Can anyone tell me what you would do?

Artimaeus, I don't think I quite understood that first line of your first post. Do you believe we are dictatorial?

I am for the plurality of elders leading in a church.

Also, if there is a sin problem, the Scriptures says that such is to be handled by rebuking him in public and that such has to be verified by two witnesses.

Sorry, visitation isn't even a pastoral duty.

 

Daniel,

Please help me here.


Doesn't scripture say that we should go one on one first with the offending brother, then 2 witnesses and then to the Church?

Certainly it shouldn't be dealt with at first in public. Right?

Joseph Botwinick

 

My friend you are dead wrong here. Any Pastor worth his salt will visit. Whether you feel it a listed duty or not is not important. Being a Pastor one knows that many things are done that are not duties but rather the man of God ministers to the body in various ways that are each important. Concerning this discussion as I said I may be giving the deacons the benefit of the doubt but those who I have worked with have all deserved it. I am saddened by the dictatorial tone of many of these posts. We as Pastors are not to be in a battle against deacons. I refuse to jump to the conclusion that this meeting is gossip or unbiblical without further information. I also refuse to stand in judgement over my deacons if they feel that an issue might be better handled without my imput.
Murph

 

Mike,

Can you back up that job description and endorsement of gossip with Scripture? I don't think you can. But I am certainly open to it if you think you can.

Joseph Botwinick

 

My friend you are dead wrong here. Any Pastor worth his salt will visit. </font>[/QUOTE]Mike, I have no doubt that a pastor can and even should visit. However, it isn't mentioned in the Scripture. There is so much that the Scripture does demand, that it leaves precious little time for the things it doesn't.

I think visitation is a way to reach out to those who are sick, elderly, broken homes, or just Christian fellowship.

I didn't mean to imply it is anti-Scripture to visit. It isn't to be a priority though.

 

Joseph, actually there is Scriptural prescedent to not follow Matthew 18.

1 Timothy 5:19-20
19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

If it is suspicion of sin, there needs to be 2 or 3 witnesses to verify the accuracy of the charge.

If there isn't any suspcision of sin and it is some other issue, the other leadership positions need to discuss the matter with the elder before anything else.

 

----------OFF TOPIC----------

The only other time Matthew 18 isn't to be followed is if it is sexual sin. In such cases, the person is to be immediately removed from the assembly (I Cor. 5).

 

Daniel,

When Should Matthew 18 be followed?

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

All other circumstances when the issue is sin.

Elders are treated differently. I understand the text to mean that it is God's way of providing a level of protection for the elder.

 

That seems to make sense. Thanks Daniel.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Good point. The reason is that it was my view of how deacons DO operate and not how they SHOULD operate. I couldn't agree more with the idea that deacons don't operate as they should.

As gossip was not in the original scenerio, I was assuming that this was a matter of legitimate concern.

Should not be allowed BY WHOM? If the answer is the pastor then THAT is the dictator I was talking about. If the answer is the church then how can this happen since the members of the church are not allowed to discuss church business except in the presence of the pastor. If the original concern turns out to be gossip then the deacons can dismiss it without ever having to trouble the pastor with every little gripe and story floating around. if it turns out to have substance then they take that concern to the pastor.

 

The Church should not allow it. Certainly, I can find no scripture that prohibits the Church from discussing normal Church Business outside the presence of the pastor. However, if they are bad mouthing the pastor, or discussing the bad mouthing of the pastor behind the pastor's back, this is gossip and is EVIL and UNBIBLICAL. It ought not occur. And furthermore, those who do so should be disciplined by the Church and restored through repentance. If the deacons are discussing negative comments about the pastor behind his back, they are sinning by gossipping and are not fit to be deacons. The investigation should begin with the pastor, not end there. Either discuss it with the pastor or keep your mouth shut and support his ministry.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I'm guessing that was in some sort of Pastor's Manual. Deacons are servants of the church, not the pastor. They shouldn't have a leadership role and should NEVER be allowed to decide if a pastor stays or leaves. I am not defending lazy, irresponsible, and unqualified deacons. I am sure there is a far higher percentage of these than unqualified pastors. I am just saying that the deacons MIGHT have a legitimate reason for meeting to discuss the pastor and that that blanket statements about them having NO right to do so without the express permission of the pastor is just unreasonable.

 

The Deacons have NO LEGITIMATE BIBLICAL REASON to meet behind the pastor's back and discuss complaints about him, thereby participating in divisive gossip. If they do so, they should be removed as deacons.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It is still gossip and is UNBIBLICAL. The Deacons job is not to participate in any form of gossip against the pastor in any way. They should either tell the member to go to the pastor with their complaint or confront them themselves. They should never meet to talk about complaints about the pastor behind their back. This is Scriptural.

Joseph Botwinick

 

How can the deacons bring a concern to the pastor when they have not discussed it yet? I agree 100% that they have no business trying to decide what to do about this pastor. They DO however, have a right to determine if this is something to be concerned about. Once that is determined then they should immediately go to the pastor and NOT have any sort investigation with the pastor out of the loop.

 

No, not at all...well...maybe some of you a little bit. What I mean is that there seemed to be noticeable amount of, "I'd get rid of them no account deacons!!!" attitude. Even when there was no hint about the subject matter of the meeting.

[QUOTEI am for the plurality of elders leading in a church.[/QUOTE]

Me, too. This would solve this whole problem, wouldn't it?

 

What if it isn't gossip?

I agree, but, unless they have discussed it they can't tell the member anything.

(What are we doing up so late?)

Joe (but not Joseph)

 

Just curious, where is chairman of the Deacons in the Bible?

As far as the situation at hand, it sounds shaky to me. I for one believe in pastoral authority, but if there is a problem with the pastor, then it most certainly needs to be dealt with.