Is the Church Board concept really all that bad? Now, admittedly I'm playing the roll of "devil's advocate" (seems weird typing that) with this post, but it represents some things I've been pondering lately. I have pretty much always been vehemently anti-church board in my thinking. Mainly because IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE (your bylaws notwihtstanding). It also usually provides opportunities to trump decisions by the elders because deacons (& myriad other "officers" in some churches) often out number & out vote the overseers. But, lately I've been contemplating this whole issue anew.
Consider first that the modern church is quite different in innumerable respects from our 1st century brethren. We have lots of stuff - property, buildings, land, vehicles, kitchens, gyms (oops, I mean"family life centers"), equipment, etc. We often have multi-member paid staffs too. The congregants, of course, are expected to bankroll all the aforementioned. If these things are unscriptural, why can't we have an unscriptural board to oversee them? I'm just saying (to quote a firend).
Additionally, we have witnessed the supplanting of the elders' rolls as shepherds in many ("most" would probably be more accurate) churches. This usually is a result of the delegation of such responsibilities to those employed "full time" (aka. "the staff" but not Biblical "staff" of "thy rod & thy staff they comfort me"). SWo, here's my question: Where exactly are the lines to be drawn when it comes to delegating responsibilties of church leaders? If it is acceptable and/or appropriate to give shepherding duties away, how can it be unacceptable and/or inappropriate to give oversight away too?
Might the church be better served if elders delegated anything but shepherding?
More on this later...