Church governance - what is best?

[BereanTodd]

Ok, I'm curious what the thoughts of my baptist brothers and sisters are on church governance. I know that the vast majority of baptist churches fall into the congregational ecclesiology where major decisions must be made by majority vote of the entire congregation. Is this best? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

I will reserve my comments until I get some input from you guys first.

[mlqurgw]

Ok, I'm curious what the thoughts of my baptist brothers and sisters are on church governance. I know that the vast majority of baptist churches fall into the congregational ecclesiology where major decisions must be made by majority vote of the entire congregation. Is this best? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

I will reserve my comments until I get some input from you guys first.
I think you already have some idea of my view from the other thread concerning the one who took the place of Judas. I am convinced that the Scriptures nowhere teach congregational rule by vote. It does teach pastoral authority. As I said then, faithful pastors are a gift from Christ to His church. The church has never been a democracy. Christ is the Head and He places men in the local visible church as His men. They are to follow Him and the church is to follow them as they follow Christ. They are the ones who must give an answer to Him. They are not to lord it over the flock but lead them. They answer to Christ not the church. They are not hired by the church but placed in that position by Christ. They are servants not lords. From the natural perspective they have the highest position but from the spiritual they have the lowest. A God called pastor has the welfare of the church and the glory of Christ as his focus not his salary.

[BereanTodd]

I'd love input from others as well ...

[JPPT1974]

The church is the head of Christ
Christ is the BOSS of the church
And people follow and do what He says
When He commands them to do
Because we are like His flock and His sheep

[Logos1560]

I am convinced that the Scriptures nowhere teach congregational rule by vote. It does teach pastoral authority. As I said then, faithful pastors are a gift from Christ to His church. The church has never been a democracy. Christ is the Head and He places men in the local visible church as His men. They are to follow Him and the church is to follow them as they follow Christ. They are the ones who must give an answer to Him. They are not to lord it over the flock but lead them. They answer to Christ not the church. They are not hired by the church but placed in that position by Christ. They are servants not lords.

I do not find that the New Testament teaches one-man rule over a local congregation. The pastoral authority in the New Testament seems to be in a plurality of elders/bishops/pastors and not in one man. A correct understanding of pastoral authority should consider how it relates to other N. T. teachings such as the priesthood of all believers. The instructions given for the scriptural qualifications for elders/bishops/pastors indicates that someone or some group on earth [either the congregation or a plurality of elders] is supposed to evaluate men to see whether they measure up to them or not. Elders are accountable to someone on earth who can rebuke those who sin (1 Timothy 5:19-20), which suggests accountability to the congregation or at least the other local church leaders. The congregation seems to be expected to select or elect those who seemed to have responsibilities like deacons (Acts 6) [they (the multitude--congregation) chose--Acts 6:5].
The pre-1611 English Bibles suggested that there was a vote or election for the elders at Acts 14:23 [ordained them elders by election in every congregation--Tyndale's N. T. 1537 Matthew's Bible, 1539 Great].
["having appointed to them by vote elders in every assembly"--Young's Literal Translation]

[daveleau]

Ok, I'm curious what the thoughts of my baptist brothers and sisters are on church governance. I know that the vast majority of baptist churches fall into the congregational ecclesiology where major decisions must be made by majority vote of the entire congregation. Is this best? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

I will reserve my comments until I get some input from you guys first.

What is best is the kind of government that gets the people who listen to God for guidance into decision making positions. Much debate goes on about church governance, which is sad. If it was such a sticking point with God, then it would be outlined in more detail in Scripture. But, the key is getting people into positions of leadership that listen to God and do not act without God's explicit blessing in the act.

In Him,
Dave

[DeaconDean]

What is best is the kind of government that gets the people who listen to God for guidance into decision making positions. Much debate goes on about church governance, which is sad. If it was such a sticking point with God, then it would be outlined in more detail in Scripture. But, the key is getting people into positions of leadership that listen to God and do not act without God's explicit blessing in the act.

In Him,
Dave

I tend to agree with this type of statement. But I also want to say that to place a pastor in the pulpit with no form of accountability can and will lead to disasterous results. As best as my limited mind will allow me to understand, Jesus instructed Peter:

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." -Jn. 21:15-17

Peter was instructed by our Lord to feed His sheep. The Pastor of a church is the "undershepherd." His primary duty is to feed Jesus' sheep with the word. To grow them in His word. The pastor is also to see to the welfare of the flock. Whatever capacity that entails, the pastor is to do. And that is all.

It is here that I disagree with my brother mlqurgw. Let me give three examples of pastors put into the pulpit with no accountability at all.

Here in North Carolina, I have personally seen Pastors placed in the pulpit where there was no accountability of them to anybody. And in one instance, the pastor was hired for a church at a rather good salary. Within one month, one month, the pastor said he was not happy with his salary and wanted a $20,000 a year increase and expected it within a week. When the church abstained, he proceeded to dismiss from the deacons, men, God fearing men, who disagreed with him, and placed on the deacon board, men he knew who would simpathetic to him. As a result, the church which had before hand a membership of close to one thousand, fell to around three hundred.

In another church, one in which I personally grew up in, the former pastor had had a heart attack and was unable to fulfill his duties. As a result, the church retained an interim pastor. After a few months of this man running the church, it was decided that they (the church) would offer him the pastorate. He accpeted. Within a few months, he began to decide himself, the way he wanted all church business to be ran. He over ruled the Sunday school director and split up the Sunday school classes. Which in and of itself, is a good thing, but the point being, that when he did this, it was understood that in 90 days, if the congregation was not happy with this arrangment, it would be placed back as it was. At the end of 90 days, the congregation asked for the classes to be returned as they were. The pastor stood up right there in the pulpit and said that it was his decision to do this, and he would not, under any circumstances, return it to the way it was. This church almost fell apart.

In another instance, a few of the men of a church had been witnessing to a certain man. After a long while of this, the man started visiting. After some time, he eventually gave his life to the Lord and was baptised into the church. It was three weeks later, that this church had a business meeting. When a certain question was put on the floor for discussion, the new member stood up to give his input. Immediately the pastor told him to sit down that he hadn't been a member long enough to give any opinion.

Are we to accept blindly:

pastoral authority?

I'm sorry brother, you know I respect your opinions very much and often seek out your advice, but in this one instance, I do believe you are wrong. I do know that the pastor is accountable to the Lord, but to place a man in the pulpit without any form of restraints or accountability to anyone is dangerous. After all, even though he is a pastor, he is after all, just a man, prone to error, prone to sin, prone to stumble, just like the rest of us.

If a pastor draws a salary from the church he is pastoring over, he should by all rights be held accountable to them. Is he not after all is said and done, a hired servant just like the pianist who draws a salary for playing the piano? Are we not taught:

"...the workman is worthy of his meat." -Mt. 10:10

I personally believe that a church which has a constitution that defines just what the pastors powers are and are not within the church, is the best. The pastor is hired by the church is he not? And who is the church? Is it not the duty of the elders/deacons to see to the business of the church, and not the pastor?

But that is just how I see it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[daveleau]

I agree wholeheartedly that checks and balances must be in place, or else you have pastors with multi-million dollar homes like some of the most popular evangelists today.

The church we left a little over a year ago was due to problems that resulted from this specific issue, but in a democratic church government setting. Our church had about 150 people on the rolls, and about 80 attended weekly. Business meetings were held Sunday nights when about 15 would attend. Our pastor was a conservative, biblically minded, exegetical teacher that had sound theological teaching.

The problem? The church sold a section of its property and got close to a million dollars for it. A significant portion of the money was frittered away through poor planning--all approved by votes in business meetings. They bought gym equipment after a half-baked idea of having a place for the kids to work out (it wasn't ever used). The pastor bought $12,000 worth of office cubicles in an attempt to section off the back of the church to get people to sit further forward in the church, rather than just getting a nice (cheap) velvet rope. The pastor's salary was about $60k + his rent, utilities, and car/health insurance were paid for (more money than most of the people in the church made). The thing that caused half of the church to leave was that he forged documents saying his contract when he was hired (7 years prior...and only the financial person from the hiring committee was still on staff, and confirmed the forgery) promised a down payment on his own house. He asked for $15,000 + interest of 10% for the 7 years since he was hired (equals $25,500). The deacons unanimously opposed this, and the pastor pressed for the vote anyway because that was per the by-laws. During the vote, he presided over the committee (per by-laws) and called the children back from a camp so they could vote. His family (including all his grandchildren in children's church) outnumbered the rest of the congregation in attendance, and the vote passed. The pastor was cleared to receive $25,500 for his own use. All this time (6 months), the nearly 1 million dollars had been frittered away to under $400,000. This was heavily opposed by the deacons, and they unanimously (there were 8 deacons) opposed the pastor in the next business meeting, but the democracy held. The pastor used the by-laws and the vote to oppose all the proposals of the deacons to stop this. Thus, half the church left, including all the deacons. It was a very sad time, and the only church division I have been through in my adult life. (I hope I never see another.)

The problems with democratic votes like this:
- The congregation cannot know the issue in depth enough to make a decision. Even if the attempt is made to educate the congregation, there are going to be many that do not know the facts.
- Voting causes division as it pits one side against another.
- Many who do know the facts will often not oppose the pastor they trust their spiritual growth to.
- Some in any congregation are not spiritually in-tuned enough to follow the guidance of the spirit.


This is not to say that democracy cannot work in a church, but there are some churches where this will work and some where there will be disastrous results. The key is to cover the pitfalls with guidance from the Holy Spirit. I agree that there need to be checks and balances to ensure that the church is not abused.

[DeaconDean]

I agree wholeheartedly that checks and balances must be in place, or else you have pastors with multi-million dollar homes like some of the most popular evangelists today.

The church we left a little over a year ago was due to problems that resulted from this specific issue, but in a democratic church government setting. Our church had about 150 people on the rolls, and about 80 attended weekly. Business meetings were held Sunday nights when about 15 would attend. Our pastor was a conservative, biblically minded, exegetical teacher that had sound theological teaching.

The problem? The church sold a section of its property and got close to a million dollars for it. A significant portion of the money was frittered away through poor planning--all approved by votes in business meetings. They bought gym equipment after a half-baked idea of having a place for the kids to work out (it wasn't ever used). The pastor bought $12,000 worth of office cubicles in an attempt to section off the back of the church to get people to sit further forward in the church, rather than just getting a nice (cheap) velvet rope. The pastor's salary was about $60k + his rent, utilities, and car/health insurance were paid for (more money than most of the people in the church made). The thing that caused half of the church to leave was that he forged documents saying his contract when he was hired (7 years prior...and only the financial person from the hiring committee was still on staff, and confirmed the forgery) promised a down payment on his own house. He asked for $15,000 + interest of 10% for the 7 years since he was hired (equals $25,500). The deacons unanimously opposed this, and the pastor pressed for the vote anyway because that was per the by-laws. During the vote, he presided over the committee (per by-laws) and called the children back from a camp so they could vote. His family (including all his grandchildren in children's church) outnumbered the rest of the congregation in attendance, and the vote passed. The pastor was cleared to receive $25,500 for his own use. All this time (6 months), the nearly 1 million dollars had been frittered away to under $400,000. This was heavily opposed by the deacons, and they unanimously (there were 8 deacons) opposed the pastor in the next business meeting, but the democracy held. The pastor used the by-laws and the vote to oppose all the proposals of the deacons to stop this. Thus, half the church left, including all the deacons. It was a very sad time, and the only church division I have been through in my adult life. (I hope I never see another.)

The problems with democratic votes like this:
- The congregation cannot know the issue in depth enough to make a decision. Even if the attempt is made to educate the congregation, there are going to be many that do not know the facts.
- Voting causes division as it pits one side against another.
- Many who do know the facts will often not oppose the pastor they trust their spiritual growth to.
- Some in any congregation are not spiritually in-tuned enough to follow the guidance of the spirit.


This is not to say that democracy cannot work in a church, but there are some churches where this will work and some where there will be disastrous results. The key is to cover the pitfalls with guidance from the Holy Spirit. I agree that there need to be checks and balances to ensure that the church is not abused.

At least we agree that there should be some sort of system of checks and balances. Even this, as you have shown does have its flaws and can be manipulated by a person who knows how to work the by-laws and Roberts Rules of Order. Even our US Constitution has its flaws. It is not 100% full-proof, but it is the best form going. Just as this has its flaws, I do believe that "pastoral authority" is equally dangerous.

Here is something that scared me. Not too long ago (11/06), a man my wife works with invited me to attend a "Mens Conference" that was held at a Non-Denominational Evangelical church. So my ex brother-in-law and myself took off and went. There was some good singing, and a good message was preached. But what almost caused me to leave, in fact it did cause me to close my Bible, was the statement he made: "My church can't run me off, my name is on the deed to the church." The insinuation was, that was his church.

Good to hear from your brother. God Bless you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[holyrokker]

The structure of church government should be a tool that is used to move the church in obedience to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


We are governed by a board of deacons and hold church elections on major decisions.

Recently the deacons (and pastors) thought it would be the right thing to increase the number of pastors on staff from 3 to 4.

A church election was held, and the vote was 171 yes, 162 no.

If it were truly a "democracy" we would have moved forward saying "majority rules".

But the vote was very close, indicating that the church was divided over the issue.

So the deacons have called for a time of prayer and fasting over the issue.

The goal is that the church be united in purpose and heart over the issue, not force something on the congregation.

[BereanTodd]

I am glad to finally get some input. I agree with some of the sentiments that a single pastor with all of the authority is very often a very bad formula. However, on the other side I think congregational rule is also a very bad idea.

For one the idea of congregational voting is not scriptural. It is not found anywhere in Scripture. But beyond that, give some thought to it. The brand-new-in-the-faith or perhaps even unsaved guy on the rolls has the same vote/power on issues as a servant-hearted deacon who has given 30 years to the Lord's word. The church should be guided by those wise and spiritual enough to make proper decisions.

Personally I feel that the Biblical model - and the most practical model - is for a board of 3-5 elders who lead/guide the church. Those elders are the pastors ideally. There may be one in particular who is more gifted in preaching or who is the "head" but the power is evenly distributed amongst the elders. Basically a presbyterian form of church governance.

Just my thoughts though ...

[mlqurgw]

I expected most to disagree with me. Let me clarify my position a bit if I may. I do believe that the Scriptures teach a plurality of elders with whom the pastor is to consult if the church has men who meet the qualifications. Still I do not find that the pastor is accountable to anyone but Christ. I also find nowhere in the Scriptures where the pastor is hired by the church. That is one of the many problems I see in the "church" today. Far too many men seek to be pastors who have never been called. Pastoring isn't a job you do nor a career choice but a calling from the Lord. When men are hired for the job they are accountable to those who hire them. Pastors are not hired and though the church ought to love them and see to their physical needs it isn't something a God called pastor requires. When men become accountable to those they are to lead and care for they quickly begin to preach according to the desires of the congregation rather than according to the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit. Those men seek a message that will tickle the ears of the hearers rather than a message from God to those people in that hour. They soon become more concerned with their salaries instead of the souls of those they preach to. I realize few have ever been under the ministry of God called pastors, because there are so few, but that doesn't mean it isn't the Biblical model. The dangers spoken of are real and true because so few take pastoring as a ministry in the true sense of the word. I am also convinced that God puts His men in the pastorate. They don't need to put out resumes and look for it. Not one prophet in the Scriptures where ever said to be looking for it as a job. They were all called by God and put in that place. I have more that I could say but time has run out and I must leave for evening services.

[DeaconDean]

I expected most to disagree with me. Let me clarify my position a bit if I may. I do believe that the Scriptures teach a plurality of elders with whom the pastor is to consult if the church has men who meet the qualifications.

We can agree on that.

Still I do not find that the pastor is accountable to anyone but Christ. I also find nowhere in the Scriptures where the pastor is hired by the church.

You will not get an argument from me on this point.

That is one of the many problems I see in the "church" today. Far too many men seek to be pastors who have never been called. Pastoring isn't a job you do nor a career choice but a calling from the Lord. When men are hired for the job they are accountable to those who hire them.

Here is where I disagree to a point brother. You are certainly right in that preaching is not a job, it is a calling, I'll not argue that with you. But, still, in todays present society, churches "hire" their pastors to do a job: preach, sing, teach, visit, counsel, etc. And as such, the "church" pays them a salary. They accept money for services rendered. So, why wouldn't he be accountable to the people who pay his salary? Your held accountable to the people you work for, why shouldn't the pastor?


Pastors are not hired and though the church ought to love them and see to their physical needs it isn't something a God called pastor requires.

Again, no argument from me here.

When men become accountable to those they are to lead and care for they quickly begin to preach according to the desires of the congregation rather than according to the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit.

So, men like Jimmy Swaggert shouldn't be held accountable to his church for all his adulteries?

Those men seek a message that will tickle the ears of the hearers rather than a message from God to those people in that hour. They soon become more concerned with their salaries instead of the souls of those they preach to.

Not necessarily. But to a point, it is also hard to work a full time job, and minister in a church full time also.

I realize few have ever been under the ministry of God called pastors, because there are so few, but that doesn't mean it isn't the Biblical model.

That is also true, when Jesus sent out the seventy, He told them:

"Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes:" -Lk. 10:4

But that was more a lesson to teach them complete dependance on the Lord God to meet their needs. And many still do, do this. And their needs are met by the church paying them for services rendered.

The dangers spoken of are real and true because so few take pastoring as a ministry in the true sense of the word.

Again, no argument from me. But still, to place a man in the pulpit, and say that: "You seek counsel from the deacons/elders, but you run the church" is wrong. What happens when that pastor says I want church run this way or that way.

I am also convinced that God puts His men in the pastorate. They don't need to put out resumes and look for it. Not one prophet in the Scriptures where ever said to be looking for it as a job. They were all called by God and put in that place. I have more that I could say but time has run out and I must leave for evening services.

I agree with you brother, but as for DeaconDean, I will not sit under any pastor who has no accountability. I will not sit under a pastor who holds the reigns of the church. I will not sit under a pastor who says we will do this or we will do that because I say so. Pastors are men. granted they are called of God for their duty, but they are men none the less. Men no matter how godly they seem to be, are still prone to error. They are prone to fall. They are prone to stumble. They are prone to be wrong on occasions. We are all created in the image of God, but did we not all inherit a corrupted nature from Adam that will never leave us until that day we see Him and are made like Him. (1 Jn. 3:2)

All I'm saying is that even pastors are men, fashioned in God's likeness, but still having Adam's nature in them. And as such, they, just like you, me, the next person to post, and that baby born one second ago, are still going to have Adam's nature in them until the day they die. And as such, they can err, they be wrong, they can stumble and fall, just like us. And to place them in a church with no accountability is wrong.

When you and I preach, are we not accountable not only to God for what we preach, but are we not accountable to the people we preach to, to preach what is right according to what the scriptures say are right?

But that is just how I see it. You know what brother? I do believe this is only the second time we have ever diagreed on something, funny. BTW, I hope your evening service was blessed. How was it?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

I expected most to disagree with me. Let me clarify my position a bit if I may. I do believe that the Scriptures teach a plurality of elders with whom the pastor is to consult if the church has men who meet the qualifications.
We can agree on that. A God called man will seek the council of other God called men as a check to himself. Paul speaks of doing this in Gal. 2:1-6 Though he says that they added nothing to him. I am not advocating a lone wolf idea of the pastorate but one that I believe is the Scriptural model. Paul did not make himself accountable to them but sought their council in order to be sure that his message was the same as theirs. A man who is truly called of God to pastor will check himslf with others to make sure he isn't going beyond the Scriptures in his theology and teaching.


Still I do not find that the pastor is accountable to anyone but Christ. I also find nowhere in the Scriptures where the pastor is hired by the church. You will not get an argument from me on this point. OK. Still, your next statement does seem to contradict this one.
That is one of the many problems I see in the "church" today. Far too many men seek to be pastors who have never been called. Pastoring isn't a job you do nor a career choice but a calling from the Lord. When men are hired for the job they are accountable to those who hire them.Here is where I disagree to a point brother. You are certainly right in that preaching is not a job, it is a calling, I'll not argue that with you. But, still, in todays present society, churches "hire" their pastors to do a job: preach, sing, teach, visit, counsel, etc. And as such, the "church" pays them a salary. They accept money for services rendered. So, why wouldn't he be accountable to the people who pay his salary? Your held accountable to the people you work for, why shouldn't the pastor?
The fact that it is done that way in present society doesn't make it right nor Biblical. You have actually made my point. Men are hired to do a job and because they are "hired" they are what Christ calls hirelings. Their concern is like that of anyone hired to do a job, that is to keep their job. I know of several men who will not preach what they claim to know to be truth because their people wouldn't stand for it. I can't tell you how many times I have heard it said that if they preached those things they would be kicked out. That tells me that they are more concerned with keeping their job than with truth. Are such men truly God called pastors?
Pastors are not hired and though the church ought to love them and see to their physical needs it isn't something a God called pastor requires.Again, no argument from me here.
Pastors are responsible to Christ to feed His sheep and care for them as He would. Those whom He has given him are responsible to do all they can to enable him to give himself to the work to which Christ called him. This would include praying fervently for him that Christ would guard his heart and keep him in the way.

I will have to get to the rest later. I have been called into work early and must leave. BTW, the services were outstanding. I am never sorry that I went. :) I am glad that though we may disagree we can discuss this as brothers. I am praying that the Lord will give us both light in the matter.
When men become accountable to those they are to lead and care for they quickly begin to preach according to the desires of the congregation rather than according to the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit. Those men seek a message that will tickle the ears of the hearers rather than a message from God to those people in that hour. They soon become more concerned with their salaries instead of the souls of those they preach to. I realize few have ever been under the ministry of God called pastors, because there are so few, but that doesn't mean it isn't the Biblical model. The dangers spoken of are real and true because so few take pastoring as a ministry in the true sense of the word. I am also convinced that God puts His men in the pastorate. They don't need to put out resumes and look for it. Not one prophet in the Scriptures where ever said to be looking for it as a job. They were all called by God and put in that place. I have more that I could say but time has run out and I must leave for evening services.















So, men like Jimmy Swaggert shouldn't be held accountable to his church for all his adulteries?



Not necessarily. But to a point, it is also hard to work a full time job, and minister in a church full time also.



That is also true, when Jesus sent out the seventy, He told them:

"Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes:" -Lk. 10:4

But that was more a lesson to teach them complete dependance on the Lord God to meet their needs. And many still do, do this. And their needs are met by the church paying them for services rendered.



Again, no argument from me. But still, to place a man in the pulpit, and say that: "You seek counsel from the deacons/elders, but you run the church" is wrong. What happens when that pastor says I want church run this way or that way.



I agree with you brother, but as for DeaconDean, I will not sit under any pastor who has no accountability. I will not sit under a pastor who holds the reigns of the church. I will not sit under a pastor who says we will do this or we will do that because I say so. Pastors are men. granted they are called of God for their duty, but they are men none the less. Men no matter how godly they seem to be, are still prone to error. They are prone to fall. They are prone to stumble. They are prone to be wrong on occasions. We are all created in the image of God, but did we not all inherit a corrupted nature from Adam that will never leave us until that day we see Him and are made like Him. (1 Jn. 3:2)

All I'm saying is that even pastors are men, fashioned in God's likeness, but still having Adam's nature in them. And as such, they, just like you, me, the next person to post, and that baby born one second ago, are still going to have Adam's nature in them until the day they die. And as such, they can err, they be wrong, they can stumble and fall, just like us. And to place them in a church with no accountability is wrong.

When you and I preach, are we not accountable not only to God for what we preach, but are we not accountable to the people we preach to, to preach what is right according to what the scriptures say are right?

But that is just how I see it. You know what brother? I do believe this is only the second time we have ever diagreed on something, funny. BTW, I hope your evening service was blessed. How was it?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[JuJube]

Forgive me if I am asking you to repeat something that you have already stated . But could you please elaborate some on the topic of how you think (scripturally) a church should reach their decisions AND....are you saying that you believe that a pastor should not be on salary? Thanks for your input. I'm really interested in this topic. :)

[DeaconDean]

My borther mlqurgw, I don't want this to end up being a sore spot between us. I really don't it to drive a wedge between us, I value your opinions. My whole point in this matter was that to place a pastor in the pulpit without some form of checks and balences, would be very wrong. Should a church give full control of all matters, giving him "pastoral authority" in all church matters could, mind you I said could, lead to a church installing a person who could end up another Jim Jones, or David Koresh.

I personally believe that if a church places a man in the pulpit, and then gives him total control in all church matters, why would you need elders or deacons? After all, doesn't the Pastor have "pastoral authority?" What is to stop him from over-riding the elders/deacons? What is to stop him from dictating everything that happens in the church?

Others may see it differently, but I will not give, nor will I sit under a Pastor who is the final say-so in all church matters. I do not believe a pastor should have essentially a blank check given to him to run the church any way he see fit as does the "pastoral authority" notion.

Sorry brother, but I just don't see it that way.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[mlqurgw]

Forgive me if I am asking you to repeat something that you have already stated . But could you please elaborate some on the topic of how you think (scripturally) a church should reach their decisions AND....are you saying that you believe that a pastor should not be on salary? Thanks for your input. I'm really interested in this topic. :)The church is to follow their pastor as he follows Christ. 1Cor. 11:1 The pastor, if he is God's man, is responsible to lead the local assembly Christ has placed him in as shepherd. He ought to seek the council of other pastors and the elders if there are any. Still the responsibility and the oversight is his. He is the one who must give an answer to the Lord for how he leads and were he leads. As a watchman he is required to give a clear warning to all and as a shepherd he is to gurad the sheep and feed them in good pasture. They are his responsibility to care for. He doesn't ask the sheep where they want to go He leads them where he is lead by the Great Shepherd.
Every local assembly is made up of both the saved and those who are lost yet think they are saved. Weak and strong, young and mature. Many still want to follow the way that is natural but the natural is always the opposite of the spiritual. I find no committees and church business meetings in the Scriptures at all. That in no way means the the pastor does anything under cover or hides anything. He ought to give an account for every penny spent and why it was spent but the final decision is his. There is no such thing as majority rule or even congregational rule in the New Testament. Christ is the true spiritual head of the body, His church, and He places men whom He has called and gifted in the visible local assembly as His under-shepherds who are to have the oversight and rule.

As far as salaries go: A man who expects a salary is looking for a job not a ministry. I have no problem with those whom he serves giving him an agreed amount as long as he doesn't serve in order to be paid. Buy all means the people he serves ought to see to his needs and more, he cares for their souls. They ought to love and support him, pray constantly for him and do whatever is in their ability to do to allow him to give himself to his calling. No pastor should ever have to live below the people he pastors, nor above them. A man called of God to pastor doesn't do it for a salary. A great many go into the pastorate because they don't want to get a real job. Of course they know nothing of what it is to be a pastor.

I hope I have answered your questions at least to some degree. I am not always as clear in my posts as I would desire. If you have more questions on the matter I will do my utmost to answer as best I can.
You may call me Ron, it is much easier than mlqurgw.

[mlqurgw]

My borther mlqurgw, I don't want this to end up being a sore spot between us. I really don't it to drive a wedge between us, I value your opinions. My whole point in this matter was that to place a pastor in the pulpit without some form of checks and balences, would be very wrong. Should a church give full control of all matters, giving him "pastoral authority" in all church matters could, mind you I said could, lead to a church installing a person who could end up another Jim Jones, or David Koresh.

I personally believe that if a church places a man in the pulpit, and then gives him total control in all church matters, why would you need elders or deacons? After all, doesn't the Pastor have "pastoral authority?" What is to stop him from over-riding the elders/deacons? What is to stop him from dictating everything that happens in the church?

Others may see it differently, but I will not give, nor will I sit under a Pastor who is the final say-so in all church matters. I do not believe a pastor should have essentially a blank check given to him to run the church any way he see fit as does the "pastoral authority" notion.

Sorry brother, but I just don't see it that way.

God Bless

Till all are one.You needn't ever worry about something driving a wedge between us. I truly understand your position, though I disagree. I only ask that you search the Scripture to see if these things are true. Elders and deacons are to assist the pastor but the responsibility is his and he is the one who must give an answer to the Lord for those whom he is given authority and care for. Of course your concerns are why a church ought to be very careful in calling a pastor. The fact that there are some who misuse pastoral authority doesn't negate the truth that it is the Biblical model. A God called pastor is never a dictator, 1Pet. 5:1-5. He doesn't rule with a heavy hand but a meek and humble spirit recognizing his own sinfulness and need to take care of his own soul before he can take care of others. He leads by example not by force. Sheep will follow a shepherd but will resist a goat herder every time.
Be assured that I have no lack of respect for you or any hard feeling toward you at all. It isn't necessary that we see eye to eye on everything. You are my dear brother and I will always love you and be there for you.
I am as always, your servant in Christ, Ron.

[RayTX]

"A God called pastor has the welfare of the church and the glory of Christ as his focus not his salary"

I have heard this phrase "God called pastor", but is it not the local church who recognizes that call, then "calls" him to their congregation by a vote? I have never heard of a Baptist church just letting someone walk in and say "God called me to be your pastor so here I am".
I am afraid that too many churches permit Pastoral authority, where they call their "shepherd" CEO, or set up a hierarchy of Senior Pastors and then his underlings.
Unfortunately I know of churches where the pastor actually OWNS the buildings and grounds...it is HIS church.
I personally knew of a pastor who left his congregation, but took a UHAUL and took the pulpit furniture, hymnals and office equipment with him, after he publicly resigned.
Be Wise!! :idea:

[mlqurgw]

"A God called pastor has the welfare of the church and the glory of Christ as his focus not his salary"

I have heard this phrase "God called pastor", but is it not the local church who recognizes that call, then "calls" him to their congregation by a vote? Show me where a vote was taken to call a pastor anywhere in the New Testament. If a church needs a pastor God will bring the man He has for them together with them and they will both know he is the man God has called for them. I have seen it happen numerous times. I have to wonder why people don't trust Christ to supply their needs.
I have never heard of a Baptist church just letting someone walk in and say "God called me to be your pastor so here I am". This is a ridiculous statement. It has nothing to do at all with my argument nor whether it is the Biblical model.
I am afraid that too many churches permit Pastoral authority, where they call their "shepherd" CEO, or set up a hierarchy of Senior Pastors and then his underlings.
Unfortunately I know of churches where the pastor actually OWNS the buildings and grounds...it is HIS church.
I personally knew of a pastor who left his congregation, but took a UHAUL and took the pulpit furniture, hymnals and office equipment with him, after he publicly resigned.
Be Wise!! :idea: So far all of the arguments against pastoral authority have been based on what could happen and what may have happened. Rather than waiting on God to supply a pastor most take matters into their own hands and suffer the consequences. God has promised to give His church pastors after His own heart, Jer. 3:15. Why don't we take Him at His word?
Because men who are not God's men abuse the office of pastor and fleeces the sheep does in no way make the Scriptural teaching of pastoral authority false. If we would begin to do things God's way instead of what we naturally think is wise and best we would have far less problems with this sort of thing. If anyone can show me from the Scriptures that pastoral authority is not the Biblical model I will bow to the Scriptures. In natural things once bitten twice cured may be wise but in spiritual things it doesn't apply.

[RayTX]

If we were to live by your premise and that is a literal NT view, then all pastors should be bi-vocational too.
Also note, that after Judas hung himself, they cast lots to see who would replace him. Should the local church "cast lots"?
Honestly, I am confused on how you would "call" a pastor to a local church. Someone must make a two way agreement somewhere, unless you are Methodist or another denomination where the local minister is chosen for a local congregation.

[BereanTodd]

If we were to live by your premise and that is a literal NT view, then all pastors should be bi-vocational too.
Also note, that after Judas hung himself, they cast lots to see who would replace him. Should the local church "cast lots"?
Honestly, I am confused on how you would "call" a pastor to a local church. Someone must make a two way agreement somewhere, unless you are Methodist or another denomination where the local minister is chosen for a local congregation.

Ideally you would have a team of elders who make the selection. The problem with guiding the church by congregational vote is that it is not wise. Should we give equal weight to what a brand-new believer, who has very little understanding and has not probably even fully taken on a Biblical world-view in many cases and say a godly, servant-hearted deacon who has served the lord for 30 years? What about the person who is a member of the church but is really not a believer, is having an affair on his wife and heading closer to a divorce? Should that man have the same say-so as the elder who has guided the church faithfully for a decade with his servant attitude?

Congregational voting is worldly, and not wise. A church should be guided by its elders, those who have been recognized and confirmed to be spiritually mature and able to make wise and godly decisions.

[mlqurgw]

If we were to live by your premise and that is a literal NT view, then all pastors should be bi-vocational too. Not at all. As I have already stated the church is responsible to take care of his needs as much as they are able in order for him to give himself to the work of the ministry. Tent-making is sometimes required because the church can't support him but it is a difficult thing and ought to be avoided if possible. Other churches ought to help as they are able also if it is needed. My point is that a churches ability to support him ought not be a concern for the man who is truly called of God to pastor a local congregation. If they are able to and refuse that is another matter altogether. A church who hires their pastor can also fire him. There is no real commitment to him in such a situation. Calling a pastor is like entering into marriage. If you do so with the idea that you can always fire him if you don't like him you will eventually end up doing just that. God is the one who gives faithful pastors to His church and only He can remove them. The Lord says touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm. 1Chron.16:22, Psa. 105:15
Also note, that after Judas hung himself, they cast lots to see who would replace him. Should the local church "cast lots"? I believe this has already been dealt with earlier in the thread.
Honestly, I am confused on how you would "call" a pastor to a local church. Someone must make a two way agreement somewhere, unless you are Methodist or another denomination where the local minister is chosen for a local congregation.Again as I have already said, if a church is in need of a pastor God will see to it that His man for them comes into contact with them. When He brings them together they will both know he is the man for them. A consensus can be reached without a vote. Certainly much discussion is needed between them and any and all concerns addressed from both sides. A pastor should never be called from a resume and a couple of visits. The church should do everything possible to get to know him and his family. They ought to find out as much as they can about him and ask those who know him their opinion of him. If they are convinced by much prayer and love for him they will extended to him a call. If he is convinced by much prayer and love for them he will accept the call. Once you call him you have committed yourself to submit to his God given authority and follow him. 1Thess. 5:12,13; Heb. 13:7,17; 1Tim. 5:17;Gal. 6:6; 1Cor. 9:7-14; 1Cor. 4:1,2

[JuJube]

Ideally you would have a team of elders who make the selection. The problem with guiding the church by congregational vote is that it is not wise. Should we give equal weight to what a brand-new believer, who has very little understanding and has not probably even fully taken on a Biblical world-view in many cases and say a godly, servant-hearted deacon who has served the lord for 30 years? What about the person who is a member of the church but is really not a believer, is having an affair on his wife and heading closer to a divorce? Should that man have the same say-so as the elder who has guided the church faithfully for a decade with his servant attitude?

Congregational voting is worldly, and not wise. A church should be guided by its elders, those who have been recognized and confirmed to be spiritually mature and able to make wise and godly decisions.
I'm leaning more along this line with you...I agree. I've gone to a Bapt. church now for 8 yrs. and I never questioned it. Don't know why either, but I'm glad this has come up. Where is voting and the majority gets it, in the bible?

[bdarien]

The church is the head of Christ
Christ is the BOSS of the church
And people follow and do what He says
When He commands them to do
Because we are like His flock and His sheep
Christ is the Head of the Church
the church is the body of Christ.

and as far as leadership goes the church utilized many different methods and espoused the wisdom of many councilors.
Since Christ is the Head of our fellowship then why not join together and in fellowship discuss and decide together the path a church is to take. Too many pastors who have forgotten to follow Christ in the role of a servant and instead try to usurp His role as leader and head of the church has led to the weakness of much of the church today.