Need help...Deacons > Pastors?

My comment was based on this statement in the OP:

The Pastor has a vision for our church and how it needs to grow. He said that God gave him this vision after much prayer. He said as much to me personally and in letters to all the other deacons. I've read his plan and vision and I think it is good stuff. The Pastor feels so strongly about this, that he's taken a stance on it such that either two things will happen: Either the deacons support him or if not, he will resign. Or, those deacons who will not support him need to step down.

It seems to me that to lay down usch a bold ultimatum over an issue relating to the growth and direction of the church indicates that there is a complete failure of leadership... with the pastor and the "deacons". I agree fully that the pastor is the leader of the church, but he is not to be the ruler. There can only be one ruler and that must be Jesus. That focus should cause the entire body to collectively submit to that authority, beginning with the pastor (every pastor).

For a pastor to basically say "it's my way or the highway" tells me that there is probably more to the story first of all (frustration, desperation, bitterness, and maybe looking for a way out). That aside, to pull the resignation card is not a good strategy for getting others to embrace the vision God has given you. I repeat, that is a failure of leadership. Micromanagment in the church never works well nor does it create a healthy environment for service, creativity, or worship for that matter and is a sure recipie for conflict. All of that kills a church's reputation and witness in the community... which are key for healthy growth in any chruch.

 

To Jkdbuck76:

Does PeterM have a point, here? Is there more to the story that you can reveal?

 

JKDBuck,

In one of my churches, I had a deacon who decided it was his God-appointed duty to object to everything the pastor presented. It did become frustrating, and usually the other deacons gave in to him, as did the congregation.

I wanted something badly in the church and decided to go visit this deacon and have a discussion. I said to him,"What do you think of this idea?" He thought about it and actually said he thought it was a good idea. So, I said to him, "Why don't you present it at the next deacon's meeting as your idea and I will back you up?" This he did, the idea was accepted and worked out. He never opposed me again and became a very close friend to the end of my pastorate there.

Things can be worked out. Sometimes it take some human cleverness and working through a problem rather than working over a problem where someone gets trampled.

All the best, mate,

Cheers,

Jim

 

1 Timothy 3:8-13 for the qulifications of a deacon. Acts 6 for a look at the practical beginnings of deacon ministry. Here is a fairly balanced article from The New Bible Dictionary:

DEACON. rsv renders ‘deacon’ only at Phil. 1:1 and 4 times in 1 Tim. 3; but the Gk. word thus represented, diakonos (generally in av ‘minister’ or ‘servant’), occurs some 30 times in NT, and the cognates diakoneō (to ‘minister’) and diakonia (‘ministry’) occur between them a further 70 times. In the majority of the 100 occurrences of the words there is no trace of a technical meaning relating to specialized functions in the church; in a few it is necessary to consider how far diakonos and its cognates have acquired such a connotation.

I. Derivation

Basically, diakonos is a servant, and often a table-servant, or waiter. In Hellenistic times it came also to represent certain cult and temple officials (see examples in MM), foreshadowing the Christian technical use. The more general sense is common in NT, whether for royal servants (Mt. 22:13) or for a servant of God (1 Thes. 3:2, TR). In a single passage Paul describes Epaphras as a ‘deacon’ of Christ and himself as a ‘deacon’ of the gospel and of the church (Col. 1:7, 23, 25). Others exercise a diakonia towards Paul (Acts 19:22; cf. Phm. 13 and perhaps Col. 4:7; Eph. 6:21), the context showing that they are his assistants in evangelistic work. To find here the origin of the later idea of the bishop with his deacon is straining language. In other words, diakonia is here being applied especially to preaching and pastoral work.

In NT, however, the word never quite loses its connection with the supply of material needs and service (cf., e.g., Rom. 15:25 in context; 2 Cor. 8:4). A waiter is a diakonos still (Jn. 2:5, 9); the table-waiting of Martha (Lk. 10:40) and of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mk. 1:31) is diakonia. It is in this light that we are to see Christ’s insistence that his coming was in order to minister (Mk. 10:45): significantly this claim is set in Lk. 22:26f. in the context of table-service. The Lord is the Deacon par excellence, the table-waiter of his people. And, as these passages show, ‘deaconship’ in this sense is a mark of his whole church.

II. The New Testament diaconate

As we have seen, there was contemporary analogy for ‘deacons’ as cult officials. When, therefore, we find the church greeted ‘with the bishops and deacons’ (Phil. 1:1) it is natural to see a reference to two particular classes within the church. It is true that Hort can see rather the ‘ruling’ and the ‘serving’ elements together making up the church, but it is doubtful if this could be applied to 1 Tim. 3, where a list of qualifications for bishops is immediately followed by a parallel list for deacons: sobriety, straightforwardness, freedom from excess and greed, probity. These would be particularly appropriate for those with responsibilities in finance and administration, and the prominence of social service in the early church would make diakonos an especially suitable word for such people—the more so since the love feast, involving literal table-service, was a regular agency of charity. While diakonia is a mark of the whole church, it is also a special gift—parallel with prophecy and government, but distinct from generous giving—to be exercised by those who possess it (Rom. 12:7; 1 Pet. 4:11). And while any servant of Christ is rightly called a ‘deacon’, the term may be particularly applied to those who minister, like Phoebe (Rom. 16:1), in the ways mentioned. But whether the diaconate existed universally under this name, or whether, for instance, the ‘helps’ at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:28) were equivalent to the ‘deacons’ at Philippi, remains uncertain. There is little to suggest that in NT times the term ‘deacon’ is ever more than semi-technical, or that it has any connection with the Jewish ḥazzān (*Synagogue). Significantly, immediately after listing the qualifications for deacons, Paul returns to the general sense of the word in exhorting Timothy himself (1 Tim. 4:6. Cf. also 1 Pet. 4:10 with 4:11).

The account in Acts 6 of the appointment by the Jerusalem church of seven approved men to supervise the administration of the widows’ fund is commonly taken as the formal institution of the diaconate. It is doubtful if this has much basis in language. Leaving aside unprovable theories which see the Seven as but the Hellenistic counterpart of the Twelve, we may note, first, that the Seven are never called ‘deacons’, and secondly, that while the cognate words are used they apply equally to the diakonia of the Word exercised by the Twelve (v. 4) and to that of the tables (whether for meals or money) exercised by the Seven (v. 2). Laying on of hands is too common in Acts to be seen as a special milestone here (*Ordination), and the careers of Stephen and Philip show that the Seven were not confined to table-service.

There is, however, weight in Lightfoot’s argument that the position Luke gives to the incident reflects his view of its high significance. It is ‘one of those representative facts of which the earlier part of his narrative is almost wholly made up’ (Philippians5, p. 188). The significance lies, however, not in the institution of an order in the ministerial hierarchy, but as the first example of that delegation of administrative and social responsibilities to those of appropriate character and gifts, which was to become typical of the Gentile churches, and the recognition of such duties as part of the ministry of Christ.

Ecclesiastical usage institutionalized and narrowed the NT conception. Early non-canonical literature recognizes a class of deacons without specifying their functions (cf. 1 Clement 42; Ignatius, Magnesians 2.1; Trallians 2. 3; 7. 3). Later literature shows the deacons undertaking functions such as attending the sick, which must have been part of Christian diakonia in apostolic times; but their duties in the Eucharist (via table-service at the communal meal?), and personal relationship with the monarchical bishop, become increasingly prominent. The occasional limitation of the diaconate to seven is probably due to deliberate archaizing.
Bibliography. H. W. Beyer, TDNT 2, pp. 81–93; J. B. Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry (= Philippians5, pp. 181ff.); F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, 1897, pp. 198ff.; A. M. Farrer in The Apostolic Ministry, ed. K. E. Kirk, 1946, especially pp. 142ff.; B. Reicke, Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos, 1951, pp. 9ff.; K. Hess, NIDNTT 3, pp.544–553. a.f.w.​

Wood, D. R. W., Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996, c1982, c1962). New Bible Dictionary. Includes index. (electronic ed. of 3rd ed.) (261). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

 

When things aren't right and start "spinning" out of control, it usually leads to polarity. When you have the unscriptural practice of deacons leading the church, then to counter that, you have pastors claiming to have "visions" to bolster his authority.

Pipedude gave some good advise. A church should be led by elders, and not just one elder, but a plurality.