-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
When should a senior pastor be fired?
- Thread starter Jason Garrett
- Start date
Then why are all these roles described to fit the same person in Acts 20:17,28, including that of a pastor?Originally posted by Sularis:
again larry i disagree the bishop/elder/overseer is different then pastor - pastor is a function carried out by people within the church - namely bishop/elder/overseer - this does not make them synonymous
God created the gift and function of pastor the role we did
I have said from the very beginning that the pastor answers to the congregation, and have repeated it several times. There is no need to keep asking it, my friend. Take my word for it. I know what I believe. I believe the church should call the sr. pastor (hire and fire), and the sr. pastor should have much authority in the hiring of staff members to assist him. He would be very unwise to use that authority without careful consideration of others' opinions and prayer. I don't think there is great confusion about this.Originally posted by patrick:
I just asked the question if the "senior pastor" is the big dog who in a church can fire him. You have made it clear he is to be the leader. He is the one in charge!!! He should hire and fire at will. Now, you are telling me he serves at the pleasure of thr church??
First, bishop and overseer are the same thing (episkopos). Older translations typically use "bishop." Modern translations typically use "overseer."Originally posted by Sularis:
again larry i disagree the bishop/elder/overseer is different then pastor - pastor is a function carried out by people within the church - namely bishop/elder/overseer - this does not make them synonymous
Second, "pastor" is like overseer. It is a responsbility of the elder. As DHK pointed out in Acts 20:17, 28 (and as PEter says in 1 Peter 5:1-2, the elder is to oversee and pastor (translated the verb form as shepherd).
God created the office of pastor/elder/overseer. They are not separate offices. It is one office.
Jason Garrett
New Member
Here's the bottom line.
I was simply asking when a pastor should be fired. The specific instance I brought up was a good one. It had to do with agendas being carried out by a select few through the new pastor who either was caniving (sp?) like they were or was not truly aware of what was going on but instead simply trusted those with church influence.
In either event, he demonstrated an extreme lack of spiritual discernment or at the very least business sense. The church attendance has decrease by almost 75% over this.
I ask again: When should a senior pastor be fired? Is he always right? Of course not, but at what point does the church body say enough is enough. He hasn't violated the qualifications to be a pastor (whic is Larry's only prerequisite to being fired, from what I've read) but he has sinned in a big way and is not repentant nor even willing to admit he made a mistake.
It's an easy question that has gone off the beaten path.
I was simply asking when a pastor should be fired. The specific instance I brought up was a good one. It had to do with agendas being carried out by a select few through the new pastor who either was caniving (sp?) like they were or was not truly aware of what was going on but instead simply trusted those with church influence.
In either event, he demonstrated an extreme lack of spiritual discernment or at the very least business sense. The church attendance has decrease by almost 75% over this.
I ask again: When should a senior pastor be fired? Is he always right? Of course not, but at what point does the church body say enough is enough. He hasn't violated the qualifications to be a pastor (whic is Larry's only prerequisite to being fired, from what I've read) but he has sinned in a big way and is not repentant nor even willing to admit he made a mistake.
It's an easy question that has gone off the beaten path.
Jason Garrett,
In the exact particular instant as you stated above the deacons,elders have to have some guts.Somebody out of that crowd has to step up to the plate. Unless the pastor has the deacon board or elders loaded with his people.
If nothing like this happens and the preacher stays. He will either split the church. Or it will drop off tremendously.God is not going to bless a church when the leadership is carnal,unrepentant you get the drift. Whatever you do pray about it alot. Maybe your the man if this is in your church. Maybe you need to take a stand for what is right. I say this going only by what you said in the post immediatly above this one.
By the way, I thought this was a baptist forum why all this talk about elders?
In the exact particular instant as you stated above the deacons,elders have to have some guts.Somebody out of that crowd has to step up to the plate. Unless the pastor has the deacon board or elders loaded with his people.
If nothing like this happens and the preacher stays. He will either split the church. Or it will drop off tremendously.God is not going to bless a church when the leadership is carnal,unrepentant you get the drift. Whatever you do pray about it alot. Maybe your the man if this is in your church. Maybe you need to take a stand for what is right. I say this going only by what you said in the post immediatly above this one.
By the way, I thought this was a baptist forum why all this talk about elders?
It is not an easy question. There are many factors that go into it.I ask again: When should a senior pastor be fired? Is he always right? Of course not, but at what point does the church body say enough is enough. ... It's an easy question that has gone off the beaten path.
"Sinned in a big way" seems to indicate that he has violated the only pastoral qualification there is ... blameless. Don't be guilty of limiting the pastoral qualifications. There is one qualification. The rest of the list are examples of what it means to be blameless. It is not an exhaustive list but a representative one. He must be blameless in his personal life, his handling of church money, his dealing with people, his leadership. In every area, he must be an example of what it means to be a Christian. Oftentimes, that is not a black or white situation. It isn't "easy."He hasn't violated the qualifications to be a pastor (whic is Larry's only prerequisite to being fired, from what I've read) but he has sinned in a big way and is not repentant nor even willing to admit he made a mistake.
Because Baptist churches have elders. An elder is simply a pastor. Too many today have forgotten what the NT term means. They have taken this idea that an elder is different than a pastor. He isn't. The elder/pastor/overseer is the NT office of leadership in the church. It is the one that we usually call pastor in modern day terminology. I, for instance, am an elder.By the way, I thought this was a baptist forum why all this talk about elders?
Jason Garrett
New Member
Shannon,
My family and I left the church where these goings-on occurred. Here's what transpired prior to us leaving:
(1) The new senior pastor, under the "blessing" of the head of the deacon body (who was also the leader of the pastor search committee) presented supposed grievous indiscretions on the part of one of the associate pastors (AP). Prior to the meeting, the senior pastor and this deacond had already approached the AP and let him go from his position and asked him not to step back in the church. The deacons and staff which were a part of this meeting asked for a time to pray this decision over and possibly meet with the fired AP before the decision was permanent. However, the SP (senior pastor) and head deacon declined it.
So, we as a body met aside from those two, prayed over the situation, and obviously felt something wasn't right. Who wouldn't? Anyhow, we met with this AP and discovered many of the allegations which were levied against him by the SP and deacon were true, but to a much less of an extent than what was accused. The AP was minister in our county jail, and many of the accusations stemmed form this. Well, since I am a cop, I easily checked into these things which were alleged, and found out the AP's version of the story was entirely, 100% accurate. He pretty much was guilty of MILDLY losing his temper for having to wait in a cell with a historically violent inmate for an extended period of time when he asked to leave.
(2) After the meeting with the AP and again meeting to pray over it (this happened within 2 days, so the congregation as a whole was not apprised of this situation) we asked to meet with the SP to work this out. We wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was not fully aware of the situation and had the charges against the AP trumped up by someone (of course we thought it to be the head deacon, who long had a vandetta against the AP, which was well-known but put up with; from what I understand, it was personality differences (they were both A-type, so of course they would butt heads)). In short, we asked the SP for a meeting to work out all of the details and give him Godly advise and work as a group, but he absolutely refused to meet with us as a whole. He asked the schedule us individually (divide and conquer type mentality, which was so obvious). We as a group prayed that over, and decided to take the SP up on his offer.
(3) All 15 of us met with the SP and the head deacon. The SP asked each of us individually to air our grievances and concerns, which we did. After we were done, he thanked us for our time and adjourned the meeting, saying, "My decision is final, there is nothing more that needs to be said. I am the senior pastor." (That is the exact statement the SP made to me, as I still have it on tape recording).
(4) The deacon body met again as a whole. We prayed over the chain of events and came to a couple of conclusion: (a) The SP was obviously a puppet to the head deacon (b) The SP was not walking in the spirit (c) The church body should be apprised of the situation, in a formal business meeting, with the SP and the AP present. This was our desire as a deacon body to attempt to give this situation one final positive outcome. We felt the SP for some reason might feel the head deacon had more power than he (SP) thought, and by exposing the deacon's antics to the church body, it might give this new SP the courage to take a stand against his obvious sinful and caniving agenda.
(5) We asked the SP to call such a meeting. He refused, again stating his decision was final.
(6) Without the SP's blessing, just prior to the Sunday a.m. service beginning (the week after the congregation was informed of the firing) I assumed control of a mic and announced a formal business meeting for that Sunday evening to air a matter of sin on the senior leadership that needed to be addressed.
Around 15 people, not including the deacons and their wives, attended this meeting. Speaking with hundreds of people the following week by phone, the consensus was they trusted their senior pastor to make the right decision and had no reason to doubt. Our attempts to explain to the congregation by phone and in person that there was very good reason not to trust fell on deaf ears.
(6) The straw that broke the camel's back came several weeks later. The youth pastor, who just happened to be the AP's son-in-law, was fired. Why? Because he did not have a Master's degree. Again, this was a well-know hang-up by the head deacon, and since the youth pastor was hired he did everything he could to criticize, underfund, and demean this guy.
Sadly for the SP and deacon, the congregation absolutely LOVED the youth pastor, and it was this incident that caused people to take notice. We finally had the business meeting we had long desired. After the meeting (in which the SP and deacon were present), the congregation, throught the deacon body, asked the SP and deacon to repent of their actions and recall these two pastors which were fired. Our request was met with disapproval. Unfortunately, according to our bylaws, there were still a few hundred people who trusted the SP (in spite of the evidence) and would not vote for termination, thus not giving us the needed percentage to do so.
(7) Several hundred of us packed up and did not return to that church. In the two years since this occured, their attendance has shrunk significantly from even what was left after the first exodus. I praise God that He is just and punishes the wicked.
I guess it all comes down to bylaws and politics, but I just wish it shouldn't. This very reason is why churches should be MANAGED by a board of elders, not just one man.
My family and I left the church where these goings-on occurred. Here's what transpired prior to us leaving:
(1) The new senior pastor, under the "blessing" of the head of the deacon body (who was also the leader of the pastor search committee) presented supposed grievous indiscretions on the part of one of the associate pastors (AP). Prior to the meeting, the senior pastor and this deacond had already approached the AP and let him go from his position and asked him not to step back in the church. The deacons and staff which were a part of this meeting asked for a time to pray this decision over and possibly meet with the fired AP before the decision was permanent. However, the SP (senior pastor) and head deacon declined it.
So, we as a body met aside from those two, prayed over the situation, and obviously felt something wasn't right. Who wouldn't? Anyhow, we met with this AP and discovered many of the allegations which were levied against him by the SP and deacon were true, but to a much less of an extent than what was accused. The AP was minister in our county jail, and many of the accusations stemmed form this. Well, since I am a cop, I easily checked into these things which were alleged, and found out the AP's version of the story was entirely, 100% accurate. He pretty much was guilty of MILDLY losing his temper for having to wait in a cell with a historically violent inmate for an extended period of time when he asked to leave.
(2) After the meeting with the AP and again meeting to pray over it (this happened within 2 days, so the congregation as a whole was not apprised of this situation) we asked to meet with the SP to work this out. We wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was not fully aware of the situation and had the charges against the AP trumped up by someone (of course we thought it to be the head deacon, who long had a vandetta against the AP, which was well-known but put up with; from what I understand, it was personality differences (they were both A-type, so of course they would butt heads)). In short, we asked the SP for a meeting to work out all of the details and give him Godly advise and work as a group, but he absolutely refused to meet with us as a whole. He asked the schedule us individually (divide and conquer type mentality, which was so obvious). We as a group prayed that over, and decided to take the SP up on his offer.
(3) All 15 of us met with the SP and the head deacon. The SP asked each of us individually to air our grievances and concerns, which we did. After we were done, he thanked us for our time and adjourned the meeting, saying, "My decision is final, there is nothing more that needs to be said. I am the senior pastor." (That is the exact statement the SP made to me, as I still have it on tape recording).
(4) The deacon body met again as a whole. We prayed over the chain of events and came to a couple of conclusion: (a) The SP was obviously a puppet to the head deacon (b) The SP was not walking in the spirit (c) The church body should be apprised of the situation, in a formal business meeting, with the SP and the AP present. This was our desire as a deacon body to attempt to give this situation one final positive outcome. We felt the SP for some reason might feel the head deacon had more power than he (SP) thought, and by exposing the deacon's antics to the church body, it might give this new SP the courage to take a stand against his obvious sinful and caniving agenda.
(5) We asked the SP to call such a meeting. He refused, again stating his decision was final.
(6) Without the SP's blessing, just prior to the Sunday a.m. service beginning (the week after the congregation was informed of the firing) I assumed control of a mic and announced a formal business meeting for that Sunday evening to air a matter of sin on the senior leadership that needed to be addressed.
Around 15 people, not including the deacons and their wives, attended this meeting. Speaking with hundreds of people the following week by phone, the consensus was they trusted their senior pastor to make the right decision and had no reason to doubt. Our attempts to explain to the congregation by phone and in person that there was very good reason not to trust fell on deaf ears.
(6) The straw that broke the camel's back came several weeks later. The youth pastor, who just happened to be the AP's son-in-law, was fired. Why? Because he did not have a Master's degree. Again, this was a well-know hang-up by the head deacon, and since the youth pastor was hired he did everything he could to criticize, underfund, and demean this guy.
Sadly for the SP and deacon, the congregation absolutely LOVED the youth pastor, and it was this incident that caused people to take notice. We finally had the business meeting we had long desired. After the meeting (in which the SP and deacon were present), the congregation, throught the deacon body, asked the SP and deacon to repent of their actions and recall these two pastors which were fired. Our request was met with disapproval. Unfortunately, according to our bylaws, there were still a few hundred people who trusted the SP (in spite of the evidence) and would not vote for termination, thus not giving us the needed percentage to do so.
(7) Several hundred of us packed up and did not return to that church. In the two years since this occured, their attendance has shrunk significantly from even what was left after the first exodus. I praise God that He is just and punishes the wicked.
I guess it all comes down to bylaws and politics, but I just wish it shouldn't. This very reason is why churches should be MANAGED by a board of elders, not just one man.
It seems to me, at a quick read, was that the sr. pastor was the problem, not the way the church was set up. You say he was the puppet of hte head deacon. If they had a board of elders, I would be willing to bet that guy would be the head of that.
When someone does wrong, let address the person. We shouldn't try to force things on everyone else because one person is a bad apple.
When someone does wrong, let address the person. We shouldn't try to force things on everyone else because one person is a bad apple.
Jason Garrett
New Member
I still don't know if the senior pastor was the problem in and of himself, or if he truly was a spineless puppet. In either case, even if the head deacon had been the head of the an elder board which "ran" the church, especially in this case, things would have been different. We (deacon/elder board) would have been able to make changes or at least recommend them to the church body. The way it was set up, we did not have the authority nor the backing to do that.