Moderating according to Robert's Rules ...

It's our pastor, and he does not seek to persuade the vote, on those rare occasions he can't be there, like preaching revival, on vacation, a deacon takes his place.

 

In my Church it depends. It is always the Pastor who moderates (we don't have Business Meetings when he is away). So it usually is the Pastor who controls the meetings but there are a feel exceptions for example if the Deacon Board is presenting something before the Church for the Church to consider then the Chairman would present this. If it is something regarding the reading of the Minutes or Question of the Financial Report then the appropriate person filling those roles would be onstage to present/provide input on those specific items.

[ April 11, 2006, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: MRCoon ]

 

According to Roberts, the moderator is not to attempt to sway the congregation on an issue. But we threw Roberts out of our church, so we don't worry about it. Besides, we only have an annual meeting, plus special meetings as needed. I love it! Get rid of all that red tape and gitter done!

 

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MY OPINION

I have been in a Church that threw out the book and all things 'incorporated' (I'm not implying you are this extreme ). I personally would not stay in a Church like this because it is not a good testimony to Government (something God himself established), can lead to a paranoid attitude, openly violates established law, sets a bad example to our members and other things that are too tedious to type. I think that our God is a God of order and discipline and so running our Churches this way is wise and shows good stewardship. If we expect and counsel our members to have budgets and financial responsibility with planning then the Church should set the example at least. I also have issues with Churches that don't have at least Quarterly meetings to keep all things above reproach and to give the members ownership in the Church. The Pastor is meant to be the head of the church but it is not a dictatorship and should not give the impression of one. I also don't agree with a Church being 'ruled by committee' and think that the Pastor is a "Moderator" at least and "Chief Operating Officer" at best. So do things wisely and with good order!

DISCLAIMER: THIS HAS BEEN MY OPINION

[ April 11, 2006, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: MRCoon ]

 

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MY OPINION

BUNK!

DISCLAIMER: THIS HAS BEEN MY OPINION

Just joking. Seriously though, if a church is doing all the things you've listed then yes there is a problem. Not the case here. We do a monthly financial report and everything is above board. We just streamline the process.

I've been in both types of situations where there were abuses. I'll go with the streamlined system, but you are certainly right in that accountability must be strictly maintained.

 

J.D.,

If you have a pastor that you can trust then that's fine. But when the next guy comes along, and he turns out to be something other than everyone thought - well, it's hard to get that horse back into the barn.

Our moderator is not our pastor, which I think is a good thing.

In my opinion (and Robert's) it is absolutely inappropriate for the moderator to attempt to sway any vote.

 

I SAID I AGREE THAT WE MUST BE STRICTLY ACCOUNTABLE! GET OFF MY BACK ALREADY!!!

Well I am from New Jersey, how did you expect me to react??

 

Sometimes in Missionary situations the pastor has no choice but to be the moderator...

Accountability is a must. But becoming too business like can sometimes replace taking steps of faith. It can make a church seem like a business machine rather than a family of believers.

It is has to be a balance between disorder and red-tap focused.

 

A moderator is a facilitator, not an advocate.

 

We basically follow RR of O, but are pretty lax most of the time. The spirit of unity is a more important issue for us.

We have quarterly business meetings which usually last just long enough for the reading of the minutes, approval of the printed financial statement, and a couple of reports. Ten minutes would be a long business meeting for my church.

We never bring minor stuff to the church for approval. The staff takes care of those things.

We don't have a deacon board. We do have a deacon body. Occasionally, the body brings a recommendation to the church for approval.

 

1) the pastor - the church preferes that, no one else wants it
2)no its not appropriate unless there is an extreme circumstance. I can remember only one time when dh said, "ok, now I am gonna stop and talk here as your pastor..."
(and we do follow Robert)

 

Of course the Moderator/Pastor leads the Church. Why do you think he was chosen for Moderator/Pastor if not for his leadership. I have pastored the Church I am at now for over 17 years, the last Church for 8 years. The Church rules by majority vote and I always give my opinion on what I think the Church should do but if they choose differently there is no problem, I respect their decision and accept it and move on. Some times there are decisions that the members don't want to take the lead on so someone has to be strong enough to do it and it falls in my lap, it is my duty. Being Moderator/Pastor sometimes is not a pleasent job but most of the time it is. I never look to Robert though.

 

We have our own "Rules of Decorum".

 

Interesting that you say that Brother---I was thumbing through Robert's Rules not long ago---and Robert says that if things are moderating along pretty good--then there's really no need in looking to the book--as long as things are clickin' along pretty good why bother??

Of course, there'll be a smarty pants in every crowd who will insist that every "business jot and tittle" be by the book! Know what I mean??

Every now and then---the locomotive will "derail" and the moderator will have to force himself to get back on track with Robert---know what I mean??

 

As I stated, we have our own rules of Decorum that we have followed since 1893 so I think they are working very well and also if I or any other Moderator/Pastor derails very much the Church has the final say who will be in his position so no matter what, the members as a majority will keep the locomotive on the rails-----know what I mean????? Our Church is a family with a family love for each other. All are equal in the Church and no big I's or little u's----and we don't put up with smarty pants----know what I mean???? and we have clicked along smoothly for over 17 years with me as their Moderator/Pastor.

[ April 13, 2006, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Brother Bob ]

 

Robert's is a fail-safe way to protect minority rights. If those rights are protected by some other means, well and good. But a dispute may arise some day and, if so, those on the side of right are gonna wish ol' Robert was there to quiet the savages.

[opinion mode on]
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MY OPINION
TIP: I'm usually right.

I'd never pastor a church where I did not chair the business meeting.
DISCLAIMER: THAT WAS JUST MY OPINION
[opinion mode off]

--
Popedude, LF; BoaJ

 

I quickly looked at Robert's rules and see nothing that supersedes our own Rules of Decorum. Ours have stood the test of time for well over 100 years and doubt very much if Robert's have been around that long. They looked like they would be just fine for a church who didn't have their own but doubt if they would help in a court of law at all. I saw nothing about minorities in there, may have overlooked it. Don't think any rules are fail-safe, believe me, depends on the judge and court. But, to each its own.
God Bless,