Deacons role in church

[Bruh]

Twice in my 19 years in the pastorate my deacons have disagreed with me on a major course of action. One was a public disagreement and the other a private one, though neither were doctrinal.  In both cases I still think I was right, but in both cases I yielded. The deacons did not fuss with me and I did not fuss with them, privately or publicly.  We just disagreed, and I let their disagreement carry the day.

I did so for two reasons: 1) I greatly value church unity, and unity that cannot live through a disagreement is not unity; it is dictatorship from whichever direction it flows. 2) I do not want to become one of those preachers who begins well and ends badly. Often times in such situations in pride he comes to value his own opinion as the only valid one. He surrounds himself with yes men, men who will never tell him he is wrong.

The value of those two things is greater to me than the value of what I would have gained by forcing them to agree with me or else.

There are extremes or errors on either side. A cantankerous deacon board can make life a pure hell for a pastor and his family, and do much to damage a church. My own father has lived through some of that, and I have sought diligently to avoid it. But a dictatorial pastor can make life pure hell for himself and his church in the future if he allows his pride to demand constant, never-ending agreement. Wisdom lies in the balance between the two, and in love for the Lord and our brethren in Christ.

This entire post, IMO, is pure wisdom.

I'm sure the membership love and adore you.

I have never in all my years know personally a pastor that operates this way.

 

[Walt]

Twice in my 19 years in the pastorate my deacons have disagreed with me on a major course of action. One was a public disagreement and the other a private one, though neither were doctrinal.  In both cases I still think I was right, but in both cases I yielded. The deacons did not fuss with me and I did not fuss with them, privately or publicly.  We just disagreed, and I let their disagreement carry the day.

I did so for two reasons: 1) I greatly value church unity, and unity that cannot live through a disagreement is not unity; it is dictatorship from whichever direction it flows. 2) I do not want to become one of those preachers who begins well and ends badly. Often times in such situations in pride he comes to value his own opinion as the only valid one. He surrounds himself with yes men, men who will never tell him he is wrong.

The value of those two things is greater to me than the value of what I would have gained by forcing them to agree with me or else.

There are extremes or errors on either side. A cantankerous deacon board can make life a pure hell for a pastor and his family, and do much to damage a church. My own father has lived through some of that, and I have sought diligently to avoid it. But a dictatorial pastor can make life pure hell for himself and his church in the future if he allows his pride to demand constant, never-ending agreement. Wisdom lies in the balance between the two, and in love for the Lord and our brethren in Christ.

This entire post, IMO, is pure wisdom.

I'm sure the membership love and adore you.

I have never in all my years know personally a pastor that operates this way.

Ditto on the wisdom.  I think I've been in some churches that operate this way.

 

[baptisthac]

I'm trying to make the point that it is not a "great relationship" when one side is merely giving in to the demands of the other -- it is merely an uneasy truce. A "great" relationship allows each side to disagree while still respecting each other.

One side was not giving in to the demands of the other.  I believe they had unity and agreement for many years.  It was the one time that there was not 100% agreement that the pastor resigned.

 

[RAIDER]

Twice in my 19 years in the pastorate my deacons have disagreed with me on a major course of action. One was a public disagreement and the other a private one, though neither were doctrinal.  In both cases I still think I was right, but in both cases I yielded. The deacons did not fuss with me and I did not fuss with them, privately or publicly.  We just disagreed, and I let their disagreement carry the day.

I did so for two reasons: 1) I greatly value church unity, and unity that cannot live through a disagreement is not unity; it is dictatorship from whichever direction it flows. 2) I do not want to become one of those preachers who begins well and ends badly. Often times in such situations in pride he comes to value his own opinion as the only valid one. He surrounds himself with yes men, men who will never tell him he is wrong.

The value of those two things is greater to me than the value of what I would have gained by forcing them to agree with me or else.

There are extremes or errors on either side. A cantankerous deacon board can make life a pure hell for a pastor and his family, and do much to damage a church. My own father has lived through some of that, and I have sought diligently to avoid it. But a dictatorial pastor can make life pure hell for himself and his church in the future if he allows his pride to demand constant, never-ending agreement. Wisdom lies in the balance between the two, and in love for the Lord and our brethren in Christ.

Nicely done!

 

[baptisthac]

Everyone needs accountability.  I was always taught that if you have a problem with a preacher you should just quietly leave the church.  This is what my family did at one time. 

Here is my question.  Let's say that a pastor does not have his home in order.  Let's say his son is out of control.  Several people go to the pastor and speak to him about this problem.  Nothing is done, and the pastor continues like there is not a problem.  Should the people that see the problem just leave their ministries and the church they love and have served in for years?  Should the deacons say, 'We are just servants and we have no right to speak to the pastor about this problem?"  Where is the accountability for the pastor?

Should the deacons call a meeting with the pastor and tell him that this has to be dealt with?  If so, are the deacons overstepping their office?  If they speak to the pastor and he resigns should the deacons be accused of being "trouble makers" and running off the pastor?  If a staff member goes to the pastor and addresses the issue is he being disloyal?

Just throwing out a very real type scenario.  What think ye?

 

[Walt]

Everyone needs accountability.  I was always taught that if you have a problem with a preacher you should just quietly leave the church.  This is what my family did at one time. 

I've heard this also, but I'm not sure that it is correct.  I think it really depends upon what is meant by "you have a problem with a preacher".  If his personality rubs me the wrong way, yes, I should just leave quietly.  However, if the preacher, for example, molests your daughter, or is embezzling funds, or is teaching heresy, then such actions need to be brought before the church. This is NOT a case  for "leaving quietly".  I'm afraid that most of us would be afraid to accuse him publicly.

Here is my question.  Let's say that a pastor does not have his home in order.  Let's say his son is out of control.  Several people go to the pastor and speak to him about this problem.  Nothing is done, and the pastor continues like there is not a problem.  Should the people that see the problem just leave their ministries and the church they love and have served in for years?  Should the deacons say, 'We are just servants and we have no right to speak to the pastor about this problem?"  Where is the accountability for the pastor?

Should the deacons call a meeting with the pastor and tell him that this has to be dealt with?  If so, are the deacons overstepping their office?  If they speak to the pastor and he resigns should the deacons be accused of being "trouble makers" and running off the pastor?  If a staff member goes to the pastor and addresses the issue is he being disloyal?

Just throwing out a very real type scenario.  What think ye?

If we're talking about a situation like JH and DH, when JH did nothing about DH, one or two others should have been taken to confront him; failing that, they should have taken it to the church.  Given the absolute power JH held, it may not have done any good, but it was the right and Scriptural thing to do. When the church would not take action, the only choice left is to leave until the pastor is gone.

The pastor is a member of the church, not its king, and the deacons in this regard are just members too.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Everyone needs accountability.  I was always taught that if you have a problem with a preacher you should just quietly leave the church.  This is what my family did at one time. 

Here is my question.  Let's say that a pastor does not have his home in order.  Let's say his son is out of control.  Several people go to the pastor and speak to him about this problem.  Nothing is done, and the pastor continues like there is not a problem.  Should the people that see the problem just leave their ministries and the church they love and have served in for years?  Should the deacons say, 'We are just servants and we have no right to speak to the pastor about this problem?"  Where is the accountability for the pastor?

Should the deacons call a meeting with the pastor and tell him that this has to be dealt with?  If so, are the deacons overstepping their office?  If they speak to the pastor and he resigns should the deacons be accused of being "trouble makers" and running off the pastor?  If a staff member goes to the pastor and addresses the issue is he being disloyal?

Just throwing out a very real type scenario.  What think ye?

Here I believe is the scriptural method of disciplining a pastor that has done public wrong per the Bible.

1Ti 5:19  Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
1Ti 5:20  Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
1Ti 5:21  I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

1. Deacons do a proper investigation interviewing all the witnesses. Most accusations will not make it past this point. but if there really is a "there" there it will become obvious.
2. Deacons make determination of guilt or innocence.
3. Do it as unto God with dignity and without partiality.

Now if you have a pastor that has conducted a preemptive strike against anyone that might call him into account this may not work at all because the people will not follow God but will follow the pastor.

This is of course what we did at FBCH in regard to Bro. Hyles handling of DH, but not Jack Schaap.

The preemptive strike would consist of repeatedly telling the congregation  that if you have a problem with a preacher you should just quietly leave the church, because he is God's man and you wouldn't want to go against God, or some such implied threat.

This is what was drilled into us at FBCH. As I look back I believe it was taught to us expressly to provide a way out for Bro. Hyles to protect himself from any consequences resulting from his inappropriate behavior. I confess that I bought into this philosophy and am one of those responsible for not handling the Bro. Hyles situation in a scriptural manner. 

The procedure I describe below was not in place when Bro. Hyles was our pastor, if it had been in place the outcome may have been far different. We did not at the time observe 1Tim. 5:21 ?that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.? We all thought Bro. Hyles was more equal than any of us were as he was God's man. Yup, the Moses model. He was more equal than any of us so we treated him with  partiality.


Once a matter of grave importance starts to bubble up you will have well more than the two witness required to begin an inquiry.

At FBCH we have in our bylaws a procedure spelled out to guide us in such an endeavor. It is all done in private without the pastor being privy to the proceedings.

The witnesses are interviewed privately by the discipline committee that is elected from the deacon board. The committee than decides if there is any merit to the charges and if there is it is brought before the whole body of elected officials of the corporation, i.e. the deacons.  Witness can be heard on all sides as in a trial. In our case it would not be hashed out before the whole congregation.  The final determination would be made by the deacon board after all sides had opportunity to present their evidence.

If the pastor were found to have committed an offense worthy of removal we have provisions to revoke his membership in the church by vote of the deacon board.

Because we have a provision that states you must be a member of FBCH to hold elected office he would automatically no longer be eligible to hold any elected office in the church.

Since he was no longer a member he would no longer hold the office of pastor and we would then start looking for a new pastor.



So if you are in a church without the provisions I have outlined the pastor will be in a position to make your life miserable, just ask VN if he were still alive.

Each time the pastor escapes accountability he will be emboldened to even greater misbehaving. This is so illustrated by what happened during the last 50 years at FBCH.

All of your questions are answered with this procedure.

At FBCH the whole membership is bound by the above procedure and you can not be a member if you do not subscribe to it. 

Well this is what we have done to try to prevent things such as has happened in the past.

 

[Angelface2011]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

As more of the story unfolds and gossip gets pushed aside it looks like this is what really happened. Thank you all for your input! ?