Chairman of the Deacons

I would agree with this statement if there was any scripture that says deacons are in charge.

 

These things were ad hoc constructs in the Bible. Perhaps we should keep that in mind.

 

Chairman may or may not be appropriate depending on your definition.

If you believe the chairman is the "head" or "chief executive" of the deacons, I believe this is not a healthy portrayal of the role of a deacon.

However, if the chairman is the administrator who acts as a moderator, toastmaster, and facilitator, this is most appropriate. The word "chairman" can have both connotations.

For instance, the chairman may organize the meetings, facilitate the agenda, and keep order and direction in those meetings. He, also, may ensure that all the ministries of the deacons are properly being accomplished and there are no holes in ministries they are providing. While he is just a normal deacon, he may hold wisdom and administrative expertise to help keep the other deacons focused.

 

I guess if you had female and male deacons, it would be appropriate to have a male chair.

 

While the NT is silent, it would seem out of harmony for a non-deliberative body (the diaconate) to have a chairperson. But this shows where we are as Baptists now. We have a board, like Presbys do, of governors who call the shots. Our deacon "boards" don't look like deacons and don't gift/function like elders, but instead follow a corporate/modern model that pleases people, namely themselves. We need to get back to a Biblical ecclesiology, where deacons serve.

 

I am the chairman of the deacons at our church. My role is to preside at our meetings, and that's about it. We consider ourselves servants not bosses.

However, on occasion, the congregation will assign the deacons a responsibility, with the appropriate authority to carry out the assignment. But that's about it.

We have other committees with responsibilities, so we don't really get involved in their work.

We do not function as elders. We have only one elder, our pastor.

 

When a small church is without a pastor, who looks after the spiritual needs and leadership of the church?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I said "other answer".

Autonomy means it's up to the local church.

Personally, I like the fact that our church has a Chairman of the Deacon Board.

I'm not sure exactly why except to say that for an area where there are mixed feelings about a decision to be made, the pastor and the chairman can be looked to for closure.

HankD

 

While the NT is silent, it would seem out of harmony for a non-deliberative body (the diaconate) to have a chairperson.

In that group of men someone has to be in charge no matter how they function in the church? What would you suggest: a free for all? I served as a deacon in a church where it was our primary job to take care of the widows and shut-ins of the church in addition to watching over assigned families. Oh, yeah it was our responsibility to make sure the pulpit was filled in the event that we were without a pastor. The meetings consisted of reports from each deacon as to his activities in taking care of those under his watch care and on occasion making sure we had someone to preach. In this, we needed someone to be in charge and he was called the chairman of the deacons.

 

In my Canadian association of churches, the pastor sits ex-officio on every board and committee of the local church.

The pastor is an outsider called to minister to the needs of the church. The deacons are members of the church and are responsible to keep things in order and running, which includes spiritual matters, serving communion, occasional preaching and especially teaching at the Sunday School level.

The deacons are there to assist the pastor in whatever capacity is required. In other words, they go beyond just serving tea and sweeping the porch. They are servants of the Lord.

A chairperson leads and directs the board and keeps everything in order.

Remember, in modernity, the pastors come and go. The deacons remain ad infinitum.

We are in modern times and not New Testament times. Many things change with time, as does the church functions. We wear shoes and not sandals; suits and not gowns!

Cheers,

Jim

 

No. But somewhere in between the extremes of chaos and the other extreme of a deacon driven church lies an awfully lot of middle ground we can strike. Sounds like y'all do a pretty good job. I have no problem with deacons leading their service areas. I have every problem with deacons serving as a board of directors since it's not a Scriptural function of the office as I see it. One church has a deacon who is responsible for pastoral service. He takes care of pastoral needs when there's a pastor, and takes care of pulpit supply in the absence of a pastor or interim. Nothing wrong with that.

 

:thumbs:

IMHO, "servants" were simply those with ministries... not those with positions of authority.

The elders were to provide the leadership of the fellowship.

peace to youraying:

 

Hey Dr. Bob, where in the Old Testament are the "OT synagogue" and "Sh'mash" mentioned?

 

There is really no need for a chairman since a deacon was not to be someone who had any authority. They were table waiters, nothing more. So they are all under authority not leading in it. :thumbs:

 

Even amongst the group of table waiters someone has to be in charge.