Deacon ministry

In our church they are doing more.

 

Problem with most Baptist Churches is that Deacons are doing the responibility of Elders. Or, Deacons are assuming the roles reserved for Elders. Leadership and decision making should come from the Elder or Elders. Deacons are to serve under the authority of Elders.

If Deacons want to run and lead the church, then they should call themselves Elders and not deacons. This is a problem in small churches that have 1 Elder, usually the Pastor, and a group of deacons that have been there for 50 years.

 

I agree grasshopper.

There should be an elder or elders that lead,they should meet the qualifications,can be paid staff or lay elders,they should be the most spiritually mature of the church making the decisions for the others.There are times the whole church should aid in decisions,too. The deacons are to serve and help with ministries of the church,not lead.

 

This kind of thing is more common. It seems that our seminaries are turning our "pastors" who are self-willed and determined to lord themselves over God's heritage.

 

I am not sure what "our seminaries" are or what Aaron thinks they should be turning out. In the NT, the pastor/overseer/elder is given the role of leadership and rule in the body. The deacons are never given such responsibility. However, pastors are warned not to lord over the congregation. I find in many churches that the deacons have assumed way too much leadership responsibility that was never biblically given to them.

 

They not only have the right, they have the responsibility to fulfill the role of deacon. However, be careful not to confuse other things that Stephen and Philip did with what they did in their role as deacon.

 

The so-called "Deacons" in our church left, and took members with them when the Pastor insisted that he was the Pastor, and they were the Deacons.

Since then there have not been any Deacons in our CHurch. Pastor says this time he is going to wait on God to send them, instead of folks looking for importance. When they do come, they will be expected to fullfill a pre-determined training program outlining a vast scope of responsibilities before assuming the role.

 

Some Philippine Baptist churches I have been to do not have deacons at all. They have just a Pastor, and the tendency is for the pastor to lord it over the congregation.
Not good.
However, there are instances when deacons try to overrule the pastor, so much so that some churches refer to them as the Board of Demons.
Not good, either.
The Primitive Baptist church I belong to have deacons who take care of the administrative aspects only of the church.
The pastor is called Elder. I am a licentiate, or one who has been set at liberty by the local church to preach the gospel, but I am not an Elder.
Once ordained though, one is called an Elder, and his primary duties are spiritual nourishment of the local body.
I think that's a better set up.

 

Nope ... not an oversight. The NT never demands a plurality of elders although it permits it. You never see more than one "head elder." In every situation, someone is the leader. While a senior pastor may have assistants, he is still the senior. A church with a true plurality (which probably doesn't really exist) runs the risk of becoming a multi-headed monster.

Why do you note 3 John 9 as an example of a single elder? I have never seen that before.

 

Pastor Larry, saying that the New Testament permits plurality of elders is much weaker than what is really there - a consistent example of plurality of elders throughout the New Testament. There is no multi-headed monster where the church has only one head - Jesus Christ. I have no problem with the fact that different people with differing gifts will rise to different abilities of leadership, but I do question where one would find the New Testament command, precept or example for a "senior pastor with assistants."

 

Hey guys -

This thread is on Deacon ministry. I know its hard to talk about deacons w/o also talking about their usurping of eldership roles but let's try to keep the conversation on the topic and not on the "lordship of Pastors".

 

I really don't like it when people say "Single-elders have abused their power, so we can't have them." You can make the same case for deacons abusing their ministry of service. The role of the deacon is to serve the church in order to free the elder(s) to lead and proclaim the Word of God. I just preached a deacon ordination and have a tape if anyone is interested. Also, consult Alexander Strauch's New Testament Deacon: Minister of Mercy for a good book on the subject. Allistar Begg has a good sermon or two on this available at Truth For Life

 

You're right, Tom. We should base our beliefs on scripture, not experience. In a like manner, I have seen some churches discard the office of deacon because someone had a bad experience with a deacon or deacons. These offices are scriptural, regardless of how many abuses have been associated with persons holding the office. Another consideration might be remembering that it is the wickedness in the heart, not the office, that is responsible for the problem.

 

Basic, simple examples: Phillip, Stephen, and the other deacons were called upon by the people, and "ushered" in by the apostles, because the widows were being neglected, and the apostles couldn't lay down their ministry to take care of "minor details"; i.e., let the pastor lead the church. The deacons are there to help take care of the flock, and ensure that the pastor is able to lead the flock, instead of being bogged down in the details.

Phillip and Stephen went out and preached; so deacons are not precluded from preaching, either. Most deacons I know teach the Sunday School lessons, or "pinch-hit" when the pastor is unable to do the service.

Phillip went to Samaria, and taught Christ, and people were baptized; but it wasn't until the apostles came that the people received the Holy Spirit. So this example shows the deacons "preparing" the people; but it's still the pastor that does the "big job."

It was never meant to be a "deacons run the church, and the pastor just preaches" or "pastor rules with an iron hand, and the deacons better obey everything he says" kind of thing.

The deacons are there to assist the pastor--period. Each individual, New Testament church must decide for itself how its deacons will accomplish that goal. And each individual deacon must decide for himself if he's going to support the pastor, or use the position for personal gain.

And more than anything else, remember what "deacon" means: diakoneo--minister unto or serve.

[ May 06, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

I find it interesting how many churches have a "board of deacons" as if this board has some sort of authority. Though my church commonly refers to the deacons as a board, I refuse to. I never use the term "board" with reference to the deacons. Even the chairman is the chairman of the deacons, not the chairman of the deacon board.