Hello, I am in the process of incorporating a church planting ministry called The Urban Mission. Would anyone have a copy of bylaws that might be helpful to us in this process? God bless, Scott

P.S. If you'd like more information about our ministry, go to www.umstl.org

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000

Answers

Scott,

The best set of by-laws you can have is the most minimal set allowed by local law.

Find out what the legal requirements are - usually one has to establish a name, an address, and a legal board which normally consists of a chairman, Secretary and/or Treasurer. Once you list those, then leave the rest to God - basically saying something like: "This church will operate according to the Biblical pattern as established by the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles as spelled out in the New Testament of the Holy Bible."

That will allow the church to function as God would have it, instead of forcing it to follow a pre-set guideline which may or may not be in its best interest sometime "down the road". And it prevents a lot of hassle and in-fighting when amendments would have been required later.

Doing this in the beginning of a church's existence is a wonderful opportunity to really establish a Biblical New Testament church - the very Church we seek to restore.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Whoa, Nellie....

I agree,,, keep it simple...

But what about elections of elders and deacons....

when you say board... are you just referring to the "board" of the "corporation".....

Or is some of this other stuff in the Articles of Incorporation...

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THREAD.....

Please contribute all you can....

We are currently reviewing our by-laws....

Please fax yours TOLL FREE to:

877 473-3151

There is an individual in this forum who had EXCELLENT short by-laws that he no longer has... perhaps he still has a good friend at that former congregation who could send them to me...

LET's NOT DROP this thread....

Too many times by-laws HINDER God's Kingdom....

sometimes they are a blessing....

Futher thoughts from ALL LURKERS please....

If the toll free fax number does not work you can always reach me for discusssion toll free at:

888 265 7288

( 888 AOKPC 88)

Thanks

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Duane...et.al,

By "board" I meant only a corporate board - office titles meant to satisfy the Gov't only. I can see having a Treasurer-type of person for keeping the finances straight & above-board - but "Chairman" , etc are not Biblical offices and are not needed in the church.

As far as Elder and Deacon appointments - that is covered in the statement of following the New Testament examples of the Apostles. When men exhibit the characteristics as stated in I Tim. & Titus, you ask the congregation for any Biblical reason to keep them from the position. If none are given, ordain them and get them "to the work". This may, in the instance of starting a new church, involve the Evangelist examining & appointing the first Elders until the process becomes self-supporting.

It is a shame that most church's by-laws stipulate a certain number of Elders and Deacons - as such tends to prevent men from serving rather than helping them work for the Kingdom. It is not un-biblical if ALL of the men of the church were Elders, as long as there is more than one & that they met Paul's stipulations to Timothy & Titus.

And personally, I see no need to spell out the above stipulations in the by-laws either - as they are how the N.T. operated.

A program like this will take some strong & well-trained leaders to maintain the integrity of the church, but it is not an unattainable task as it worked for the 1st Century church. We scrapped the restrictive by-laws at a past church, and it was the best move they ever made. Again, good, strong, Biblical leaders are needed to make it work - otherwise it can be abused. But, then again, if men who truly qualified to be an Elder are appointed - abuse shouldn't be an issue.

Which is a sticking point when adapting to this type of system within an existing church. Sometimes men are "elected" to be an Elder, when such should not have happened (which is why elections should be scrapped - church leadership is not a popularity contest). Teach, Talk, Counsel, and be sure of what you have before making changes - otherwise you might just paint yourself into a corner. {These are words of past experience talking}

That help any?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Yes.... Big help!

2 questions.... can you fax or email me any good examples of SHORT Bylaws?

Also anyone can fax or email me any good examples of minister CONTRACTS?

next question....

"An elder must not be a novice"....

In the first century, I can easily see a convert from The temple of Diana needing a little time to "prove himself" before becoming an elder...

But in our "by-laws" are we correct in making it 6 months, a year, or whatever?

If a Godly, man of character who let's say was a methodist all his life, (just because he never met any of us with the truth!)....

Accepted it wholeheartedly, got on fire for the faith once delivered, was nominated by a MAJORITY of Restoration pew warmers, AGREEED To by the elders (because they knew of his character and sincerety,,)

BUT what if someone said, "NO, He has to wait a year, because our by- laws say so..."

Would it not be more scriptural to call a meeting, amend the by-law, and ordain the elder?....When Paul wrote NOVICE, do you think he had "12 months" in mind?

Thoughts anyone?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

I was also hoping to see actual samples of what some of your churches might have in existence. Attachments sent directly to me would be just fine. Thanks, Scott

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

I'm afraid I have little knowledge or experience in the area of drafting by-laws for either churches or para-church organisations, though I think I would agree strongly with Mark "Whiz's" first posting, that the simpler the better.

What I wanted to respond to right now, however, was what Mark said about elections. I agree that church leadership should not be a popularity contest, and something needs to be done to prevent it from becoming one. There are advantages to "voting", however, if it is handled correctly. If the emphasis is not on popularity but on qualifications, periodic "elections" bring the leaders before the congregation for regular scrutiny as to whether or not they are still worthy of that position. It also provides a way of getting rid of unsuitable "officers" that is less damaging to their "face" and less divisive than having to take the radical action of taking other steps to remove someone from office.

In our congregation we have a kind of two-level "election". As I've mentioned before, there are very few men in the congregation, so we have never had more than two or three who are qualified to be elders. But each year we vote on those (and any others who have been nominated) as to whether or not the congregation feels they are still qualified. For deacons and deaconesses (mostly deaconesses), it is slightly different. We only have a certain number of jobs that need doing by these "helpers", and usually many more people than that who are willing and get nominated. So we decide how many deacons/deaconesses are needed and ask people to vote on the 10 or 12 (or whatever number we need that year) that they feel are most qualified according to Biblical qualifications. The 10 or 12 (or whatever) who get the most votes, because the largest number of people feel they are the most qualified, are the ones who serve from then until the following election. I'm sure there are still SOME elements of the "popularity contest" even in this system, since people are likely to feel that the people they know the best or who are most popular generally are likely also to be the ones that they think are best qualified. But that is likely to still be the case even if the selection is done by "the evangelist" or by a "nomination committee". The difference, in submitting it to the scrutiny of the whole congregation, is that there are that many more people involved and that many more people who know SOMETHING about the "candidates." As the common saying goes, "You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Besides "hidden" faults, others may be aware of hidden talents that the "committee" might not be aware of.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2000

Benjamin,

I understand where you are coming from as far as elections go. There are some benefits to them - if they are conducted in a sincere & proper method. But there are 2 major issues to deal with:

1) Things are a little different in your situation due to the differences in cultures. Your group would naturally tend to vote more based on the honor & dependability of the candidates (as it should be). But with many Americans, such is not the case. I mean....look, the populace has elected Bill Clinton into office TWICE.....and most polls report that they would elect him again if he were not restricted by the Constitution from running again. And in like manner, I've seen those I considered totally Un-qualified for the position get elected year after year (then again, I've seen the un-qualified appointed as well). What you spoke of is great in theory, but the track record of Americans (whether in church or in other areas) just doesn't follow the theory.

2) Now, this is the big reason - the 1st Century church (the one we observe in the Book of Acts) did not hold elections. The closest thing to an election held in the church of that day is shown in Acts 6, and there, men were only nominated by the congregation. The Apostles examined their qualifications (good reputation, full of the Spirit & wisdom)and then set them apart for the work.

Point in Question.......If we truly want to Restore the Church to its 1st Century beginnings, can we continue to hold elections that were never conceived-of or proposed-by the Apostles?

Unfortunately, no one ever said that Restoration would be an easy process!

Duane.......

I just happen to be the embodiment of the question you ask concerning the novice (fortunately or unfortunately - depending on your point of view......Ha). I was raised Baptist until I hit my teens, at which point my whole family quit the Church due to "personality problems" with THE Pastor. I drifted around into a couple of different churches in my 20's, but never found one that actually Taught me anything I could use. That ended at age 31, when I found the Christian Church. I found a group there who strove to both know & teach the Bible and I was in "Hog Heaven". I ended up teaching a few Wednesday night study groups and was eventually elected a Deacon about a year later after being nominated by a couple of the Elders who were a part of that study group. Was I qualified?........no comment on my own behalf.

About a year after that, the Elders & Preacher(one Mr Gabbard) decided to scrap the existing 12 pages of by-laws and condense it down to something similar to my 1st post. The congregation agreed to the change; although very grudgingly on the part of most of the Older members.

One of their first tests of the system was to put forth my name as a candidate for Eldership. I filled out a questionaire which basically asked questions that would affirm that my beliefs and understanding of the Scriptures were compatible to those of the Eldership and Restoration principles. Once they were in agreement in accepting me as an Elder, they announced their desire to make me an Elder to the congregation and gave them 6 weeks (I think, maybe 4) to provide any Scriptural evidence that would prevent me from becoming an Elder. This evidence had to be written down and signed by the objector (as this helps to squash unfounded rumors and those with ulterior motives). To make a long story short, no negative evidence was presented and I was ordained an Elder at age 33, with about 2 1/2 years of time in the Christian Church.

How many church by-laws have you ever dealt-with would have allowed such to happen in my life so quickly and at such a young age?

So yes, Duane.....time or age limits on by-laws can be horribly restrictive on getting people into service for the Lord. It does all a great disservice to place an arbitrary time limit on who can be put to work. The questionaire thing is one good method to assertain whether or not a person is still a "novice". A good "counseling session" could work as well - just depends on the person. We've actually had some who disqualified themselves and removed their name from consideration after seeing the questionaire - (a very brave and honorable decision on their part I might add) as they apparently thought they still had need of improvement in some areas.

My current church operates a little differently (but not a whole lot). We just brought on 2 new Deacons earlier this year and the congregation was only notified of their selection after the Elders considered & examined the men and decided to put them to the work. There was a 2 or 3 week delay before their ordination, in case anyone had scriptural objections. Now both men serve well & honorably at their tasks.

I see the key to changing a church to this type of system, as education. It must be shown the congregation that the current Elders are honorable, Godly men with the church's best interest at heart. Then the church must be confronted with the idea that they are scripturally bound to obey their leaders, per Hebrews 13:17 and other passages.

I don't have any copies of our current By-laws to send, Duane - actually I haven't even seen a copy of them in over a year (I guess that shows just how unimportant they are in the life of our church - we'll worry about winning souls to Christ and let the gov't worry about by-laws). I might have an old contract laying around (I currently am not working off of one), but it will be a week or so before I can search for it as I leave for God's Country tomorrow (Indiana) to take my boys to the "500".

Sorry about being long-winded here, but as Duane said - this really IS an important idea to discuss, as leadership/bylaw issues are probably the areas were are furthest from being like the 1st Century church.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2000

Mark,

You said, above --

"2) Now, this is the big reason - the 1st Century church (the one we observe in the Book of Acts) did not hold elections. The closest thing to an election held in the church of that day is shown in Acts 6, and there, men were only nominated by the congregation. The Apostles examined their qualifications (good reputation, full of the Spirit & wisdom)and then set them apart for the work.

"Point in Question.......If we truly want to Restore the Church to its 1st Century beginnings, can we continue to hold elections that were never conceived-of or proposed-by the Apostles?

"Unfortunately, no one ever said that Restoration would be an easy process!"

I wonder on what basis you can say so dogmatically that the church did NOT, in some fashion, "elect" "The Seven" in Acts 6, or that disciples did not in some fashion "elect" Matthias in the 10 days before Pentecost, as described in Acts 1? -- or that the elders that Paul and Barnabas "appointed" (or, just as likely, "ordained" -- CHEIROTONEO) in Acts 14:23, or the ones Titus was told in Titus 1:5 to "appoint" (KATHISTEEMI) were not in some fashion "chosen" by the church, and therefore possibly "elected" in some way)? In Acts 6, the apostles did tell the church to "SELECT OUT FROM AMONG YOURSELVES seven men of good reputation ...." Later it says that "THEY (the multitude) CHOSE Stephen (and the others)".

Personally, I don't find enough evidence in any of these passages to be able to do any more than GUESS what process MIGHT have been used to select the various workers and leaders. I think that gives us freedom to use whatever method of selection is most appropriate to the culture and the local situation.

The one thing I find consistent in all the accounts (except Acts 14, which is too short to give much information at all) is that there was an emphasis on choosing men who were QUALIFIED. So the question becomes, what is the best way to ensure that the qualifications are seriously considered? A single evangelist or a selection committee may take the matter of qualifications more seriously than the whole congregation would -- but I think people can be taught the necessity and seriousness of considering the qualifications. Selection by a single individual or a small group is no guarantee that the best qualified people will be chosen. Others in the congregation may know a "candidate" far better than the evangelist or selection committee.

I remember in the first church where I served full time. It was a mission church that my parents had started and I was training them to stand on their own. They were not ready for elders yet (no-one qualified, for one thing), so the church was selecting an executive committee as an interim measure. There was a particular man that I felt was perhaps the best qualified in the church to be in such a committee, and I wanted to appoint him. Others in the church felt he was not suitable. Fortunately, they prevailed, because events later proved them right and me wrong.

Another thing we also see in the Scriptural accounts is that there is often something said about the whole group being pleased with what was done. There is no guarantee that you will please everyone, no matter how you do it, but there is a bigger chance that more people will be satisfied (and, as I said a couple of paragraphs ago, more chance that better people will be chosen in the long run, once the congregation is properly educated) if the whole congregation has a part in the process than if the selection is made by what some in the congregation perceive as a "clique" or, if an individual, as a "dictator."

I am not saying that having elections is the ONLY way, or even necessarily the BEST way. But there are some advantages, and you cannot dismiss it as unscriptural. It is no less and no more scriptural than the various alternatives that have been presented. There simply isn't enough evidence to say that ANY method is THE scriptural method.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

Meanwhile, amidst all this debate, the original question remains ignored: Does anyone have an available copy of church bylaws that can be e-mailed to me?

God bless!

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

Sorry, Scott, no I don't. I would have sent them or at least offered before now if I did. (But since I didn't, and other aspects of this "conversation" were interesting to me, I commented on those. Sorry if that bothers you, but you wouldn't have gotten any sample by-laws out of me in any case, and I think some of the other things discussed were significant.)

When I was in Bible college (Ozark) the teacher in one of my classes -- possibly Practical Ministries -- gave us some sample CHURCH constitutions and by-laws. I'd offer those, but I'm not sure where they are and wouldn't have time to re-type them if I did. You are based in St. Louis, aren't you? Why not try SLCC and see if any of the professors (perhaps of Practical Ministries or similar classes) have sample papers like this. If it is by-laws for a para-church organisation (a "Mission", etc.) that you are after, there are a number of them based in your area, and many more on the other side of the state, in Joplin -- and many others in between. Why not tell some of them what you are after and ask if they will give you samples of theirs?

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

We are going through the same process for our Church, Family Circle Christian Fellowship. I know of a web site the gives a sample bylaw. Maybe this will be of help. Here it is www.aristotle.net. We've talked to alot of people about this and many churches simply take bylaws from another church and revised the necessary information. Some churches list their bylaws on-line, you could go to Google.com, type in "church bylaws", then take a look at what they got. Hope this helped.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Correction to email given

www.aristotle.net/~nonprofit/startup/bylaws.htm

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001