Deacons Stepping in for Absence of a Pastor

[preacher4truth]

Brother SN, I work with a woman whose home church just went through a recent split. She said the church was trying to place some by-laws into that church...not sure what she exactly stated, but it had something to do with this. They lost their pastor ~2 years ago due to an illness, and hadn't found a replacement. She thought the main reason why the angst from doing what they wanted to do was the deacons were "running the show", and she thought they didn't want a pastor over that church. She and her husband left with over half the members as well. I do believe in a pastor led church, but the power is in the church's members. They can vote a pastor in and also vote him out.

There are too many deacon controlled churches and we know several in this town and they go from pastor to pastor, and they do not grow. Deacons shouldn't be decision makers, they should do what their title convey's -- SERVE.

I'd say many who seek to be deacons in a church wouldn't want the office if it entailed serving and not controlling a church or pastor via decision making. I believe this office and it's misuse and abuse has done much harm to the body of Christ.

 

[Jacob_Elliott]

Deacons should never run the show under any circumstances. They are servants, not a governing authority. Shame on the congregation for letting them get by with it.

There are too many deacon controlled churches and we know several in this town and they go from pastor to pastor, and they do not grow. Deacons shouldn't be decision makers, they should do what their title convey's -- SERVE.

I'd say many who seek to be deacons in a church wouldn't want the office if it entailed serving and not controlling a church or pastor via decision making. I believe this office and it's misuse and abuse has done much harm to the body of Christ.

:thumbsup: :applause:

 

[agedman]

Deacons should never run the show under any circumstances. They are servants, not a governing authority. Shame on the congregation for letting them get by with it.

There are too many deacon controlled churches and we know several in this town and they go from pastor to pastor, and they do not grow. Deacons shouldn't be decision makers, they should do what their title convey's -- SERVE.

I'd say many who seek to be deacons in a church wouldn't want the office if it entailed serving and not controlling a church or pastor via decision making. I believe this office and it's misuse and abuse has done much harm to the body of Christ.

I do not know of any SBC church that is not ultimately deacon run.

The SBC pastor is submissive to the deacon "body" which has oversight of all aspects of the church. The SBC church is not "pastor run." Even strong pastorates such as FBC of Dallas were and are not pastor run churches. The SBC pastor functions within the parameters the deacon body establishes.

The only other group (usually an unknown by the congregation group) are the trusties. They are the ones who must be legally responsible for the financial aspects of the church and sign all legal documents (land deeds, trusts, endowments...).

It is only perhaps the last few decades that "elders" were not considered strictly the "pastor" of the typical SBC church, and had no authority over the policies and direction of the church other than the "bully pulpit."

The SBC churches would (back in the day) mock and shun "elder bodies" of other churches. Those churches that were "elder run" were considered not very Biblical (or of a different racial group).

When I was much younger, I expressed to pastors, who I made contact, that a wise pastor (especially a young "Timothy") will have a group of the Godliest old men of his church, old men in whom He will be accountable and be able to draw wisdom. These were not to be the deacons, but those who were wise counselors as Proverbs states - those that know the ropes by experiential walk with God.

I also mentioned to many SBC pastors, that the membership of the group be at the pleasure of the pastor, that the make up of the group was to be a comfort and resource to the pastor, and not a "ruling body" because it wasn't to be in conflict with the "deacon board" of the SBC church.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do deacons in your church regularly step in for the pastor's absence to speak on Sunday morning or night, and Bible study on Wednesday night?

Is there any circumstance where your deacons will conduct a baptism, administer the Lord's Supper, or lead a funeral? If so, do these specific duties require authorization from the local church body?

If deacons do not step in, who does?

Our baptist church has deacons in primarily positions like office mrgr, custodians, maintenance, building etc, mor eof the physical demands of the church, while we have Pastors and teachers to teach the bible, and Elders to also spiritually lead the church body!

Teaching done by Pastors/Elders/reachers, as we look to have those gifted to do such, not all Elders teach, but all do lead!

 

[I'MNEWHERE]

Preachers, Ministers, Elders are called and anointed by God. Deacons are called by the congregation, most times at the recommendation of the Pastor. Licensing to to the Gospel Ministry is a license to preach. Licensed preachers are ordained to hold the office of Pastor of a church and is authorized by that church to administer the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper and to officiate at funerals and weddings, in accordance with the laws of the state.
The ordained minister administers the elements of Lord's Supper (the Bread and the wine) and the Deacons distribute the same.
Each church being an autonomous body can decide what they will allow their deacons to do.
Thus a church should have a Constitution and By-laws that spells out the duties of each officer of the church. Cuts down on a lot of confusion.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This zombie thread is closed.