Featured Goverment of a Baptist church

Why?
I mean it is mashing up Biblical semantics, but didn't Paul appoint "Elders" in each town to oversee the church (local congregation) [Acts of the Apostles 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; 1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14] and are these "Empowered Deacons" not filling the role of "Elder" like those Paul appointed?

I am sure there is someone that helps with the daily tasks (like what the Apostles appointed "deacons" in my translation to do) in these SBCs.

Personally, I have seen a Pastor-led Church crumble when there was nobody to correct the Pastor and I have seen a Pastor-led Church weather storms that might have broken another church. I have seen an "Elder Board"-led church weather a crisis of its pastor abandoning his family and faith, and I have seen an "Elder Board"-led church split over support for a very liberal (ie. Jesus' miracles are allegorical, not literal) pastor that needed to be removed. There is no "SAFE" Government when PEOPLE are involved. With GOD, anything works. Without GOD, nothing works.

 

An elder and a deacon have significantly different roles. Elders are shepherds of the flock. Deacons are servants of the flock. Elders are teachers and overseers. Deacons provide assistance to help the sheep. The roles are different and the spiritual gifts are different.

All your examples show us that corrupt sinners, making decisions either according to God's word or according to selfishness have consequences for the body. However, God provided the governance in the Bible for a purpose and we should take heed.

 

My quote was satirical, yet factual.

 

The pastor should be one of a handful of elders.

 

I think the members should elect the elders, and the elders would govern the day to day operation of the church. Nomination of proposed Elders would normally be done by the Elders and presented to the congregation for confirmation. However, if a group of members, say 7 in number, petitioned the Elders, the group could also "nominate" proposed Elders.

So by the numbers,

1) The staff reports to the Senior Pastor or designee

2) The Senior Pastor reports to the Elder board of which he is a voting member.

3) The Elder board would be comprised of one or more Pastors, but the majority would be non-paid members.

4) The Elder board would report to the congregation at an annual meeting, quarterly meetings, and if needed, special meetings.

 

I have a problem with the pastors, or any other paid employees being on any board that controls their salaries and the church finances. The pastor is to handle the spiritual direction of the church. The deacons are to manage the "distribution" which today is the day to day operation.

 

Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

There must be come authority given to the entire body, "congregational authority", at least in the case of discipline.

 

Good Point, we had an overall budget recommendation, absence salaries, from the Pastor/Elder and his staff, but we (non-salaried Elders) set the compensation budget recommendation. And of course, the budget was voted on and approved by the membership.

 

That's similar to our small church. I'd add that during the annual meeting, our pastor and his wife leave the room while pastoral support is addressed. Though we've been members of this church for only the past 23 years, I'm confident that this procedure has been practiced since the planting of the church 42 years ago, since by grace our paster was led to be its planter.

 

Yes, recusal solves the problem of leading in ministry without being involved in personal compensation.

And I agree that long serving Pastors are a blessing, and that our modern norm of changing every few years is unwise. Next May, God willing, I will have been a member of our local church for 50 years.

 

I served in the military before becoming a member of my current local church.

 

I disagree with members electing the elders. The vast majority of members are biblical infants. You never see elders chosen by the congregation in the Bible. How horrible that would have been in the Corinthian church.

Being an elder is not a political popularity contest.

 

Trial by ordeal.

 

This is why there is an ordination process. Those who are already ordained elders (Pastor's) ordain the younger men when they meet the qualifications, much like Timothy. These ordained men, prayerfully select men who are qualified to be elders.

The problem, of course, lies in the wolves that have moved themselves into these ordination counsels and have allowed wolves to lead the sheep. This is a grievous thng. But, the ordination committee is much more qualified to choose elders than is a congregation of mostly ignorant sheep.

 

No, I would keep it within the denomination since the presumption is that those who were ordained before have gone through a trial and inquisition of their own faith. These men would be best qualified to discern elders from a congregation.
The idea that individual churches are purely autonomous with no one to hold her accountable is not biblically supported.