Can anyone tell me what you would do?

Why do they need to meet together?? That is the issue you haven't answered. If Sister Jenny comes to Deacon Bob with a complaint about the pastor, Deacon Bob doesn't need the approval of the rest of the deacons. He should go to the pastor and perhaps take Sister Jenny with him. Sister Jenny's complaint may be a ridiculous one, in which case, deacon Bob gently explains that to her. It may be a case that Deacon Bob feels the pastor can answer immediately. I don't see the need to go to the other deacons without the pastor.

 

As I have said there is no proof that there will be gossip. I fail to see how you determine that. I have been in many deacons meetings in which issues involving people have been discussed. The discussion is for many uses such as to determine if we could minister to that person better or if their behaviour might merit a visit from the deacons or myself. I refuse to condemn these practices as gossip. I also refuse to attack the deacons until their behaviour deserves it.

Thanks to Daniel for clarifying the fact that visitation is not anti biblical. I do dissagree that it is of small importance in the mission of the pastor. It would be wonderful if while these deacons are meeting privately meeting that they could discuss a schedule so that each of them to take over the majority of visitation duties from the Pastor. Ofcourse nobody can remove the calling to any christian to go and tell whether they are a pastor, deacon or new convert we all should witness and visiting is an important part.
Murph

 

They meet because Pastor Hardnose is a dictator and very intimidating. He is the kind of guy that thinks NOTHING can go on at HIS church unless HE is in charge and directing the situation. They meet because individual members don't have anywhere near the courage to try and face him directly themselves because of their past experience at being harshly rebuffed by him for even daring to question him.

I personally don't have a problem jumping in with both feet if I think someone is wrong but a lot of people do and they would perhaps like a second opinion about their concern. I don't know WHY these deacons were meeting and I completely agree that if they are meeting for the wrong reasons then they are wrong but I am saying that they MIGHT be meeting for a good reason. To say that they CANNOT meet for ANY reason is dictatorial and unscriptural.

 

then the pastor is wrong. But the solution is not to have a meeting without him but to have a meeting with him. Why is that so difficult??

I don't think the issue is meeting for any reason. To me, the demeanor of the initial post was about meeting for some reason against the pastor. Why would they meet without the pastor? If there is some problem with him, the biblical method is not have a deacon's meeting to talk about it, but rather go to the pastor, or bring it up at a deacon's meeting with him there. I fail to see what is so difficult about this. Just invite the pastor. If you would say something behind his back that you would not say to his face, then it probably shouldn't be said.

 

Mike, I just want to further clarify my position on visitation.

The whole church should take part in visitation (James 1:27 especially). It isn't the JOB of the pastor as though he is the professional christian. I hope this makes sense. It is one of those things that the entire assembly is to partake in.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]They do not have the right to determine this without the pastor involved. It is about the pastor, and therefore, should be discussed with the pastor and not in a closed door gossip session.

Joseph Botwinick

 

What if it isn't gossip?</font>[/QUOTE]If you are discussing negative comments about the pastor behind his back, that is 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) [/QB][/QUOTE]

The member should go to the pastor himself or the deacon should go to the pastor. They have absolutely nothing to discuss untill the pastor has been confronted with the situation. There is a such thing as due process you know, even for pastors.

Joseph Botwinick

 

As I have said there is no proof that there will be gossip. I fail to see how you determine that.</font>[/QUOTE]From your first post on this thread on page 1:

"Now to the negative possibility of this situation. It may be a negative meeting but it could also be a meeting to discuss some aspect of pastoral ministry that some of the deacons are receiving complaints about. For instance two of the deacons approach the chairman and say that they have both heard complaints that the pastor is not visiting as he should. I can see where the chairman might like to meet without the pastor to determine if their is any reason to bring this to the pastors attention or not."

If ther deacons are discussing negative comments about the pastor behind his back, this is gossip and is evil.

I have been in many deacons meetings in which issues involving people have been discussed.[/QUOTE]

Based on my own personal experiences with you in the past, I have absolutely no doubt that this is true. It still doesn't make it right.

The discussion is for many uses such as to determine if we could minister to that person better or if their behaviour might merit a visit from the deacons or myself. I refuse to condemn these practices as gossip. I also refuse to attack the deacons until their behaviour deserves it.[/QUOTE]

You might refuse to, but the Bible doesn't. These discussions were pure unadulterated gossip and is evil. Any leader who participates in these kind of discussions is not worthy of the ministry and should be removed from their position and should repent of their sin.

Joseph Botwinick

 

They meet because Pastor Hardnose is a dictator and very intimidating. He is the kind of guy that thinks NOTHING can go on at HIS church unless HE is in charge and directing the situation. They meet because individual members don't have anywhere near the courage to try and face him directly themselves because of their past experience at being harshly rebuffed by him for even daring to question him.

I personally don't have a problem jumping in with both feet if I think someone is wrong but a lot of people do and they would perhaps like a second opinion about their concern. I don't know WHY these deacons were meeting and I completely agree that if they are meeting for the wrong reasons then they are wrong but I am saying that they MIGHT be meeting for a good reason. To say that they CANNOT meet for ANY reason is dictatorial and unscriptural. </font>[/QUOTE]So in other words, they meet to gossip because they are cowards. I, personally, have no problem talking with my pastor, and if I ever did, I would find somewhere else to go to Church.

Joseph Botwinick

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Amen, Amen, and Amen!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So, in other words, it is your way or the highway. (mild, friendly sarcasm, honest)

Gossip is wrong, but, your definition of gossip being ANY negative comment about the pastor is just not accurate. My pastor's behavior IS my business. It is not gossip to discuss things that are my business. To attempt the kind of control being suggested is to display a degree of pastoral control that is not healthy for a church.

 

So, in other words, it is your way or the highway. (mild, friendly sarcasm, honest)</font>[/QUOTE]I prefer to do things God's way.

Gossip is wrong, but, your definition of gossip being ANY negative comment about the pastor is just not accurate. [/QUOTE]

WRONG!!!!!! Making negative comments about your pastor behind his back is gossip. How come this is so hard for you to figure out? Are you feeling a bit guilty and trying to justify something in your life? This seems so easy and cut ad dried to understand to me.

My pastor's behavior IS my business. It is not gossip to discuss things that are my business. To attempt the kind of control being suggested is to display a degree of pastoral control that is not healthy for a church. [/QUOTE]

It is gossip to say bad things about your pastor behind his back. A little self control might be in order on your part if this is the way you operate. It is certainly healthy for a Church to practice some self control and not go around gossipping about their pastor. What is unhealthy for a church is when a bunch of deacons go around having closed door meetings gossipping about their pastor behind his back. If a deacon, or any staff member of the church is participating in this kind of divisive sin, they should be removed from their position and brought to repentance.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Because my dictionary fails to give your definition when I look up "gossip".

Not even a little bit. I have had some experience in this and my only regret is that the process wasn't started earlier.

Agreed, but, what is equally true is:

What is unhealthy for a church is when a pastor goes around flexing his muscle as a self appointed CEO, President, Owner of HIS local church. If a pastor of the church is participating in this kind of divisive sin, he should be removed from his position and brought to repentance.

Dictator pastors and carnal deacons are equally wrong and should be dealt with. Sometimes you can have one and sometimes you can have the other and in a very unfortunate situation you can have both.
It just seems unreasonable to me to make a blanket statement that ANY discussion among deacons as to whether or not a concern is legitimate or trivial is some sort of gross sin.

 

You must have a great imagination. To equate a pastor telling his deacons that he doesn't want them having closed door meetings where they gossip about him behind his back is sure a far cry from a "carnal dictator". Apparently, you don't believe what the Bible says about elder discipline? You don't even believe in treating the pastor fairly by even giving him basic due process? ***Personal attack removed*** Do you hope that we will suddenly say, "Oh. Now I understand. The Pastor is an evil dictator and that justifies gossip"? It doesn't fly with me. If you are an elder in the Church, and you are participating in this gross sin of gossip, you should be removed from office and brought to repentance. It is attitudes like this that are tearing the Church apart today. It is EVIL, UNGODLY, and most important, UNBIBLICAL.

Joseph Botwinick

[ November 25, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

If they are discussing negative comments about the pastor behind his back, that is gossip and everyone of them should be thrown out of office of deacon and brought to repentance.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Warning to all, we must post in a graceful and tactful manner. Remember what mama said "if you can't say something good don't say anything." Please don't make me edit anything else.
Murph

 

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.
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

True statement. I couldn't agree more. I have never said otherwise.

a pastor telling the deacons that they can't have a closed door meeting where they will discuss the truth about him is dictatorial

It isn't that I do not believe in "elder discipline", it is that I am unfamiliar with the concept. I would be very interested if you would show me where the Bible talks about the pastor being able to exercise discipline at his discretion. I am familiar with church discipline

Apparently the definition of gossip is the main point of contention here.

Gossip refers to both the act of spreading news, especially rumours or private information, or the news spread through the act of gossiping. While this is one of the oldest and (still) the most common means of spreading and sharing information, it is also notorious for the introduction of errors and other variations into the information thus transmitted. The term also carries implications that the news so transmitted is of, usually, a personal and/or trivial nature. Or...

One who runs from house to house, tattling and telling news; an idle tattler. [This is the sense in which the word is now used.] To run about and tattle; to tell idle tales. Or...

gossip:
talk about other people's private lives
Have you heard the latest gossip (= what is being said about someone)?
A gossip is also someone who enjoys talking about other people's private lives: Charlie is a real gossip.

The main point here is that gossips are people who are talking about things that are none of their business