Pastors or Deacons?

[Chad Williams]

We have all heard the tales of pastors who are control freaks and behave like little Hitlers, however in my experience church boards have caused more trouble over time. They have the habit of always fighting from the shadows with gossip and politicing whenever they don't get there way. So who do you think is a greater problem to the church, a bossy preacher or a meddling board?

[drvenkman]

I've seen both, in one situation or another;

IMO, the issue on either side of the table is pride and lust for power. Whether the "improper dissention" comes from a pastor who has become accustomed to always getting his way, or an individual deacon (or elder, or group of elders), that inner pride causes any sort of legitimate discussion to quickly devolve into an affront to the person's perceived authority.

Those who don't want to hear (honestly consider) other opinions aren't going to listen anyways. There is strength in many advisors (not "yes-men").

[pastor's wife]

Humble, gentle men ought to be leading the church.

A church can be damaged by an ego-maniacal pastor, but a church can also be damaged by deacons that undermine the pastor and sow dissent. Love is the only answer, but in IFB churches love is seen as an evangelical weakness!

[pblawman]

Same here, I've seen both. I'm convinced now that a plurality of elders is the proper form of church governance, so either a single bossy preacher or a meddling deacon board would be problematic. A bossy preacher would just put yes men under him and a meddling board would keep a good pastor from being able to effectively lead the congregation in change, regardless of how much it was needed.

[notdrinkingthekoolaid]

I've seen it go badly both ways--a bad pastor or a bad board. I've also become a fan of plurality in leadership. However a church is lead, there MUST be balance so that one person or group of people can't inhibit the church body from growing and being what it should.

[Perry]

I believe both can cause things to go bad, like everyone else has already said. However, in most of the churches I've been in the pastor has always been the final authority and pretty much whatever he's decided to do is done, so I voted for "pastor" because of my personal experience.

[Presbygirl]

(08-02-2011 10:11 AM)pastors wife Wrote:  Humble, gentle men ought to be leading the church.

A church can be damaged by an ego-maniacal pastor, but a church can also be damaged by deacons that undermine the pastor and sow dissent. Love is the only answer, but in IFB churches love is seen as an evangelical weakness!

"In addition to shepherding others with a servant spirit, the elders must humbly and lovingly relate to one another.  They must be able to patiently build consensus, compromise, persuade, listen, handle disagreement, forgive, receive rebuke and correction, confess sin, and appreciate the wisdom and perspective of others - even those with whom they disagree.  They must be able to submit to one another, speak kindly and gently to one another, be patient with their fellow colleagues, defer to one another, and speak their minds openly in truth and love.  Stronger and more gifted elders must not use their giftedness, as talented people sometimes do, to force their own way by threatening to leave the church and take their followers with them.  Such selfishness creates ugly, carnal power struggles that endanger the unity and peace of the entire congregation."              
Biblical Eldership, Alexander Strauch, page 96

I have to say that our church's leadership is phenomenal. I am sure there are some Pastors who could fly solo and not abuse their power. But, I think a wise man would want to share the leadership for many reasons. Practically speaking it is helpful to have more than one teaching elder , especially in a large church. If a pastor desired and insisted to rule without being subject to anyone, that would make my antenna go up for sure. I Peter 5 gives great scriptural qualifications and exhortations to elders.

She's right!!

[Josh]

I voted for pastors because, like Perry, that's what I've seen most in my past. However, I know that both pastors or boards can bring about much trouble.

[co_heir]

I voted for pastors because they didn't have "both" as a choice.
Actually I think pastors (preachers) are the greatest threat because the church has built them up as some sort of super spiritual person who has authority over the folks in the congregation. When the preacher is able to control "his people," he keeps them from growing in Christ and becoming who God created them to be. Church members have become disciples of the man in the pulpit rather than disciples of Jesus Christ.

[pastor's wife]

Another way of looking at this: one might say pastors are more of a threat because a power-hungry, abusive pastor can hurt the whole church, but often when boards are out of control, the only person they hurt is the pastor. Then again, that may be a HUGE threat to the church because they may be tangentially hurting large numbers of people because if they crush the pastor or even drive him out of the ministry, that pastor is not going to reach the people he would have.

In my experience, boards tends to be very conservative. They don't want to change, and they're always saying stuff like "We've never done it that way before." They can stifle the Spirit's leading. Many boards are also dangerous because the men are not necessarily Scripturally qualified; I know of one church where the primary qualifier was that these men had gone to the church for a long time and were there every time the doors were open.