Also, to add my opinion to the above: Since most SB churches are still very congregationalist, wouldn’t the people know that these were Calvinist pastors and so probably not hire them in the first place?

Thanks for listening.

What could happen?
If the new pastors are faithful, they will preach the word well. If they’re faithful *and* risk-takers (which I believe is *really* part of being faithful), they’ll also allow for some spirit-led experiences (like organized sessions of prayer for each other, words of knowledge, etc.).

What won’t happen?
I don’t know. Another theological statement.

“Will it work? Can these churches be turned around?”
What does “work” mean? One day, over 10,000 people were following Jesus. The next day, Jesus successfully narrowed that down to 12. Jesus considered pruning as necessary as watering. Or, as Dr. Gene Scott liked to put it, “Elimination is as necessary as assimilation.”
What will be the key factors in success or failure?
Again, what is success or failure? How do you measure it? These men, if they take some steps to love and identify with the sheep they’re going to serve and lead, may reach the hearts of their new congregations. The congregants, for their part, may have renewed interest in digging in deep into the Word, and seeing what it really says, and letting their traditions be challenged.

My prediction: 4 responses from the congregation. Some will say, “What are these guys saying? Doesn’t make sense.” This response might include a (not physical) violent resistance to change. Others will say, “These guys are great!” but when they see the changes that are required of their way of life, will soon resist and go back to the way things have always been done. Others will take longer to reach the same state. Others will be whole-hearted and embrace the good changes that the new guys are bringing in. Whether the following comes about in a permanent way in the community is another matter: Better theology, better church life, less in-bred-ness, more ministry to the needy in their area, more cohesive community life while at the same time being more welcome to outsiders, more Scripture-based supernatural activity. There might not be enough of a critical mass of good soil to maintain a change.

Will it work?
Are these the men to do it?
If God calls them, yes. If not, no.
What this really all depends on is if this is God’s will or not. When it was God’s will for the Israelites to go into the promised land (Numbers 13), they would have succeeded, though the odds against them looked great. But just one chapter later, when the people revealed their stiffnecked attitude, God said he would no longer be with them in going into the promised land. Nothing had changed in 1 chapter–nothing but the potential outcome. This is what makes me wary of measuring success by some simple external standard (though I suppose one of the reasons you started this post is to stimulute such a discussion).
Or what about a single man, Elijah, hanging out with a widow. That’s kind of suspicious. And he takes advantage of her, saying “feed the prophet”, even though she’s about to starve. But Elijah was just the person God picked to help her, and he helped her big time. Would I have chosen Elijah for this task? Would you?

Your question could have been equally posed if you replaced reformed-type pastors with Clark Pinnock or Greg Boyd type pastors, and I would have answered similarly.

People continued coming as before. Most of them thought the preaching was excellent, but, after a time, began to wonder about the pastor’s lack of excitement for traditional activities.

Members who believed strongly in the church’s mandate to use their wealth in ministry to the poor ultimately became discouraged because of the pastor’s desire to keep the church free from such encumbrances; so, they left to find a church that would accept their offerings and channel them as they desired they be channeled.

Miracle of miracles, a few adults became believers and were baptized. Some were ecstatic about this, but the majority just assumed that God did it for His own reasons, and, more concerned about the lack of enthusiasm during worship services, from the pulpit, and in consultation with the pastor.

Ultimately, the church began to fight over a relatively important issue, and the young pastor returned to seminary to study *more*.

Names omitted to protect the guilty, but forgiven. Personally, I’m still trying to figure it all out.

At first they didn’t care. They just wanted a pastor and could only pay $500.00 a month.

Then they told him he couldn’t preach reformed messages. They held a business meeting to see if they wanted him gone.

We are still there preaching reformed messages. No one has left. They are slowly growing in knowledge.

Blessings,
Karen

I can see what you are saying but I think you are applying your own experience to broadly. “That kind of church is meant by God Himself to be a stepping stone for new pastors. Using it as a stepping stone is the right thing to do”. I can’t go along with that. In what way was this church not good for you, your family, or the church? Based on that philosophy you have stayed at your current church 3 years too long. In my opinion it is generally helpful for a pastor to have a long intentional tenure at a church no matter what size it is. Burrying oursleves in a mega church is just as rotten as burrying ourselves in a small rural church. Burried is burried.

Great Blog!