By sifilings Jan 07 2011 Church PolityShould a church give a reason when firing the pastor? GracePoint Church fires pastor; no reason made public 1308 reads There are 6 Comments a couple of interesting things from their website Jim - Fri, 01/07/2011 - 1:50pm http://www.gracepointchurch.tv/#/about-us/faq Quote: Why does GracePoint do "church" so much differently? Every other church around town seems to do it more traditionally. Is that wrong? Comment: Well that is differently! They've got a board of directors just like IBM! But if IBM fired their chief executive they would at least inform the investing community! This interesting too: http://www.gracepointchurch.tv/#/about-us Quote: We're sorry. We at GracePoint apologize if you have had a bad experience with church Twitter Jim's Doctrinal Statement Jim, The board action was the Chip Van Emmerik - Sat, 01/08/2011 - 9:34am Jim, The board action was the first thing that struck me as well. Sadly, our Baptist churches are full of similar methodology in that the deacon's boards often run the church and are considered the check and balance against the pastor - a thoroughly unbiblical position IMO. Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things? Who is leading it? Ken Woodard - Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:01pm If you have a pastor and church "board" that are led by the Holy Spirit you will have unity. I pitty the church that has the attitude that the board is only there to be "against" the pastor. They should be working together for the glory of God. Pastors are human. They can come up with some bad ideas. He needs some spiritually minded, prudent men to bounce ideas off of. You may have some strong personalities in the make up of the leaders. But what is the motivation for the confrontation? Is it pride? I.e. Paul and Barnabus had a pretty strong confrontation. We aren't sure of the motivation but it resulted in 2 teams not one. I'm inclined to believe Paul was wrong. His personality kept him from being the kind of mentor John Mark needed. He was too willing to throw Mark out of the work. Ken, I think the bigger issue Chip Van Emmerik - Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:14pm Ken, I think the bigger issue is the unbiblical presence of "boards" to start with. I agree with Jim that this was one of the most striking thinks in the article. Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things? Chip, Are you in favor of Ken Woodard - Sun, 01/09/2011 - 7:41pm Chip, Are you in favor of rogue pastor's that are accountable to no one? Dictatorships degenerate because "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Back to the example. Evidently the pastor that was voted out had been out of the pastorate since October. The "board of directors" (a term I would never want to use for the deacons) unanimously dismissed him, the "founding pastor". I suspect the guy did something that he needed to be confronted about. Without a board there would be no ability to confront an erring dictatorial pastor. About boards being unbiblical: The council at Jerusalem was a form of board. Ken, I would certainly reject Chip Van Emmerik - Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:55am Ken, I would certainly reject pastoral dictatorships. But you create a false dichotomy. It does not have to be either (board)/or (dictatorship). You actually bring up two problems. First, when you state this: Quote: Without a board there would be no ability to confront an erring dictatorial pastor. I can only conclude you are not a Baptist. One of the Baptist distinctives is generally accepted to be an autonomous local church with some form of congregational polity. While the pastor leads, the authority given to the church is primarily vested in the congregation, to whom the pastor is accountable. Any member of the church may confront the pastor. Any member of the church may initiate the Matt. 18 processes of confrontation. Any member of the church may call for a business meeting. Furthermore, the Jer. council can only be definitively defined as a board by reading our present culture back into what is presented in Scripture. There is no Scriptural necessity to see their operation as a board function. It is simply one possible explanation. Next, you also stated: Quote: The "board of directors" (a term I would never want to use for the deacons) This presents a second fallacy. Nowhere is there any Scriptural evidence to support the idea of deacons as part of the authority structure in a church. The present proliferation of churches who have structured the deacons to be some sort of oversight committee to whom the pastor is accountable is entirely unbiblical. They are never provided any basis for leadership or decision making in the church. This is the realm of the congregation and the pastor(s) alone. Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?