A pastor to deacon...

I think to bring the discussion to it's full prupose is to look at all the references in scripture.

The original question appears to be whether or not the pastor has the authority to appoint/ordain deacons, though it's hard to tell exactly what the question is due to the wording used. An appeal has been made for clarity, but no response has yet to be made to that appeal.

Since the man is the one who has final say in all church matters, him being the pastor, he is therefore accountable for all decisions made in this area. If anyone in the congregation feels his "appointee" is unqualified, then that person should approach the pastor and tell him why not, thus accountability is the factor.

I've known some to report that the "deacon" appointed, was one way on the softball field in behaviour and soemthing else at church. Since his family has been instrumental in the church since it split from another church and formed this one, his attitude on the ballfield is overlooked. I don't believe a hypocrite has any place in the position of a deacon within the church, this particular man was appointed against the recommendation of some of the other deacons and that pastor over-ruled by his authority and went contrary.

Now, does the pastor have absolute rule in this area of ordaining deacons? No! Does the "deacon board", (which is never found in the Bible), have the final say? No! Do the brethren who are in untiy in the bonds of peace have the final say? YES! All are accountable to one another, being submitted to one another according to scripture. Scripture is the final authority! (Sorry if that bothers you MVs too much, but the scripture is the Final Authority!

 

The problem is more obvious than you guys realize. You keep confusing "accountability" with ordination. The two are completely and wholly unrelated. Everyone in teh church is to be accountable. Not everyone is to be ordained. The clear pattern of the NT is to ordain pastors/elders/overseers because of their role in leadership. There is no such pattern for deacons.

SEcondly, the only place is says "Likewise the deacons" is in 1 Tim 3 where qualifications are given. That has nothign to do with ordination.

Lastly, to the person who said their church has no elders, who in the world leads your congregation? An elder is a pastor. If a church does not have a pastor, they are out of order. There is no difference between pastors and elders.

 

Pastor Larry, Elders are the older men. ALL of our pastors (except our retired pastor) are young (28-41). They surely cannot be 'elder's' according to scripture!


SHOW ME ORDINATION! GIVE ME SCRIPTURE PLEASE!!!!!

 

Where in Acts 6 do you find "deacons"?

 

Bakers Evangelical Dictionary says:

DEACON: The institution of the technical office seems to be found in Acts 6. Although the noun "deacon" (diakonos [diavkono"]) does not occur, both diakoneo [diakonevw] and diakonia [diakoNIVa] are used, with emphasis resting more on the character of the men than any specific function. In this instance they cared for the needs of the Hellenistic widows and guaranteed fairness in the distribution of food. Their election was made jointly by the apostles and the congregation. It was determined that they must be men "full of the Spirit and wisdom" (v. 3). As one scans the Book of Acts, "fullness of the Spirit" almost always entails bold witnessing for the gospel of Christ (cf. Acts 1:8). That these men served in a manner transcending the traditional notion of deacon is clearly seen in the prophetic teaching activity of Stephen (Acts 6-7) and the evangelistic ministry of Philip (Acts 8).

 

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology

Overseer [N]

The word "overseer" (Gk. episkopos [ejpivskopo"]) is used a limited number of times in the New Testament, but it has significant implications for a proper understanding of leadership in the church.

The noun episkopos [ejpivskopo"] appears five times in the New Testament and means overseer, guardian, bishop. It is used in reference to Jesus Christ in 1 Peter 2:25 and in other places of individuals who have a function of leadership in the church (Acts 20:28; Php 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7). The verb episkopeo [ejpiskopevw] appears in 1 Peter 5:2 and means to take care of, to oversee, or to care for. Episkope [ejpiskophv] appears in 1 Timothy 3:1 and refers to the position or office of overseer or bishop. It seems clear that a plurality of overseers (elders) was the New Testament model, though flexibility apparently existed as to structure. It is quite likely that one overseer or elder would have primary leadership as the pastor among the other elders in the local church, such as James in the church at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:13-21). The office itself is restricted to men. As men are called to be the spiritual leaders in the home, so they are to be the spiritual leaders in the church (cf. 1 Cor 11:2-16; Eph 5:21-33; 1 Tim 2:9-3:7).


Bishops, Elder's, Overseer's, Deacon's, Pastor's

 

Accountability is the premise for any position in the church, from the one sitting on the pew who names the Name of Christ all the way to the "bishop". If a man isn't FIRST found accountable, he is in no way to even be considered for any position, except to remain in the pew until he shows forth responsibility. How can you leave accountability out of the ordination process, it's the very begininng?

Who holds the higher accountability? The deacon? the usher? the soundroom man? the SS teacher? the pastor? Before filling any of the positions mentioned and others too, first they MUST be found
ACCOUNTABLE! ACCOUNTABLE to the LOCAL Assembly! It's the LOCAL ASSEMBLY that ordains/puts their approval on the man/laying on of hands.

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you--

Dr. Bob said: Titus 1 MENTIONS ORDAINING and ELDERS. Clearly. Public action of the church. Why not DEACONS? Hmmm. Odd silence.

Conclusion: Ordaining elders (or parallel office descriptions as pastor, bishop, episcopos) is biblical. Ordaining deacons is extra-biblical. Not "evil" or "wrong" or "bad", just not commanded.

Again from Baker's Evangelical dictionary:

The Synoptic Gospels Foundational to the understanding of "appoint" in the New Testament is Jesus' statement about the kingdom that he has appointed to his followers (Luke 9-10). The New Testament practice is often associated with the laying on of hands.

Jesus appointed twelve disciples to be with him and that he could send out to preach (Mark 3:14). The Great Commission was given on the basis of Jesus' authority (Matt 28:18-20). The One who appointed the kingdom to Jesus, who granted him authority, was God the Father Almighty.

In Acts Matthias was appointed by the casting of lots to replace Judas among the Twelve (1:12-26). Most significant is the reference to Barnabas and Paul and their appointment of elders in every church after prayer and fasting (14:23).

At the conclusion of the first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas established leadership in the new congregations. There remains a question in ac 14:23 regarding who appointed the elders—the apostles or the congregation. The most natural reading of the passage suggests that Paul and Barnabas did. Perhaps in these settings the apostles' wisdom was necessary to establish leadership, though the apostles' selection may have been confirmed by vote of the congregations (see also Titus 1:5).

 

I am not sure that anyone here disagrees with you. I certainly don't. As I said, everyone in the church is accountable, from the pastor right on down to the newest member. But that is irrelevant to the issue of ordination and that is what is under discussion now.

 

I don't find the word "Bible" anywhere in my Bible, but I sure am glad I've got the Bible!

Just because we don't have it "spelled" out for us in the area of "ordaining" deacons, the principle is definitely there, BEGINNING with accountability. I see ordaining elders as spelled out, but then confusion may occur in the use of that word "elder", but since I Timothy 3 designates the qualifications of a deacon as closely to those of a "bishop" whether we consider "elder' as a "pastor/bishop" or not, the approval of either, casting of lots, as the case of Matthais went, leaves human error wide open. Thus the Lord's approval delegates time as the determining factor.

We "ordain" as the means of our approval by the "laying on of hands". That laying on of hands is done physically before witnesses, but that is only an open demonstration of approval . In a non-comprimising church, the man if not "ordained

Our "ordaining" is the "approvaL"/ approved of God, will certainly not stand the test of time.

The "Hand of God" or the Lord's touch,upon a man is indication of approval and that can also change.

Am I "ordained"? By the church, no. By the Lord? I have to say yes. I am "licensed" by the local church and have been offered the position of being an "ordained" deacon. I am a deacon in the sense of being a servant of the church, but don't feel worthy of the title.

Our "ordaining" is approving by the laying on of hands, we will not approve of a man as a deacon without our laying on of hands, but he first being accountable to the church, it's the rule of autonomy. If you don't believe in ordaining deacons that is your choice, we do and also provide ordination papers to go with it.

You won't find "rapture" in the Bible either, except the princple is, but if you don't want to be raptured then that will be fine, but you won't "prevent" me from going up with the shout at His stepping out on the cloud saying "Come up hither!"

 

Istherenotacause, what do you mean by "accountable"? I don't think I am understanding what you are saying. How can a man be held accountable for a position he doesn't hold. I was qualified to perform the duties of my present job before I was hired for it (that's WHY I was hired for it) but, I was not accountable until after I was hired.

"Ordained" just means officially appointed. I don't see what the controversy is. Any time you officially appoint someone to ANYTHING you have ordained them. I understand that traditionally it has developed a more mysterious connotation of investing someone with some sort of spiritual, almost mystical authority but, it really is the simpler idea of appointing someone officially to a particular responsibility. It isn't the "ordination" that is special, it is the position. We like to talk about an "ordained Pastor" or an "ordained deacon", but we change it to an "elected" Sunday School teacher when it is reality the same thing, all are officially "put" in that position.

Acts 6 may or may not be "deacons" but it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck so...

It has always been amazing to me that nearly everyone recognizes that scripture clearly teaches a plurality of elders but, they always say that there is the POSSIBILITY of exceptions. OK, if that is true, then why is it the "rule" now and not the exception?

 

You first had to be accountable enough to be educated in the field you entered before you were ever hired. That may not be the case everytime, but in the service of God accountability in tithing, attendence, and character are the pre-requisites that make one accountable before ever being appointed/ordained to a position as a deacon. If a man doesn't tithe he has no business being a deacon, if he doesn't attend regular, he doesn't, if his character doesn't reflect those requirements in I Tim 3 then he won't even be considered for the position. Just because a man says he believes God has called him to be a preacher, deacon, or any other work, he first must submit to authority, thus being found accountable to that authority, else his rebel spirit prevails and he is disqualified. Same goes for any position in the church. I wouldn't have an usher that takes up the offering who doesn't tithe, he's more liable to give in to the flesh and start pulling out a little for himself.

Doesn't anyone see the need for accountability anymore?

 

I do, Brother Ricky. In fact....

.... I believe we should hold all teachers in our churches to the above standards.

Diane

 

Dr. Bob, every IB church I've been part of or know of ordains deacons. So do AB churches.

 

I do, Brother Ricky. In fact.... I believe we should hold all teachers in our churches to the above standards.</font>[/QUOTE]But that is not the point here. The discussion is about ordination of deacons, which has nothing to do with accountability. Don't confuse these things. We all believe (or at least most of us do) in accountability. That is clearly taught in Scripture. Ordination of deacons is not and that is the difference.

 

I do, Brother Ricky. In fact.... I believe we should hold all teachers in our churches to the above standards.</font>[/QUOTE]But that is not the point here. The discussion is about ordination of deacons, which has nothing to do with accountability. Don't confuse these things. We all believe (or at least most of us do) in accountability. That is clearly taught in Scripture. Ordination of deacons is not and that is the difference. </font>[/QUOTE]Seems to me it is by the laying on of hands/approval by the presbytery. Now, instead of repeating yourself again, please define "ordain".

Noah Webster 1828,

Ordain:
1 properly, to set; to establish in a particular office or order; hence to invest with a ministerial function or sacredotal power; to introduce and establish or settle in the pastoral office with the customery forms and solemnities; as to ordain a minister of the gospel. In America, men are ordained over a particular church and congregation, or as evangelists w/o the charge of a particular church, or as deacons in the episcopal church

2. to appoint or decree

3. to set; to establish; to institute; to constitute

4. to set apart for an office; to appoint

5. to appoint; to prepare

I Kings 7, "Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eigth month.

Jesus ordained 12 that they should be with Him, Mark 3

Tophet is ordained of old, Isaiah 30

As many as were ordained to eternal life,believed. Acts 13

 

I do, Brother Ricky. In fact.... I believe we should hold all teachers in our churches to the above standards.</font>[/QUOTE]But that is not the point here. The discussion is about ordination of deacons, which has nothing to do with accountability. Don't confuse these things. We all believe (or at least most of us do) in accountability. That is clearly taught in Scripture. Ordination of deacons is not and that is the difference. </font>[/QUOTE]Seems to me it is by the laying on of hands/approval by the presbytery. Now, instead of repeating yourself again, please define "ordain".</font>[/QUOTE]What seems to you to be what? Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Ordain is to set apart to the work of overseeing/pastoring and being an elder. But that is not in question. My point is not to talk about ordination but rather to show that contrary to some assertions being made here, accountability has nothing to do with ordination. There is no reason to talk of accountability as if ordination is related to it. It isn't.

Who cares??? This is a term with a theological meaning. Webster was not particularly theological. Besides that, you ahve given a whole range of meanings, when the word in a given usage only has one of them.