Matt Postiff's Blog

I wanted to add some more "interview questions" to my earlier entry on finding a pastor. Some of these should be asked before the candidate ever comes for preaching, particularly the first three questions below:

• What is your salvation testimony and call to the ministry?
• Where are you serving now, what is your past church experience, and why are you leaving (if he is)?
• Inquire from references regarding his past family history (divorce?), problems with character, money, immorality, pornography, drugs?
• What do you believe are the components of the gospel?
• Is the Bible inspired? (Yes). Inerrant? (Yes). In matters of faith only or science? (All that it touches)
• What style of preaching do you do? (Expository, books, verse-by-verse...) At what level do you try to preach?
• What do you believe about the doctrine of Trinitarianism?
• What is justification?
• In what kind of atonement do you believe?

Be sure to explore these areas deeply so you know what the candidate means by what the says.

An alert reader of this page pointed out that my previous wording (now fixed) regarding the "baby brigade" post might mislead some folks to think that we had new babies added to the membership of the church, or that we had four new babies "saved" because of infant baptism or because they were born into Christian families. Far from it, of course! They were gifted by God to four of our church's families, but not until each one makes an individual, conscious decision to follow Jesus Christ are they converted. After that point, they may decide to join the membership of our particular local church, having already become "members" of the church of the truly redeemed at the time of their conversion. No baptism or any other ritual can wash away original sin or bring a baby into salvation. Only Jesus Christ's work on the cross can do that.

A church I know is searching for a new pastor after their former pastor was called to another ministry. I was considering what advice I might give to them. My first counsel is to "stick to your guns and get clear answers from the candidate." When I say "stick to your guns" I mean that the church should not compromise its beliefs to find a pastor. I will use the example of young-earth, 6-day creationism. If you believe in that doctrine, then do not offer the pastorate to a man who does not believe that.

Related to that is the "get clear answers from the candidate" advice. Theoretically, if you ask the candidate if they believe and teach 6-day creationism from a young-earth perspective, then there are several possible answers: No, Yes, or something more vague like "I don't make an issue of that" or "I don't know." Stick to your guns and do not call a man who says anything other than "Yes." If he says "No," you don't want him because he will change the church or make life very difficult at some point down the road. If he says "I don't know," you don't want him because he has not thought through some issues. We are not talking about some esoteric theological point here. This is basic doctrine. And if he says "I don't make an issue of that," he has not answered your question! This is perhaps the worst of all, because he probably does not believe what you are hoping, and he is being equivocal. Maybe he is doing so to appear to be reasonable or just to get the job. It will happen again in the future! The end result will be little different than if he just says "No."

Now the question probably arises in your mind, what issues should we treat this way? Here are some, in no particular order, with my answers in parentheses:

• Are you King-James Only? (No)
• Do you believe in 6-day creationism? (Yes)
• Will you bring contemporary Christian music into the church? (No)
• Are you Baptistic? (Yes)
• Are you Fundamental? (Yes)
• Do you believe in dispensationalism? (Yes)
• Are you Calvinistic? (Moderately so--four point)
• Do you believe it is permissible to divorce and remarry? (No)
• What is the primary emphasis of missions? (Evangelism and church planting)
• Do you believe in separation? How much? (Yes, including sometimes Christian brothers)
• Do you believe in premillennialism? (Yes)
• Do you believe in pretribulationism? (Yes)
• Do you believe tongues, healing, knowledge, and prophecy are available today? (No)
• Do you believe in a second blessing after salvation? (No)
• Do you believe there is more than one way of salvation? What about infants before an age of accountability? (No, Yes)
• Are you new evangelical? (No)
• What is your view of the market-driven church, seeker-sensitive church, and church growth movement in general? (No)

Of course, you should explore the candidate's views more deeply than this--what are the fundamentals and what do you believe about them? What does it mean to be Baptist? And so forth.

I did get some feedback on the Polygamy entry from August 16. One query had to do with whether my use of Romans 7:1-3 is valid at all. That is, does Romans 7:1-3 really have any bearing on the issue of polygamy, since that is not at all what Paul is teaching about? Good question--since I am committed to the belief that we must teach the Bible in context and not lift passages out of context to make a point we desire to make.

The answer to this is basically that there is an implication in what Paul is teaching that does have to do with polygamy. It seems quite clear from the passage that polyandry is adultery. "Polygamy=adultery" seems to be a straightforward extension to this. Certainly Paul's point is not to teach about polygamy or polyandry. But based on this implication, a man who runs off with another woman and commits adultery with her, but remains married to his original spouse all the while, is in egregious sin. I don't see anything "sanctifying" about parading that adulterous relationship up to a civil magistrate, having him declare it a "marriage," and then pretending it is better than if you didn't have it legally declared a marriage. Just saying it is right doesn't make it right. Dressing up adultery with marriage vows and a marriage license does not make it any more righteous.

Today in the mail, I received a glossy trifold in the mail from the Christadelphians. I had to review what these folks believe (too many cults out there to keep track of.) But these folks are definitely a cult. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they do not believe God exists in three persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are strictly monotheists who believe that Christ is a man, and that the Holy Spirit is the emanation of God's power. They also believe baptism is necessary in order to be saved, that souls sleep at death until (some) are resurrected, and that there is no real Hell. Clearly, these people are opposed to many of the fundamentals of the true Christian faith.

Don't be tricked by them. They claim that they can help you read the Bible more effectively. They cannot.

Other references:

What is Christadelphianism, and what do Christadelphians believe? by gotquestions.org

Is Christadelphianism Christian by Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

In July four new babies were born to families in our church. The baby brigade, with proud parents, is shown below. "Goliath" on the left was born at the end of March; the rest were born in July. We rejoice that God has gifted these little lives into their families and into our care as a local church.

For the inaugural entry in my blog, I thought what better than to tackle a tough theological issue like polygamy? There are many "sub issues" to this one, such as whether men with multiples wives can be members of a local church (say, in Africa), whether they can take communion or be in leadership roles, how they should handle their wives after becoming saved, whether they should divorce all but one (and which one?) or support them without having relations, and whether the law of their home country has any bearing on the question at all.

Before we can get to those questions (perhaps in future blog entries), it is important to note that Romans 7:1-3 has some bearing on this issue. It speaks of a wife becoming an adulteress if she marries another man while her first husband is still alive. By implication, a man who marries another woman while his first wife is alive also becomes an adulterer. This seems quite obvious to most Christians. The application to the case of polygamy is just that the man who marries a second wife is an adulterer with respect to his first wife. It does not seem to make a difference to me if you call it a marriage or not, as it is no different than if the man has an ongoing affair with another woman. This comes to bear on the question of whether the second marriage is valid, and would have significant impact on the answers to the questions posed in the previous paragraph.