The relationship between local elders and the circuit overseer has fluctuated over the years. In the sixties,
the circuit overseer simply appointed all the servants. His recommendations were even written before meeting
with the servant body. He would share his recommendations with them at that time and sometimes solicit their
comments. He might adjust his recommendations based on what the servants said, but it was still his call.
In the early to mid-seventies with the introduction of the elder arrangement, the relationship changed. At one
point the circuit overseer became "just another elder" with no more authority than the local men. This was
during a time when many things were being relaxed including how disfellowshipped ones were treated. This
perestroika was of short duration.
Since the mid-seventies the format has been something like this. The local elders meet about a week before
the scheduled circuit overseer's visit to consider all possible recommendations for congregation responsibility.
Typically, the scriptural requirements for ministerial servant and elder are read and each brother is compared
to those requirements. The elders firm up their recommendations and these are given to the circuit overseer
at the start of his visit. He can now observe those recommended, work in field service with them, critique
their meeting parts, etc. When the circuit man meets with the local elders, he gives his observations on the
men they have recommended. Unless there is some blatant failing like low field service hours, he usually rubber
stamps the local elder's choices.
Now, let me give you an actual example of how a clever circuit overseer can circumvent these checks and balances
and promote a man of his own choosing"
A prominent elder in the capital city of Arkansas "stepped down" from his responsibilities in the mid-80's.
Don't jump on me about the terminology "stepped down" because it was still used then to avoid the stigma of
deletion. This former elder moved into our congregation, which already had a large body of elders, most seasoned
men. Soon, an odd letter came from the elder's former congregation. It stated that he had formed an emotional
attachment to his secretary, a young sister in our congregation. The relationship had resulted in "some kissing".
His tormented conscience had moved him to resign his position, but they now felt he had recovered enough
spiritually to be used any way we saw fit.
In the pre-c.o. visit meeting, the body of elders considered this brother's situation carefully. We knew him well.
We also had known the young sister all her life. We chose not to act hastily and recommend this brother.
Fast forward to our meeting with the circuit overseer. He noticed our recommendations did not include Brother N.
He listened carefully to our reservations and said he respected our position. He made us aware of his private visit
with Brother N. He found him "utterly remorseful to the point of tears." He suggested we reconsider our non-recommendation.
One older brother spoke up, wondering how such a quick reappointment would effect the young girl and her mother. The CO
quickly took that bull by the horns. He asked the older brother if he would be willing to approach the young
sister and her mother with the question: "Would it stumble you if Brother N. was appointed as an elder again?
(I think he already knew the answer to that question.) The CO wanted to discuss this again after the Sunday
meeting.
As you might suspect, in our elder's meeting late Sunday, this brother was recommended somewhat reluctantly. The skillful
circuit overseer had set us up for it, even making it seem our decision.
Three weeks later, the appointment letter came back from Brooklyn. Brother N. was appointed an elder, but also City Overseer.
Some time later, he was also appointed Assembly Overseer and Chairman of the Hospital Liaison.
tms