The office of
deacon has been universally accepted among Baptists, but their understanding of
the nature and responsibilities of deacons has undergone a number of shifts
over the years. In some ways, those shifts have paralleled shifts in the
understanding of pastors or elders. While deacon is the universal term for this
office, the word diakonos and related
terms in the New Testament are much more often translated by terms like servant or minister.[1]
The verb diakoneō is found thirty-six
times in the New Testament, reflecting the same uses of the term as secular
Greek: to wait on someone at a table, to care for someone’s basic needs, or to
serve in a general sense.[2]
The related noun diakonia is usually
translated as service, and diakonos as servant.
Only in two
texts is the meaning clearly that of deacon (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13). Most
see Acts 6:2-4 as related to the origin of deacons. The major importance of
knowing the broader background of diakonos
is in understanding the role deacons were designed to play. There was no
counterpart to deacons in Judaism, and with the scanty material in the New
Testament, theologians have taken the normal meaning associated with diakonos as indicating the types of
activities appropriate to deacons, namely caring for material needs and general
serving.
The
qualifications of deacons are found principally in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. There are
important similarities and differences between the qualifications for deacons
and those for elders, found in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9.
While all
three passages portray a dignified man of good reputation, 1 Timothy 3 requires
a degree of maturity for both elder and deacon, though the requirement is
worded differently, with the warning that the elder must not be a new convert
(v. 6), while the deacon must be tested first (v. 10). All three have the same
qualification in terms of marriage (“husband of one wife”) and similar
requirements in the area of parenthood, with 1 Timothy 3 using the same verb
“manage” for both elder and deacon (see vv. 5, 12).
There are
also noticeable differences. The list for qualifications for the deacon is
considerably shorter and less detailed than that for the elder. The office of
elder seems to have somewhat more stringent requirements. Also, there are certain
functions associated with the elder that are not associated with the deacon.
The elder must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2) or “encourage others by sound
doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9). The deacon must know
doctrine, but he is not charged with teaching it to the church. This is not to
say that an individual deacon cannot be gifted in teaching; Stephen was one of
the seven and yet may have been a gifted teacher. But the gift of teaching is
not intrinsic to the office of deacon.
Also, the
office of elder is explicitly linked with the function of oversight, both in
the fact that elder is synonymous with overseer and in specific phrases
identifying the elder as the one who must “take care of God’s church” (1 Tim.
3:5); he is the one who “is entrusted with God’s work” (Titus 1:7).
Finally,
there is one requirement for deacons that has no counterpart for elders. It is
found in the description in 1 Timothy 3:11 of the gynaikas (deacon’s wife). Some see it as referring to deacon’s
wives (my interpretation) and is thus another qualification for deacons; that
is, they must have wives of certain character. Others see the word as
indicating a third office, that of deaconesses. However, that is an entirely
separate discussion not pertinent to this question. I believe it refers to the
character of a deacon’s wife.
One reason
for considering the qualifications of deacons so carefully is that they provide
a clue to the role and responsibility of deacons. I have already shared the
associations around the word diakonos.
The word is closely associated with humble service. That does make such service
important, for even the offering of a cup of cold water in Christ’s name brings
reward (Matt. 10:42). Christian leaders are called upon to exercise leadership
in a humble spirit, but leadership itself is not activity normally associated
with diakonos. Thus, it seems likely
that deacons are not called to give leadership to the church in the same way as
are elders. If the two offices were identical, why would two be needed?
Diakonos indicates more of a support role than episkopos or presbyteros.
The example
of Acts 6 fits the distinction between the ministry of leaders
(elders/overseers/pastors) and the important but different ministry of other
servants (deacons). The rationale for the selection of the seven is given in
the apostles’ words, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of
the word of God in order to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2). The distribution of
food was important; it threatened to divide the early church. But the apostles
could not do everything, and their calling was “the ministry of the word of
God.”
The
relationship of the ministries of elders and deacons has been seen in the same
light. The elders are called to the ministry of the Word of God and to overall
leadership of the church, while the deacons are called upon to deal with the
material needs of the people, the care of the sick and poor, and the temporal
affairs of the church in general. These were the functions assigned to the
deacons, especially in the churches that emerged from the Reformation. John
Calvin says simply, “The care of the poor was entrusted to the deacons.”[3]
One of the very earliest Baptist confessions, the 1611 Short Confession of John
Smyth, says that deacons “attend to the affairs of the poor and sick brethren,”
and many other Baptist confessions echo similar ideas.
The example
of Acts 6 can also be applied in a more general way. The pastors or elders of
the church are given the job of teaching the Word of God, providing pastoral
ministry to the members, and giving overall leadership to the church. That is a
job too demanding for any one person, and it can be challenging even for a body
of elders. The deacons are there to assist the pastors and relieve them of any
duties that would prevent them from doing those things that most require their
energy, time, and attention.
In early
twentieth-century Baptist life, management of business and financial affairs
identified the ministry of most Baptist deacons. A very popular book on deacons
stated, “The business of the church and its finances constitutes the special
and distinct assignment of the deacons.”[4]
Perhaps this ministry also accounts for the fact that deacons must first be
tested (v. 10), to prove their trustworthiness before handling funds. His skill
in managing his household (v. 12) would also support the role of management of
the temporal affairs of the church.
But most of
the qualifications listed for deacons are similar to those of elders. This
implies that deacons may share at least one of the functions of elders, that of
setting an example of Christ-like character. Anyone identified as an officer of
the church in some way represents the church publicly and is thus required to
possess a degree of maturity. It also indicates that the office of deacon is
not a small, unimportant ministry that anyone can render. Indeed, the ministry
of a deacon can profoundly affect the lives of individuals and the health of
the church, and thus it must be exercised in a Christ-like way.
However,
these biblical clues have not been the only factors influencing Baptist
perceptions of the role and responsibility of deacons. Howard Foshee says that
in the late 1800s, “the business-world concept of ‘board of directors’ was,
unfortunately, transferred to the church.”[5]
With the board of director’s idea, the distinction between the overall
leadership role of elders and the serving role of the deacons began to blur. In
practice, many deacon boards practiced something close to elder rule. Beginning
in the 1950s, there were several books calling deacons to involvement in
ministry more than management.[6]
The best way
to clarify the role and responsibility of deacons would be the establishment of
a plural eldership (multi-staff church). That would force churches to think
through the relationship of the two offices and would result in a renewal of
the servant aspect of diaconal ministry, with leadership left to the elders. As
to specifics, it seems advisable for churches to follow the pattern of Acts, in
which the roles and responsibilities of deacons are left flexible, to enable
them to address whatever is hindering the ability of their church’s elders to
accomplish their ministry.
[1]John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A
Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, Publications, 2005), 191.
[6]Robert Naylor, The Baptist Deacon (Nashville: Baptist
Press, 1955), was a very important book this regard, emphasizing the importance
of deacon involvement in servant ministries like visitation of the sick. The
emphasis continued in the 1968 book by Foshee, The Ministry of the Deacon, and the still more recent book by
Robert Sheffield, The Ministry of Baptist
Deacons, ed. Gary Hardin (Nashville: Convention Press, 1990).
No comments:
Post a Comment