Deacon is a Cheating, What Would You Do?

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Simple Really...

Well, I see two problems with your idea. First, each church is autonomous and can decide how to handle such matters. Second, how do you propose to handle the situation lacking a "majority vote?" The model in Matthew is quite clear, one person, take a person with you, then the church acts. Absent a vote, how do you propose to carry out step three?

Church discipline is not to be handled by a popular "vote"...but by declaration of the church leadership....Pastor/Deacons or Bishops/Elders depending upon which you adhere to for church government (and I do have my opinion about that)......and then only after the other appropriate steps have been taken both privately and then by public revelation (if necessary due to the party being unwilling to publically REPENT and then only if he is obviously guilty by indisputable proof). Yes...I'll acknowledge that there will be some in the membership of the assembly that may NOT like the fact that they aren't "given a say-so" in this kind of matter but that is neither relevant OR important. They need to search their hearts and determine why they are resistant to Biblical order in the assembly and that is a matter that is between each of us and God. Roberts "rules of order" is NOT an addendum to the Holy Bible...in my humble opinion. For the record...I used to be an adherent of more pastoral authority than I currently am. As I grow older and more familiar with my Bible I'm finding myself more favorable with an "Elder-led" type of church government. Notice I DID NOT say "elderLY":laugh:. That whole matter would be best discussed in another thread. I have come to believe we place too much significance on the idea of "Pastoral Authority".IMHO. For the record though...I do HIGHLY respect and love the man I call "My Pastor". He is a wonderful preacher and a compassionate man of God.....and my friend.

Bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yes

That's really good, OT. Wicked gossip can ruin people's lives and if it's not true, those lies need to be addressed in the same manner.

The Bible says that we all sin. While it also says that we cannot judge one another and hold them accountable for their actions unless we allow others to hold US accountable for our behaviors, it also says that our judgments should not be self-righteous. It does not say to "mind your own business" and allow others to destroy themselves and others in sin. In fact it says the opposite.

I'm paraphrasing the following:

• Galatians 6:1 - If someone is trapped in sin, then those who are in such a spiritual state to do so, should gently bring him/her to restoration.
• Ephesians 4 says among other things, that we are to be kind and forgiving and speak the truth in love. One cannot forgive others unless the wrong-doer is held accountable for what he/she has done.
• Matthew 18 is self-explanatory. But I will say that one has to pursue this principle in terms of what it is for - repentance and restoration. It's not a punitive principle so much as a restoring one.
• John 7:24 tells us to judge one another, but gives specific instruction to do so not by our own standards or eyes, but wisely and with God's
• James 5:20 says that whenever we retrieve a soul from his/her sin that we cover a multitude of bad things.
• 2 Timothy 2 says to "rebuke", but with "complete patience".

To ignore a situation like the one in the OP - well, to me it's show a lack of love for the person(s) in bondage.

We have allowed the bastardized and false-context version of "judge not lest ye be judged" to infest our own familes, churches, and communities. And now we are too frightened to rescue the perishing for fear of offending them and too soft and weak to care for the dying because we have no spiritual muscle.

Jesus is still merciful and Jesus still saves.

And we are still called to be salt and light to a dying world. And that includes holding each other and ourselves to the standard Christ asked us to rise to.

Scarlett.....AMEN to EVERYTHING both you and Oldtimer said......and you are sooo very right about the "judge not" thing. David Cloud has and excellent book entitled "Judge Not! Is it Legalism to Judge Sin and Error?"
Very relevant to the church in our day and I highly recommend it! It can be found via his wayoflife.org website.

Bro.Greg:applause:

Bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

An Interesting Purpose...Indeed!

I disagree. I believe that the voice of the congregation can only be expressed by vote. Jesus Christ tells us:

Matthew 18:15=17
15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Now the congregation may well give the sinner a pass as did the congregation in 1 Corinthians 5. Then it is up to each member of the congregation what they will do.

That still (vs 17) doesn't necessarily dictate the idea of "voting" as we know it in todays churches. It just means that he was "excluded/removed from the assembly. The fact is...all a "vote" may actually end up doing is identifying the depth or magnitude of any given dissent or division in the assembly. Church splits are a terrible thing and an awful testimony to the lost world around us. There is the POTENTIAL for much division everytime a vote is taken. Thankfully...that kind of church-splitting division doesn't happen more often. As I said previously, democracy (mob rule) is NOT a biblical form of church government...IMHO.:type: I long for the Kingdom when our Lord Jesus Christ will rule forevermore! AMEN?!

Bro.Greg

 

[annsni]

I disagree. I believe that the voice of the congregation can only be expressed by vote. Jesus Christ tells us:

Matthew 18:15=17
15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Now the congregation may well give the sinner a pass as did the congregation in 1 Corinthians 5. Then it is up to each member of the congregation what they will do.

I don't believe that I see anything about voting or the idea of "it is up to each member of the congregation what they will do".

 

[annsni]

Are we really discussing the idea of voting on sin????

 

[OldRegular]

I don't believe that I see anything about voting or the idea of "it is up to each member of the congregation what they will do".

Verse 17 is speaking of the church as a body, not a bunch of individuals. The church is never identified as a group of individuals that I am aware.

It is only up to each individual member as to "what they will do" only if the congregation refuses to take the proper action.

Originally Posted by OldRegular

Now the congregation may well give the sinner a pass as did the congregation in 1 Corinthians 5. Then it is up to each member of the congregation what they will do.

 

[OldRegular]

Are we really discussing the idea of voting on sin????

Perhaps!

Jesus Christ says that if the sinner will not hear the Church that person is to be treated as "an heathen man and a publican." In this instance the church is not so much voting on sin as on the refusal of the person to hear the church as the Body of Christ. The problem Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 5 was not the sinner but the refusal of the Church to deal with grievous sin.

Sadly the church of this day tolerates grievous sin and on occasion endorses sin [homosexual marriage and abortion for example] so there is a vote whether formal or not.

It is my belief that if the person in the OP is guilty then he will not admit to sin. Homosexuals do not usually concede that their behavior is sin. Then if the Church does not exclude him they become partakers of his sin.

 

[OldRegular]

That still (vs 17) doesn't necessarily dictate the idea of "voting" as we know it in todays churches. It just means that he was "excluded/removed from the assembly. The fact is...all a "vote" may actually end up doing is identifying the depth or magnitude of any given dissent or division in the assembly. Church splits are a terrible thing and an awful testimony to the lost world around us. There is the POTENTIAL for much division everytime a vote is taken. Thankfully...that kind of church-splitting division doesn't happen more often. As I said previously, democracy (mob rule) is NOT a biblical form of church government...IMHO.:type: I long for the Kingdom when our Lord Jesus Christ will rule forevermore! AMEN?!

Bro.Greg

Just what is the Biblical form of Church government?

The only way a person can be excluded from a Baptist Church is by a vote of the members!

Church splits are not an awful testimony to the world if the reason is failure to deal with sin. The problem with the Church today is 1}that they tolerate, and even worse endorse, sin and 2}they bring profane things of the world into the Church. The world around us looks at the Church and sees nothing but "the world".

 

[12strings]

That still (vs 17) doesn't necessarily dictate the idea of "voting" as we know it in todays churches. It just means that he was "excluded/removed from the assembly. The fact is...all a "vote" may actually end up doing is identifying the depth or magnitude of any given dissent or division in the assembly. Church splits are a terrible thing and an awful testimony to the lost world around us. There is the POTENTIAL for much division everytime a vote is taken. Thankfully...that kind of church-splitting division doesn't happen more often. As I said previously, democracy (mob rule) is NOT a biblical form of church government...IMHO.:type: I long for the Kingdom when our Lord Jesus Christ will rule forevermore! AMEN?!

Bro.Greg

1. It seems from 1 Cor. 5 that Paul is speaking to the church at large about how to treat an unrepentant sinner, not simply to the leadership...Every member is to carry out the separation. It does not say to take a vote, but it also doesn't say the Elders make the decision and then tell the congregation what to do.

2. I have seen churches with both congregational rule (most baptist churches, btw), and those that are Elder led. There are advantages and disadvantages to both...I'm not convinced that either is being sinful and disobedient scripture simply by their mode of church government. I DO think any church where the pastor just does whatever he wants without either congregational or Elder accountability is not in a good place.

 

[annsni]

Just what is the Biblical form of Church government?

The only way a person can be excluded from a Baptist Church is by a vote of the members!

Honestly, I don't see this idea as supported in Scripture. Does the congregation vote to transfer a membership? Do they vote to remove someone from the rolls when they have not been there for years?

I've never seen it done. Ever.

 

[OldRegular]

That still (vs 17) doesn't necessarily dictate the idea of "voting" as we know it in todays churches. It just means that he was "excluded/removed from the assembly. The fact is...all a "vote" may actually end up doing is identifying the depth or magnitude of any given dissent or division in the assembly. Church splits are a terrible thing and an awful testimony to the lost world around us. There is the POTENTIAL for much division everytime a vote is taken. Thankfully...that kind of church-splitting division doesn't happen more often. As I said previously, democracy (mob rule) is NOT a biblical form of church government...IMHO.:type: I long for the Kingdom when our Lord Jesus Christ will rule forevermore! AMEN?!

Bro.Greg

The Church is a body composed of the baptized believers, that is in a Baptist Church. Rightly or wrongly that is the node we have selected. The Church is not the Church leaders and they are not granted the role of discipline. Counseling yes but discipline no. That is the task of the congregation. Just as members are voted in they also must be voted out.

 

[OldRegular]

Honestly, I don't see this idea as supported in Scripture. Does the congregation vote to transfer a membership? Do they vote to remove someone from the rolls when they have not been there for years?

I've never seen it done. Ever.

Well the Churches that I am familiar with vote members in to the fellowship, they vote when a member asks for transfer of membership to another church of like faith and order. They also vote to dismiss a member that joins a church of a different denomination. The only way a member can be excluded in a Southern Baptist Church is by vote of the membership.

I have seen it done though not in a Southern Baptist Church.

As far as voting someone out who no longer darkens the doors it does not happen that I am aware.

 

[righteousdude2]

He Often Does Just That...

So, the best way to handle it, IYO MP, is to ignore Scripture altogether.

...ignore Scripture when it comes to issues that needs the Scriptures :laugh:

 

[SaggyWoman]

1. Find the Truth. If it is true....
2. Talk to the deacon.
3. Ask him to step back for a time and work on things with his wife.
4. If he doesn't, take it to the next level of taking some deacons with you.

I am not sure that I feel it necessary to announce much of anything....

 

[righteousdude2]

There are two problems...

...first he may be committing adultery! Secondly, it is with a member of his gender, man on man!

Even if he repents [and resigns his postion as deacon] of the adulterous act, what do you do with the other sin?? Do you trust him continue to work with kids [whom he's worked with for years], especially when half of those kids are teen boys?

 

[saturneptune]

Church discipline is not to be handled by a popular "vote"...but by declaration of the church leadership....Pastor/Deacons or Bishops/Elders depending upon which you adhere to for church government (and I do have my opinion about that)......and then only after the other appropriate steps have been taken both privately and then by public revelation (if necessary due to the party being unwilling to publically REPENT and then only if he is obviously guilty by indisputable proof). Yes...I'll acknowledge that there will be some in the membership of the assembly that may NOT like the fact that they aren't "given a say-so" in this kind of matter but that is neither relevant OR important. They need to search their hearts and determine why they are resistant to Biblical order in the assembly and that is a matter that is between each of us and God. Roberts "rules of order" is NOT an addendum to the Holy Bible...in my humble opinion. For the record...I used to be an adherent of more pastoral authority than I currently am. As I grow older and more familiar with my Bible I'm finding myself more favorable with an "Elder-led" type of church government. Notice I DID NOT say "elderLY":laugh:. That whole matter would be best discussed in another thread. I have come to believe we place too much significance on the idea of "Pastoral Authority".IMHO. For the record though...I do HIGHLY respect and love the man I call "My Pastor". He is a wonderful preacher and a compassionate man of God.....and my friend.

Bro.Greg

Yes, better another thread to debate the merits of congregation vs elder government. I will point out that you mention deacons as part of the decision making. They are not a consideration. Deacons are servents, not a governing authority. A deacon can vote yes or no in a congregational government. In an elder form of government, one cannot be a deacon and elder at the same time. Again, the form of government is up to each local church, unless of course, you would prefer a hierarchy.

 

[Salty]

...Deacons are servents, not a governing authority. A deacon can vote yes or no in a congregational government. In an elder form of government, one cannot be a deacon and elder at the same time. Again, the form of government is up to each local church, unless of course, you would prefer a hierarchy.

I agree with you, but Many churches a deacon is a leadership position. but that is for another thread discussion.

This op is what to do with an erring leader..... which is a very serious matter

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

NOT Trying To Start A Fuss...

The Church is a body composed of the baptized believers, that is in a Baptist Church. Rightly or wrongly that is the node we have selected. The Church is not the Church leaders and they are not granted the role of discipline. Counseling yes but discipline no. That is the task of the congregation. Just as members are voted in they also must be voted out.

Bro....I agree with you...and I don't agree with you. While the local church IS a definite assembly of believers (and I do believe in a local AND a universal church) there are guidlines given in scripture that designate a leadership/governing structure and within certain scriptural guidelines it does bear some measure of authority within the assembly.
However, I do not see that authority as being of a pastoral nature but rather it is to be practiced by elders.IMHO.... It is late as I'm typing (after 3am)this but I will try in the next day or so to supply the supporting scriptures for what I just said unless somebody else beats me to it.
On another note though, I still find absolutely in any scripture that I am personally aware of that supports the practice of a "voting" membership. For that matter I find no scripture that supports the concept of a "church membership roll" either. I have participated in BOTH for my entire church life since being saved....but it was only because I was told that's the way it's done...not because I ever saw or read it in scripture.

Bro.Greg:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yes....

Yes, better another thread to debate the merits of congregation vs elder government. I will point out that you mention deacons as part of the decision making. They are not a consideration. Deacons are servants, not a governing authority. A deacon can vote yes or no in a congregational government. In an elder form of government, one cannot be a deacon and elder at the same time. Again, the form of government is up to each local church, unless of course, you would prefer a hierarchy.

SN...you are essentially correct that the deacons role is to be that of a servant as determined in Acts 6. However, I have observed and heard of some in that "office" getting "out of biblical order" in some churches and trying to "run the show". I'd have to leave a church like that (after I spoke up about it of course:tear. I guess I should have been clearer about that in my previous post. Thanks for bringing a little clarity on that matter.
I'll also add that the type of government I'd personally PREFER both IN church and IN the world I live in would be God's kind of government. That would NOT be a hierarchy, a monarchy, a republic, certainly not a democracy, or elder, pastoral, or congregational rule, but rather A PURE theocracy of the type that God will institute in that blessed millenial kingdom that our Lord will rule and reign in. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!!

I would also like to apologize for basically taking part in hijacking this thread. I hope the OP will forgive me. I also hope that the Deacon that is being discussed will get his heart right with the Lord. We do need to pray for this guy.....and his family.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[OldRegular]

...first he may be committing adultery! Secondly, it is with a member of his gender, man on man!

Even if he repents [and resigns his postion as deacon] of the adulterous act, what do you do with the other sin?? Do you trust him continue to work with kids [whom he's worked with for years], especially when half of those kids are teen boys?

A homosexual should not be working with young or teen age children anywhere or anytime. That is inviting child abuse. We saw a great deal in the Roman Catholic Communion and I know of two cases in local Baptist Churches, one by a deacon who is now in prison if he is still living and the second a pastor who eventually left his wife for a younger man and who also may be dead.

in the case of the pastor his wife found out about it, went to another pastor for advice. He told her to leave her husband as they don't change. She did not but he did!