A ? for GMC 68

DR.B. I have read your post with great interest,
especially so since I am an ordained Deacon in a Baptist Church. I have a wonderful Pastor that I both respect and have brotherly affections for, but I don't want him to coach the Tech Football team or any team for that matter simply because I don't feel he is qualified. There is a distinction
to be made between criticising a thing and criticising the individual. I am sure that if Chan was my next door neighbor that I would love him and appreciate his qualities and principles by which he lives. But this has nothing to do with X's and O's and whether the team was prepared
to play on saturday. I don't have a fight with Chan as a christian brother but after making generous contributions and buying tickets I have every right to expect that the head man be proficient in leading a team that we pay him one million per year to prepare us to be at the top of our game. Whether he has done that or not is debatable depending on who you ask. That is why we have so many lively debates on this message board. Why as a deacon I have disagreed many times
with my Pastor but the disagreement certainly wasn't personal as I have always been one of the most generous of all the one's on our Deacon
Board as it pertained to his salary. If I was a sorehead that carried grudges I wouldn't do that.
This thing that we should yield to a man simply because he is a man of faith isn't very wise in my opinion.
 
71 Bee:

The difference I guess is in approach.

Some folks feel perfectly content to express their opinions in public forums, yet hide their identities behind screen names. Others, write letters, send e-mails, place phone calls, and all identify (hopefully) themselves. Of course, done moreso in a private manner.

Part of the gist of my argument has been, its not what you say, its how you say it. As a Christian, one should hold themselves to a higher standard (in my opinion, of course). When a Christian is calling for the removal of individual in a public forum such as this, I think the rule applies even more, because identities are hid. It is also my opinion, that when a Christian is speaking out against another Christian, even when it has nothing to do with Christian acts, he owes it to himself, and his Christian brother (or sister) to exercise proper due diligence in his (or her decision).

In this case, GMC 68 has admitted that he has not researched Chan's background, AND, he was against Chan's hire in the first place. Fine, he's entitled to his opinion. And, since he has not hid his religious leanings, I as a Christian brother, have a right to question him on that opinion.

It is obvious that he and I (and others)will agree to disagree. My conscience is clear in how I've handled myself.
 
One other thing. A friend of mine shared this with me. There was a Q&A with Pat Summerall in the current issue of Decision magazine (a publication of the Billy Graham organization) that contains the following:

Q: Were there some people whom God placed in your path before you came to Christ who modeled the Christian life in an attractive fashion?

A: Back in the days when I was a player, part of the macho image was to dislike the people on the other team. In some ways, you developed a hate for them. I can remember when I was playing for the New York Giants, we would play someone who was known around the NFL and among the players as a "Jesus Freak". They were different and we didn't have anything in common with them. Then, as I matured a little bit more, I got to know a coach, Chan Gailey, who at that time was with the Dallas Cowboys. He was a good friend of mine and very much a Christian. He had a tremendous impact on me as I watched him live the Christian life, give of his time and heart, and still he could be a good football coach. That was a guide to me watching him live and work.
 
Originally posted by Dr. B:

It may be just me, but advocating "ABC", is in fact a personal attack. " ANYBODY but Chan", where is the Christian attitude in that?
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I don't view this as a personal attack by GMC 68 at all. It seems to me that he may have actually watched the team play this year and has made an honest assessment that Chan is not up to the job; and is just generally mentioning the very large list of those who would likely be more successful college coaches than Chan.
 
GTTerrific, I read your response to my post with interest and especially two topics the you touched on.

First you touched on the difference in the duties and responsibilities of Deacons in your church as opposed to the Baptist Church in which I serve.
Those differences are brought about by polity{that is Church government} as outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution that govern your congregation. Regardless of the policies and practices of any Church they should have Biblical Authority. We base the duties and responsibilities
of our deacons on the sixth chapter of acts and many other new testament guides. In the Book Of Acts the sixth chapter there arose a need for Deacons to minister the business affairs of the early church as it said that the disciples should give themselves to study and prayer so that these
men would have something worthwhile to preach. That hasn't changed with time. If the pastor spends his time looking after the business of the church he won't have time to prepare himself sufficiently when he comes before his congregation
to preach to them. Also with a congregation of 800
plus members he will also have to find time to visit the hurting in his church as well.
I was struck by your use of the terms RUN THE CHURCH as it pertained to the Deacons. If a deacon has the right grasp of his responsibilities
he will feel any thing but the idea that he is running the church.
Our Deacons make all the business decisions and I can give you one example of why this is necessary. Five years ago we were discussing a phase of a building project in one of our board meetings and no one seemed to know all the particulars so I went and got our books and while looking through the books I spotted something amiss with the way the pastor's pay was handled.
But when I spoke with him about it he told me that his CPA had told him to do that. Although I knew it was incorrect I didn't argue with the pastor but rather asked the Board of Deacons to allow me to bring in a CPA to audit our books to assure we were in compliance with the federal and state laws. I went to five CPA's to negotiate a fee for the audit and everyone asked me what my pastor's attitude was and they further stated that they had never seen a pastor that didn't resent anyone telling him how to run his affairs.

Sure enough we were not in compliance and it cost us several thousand dollars to bring him and us in compliance. But if I just left you with that you would think we hired a rat. Not so.

When we interviewed this man before we hired him
and was satisfied with all his qualification we brought up his pay package when this Pastor interrupted us ans said"gentlemen if this is the place that God wants me he will take care of me
and I am leaving that in your hands. How many do you know like that?
My point being, that everyone needs to be answerable to someone. Even the best of us want to have our own way. The churches that are having the most trouble are generally the one's that have a dictator for a Pastor.
Secondly, you said that a christian should go to his christian brother if he has anything against him. I agree with you and I practice that in my life. Although, when you go to your brother it isn't appropriate to tell others about it. That is a personal thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top