Read 7 tweets
25 Feb 20
The first stage in doctrinal evolution occurs when our intuitions no longer match our doctrines. We maintain the same doctrines, but something in our guts has changed. Inside us is a growing cognitive dissonance, whether we consciously recognize that dissonance or not. Meanwhile
people outside of us began to notice a shift in tone and emphases. If they say something, our initial response can be defensive. "I haven't changed. Look, same doctrines!" Yet something has changed. Our sympathies and intuitions are no longer what they were.
Obviously, some doctrinal changes are good (when toward Scripture), others not good (when moving away). My point here is, it's good to be aware of the distinction between our intuitions and our doctrines and how they can fall out of sync.
Read 8 tweets
18 Feb 20
More and more I'm seeing tweets pitting complementarianism against gospel ministry. As in: "Debates over women preachers are distracting us from gospel proclamation and ministry. If you're for gospel proclamation, you won't slow women down!"

A few comments:
Pitting one against the other roots in an old instinct for neo-evangelicals to treat everything as one of two speeds: as ESSENTIAL or as INDIFFERENT. "If something's not essential to conversion, ignore it. Otherwise we'll just argue." Think ordinances, polity, women preachers.
The two-speeds approach misses a middle speed (2nd order of theological triage): important or essential-for-obedience. Most ecclesiology depends on that middle speed. These things aren't essential for salvation, but they protect the gospel and our gospel witness over time.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!