e. Deacons
[11/22/20]
The last office of the Church which I shall consider is that of deacon. The qualifications here are not so very different from those of the elder. The must be dignified, honest, sober, not chasers after wealth at all cost. They must be of sound faith and clear conscience. In short, they must be beyond reproach. Again, that most challenging standard (1Ti 3:8-12). Further, they must, as with the elders, be singular in their marriage, ‘husbands of one wife’ as well as proven managers of house and household.
I have to note an interesting aspect of this passage. In the midst of Paul’s description of qualifications of office which apply to the deacon, we see, “Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.” Paul is not one for wandering thoughts and random observations. His writing is carefully marshalled thought, given the time necessary to organize and prepare. This is not, then, some random connection resulting from what he is about to say in regard to familial proof of preparedness to serve in this office. It is not a requirement placed upon the wife of the deacon, so far as I can tell. If that were the case, I should think wives might be identified rather than women generally. Or perhaps that is an issue with translation, for I am reminded that the word is in fact the same. There is a reason we sometimes find the qualification expressed as being that the deacon must be a ‘one woman man’. That is the literal translation, near enough. We could argue, I suppose, that the reason for this is the excessive presence of divorce within the church leaving so few to serve, if indeed, the call is for one who has been married but once.
I still find the order of expression curious, that Paul would present a requirement set upon the wife of the deacon before mentioning that he had one. What I get at is that one could, if they were so inclined, find reason here to acknowledge that women might be found satisfying the office without doing violence to any biblical principle. As far as qualification of office goes, this is it. This is all Scripture offers. Indeed, as far as the term deacon goes, it’s very nearly the totality of mention, at least in my preferred, NASB translation. But of course, it is a translation, and the underlying term is perhaps more telling than the translation. That term is diakonos, a term also applied to waiters, servants at table. There is something of the slave in this, but with a significant distinction. Doulos, the other term for slave, speaks primarily of the subordinate relationship with the master of said slave. It may be voluntary servitude or conscripted, but either way, the relationship is in view. Here, it is the work that is in view, the service rendered; and as such, the term may often be translated as minister, rather than deacon, or servant.
Here we begin to hit on the distinction between deacon and elder, for at least in one view, it is the elders whom the deacons serve. They do not, then, hold any sort of ruling authority, but serve in accordance with the direction of the elders. One could easily perceive them as ministers as well to the body, for in serving the elders, they serve the body, as do the elders themselves in fulfilling their office.
As noted, the term used for this office is originally applied to those who serve at table, which is to say a particularly personal service rendered. That held the more as the application of the term widened to include all manner of personal care for one’s livelihood. If we look at the earliest examples of deacons in the church, we find their work primarily concerned with matters of charity. Why were they appointed in the first place? Because there were concerns about provision for the widows in the church being done even-handedly, and concern as well that the elders and Apostles be relieved of that concern in order to remain devoted to prayer and the Word of God.
Let’s return to the scene (Ac 6:1-6). Complaint arose that the more Hellenistic Jews were being neglected in the service given to their widows. Remember, this was a longstanding bit of prejudice in the Jewish community. There were those who had held carefully true to the ways of Judaism and rejected every inroad of Grecian practice, and then there were those who had adopted much of Greek custom alongside their exercise of Jewish faith. Given Jesus’ upbringing in Galilee of the Gentiles, it’s not hard to imagine Him having experienced this prejudice first hand during His time among us. I could also observe that the majority of the Apostles, and quite possibly of those founding members, if you will, of the Jerusalem church, were likewise from Galilee, which renders this result curious, at the very least. But the Apostles called the church together to address the issue.
“It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.” You see our term brought to bear here. “But select from among you, brethren, seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” And here, it must be observed, we see the word again. Look, this is no arrogant rejection of the task as being beneath them. It is a clear recognition of priorities, and of the simple fact that these twelve could not see to everything personally. Nor should they. The church is to be a body in which each member contributes to the wellbeing of the whole.
But here we find the office first instituted, and indeed, instituted with the laying on of hands, which should, I think, make plain that this was not merely getting somebody to deal with menial tasks. It was an important function of the body, a point also made clear in that they were called as men of good repute and full of the Spirit. It needs godly men to serve a godly people.
I also observe that in this instituting of office, we see again the tendency of each office to subsume in itself the gifts and skills of the offices below. The elder is also a deacon; a deacon of the word and of prayer, done as service at table, we might suggest, both to God and to church. Even the Apostles, having subsumed into their office all that has pertained to every office of the church, are set as deacons, as ministers to the Church. Go back to Jesus’ instruction. “Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant” (Mt 20:26b). There’s our term. “The greatest among you shall be your servant” (Mt 23:11). Same term again. “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mk 9:35). The message is clear. You’re not here to accept the plaudits of lesser mortals. You’re here to serve them, and to serve them charitably, personally. That attitude is the path to esteem in God’s sight.
All of this should compel us to observe the honor due those who satisfy the requirements for the deacon and undertake to fulfill its duties. It is a most godly enterprise, however mundane the immediate tasks may appear to be. If there is a deacon set in charge of buildings and grounds, it is in service to the body as a whole, that the body as a whole may have the necessary infrastructure in which to partake of the ministry of word and ordinance, in which to obtain the necessary equipping that they, too, may thrive and serve.
This same mindset, I observe, informs the Apostles as they pursue their evangelistic effort of seeing the Church established in every location. Paul saw his mission thus. He was ‘made a minister,’ a deacon if you will, of the gospel, as a matter of charitable and most needful service to the Gentiles (Col 1:23-25), which is to say as a matter of service to the very body of Christ, which is the church, wherein Paul ministers a ‘stewardship from God, bestowed on me for your benefit,’ which service is the preaching of the word of God. What a beautiful service!
Okay, one further observation, going back to that note regarding women in the instruction given Timothy. While there is (as with so many things), unresolved debate on the topic, Phoebe, whom Paul commends to the Church in Romans 16:1, is noted as a ‘servant of the church which is at Cenchrea’. Here again the term servant is our term for deacon or minister. Given the instruction that follows, it seems reasonable that she is on official duty of her church. “Receive her in the Lord in a manner worth of the saints, and […] help her in whatever matter sha may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many and of myself as well” (Ro 16:2). Given that this comes at the head of a whole list of fellow workers in Christ, whether church officers or in an inter-church capacity, it’s not at all unreasonable to say she is an officer, a deaconess of the church. I grant that others see the matter differently, and certainly we cannot and should not take every use of the term diakonos or its variations as applying to the office. The civil servant is not, for example, a deacon of the church, though he may be (and that, in spite of being wholly unaware of this reality) a minister of God (Ro 13:4). But it does seem to me that the mention of women being arranged as it is in 1 Timothy, and the notice of Pheobe here at the end of Romans do combine to provide a sufficient support for those who accept women in the office of deacon. And, as I observed earlier, mention of the four daughters of Philip the evangelist, who were themselves prophetesses lends a certain support for women in pretty much any office of the Church. I’m not sure I would call it conclusive support, but it is assuredly support.
[11/23/20]
Is there more to say in regard to this office? We have looked at qualifications and seen its founding. We have seen the few brief mentions of individuals in office. We have not, I think, said much as to the duties of office, either as to their details or their boundaries. One thing I think we can establish is that the deaconate is not a ruling authority, but an assisting office. We might say that theirs is to implement, and perhaps define particular matters as regard the operations of the church, but even there, it gets questionable, doesn’t it? The original office holders had one duty in view: To look to the distribution of charitable supports amongst the needy in the congregation. We find this in regard to food supplied to the widows in the house of God. They were, even for so mundane a duty, called to be men of sound faith, spiritually mature, wise in the things of God and man alike. They were to be above reproach, which, given the cause for the office, was assuredly needful.
But were there other duties entailed? The fact that we find Phoebe of Cenchrea apparently in Rome (and apparently a deaconess) suggests that something far beyond the scope of provisioning the needy in the local church was in view. Presumably, she had gone bearing Paul’s letter, that being a typical reason for Paul to know who was there from out of town. That Cenchrea was nearby to Corinth, from whence Paul wrote makes this the more likely. Why was she there, apart from delivering that most valuable letter? We don’t know, but it was something for which she might find cause to ask assistance from the church in Rome. Perhaps it was simply a matter of provisioning for her return trip, but it seems from the wording that something else was involved. It would not appear to have been an evangelistic mission, or the planting of a new church. But her gifts lie in that direction which fits the office: Helps, and perhaps administrations as well. We don’t know of the latter, but it is there alongside the gift of helps in the list described to the Corinthian church (1Co 12:28).
I am rather viewing things in this light. The elders, and the Apostles as well, are as ministers or deacons of Jesus Christ. Paul speaks often enough in such terms. “I was made a minister (diakonos) [of the gospel] according to the gift of God’s grace which was given to me according to the working of His power” (Eph 3:7), “the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a diakonos” (Col 1:23). “I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God” (Col 1:25).
Then, too, there is the encouragement given Timothy. “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following” (1Ti 4:4-6). There are other matters in which Timothy is to teach correctly, but I want to include that last in particular because it so well suits the underlying meaning of that term minister. To minister is, as we saw, to wait on tables in its original meaning; then to serve in any personal fashion; then to serve more generally. Again, the emphasis is on service rendered.
We have noted, I believe, that this service, as regards the office of deacon, is first to the elders, offloading sundry administrative tasks in order that they might be focused on the word and on prayer. I wonder just how many churches pursue this as their course, when they have both deacons and elders. It seems to me from my experience that the elders remain entirely too occupied in administrative matters, perhaps of necessity, but still. Part of it is, I think, that administrative matters are less thorny than matters of spiritual development and disciplinary issues. To be sure, the deacons are leaned upon heavily in the implementation of various ministries and services, but so much reverts back to the elders. Perhaps, as I say, it is necessary in the nature of things, and perhaps it is even right and as expected in the Lord, but it feels off.
There are certain duties one can see naturally devolving to the deaconate: matters of charity, certainly, perhaps aspects of preparation for community worship, so preparing the elements for communion, for example, or seeing the baptismal prepared. We could, I suppose, layer in aspects of what we see in the Levitical services provided the Old Testament temple, and thereby include matters of buildings and grounds, matters of music for worship and the like. What I don’t really see, although it is our practice locally, is the setting off of oversight for various teaching ministries, under the aegis of the deaconate. I get it, I suppose. It is a large task, and needs a degree of focus that perhaps exceeds the capacity of the elders, given their other duties of office. But, if the deacons are set in place in order that the elders may remain engaged in the word and in prayer, and if the elders are given to have that gift and requirement of office for teaching, whereas the deaconate are not required to have such arts, what’s going on?
Is this, perhaps, a case of programs and societal shaping leading us away from the biblical model? I don’t think it’s that severe, but there’s cause to consider. Are children’s ministries, men’s ministries, women’s ministries, and so on and so forth really in keeping with what Christ desires from His Church? I don’t know. I could go either way, really. There are calls for older women to aid and guide their younger sisters in the Lord, a safeguard, surely, against sexual temptations, or the appearance of improprieties. There are definite calls for parents to train up their children. I suppose, if we were to look to the life of the synagogue in ancient Jewish custom, we might find cause for a specific ministry to the young, that they might receive of the Word in keeping with their own capacity. But where, assuming these varied ministries are in fact needful, ought the oversight and direction to lie, if not with the elders who shepherd the Church and safeguard her teaching? I am not wholly convinced that it is appropriate to pass this off to the deaconate and maintain only loose (and likely retroactive) oversight of this most critical ministry to the body. Would we have the pastor shuffle his duties of preaching on the elders, and he just look to administrative matters from his office? It would be most unusual, I should think, and highly unlikely. That being the case, I am not seeing my way clear to the elders divesting themselves of this particular duty.
What other services, then, are the deaconate to perform? I think maybe we’ve seen the boundaries, at least from my perspective. Theirs is a supporting role, under the guidance and direction of the elders. They are not the establishers of policy, although they may very well labor in the crafting of policies under the authority and oversight of the elders. That is to say, such policies as may be produced at the level of the deaconate must surely be reviewed, understood, and authorized by the elders. They provide service in areas of worship support roles and charitable works. That’s a pretty broad spectrum, right there, for we can certainly arrive at defining roles in the nursery, or in children’s ministry as matters of worship support, as readily as we include things like serving as a musician or technician, or seeing to the readiness of room and elements. Services such as greeting and ushering would certainly fall within bounds here. As I say, it is when we arrive at the matter of teaching ministries within the church that I start to have questions.
At some level, yes, teachers must be drawn from a larger group than the elders, for the elders are simply not enough to go around. But then, the deacons are not necessarily the exclusive doers of any of their activities, but the organizers, and to some degree at least, the oversight – undershepherd to the undershepherds if you will. They are given to care, and to go about their ministries with good grace, but the spiritual care still reverts to the elders. The examination of preparedness amongst those who would teach must, I should think, revert to the elders, as also the consideration of what is to be taught. That is a challenge, certainly, and time consuming. Yet, it seems to me more necessary for the elders to remain involved closely here, than in many of the duties that typically wind up in their court.
It is a sad fact of human nature that no matter how we choose to set this out, there will be a tendency for power struggle. This is yet another reason we must be careful to assign those who are godly, Spirit-filled men of wisdom to both the deaconate and the elders. It is reason for prayerful consideration of all who are willing to serve, and not simply votes of relief that it’s not you called upon to do so. It is reason to prayerfully consider where your gifts and strengths might in fact be put to good use in ministering to the body as a whole, not as a means to power or prestige, but as a service rendered, as fulfilling that for which God has created you, for which God has caused you to be part of this specific body in this specific time and place.
Pray. Seek wisdom from your brethren who may, perhaps, see your
gifts more clearly than you do yourself. Pray that you would get
beyond matters of preference and comfort to matters of God’s will.
They might turn out to be the same thing, but it’s never assured that
it will be so. Then, when counsel and prayer have suggested a
direction, go and minister. Go and minister prayerfully, seeking that
God would equip and confirm that which He desires you to do, and if
instead you should hear a need to change course, then change course.
But if not, continue with that work the Lord has given you to do.
That, I have to say, is sound advice for all who are in the body,
whether as officers or simply as members, for Scripture is clear that
we have all been given gifts by the Holy Spirit, and those gifts, in
all their infinite variety, are given to one end: That we may serve
the body, edify our brethren, and aid their growth as they aid ours.
What better way of life could there be, than to serve in such fashion,
a living stone in the temple of our Lord, building alongside one’s
fellow living stones, supported on every side, and lending support in
turn, that all, together, may grow into the fulness of the image of
our great and glorious Lord, Jesus the Christ of God?
