What’s Wrong With Search Committees

I object to the emphasis on elder rule and especially in this criticism of search committees, I think his approach diminishes the role of the congregation. Seems to say, “leave it up to the elders.”

Now I don’t deny that search committees can err, and I think he is pointing out some errors search committees have made. Nevertheless, his alternative is likely fraught with the same problems and overemphasizes the authority of elders.

Just my opinion, not trying to debate

I must admit that I am not a huge expert on the various forms of church government, but I think Dever’s position advocating a greater role for mulitple elders in each church, or at least the interaction of outside elders in vetting candidates, is really welcome. Even if it’s only a recommendation, you’ve at least theoretically got a band of people whose character has already been vetted to help make the decision—I’d argue that Fourth’s successful (as far as I know) recruitment of Matt Morrell has a lot to do with the fact that the search committee was loaded with deacons and current/former elders.

Key issue in my mind is that you don’t allow this group of elders to become an echo chamber where obvious moral failings don’t get noticed—see the accountability boards for guys like Mark Driscoll for an example.

I appreciate Don’s comment about not trying to debate—which I interpret as “I’m not trying to get in anyone’s face and be obnoxious”—but hey, debate doesn’t have to be obnoxious, and given that there are any number of people here who have suffered a lot through poorly chosen church leadership, maybe this or another place is a good place to discuss the pros and cons of greater involvement of multiple elders in church government.

The pros are that if you select elders who are both morally qualified and apt to teach, you get, at least theoretically, a greater level of character and theological expertise than you would with “merely” a congregational vote. The con is that you can get a class of men who are isolated by position from the congregation, and who therefore (a) do not see the real needs of the congregation and (b) become blind to their own moral failings.

And probably some other things, too. Really, we are theoretically all grown ups here, and we can debate without being obnoxious, even if it comes to the point where we need to (to use the Southern phrase) learn to disagree without being disagreeable. No?

A pastor who does not trust his congregation, whom he’s discipled, to search for his successor tells me maybe he’s not finished there and shouldn’t leave yet..

[Bert Perry]

I appreciate Don’s comment about not trying to debate—which I interpret as “I’m not trying to get in anyone’s face and be obnoxious”

As others can testify, I can be obnoxious with very little provocation. I just don’t have time right now.

So I thought I would chime in with my opinion with no reasoned backup. Just say it. I think that is kind of obnoxious by itself.

Now back to work…

[Barry L.]

A pastor who does not trust his congregation, whom he’s discipled, to search for his successor tells me maybe he’s not finished there and shouldn’t leave yet..

On the other hand, sometimes the pastor who does not trust his congregation is the problem and needs to find another job? That he, like the pastor from “How Green Was my Valley”, had failed to adequately communicate the Gospel to them?

Sometimes a judgment call, of course, but sometimes it’s a thought we ought to look at.