Expert: Dr Don Howe - 6/8/2009

Question
my pastor has been at my church for 32 years and was recently voted out as pastor in a regularly monthly church meeting. the deacons had voted to suspend him but he said it was no such thing that you have to vote to vacate the pulpit. it was voted on and he was let go. the members who were not there say it was done wrong. these meeting are done each moth and everyone knows. he had ask for a retirement package a couple of years ago and always put off talking about it when they would bring it up. he is in bad health but said he would not retire.we had hope he would leave graciously but he did not. some members are trying to bring the outside into this matter. it is done and we are trying to move on to save our church.was this the right way to handle this. keep they make a vote again

Answer
Sharon, I am sorry to hear about your Pastor. This is no way to treat a Pastor who has been at your church for 32 years faithfully feeding the sheep. I would like to share something from the Word of God for your own edification about the qualifications of a deacon and see if the deacons in your church fit the qualifications given in the Bible. 1 Tim. 3:8-13 states “Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless. Even so [must their] wives [be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Deacons must hold to the faith with a pure conscience that they must adhere to proper doctrine, out of sincere conviction. They must not be double tongued means speaking the truth the first time, with no intent to deceive. They must be found blameless. They must be first be proved which means the deacon demonstrates his fitness for office in the church by his conduct. Deacons and bishops are more recognized than appointed. The deacon is to  “purchase to themselves a good degree” as purchase in the Greek is ergasia working, performance, or gain got by work.
So the deacon is to gain by working a good degree which in the faith of Christ Jesus. No where in these qualifications the office of deacon is to be doing any administration in the church or running a church but to gain by working a good degree.

The first deacons that were selected is seen in Acts 6:1-5. Acts 6:1 shows that the widows were being neglected in the daily administration of the early church. The Apostles said that there was no reason to leave preaching and teaching the Word of God and serve tables taking care of the daily administration  to the widows (6:2). In 6:3 the apostles  said find seven men who were of good report (means the same as blameless in 1 Tim. 3:10), full of the Holy Ghost, full of wisdom (which means being devout and having proper prudence imparting Christian truth and falls in line with  1 Tim. 3:13 where the deacon will hold to the faith with a pure conscience that they must adhere to proper doctrine). And the deacons were to be appointed over the daily serving the widowS (Acts 6:3).   
Sharon, in Acts 6:1-5 and 1 Tim. 3:8-13 the deacon is to be a serving servant and not an administrator.

  APPLYING THIS TO YOUR CHURCH DEACONS:
Sharon, you said “the deacons had voted to suspend him” but the pastor said “it was no such thing that you have to vote to vacate the pulpit.” Your pastor was correct on this point. As noted above in Acts and 1 Tim., the deacons primary job is to serve the congregation and they are not the administrator of the congregation, the pastor does that. So for the deacons to decide upon themselves to fire the pastor by their vote only is wrong congregational polity, and it not their job as a deacon. But the deacon body is suppose to hold the pastor to the fire and make him accountable in case he does something wrong. The congregation is the only ones who can fire the pastor, and the deacon body can make a recommendation to the congregation, which sounds like they did that. And the congregation voted to let him go. From what you are telling me, the congregation fired the pastor with the deacon body making the recommendations.
Sounds like your deacon body broke two of the qualification rules Paul speaks of in 1 Tim. First, they did not must hold to the faith with a pure conscience that they must adhere to proper doctrine, out of sincere conviction (1 Tim. 3:13). Your deacons tried not to hold to proper doctrine and tried to fire the pastor on their vote only, and did not do this out of sincere conviction (1 Tim. 3:13) but had an alternative motive which was to not pay the Pastor his rightly earned retirement package. This act also shows that your deacons are double tongued as stated in 1 Tim. 3:8.
After 32 years as your Pastor, your church OWED to him to give any type of retirement package he wanted, but he could not step down without something to fall back on so he stayed on two more years with bad health to boot. If your church did not give this dear Pastor his retirement package he wanted, they did him dirty, dirty.

  YES AND NO

Sharon, you stated “was this the right way to handle this.” No, the deacons did not attempt to do it right way at the beginning, as noted above. No, the deacons did not handle this with a pure conscience and was double tongued. Now the other part of the answer is Yes, since your dear pastor corrected the deacons on the proper congregational polity, the congregation voted and they voted to let him go.
Another question you are asking, what part of the congregation voted. If a vote was taken on a Wednesday night Prayer meeting night when only a handful of the congregation is present  this IS wrong, wrong, wrong. Because the entire church has the  right to vote at a Sunday morning vote and not a Wednesday night vote. If the vote was taken on a Sunday morning vote, then the “members are trying to bring the outside into this matter” do not have a leg to stand on. But if these members know that if this vote was not done exactly like your church constitution says, then they have legitimate concern.
You could get a committee together (with the church approval) and check and see if the vote was done according to your constitution. If your church constitution is really old, then the church needs to update your constitution. And you could approach the congregation that the church constitution needs to be updated just because you have old Senator Chuck  Grassley went after six churches on charges of tax evasion, and other things. You want to make sure if someone looks at your church that your constitution is update and accurate and you are doing business as stated in you constitution.

Sharon, if the congregation voted on your pastor to leave, then no matter how it got there it was probably done correctly. The motive is definitely wrong. So to have another vote on this would probably cause more hard feelings and friction.
But if the congregation voted the firs time to let the Pastor go with out giving him a retirement package, this is definitely wrong and you need another vote. Not a vote to bring the pastor back, as he does not need to come back, but he does need to receive the retirement package that he so much deserves. Only you will know if this was done correctly or not. If this is the case, you can make a motion, at the next business meeting or call a special business meeting, to have a special vote done just on the retirement package.

If your church is having a real problem with this, and you see that your church is going to split over this, then you need to call your state Baptist convention and get someone in there who is trained to handle problem churches.

But I personally think, a motion should be made that the present deacon body needs to step down and a new ones elected. But only you can decide that.

Sharon, in many small Baptist Churches (your church maybe like this), you have an old bunch of goobers (I am talking about in age now) who like to run things “way they use to,” and the old way is the deacons ran everything (and as you saw in 1 Tim. and Acts the deacon is to be a servant and not an adminstrator). In some small churches, the entire congregation is made up of kinfolks, and old Uncle Harry has all the money and he decides what pastor is hired, when the pastor leaves, and he runs the church. This is called a spiritually abusive church. I call these churches,  Pastor-eating churches. Because they eat the pastor up, wound him so bad spiritually because the way they treat him, and then the pastor leaves the ministry because of it. This is the way the Pharisees acted and Jesus had more harsh words for the Pharisees then anybody.  
  
MOVING ON:

Sharon, your church need to move on, and may need to remove the Pastor eaten deacons and replace them with God-Fearing men, definitely update your congregational constitution, if necessary have another vote to give the pastor his retirement package if you have not done so already, and if necessary call your State Baptist Convention and get someone who is trained to reconcile problems in churches.

Only you can decide if you want to stay in this church or not or be a godly  woman by praying that the Lord Jesus will be what motivates your church and not individuals who have agendas.

Sounds like your congregation did vote to let the pastor go which is the right way to do it, but how they got there is wrong.
My prayers are with you.

Blessings to you,

Dr Don Howe, RN, PhD, ThD.