Deacons and Trustees

First let me issue a disclaimer. Although I am on the staff of Lakeside, the posts on this blog are my own thoughts and opinions and they are not necessarily the opinion of the leadership of Lakeside. If there is any controversy arising from anything contained in this blog, it should be directed at me and no one else.

As a companion post to the previous post on church governance, I would like to address the topic of deacons and trustees; their roles and qualifications, and the selection process to bring them into their roles.

There has been a great deal of confusion about what a church board should do or not do. It seems to boil down to how an individual feels about how "the board" has handled an issue close to him or her. In other words, if I don't like something and the board changes it in a way that pleases me, they are functioning correctly. If they don't change it, or if they change something that I like, they are either "the pastor's yes-men", or "out of control".

The biggest source of confusion, in my opinion comes from the use of the word, "board". It conjures up comparisons with corporate boards of directors. In fact, there is a legal qualification for a board of some sort to qualify for tax-exempt status. Banks and lending institutions require board resolutions to extend their services. It is difficult and cumbersome for a non-corporation organization to own real property. So there is a real and compelling need for a board that serves in an official legal capacity, with all of the minute taking and rules of order and such.

What happens, unfortunately, is that it is do easy to drift into the thinking that the board is the official decision making arm of the church and that all policy is dictated or approved by it. Then churches are run like businesses, and we have all of the discussions about "checks and balances" and "balance of power" that completely suck the Holy Spirit out of the decision making process. It becomes a body that is ruled by "the will of the people".

In my mind, using the terms "board" and "deacons" in the same phrase is a contradiction of terms. I am not a Greek scholar by any measure, but the extensive reading I have done has revealed that the root word from which we derive the term "deacon" is best translated as "servant". So we are saying that we have a governing body of servants, which is contradictory. At least we find deacons in the Bible. Not so with trustees. Trustees are a completely recent introduction into church organizations and come completely from the legal sphere. Not necessarily anti-Biblical, but for sure extra-Biblical.

In the formation of our constitution back in 2003, there was a lot of talk that unless we had two boards, a board of deacons and a board of trustees, there would not be any chance that we could ever have integrity in our organization. The argument was that there had to be an equal number of business minded trustees and spiritual minded deacons to offset one another's excesses and shortcomings. Both were to make sure that the pastor didn't go too far out of whack. The trustees were to be custodians of the assets and approve the finances. The deacons were to oversee the membership rolls and the ministries of the church. The pastor was to preach and do hospital calls.

What has happened since the adoption of this plan? Those who pushed for the two boards got mad at the way the two boards were implemented. All of the vocal proponents have since left the church. Pastor Darren meets with both boards separately, as mandated, and both are unsatisfied. The deacons are frustrated when ministries are discussed without financials, and the trustees are frustrated when financials are discussed without information about ministries. If pastor discusses both, he is having the same meeting with two different groups. When they have met together, there is confusion when it comes time to accept a motion. Who is entitled to speak to a topic and who is entitled to move or second and vote? It is very cumbersome.

I would like to see a call for a new constitution that fulfills the legal requirements of a charitable organization, but recognizes spiritual authority and exhibits true servant leadership. I would like to see one church council which works in cooperation with the pastor to see God's Kingdom built. Within the church council there could be different offices. Two trustees, the church treasurer and the church secretary could fulfill the legal role of church officers along with the lead pastor and act as signatories of official documents. They would be chosen because of their experience and giftings in business matters. They would not be decision makers; they would be facilitators. Deacons would be chosen for their reputation of service to the local body of believers, their deep faith in Christ, and their solid reputations in the community. They would serve as spiritual lay leadership and do significant ministry in many of the areas of the church. When vacancies occur, the remaining deacons would take their time to find a replacement who they feel would be an asset to and a complementary member of the team. Each deacon would love and support all of the ministries of the church, not just the one closest to his heart.

The pastor would have one council with whom to share his thoughts and vision. Financial reports, membership issues, spiritual issues within the church and individuals would be addressed, discipline administered, and ministry responsibilities would all be discussed and implemented by this one group.

I know that this sounds like a panacea. I know that it is impossible for it to work as well in reality as it does in concept. As long as we have to rely on people to do the work, we will have difficulties. And, as was discussed in the prior post, there is no governmental structure that is the "right" one. All of these noble concepts break down when we allow our own personal agendas to invade the dialogue. Any structure or church is only as strong as the spiritual commitment of its leadership, so I won't throw a fit to see this reorganization take place. I have had fragments of this conversation with several people and I wanted to put the entire thought into one post. I know that I have not comepleted some thoughts as well as I should, and I have left a lot of room for discussion or even disagreement. But my feeling is that as we discuss the shortcomings we struggle with now, we at least begin to move toward improvement. And as we strive for spiritual solutions over strategic solutions, we make more room for God to do what He would like to do among us.

That's always good.