"Chairman" of deacons?

I was an active deacon for 7 years and I think you need a chairman simply to call the meetings, come up with an agenda and provide some leadership. I might be biased here because we were blessed with an outstanding chairman. What I didn't like was having the pastor attend every Deacon's meeting. Sometimes I think an independent point of view is a good thing.

 

Our church has excellent deacons and an excellent chairman and they would never do anything behind the Pastor's back.

All decisions are run by him. He respects them and they respect him.

 

Some deacons are 'beacons' and some are 'demons'.

At any rate they are supposed to be servants to the church and pastor, nothing more.

 

If the pastors and congregation decide that the duties involved with the position of deacon require a chairman, then it's okay.

Why have a pastor involve himself with integrating the parking and maintenance teams when another deacon could be appointed and given the responsibility?

Rob

 

Appointed and given the responsibility; but ultimately, the pastor is the one who has to answer for it. Not just to God, but to the people, too.

In my opinion, there would be nothing worse than for someone to ask the pastor, "Why is it this way?" and the pastor respond, "Ask Deacon so-and-so; I have no idea."

Every good leader needs to know what's going on; not necessarily making the decisions, but informed.

 

No deacons = No chairman of deacons = No power struggle

 

Shannon, you said "a little off base"...are you sure about that?
If you look at the vast majority of baptist churches and how their deacons are organized and run things...and then compare it to scripture, i think it would be a lot more than a "little off base".

 

I wasn't suggesting that the Deacons run the church. Some people believe in having both a Board od Deacons and a Board of Elders with the deacons acting in a purely serving capacity and the Elders running the church. I've never attended a church that did this and frankly think it's unnecessary.

I've always believes that the congregation runs the church in the sense that every major decision must be approved by the congregation. Our previous pastor was a "CEO" type pastor was wanted to run everything even to the extent of giving "orders" to members of the congregation. (He was an ex-Air Force Chaplain.) However, he had many good traits and on the whole was loved by the church.

I don't think the church should be run like the military. The only general I recognize is Jesus Christ. He's the real head of the church.

 

Our congregation votes on everything, but we usually vote the way the pastor asks.

There is no power struggle between our deacons and our pastor. There is too much Godliness for that.

The pastor can't be everywhere and do everything. I feel the Board of Deacons do, and should, relieve the pastor of having to be...

 

I wasn't suggesting that the Deacons run the church. Some people believe in having both a Board od Deacons and a Board of Elders with the deacons acting in a purely serving capacity and the Elders running the church. I've never attended a church that did this and frankly think it's unnecessary.

I've always believes that the congregation runs the church in the sense that every major decision must be approved by the congregation. Our previous pastor was a "CEO" type pastor was wanted to run everything even to the extent of giving "orders" to members of the congregation. (He was an ex-Air Force Chaplain.) However, he had many good traits and on the whole was loved by the church.

I don't think the church should be run like the military. The only general I recognize is Jesus Christ. He's the real head of the church. </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible is very clear on how the church should be run. Christ is the Head, Elders are the physical leaders of the church, deacons fall under the authority of the Elders, the congregation falls under the authority of church leadership. Democratically run churches with the members voting and running the church is unbiblical. The congregation should have absolutely no say or decision in how the church is governed. Democracy is a worldwide government system, something that should not be implemented in the church, but someday it will be autocratic with Christ the King and Head as the lone ruler.

 

well web dog we disagree again...even in the first election of deacons it apears by the word structure in Act 6:5 the church (whole assembly had a say in the election of deacons)

 

I guess we do
No problem, I tend to learn the most in disagreements. Notice in verse 2 that the twelve summoned "the multitude" of the disciples, not all, as the number would have been in the thousands, but a significant number. How many people were added to the church up until this point in the first couple chapters? This was the first "mega church".

I like what Barnes has to say in regards to this:
The multitude of the disciples - It is not necessary to suppose that all the disciples were convened, which amounted to many thousands, but that the business was laid before a large number; or perhaps “the multitude” here means those merely who were more particularly interested in the matter, and who had been engaged in the complaint.

It would have been mass confusion for 8000+ people to pick 12 people. Verse 5 then tells us that the whole multitude, meaning everyone, was pleased at the choice that the "multitude" made.

 

A chairman is a spokesperson for a committee or a board of people.

Look at a panel of jurors. The jurors come to a decision concerning a matter in a judicial court system. They have one man to articulate that decision to the court. It is not that the foreman of the jury has any more power than any of the other 11 in the panel. He just carries their voice along with his or her own.

In a board of deacons, a chairman has no more pull. He just speakes for the others when presenting to the church body decisions that have been made or presents concerns to the body. He does not really have any more power than the other deacons. He just carries their voice along with his or her own.

 

well if we read on down to to verse 6 of this chapter....We see "Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed , they layed their hands on the."

Are you saying that the "they are the apostles" And they set them before themselves???

 

No, not that's not what I'm saying. I believe that "they" were the ones who chose the twelve.

 

The multitude did not choose the 12. The twelve told the multitude of the disciples to choose out '7' not '12'.

The 12, all except Matthias were chosen long before the event in Acts by the Lord Himself.

 

HMMMMMMMM 12 which 12??????...there were only 7 deacons chosen.

 

Yes Brother Steve....

Only seven deacons were chosen. 'Choose ye out seven' was the command given by the twelve.

Not sure where that 'twelve were chosen came from'

Brother Ron