Church Government

How about the "tyranny of the minority"?
A few months back one of our deacons who believes that i'm just short of being the anti-Christ brought up the fact that "a lot" (one of his favorite phrases) of people have voiced concerns about changes that have been made over the last 3 or so years...starting before i came, and have apparently increased since then. Of course these concerns were only voiced to him and no other leader within the congregation.
These are changes in worship, music, etc.

When the other deacons disagreed with him, his comment was, "Well then, why do so many good Christian people have a problem with it."
So, if the minority consists of "good Christian people", that must be more important the the voice of the majority...right? =)

 

I am all for a leadership ran church, not a congregational one. This is the job of the Elders, not a new believer or a carnal Christian who may come to church once a month.

 

webdog-

What if the Elders(which we don't have) and/or Deacons, lead in a way that seems NOT to be of God's will or what is in the best interest of our church? What if some of those leaders only come every other Sunday? What if the majority of the congregation keeps putting these same folks back in positions of leadereship?

 

Bobby---I was gonna get around to that!!! Patience, my young Padawon! Patience!!

Or the church member/deacon who says---"Nobody here likes you, Preacher!"

You pin his ears to the wall by asking

"Give me their names, Brother!"

"Well, ummmmmmmm . . . I'd rather not say!"

Childishness---those people need to get saved and then their heads be held underwater for an extra long baptism---you let them "come up for air" only when you're sure they've received a new nature!!

 

Boy how true that is....I love the church member who says, "Preacher, a lot of folks are unhappy about so and so."

Preacher, "Oh really, can you tell me who they are?"

"well I cannot really say."

Translation: I am unhappy and I want you to think that I got a whole group of people unhappy.

 

I would say that would be in God's hand. It would be up to the congregation to pray for them. I believe you would have to follow the biblical model for removing an Elder. This would be an example of a "sick" church.

 

So, i'm not the only person getting the "A lot of people..." statements?
I have also learned that it is a conditional statement. A few months back when the SS lesson was on the Lord's Supper i was asked by a few people why we only have it on a quarterly basis and not more often. When i mentioned it to the deacons and said that some people asked me about it, the first response from one deacon was "What people was that? Nobody talked to ME about it?!?!".

 

No, Bobby boy---you're not the only one!!

"Preacher! A lot of people are _____________!"

"Oh, Yeh???? Give me their names!"

"Well, uhhhhhhhhhhh???? I'd rather not say!!!"

 

If you look at Acts 6 you will see they were much more than table servants.

 

First of all I would like to add that I feel a Pastor should lead out of love for God and love for his people. I always seek God in any decision, and I usually seek advice from the men of the Church, but rarely do I put things up for a vote.

Here a some things to consider, and I sincerely mean this for other Pastors and also for people who think that deacons are Scripturally required in small Churches, or that Church government should be democratic.

1.) Consider the outcome in Scripture when votes were taken. Example: The spies that were sent into the Promised Land by Moses. Moses should have said, "We're going in," but he allowed a vote to take place, and they voted not to go. Then the people wandered in the wilderness for forty years. I wonder how many Churches today are "wandering in the wilderness" because they took a vote and got it wrong instead of listening to the man of God? Also, in Exodus 14:11-12 the people would have voted to go back into Egyptian bondage if Moses had given them the opportunity to vote. Of course, this also has application when considering Church members who are not happy with their leader or current situation.

2.) Deacons were not placed in the Church at Jerusalem until it had a very large membership. In Acts 2:41 there were 3000 souls added to the Church, then in Acts 4:4 there were 5000 men and untold numbers of women, and then in Acts 5:14 there were "multitudes" of both men and women. A very conservative estimate would be 10,000 people in the Church before it was deemed necessary to have deacons. I doubt there are very many Churches represented here that have more than 10,000 members to show a necessary need for deacons.

3.) Deacons were added to do tasks that were too time consuming for the Pastors, but the tasks were delegated by the Pastors nonetheless. In Acts 6:3 the Pastors told the people to choose 7 deacons to "appoint over this business." What business was this? It was the business from Acts 6:1 of seeing to the daily ministration of Greek widows. Notice that there is no mention of them doing anything else, and the Pastors considered this the equivalent of serving tables (Acts 6:2). Only later, when one of the deacons (Stephen) began to preach the Gospel (Acts 6:8-10) was he stoned.

4.) The Pastor has an accountability to God for the congregation.

Hebrews 13:7 is speaking to the Church about their Pastor when God says to us: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."

On down in v.17 it says, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

Notice the Pastor will have to give an account to God concerning the Church, and the people, they Pastor. I am not interested in letting people vote on things, or having deacons tell me how to manage things, that I will have to answer to God for. This is far too serious an issue for Pastors to take lightly.

Pastor Mark.

 

The article is a very provocative one and raises several issues that need to be addressed carefully. I am grateful to have both this link and the new books listed by TomVols, as I teach Baptist Polity at Wesley Theological Seminary, and need to factor this material into my syllabus.

On the thread about unity/unanimity -- how about Henry Blackaby's concept of discernment by the church body, as discussed in Experiencing God?

 

Pastor Mark writes:
"4.) The Pastor has an accountability to God for the congregation.
Hebrews 13:7 is speaking to the Church about their Pastor when God says to us: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."
On down in v.17 it says, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

Notice the Pastor will have to give an account to God concerning the Church, and the people, they Pastor. I am not interested in letting people vote on things, or having deacons tell me how to manage things, that I will have to answer to God for. This is far too serious an issue for Pastors to take lightly."

Note that the above all assume that the leaders are doing what is good.
On the other hand, there are many scriptures warning us not to follow bad leaders in the church, such as: Acts 20:28-31, Romans 16:17&18, and II Corinthians 11:3,4,12-15, 19&20. There were no other denominations or churches as we have today. These bad leaders were within the local church.

We need to be careful about directly applying church government scriptures to our churches today, since N.T. churches were lead by a group of elders and not be a single pastor as it is today.

I am not suggesting that we change from having a single pastor in today's churches. Just pointing out that church government was very different then than now. Scripture should be interpreted in that context.

 

An added note to my above post concerning the scriptures in Pastor Mark's post. The scriptures say: Remember THEM...., Obey THEM.... It does not say Obey HIM. In the N.T., These type scriptures are plural because a group of elders were in charge of the local churches. We should not apply scriptures out of context.

Yes, leaders are responsible to God and will have to give an account as we all will. If you wish to apply these scriptures to todays church organization, then they would more closely apply to obeying a decision by the Pastor and the Deacons. As shown in my previous post, individual leaders should not always be followed.

 

It should be no surprise that the scriptures say "them" instead of "he," nor should it be construed to be taken out of context. I have no disagreement that there were more than one Pastor in the early Church, and that is still common in many places today, including where I Pastor. There might be a senior Pastor, an Associate Pastor, an Assistant Pastor, a Youth Pastor, etc.

However, I disagree that "church government was very different then than now." I organize our Church structure along very strict Biblical lines. Terminology may differ, such as titles. For instance I am called Pastor, not Bishop, but I have no objection to the term Bishop other than the association it carries with catholicism.

We have more than one sort of Pastor, hence the "them" that must give account in Hebrews 13:17. We have no Deacons since the Church has not grown to a point where we are big enough to need anyone to take care of the business of caring for our "widows."

Also, the verses I quoted should not be applied to deacons, since deacons are never given any scriptural authority to be in a position of "ruling" over anything except their own family.

Finally, I do recognize your concern that a Pastor might not be doing what is "right." However, the question arises of who gets to judge what is right? The Church members? or, God? If we can agree that God should be the judge of wrongdoing, but that He also admonishes us to avoid those who we feel are doing wrong according to scriptures, then it is our responsibility to find another Church that IS doing what we consider "right," but NOT try to run the Pastor off.

Pastor Mark.

 

Pastor writes:
"It should be no surprise that the scriptures say "them" instead of "he," nor should it be construed to be taken out of context. I have no disagreement that there were more than one Pastor in the early Church, and that is still common in many places today, including where I Pastor. There might be a senior Pastor, an Associate Pastor, an Assistant Pastor, a Youth Pastor, etc. "

Unless there was an apostle in the church, there is no senior elder ever mentioned in scriptures. For instance in Acts 20: 13-38, there were many elders at Ephesus because Paul prayed for them all (v36). Yet no senior elder was mentioned. Had there been a senior elder (senior pastor) as we have today, he certainly would have been mentioned.

Apparently, they were all of equal status and had different gifts for the benefit of the church. Perhaps the one with the gift of administration coordinated things. The Bible does not say. The N.T. church organization was very different than what we have today.

There are many more scriptures warning us not to follow bad leaders in the church, such as: Acts 20:28-31, Romans 16:17&18, and II Corinthians 11:3,4,12-15, 19&20. There were no other denominations or churches as we have today. These bad leaders were within the local church.

Under our current church organization, christians should follow the leadership of the senior pastor. However, that support should stop if he is hurting the church or promoting himself instead of Christ. God never wants us to support evil.

Since there is not a direct correlation between the N.T. church organization and the senior pastor system we have today, it is necessary for each church to develop a constitution and bylaws. It would be too much of an upheaval for us to return to the N.T, system. The constitution and bylaws of the church are the agreed upon procedures for running the church. God expects the pastors and the layman to live up to their agreements.

I agree that it is better to find another church than to stay and cause problems if you believe things are wrong. However, if you hold a position in the church and the constitution and bylaws imply you have a responsibility to stay and take a stand, then you are obligated to do it.

BTW, my father-in-law and brother were both pastors for many years. I have a better understanding of a pastor's problems than you might think. While we are all responsible to God in these matters, the pastor and the church are also responsible to each other.

 

Would this same line of thinking work in the military, or on an airplane for that matter? We get all caught up on democracy, but someday Christ will reign as King and there won't be democracy. The Church should be a preview of this. This is why Elders have been appointed over the people, and the people should fall under the authority of the Elders...not make decisions along with them.

 

webdog wrote:
Would this same line of thinking work in the military, or on an airplane for that matter?

The church should not be compared to the military.
In the military, the troops do not have a personal relationship with the Commander-in-chief. Nor do they have an opportunity to talk with Him everyday.
In church unless a person has a personal relationship with the Commander-in-Chief, he is not a christian.

 

The troops do have personal relationships with their sargeants, though.

 

webdog writes"
The troops do have personal relationships with their sargeants, though.

Yes, troops serve by taking direct orders form the sargeants who are their bosses and with whom they personally have contact with.
Christians serve the Lord through their personal relationship and communion with their Commander-in-chief. The pastor should be the leader in the church as per the constitution and bylaws, but not the boss.
Since these relationships are very different, the operation of the church should not be compared with that of the military.