Monday
Jun162008
Answer to some questions
Monday, June 16, 2008 at 4:32PM I have had a couple comments to the last blog about the church that I want to answer. One was in a comment by Keith that I inadvertently rejected for posting instead of accepting, sorry Keith I tried to undo the damage but couldn't pull it off.
Keith asked what kind of government is safe? I think that's a good question and one you should consider before becoming part of a church. What is their system of government? Is it open and transparent? Who is accountable to whom? What is their plan for handling failure?
Of course there are systems of every shape and size out there, some better than others. It is important to have a clear plan in place for failure or wrongdoing. Is the structure for dealing with these things, corporate in it's nature or community based and relational?
I will give you and example of the church that I am involved in as one structure that seems to be good and works. Our church has a Board, Elders and Pastoral Team. The Board deals with facility and finances, but has no authority in spiritual matters. Therefore if one of the leaders in the church, especially a pastor, should fail, it is not in their hands to determine what is to be done. The Elders would deal with anything of that nature and are guided by the scriptures as to go about this, with an emphasis on restoration and resisting the temptation to judge or hand out punishment, which is by far and away the norm. They are to do this in an open and compassionate way, one that is a benefit to the entire community of faith, which is what we are by the way.
In the story I tell in my previous blog, those who are 'dealing' with my friend, whom by the way they accuse of no wrong doing, yet treat him like an unrepentant sinner, you can't point to anything they are doing in an open, compassionate or beneficial way to the community of faith there. Probably for the most part because you have the wrong people with the wrong skills, gifts and mandate to handle the situation. So the system in our church has for lack of a better term some checks and balances in it. For example, let's say the Elders deal with a situation and conclude it is best for the 'leader' to step down or back from ministry. Yet they come up with an outlandish financial 'package' for this person. The Board can reject it based on the impact and effect it would have on the church as a whole. The elders and pastors can make a recommendation to the Board regarding a situation, but the Board has to make its decision based on this counsel and their knowledge of the churches situation financially as well as the church By Laws.
Also in our system the Pastors have no control of the finances and cannot write checks. We don't have credit cards and have no vote on financial matters. That can make things a little cumbersome at times, but it protects the church and protects the pastor. There are many, many churches that allow the pastor to have way too much control of the financial matters of the church and it's a system that is riff with pitfalls in my opinion.
There are lots of ways to do church and to set up church systems. It's not hard to find legitimate models for doing this. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The system should be characterized by transparency, accountability, justice and community, among others things.
The system I came out of is characterized by secrecy and virtually a complete lack of accountability, yet it is accepted and goes unquestioned by those who are members of it. It is stunning to me that so many people are apathetic as to how their church or denomination is run. I just don't get that and I hope for the sake of the body of Christ it changes.
Reader Comments