Are churches required to have deacons to be a "valid" Baptist church?

[Salty]

From another thread:

Whether you consider them officers or not, each church is commanded to have both positions. They are essential for the proper administration of a local body.

I agree that a church should have deacons - but I don't see where it is commanded.
So - are you saying that if a church does not have deacons - it is not a valid church?

Same with a pastor - is a church without a pastor - still a valid church?

 

[Reformed]

I am not going to go so far as to say that a church that does not have both elders and deacons is not a valid church. Some smaller congregations may lose an elder or deacon and not be able to readily replace him. What I said is that these offices are, "essential for the proper administration of a local body." I stand by that statement. Elders are responsible for preaching and spiritual oversight of the body. Deacons are primarily responsible for member care, although member care also carries with it pastoral care. The two cannot be separated. Churches that lack these offices increase the likelihood of dysfunction within the body.

 

[Salty]

... What I said is that these offices are, "essential for the proper administration of a local body." .. .

(bold - my emphasis)

Fully agree!!!

 

[Reformed]

Same with a pastor - is a church without a pastor - still a valid church?

I believe pastor and elder is the same office. Our Presbyterian brethren use the terms teaching elder (pastor) and ruling elder. The T.E. is the one who will spend most of his time behind the pulpit. The ruling elder must also be apt to teach but is no the go-to person on the Lord's day. In most Reformed Baptist churches there is a plurality of elders. Again, an elder must be apt to teach, so while there may be one man who fulfills the role of pastor, any elder should be able to fill his role. Elders should also be using their teaching gifts in other teaching venues that their local church may offer.

 

[Jerome]

elders and deacons

This "elders and deacons" scheme pushed by these new 'Reformed/Baptists' originates not in the Bible, but the Presbyterian Book of Church Order.

Scripture itself speaks of "bishop(s)[...] and deacons", or speaks of them collectively as "elders". No passage speaks of "elders and deacons".

Recognizing this, out Baptist forebears rejected the Presbyterian "plurality of elders" scheme that the new 'Reformed/Baptists' are now adapting:

Andrew Fuller, Works Vol. III, 1824, p. 474
"but for a small church to have more pastors than one is as unnecessary as to have seven deacons. Such a rule must favor idleness, and confine useful ministers from extending their labours. To place two or three in a post which may be filled by one, must leave many other places unoccupied. Such a system is more adapted for show than for promoting the kingdom of Christ. . . . If the term elder must be understood to be not only a term of office, but of the pastoral office exclusively, and a plurality of them be required, why is not a plurality of them supported? The office of elder in those churches which are partial to the system is little more than nominal : for while an elder is employed like other men in the necessary cares of life, he cannot ordinarily fulfil the duties of his office."

John Gill, Body of Practical Divinity Vol. III, 1770, p. 252
"we never read of more churches under one bishop or pastor, though there may have been, where churches were large, more bishops or pastors in one church, Phil. i.1"

William Rider, Laying on of Hands Asserted, 1656, pp. 15-17
I have read of Bishops and Deacons, and of Apostles and Elders, who were Deacons; but never of Elders and Deacons: My reason is, because a Deacon is an Elder in the Church. . . . how confused have they appeared in their setting persons apart for Elders? not knowing, or at least not minding, that in the word Elders is comprehended all officers in the Church, with the Ministerial work also, . . . and so Elders is distinguished into several offices in the Church, as Bishops and Deacons : the Deacons were to be men full of the Holy Spirit and faith;& so indeed fit for the work of the Lord among his people, as well as Bishops, and so were Elders in the Church, see Acts 6.6, vers. and Acts 15.22 vers. where the Deacons spoken of in the 6 Chapter, are called Elders in the 15 Chapter; again, Philip. 1.1 vers. where the Apostle writeth to the Saints, with the Bishops and Deacons: so Paul to Timothy writes of the qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons ; not Elders and Deacons ; you shall never in all the Scripture find Elders and Deacons expressed."

Benjamin Keach, Gospel Mysteries Unveil'd, 1701, p. 217
"Moreover, the Deacons are to be helps in Government. Some think Paul calls the Deacons Elders, when he speaks of Elders that rule well [I Tim. 5:17] (as our Annotators observe)..."

 

[Logos1560]

Scripture itself speaks of "bishop(s)[...] and deacons", or speaks of them collectively as "elders". No passage speaks of "elders and deacons".

The elders of the church (Acts 20:17) are also called the bishops or overseers (Acts 20:28). It is not suggested that some of the elders being addressed were not bishops. In Titus 1, there is reference to ordaining of elders (Titus 1:5) and then is mentioned the qualifications or requirements for a bishop (Titus 1:7-8) with no mention of the qualifications of deacons. Thus, Titus chapter one would indicate that elders and bishops are two names for the same office just as is indicated in Acts 20. In 1 Peter 5, it is also indicated that the elders are the pastors or shepherds who are to feed the flock of God which would suggest that elders are the same as bishops.

There would not have to be a passage that speaks of elders and deacons if elders is another name for those called bishops. There is only one verse that refers to "bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1), and there is no mention of elders in the book of Philippians. What verse clearly refers to both bishops and deacons collectively as elders?

Some may think that bishops and deacons are collectively called elders, but others may think that bishops are called elders or that bishops and elders are two names for the same office or role in a church.

 

[Jerome]

Scripture itself speaks of "bishop(s)[...] and deacons"

There is only one verse that refers to "bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1)

Bishop and deacons are distinguished in I Timothy 3 as well!

 

[Logos1560]

There are three passages (Acts 20, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5) that could soundly be understood to teach that bishops and elders are two names for the same office, and Philippians 1 and 1 Timothy 3 does not state anything that suggests that understanding would be incorrect.

Elders that rule well (1 Timothy 4:17) could be understood to refer to the office of bishop.

 

[Logos1560]

The Greek word translated deacons 3 times in the KJV is also translated minister 14 times, ministers 6 times, and servant 5 times, and servants 3 times. A term can be used with more than just one meaning.
This Greek word is considered to refer to an office in a local church only in some of its uses.

Both bishops and deacons may be called ministers or servants.

Timothy the evangelist is called a minister or servant (1 Timothy 4:6). Some claim that Timothy was a bishop and yet he is also called by the name which is translated deacon in other verses.

Some uses of the Greek word translated elders are considered to refer to older believers [and not to an office in a local congregation], and there is mention of elder women.

 

[Jerome]

Some uses of the Greek word translated elders are considered to refer to older believers

Indeed, a full reading of the I Peter 5 passage suggests elders there may be referring to mature believers, including of course, but not limited to the church pastor/bishop office holders (for which some offer verse 1 as a proof text).

In v. 1 Peter, an Apostle, classes himself with the elder, and in v. 5 clarifies by contrasting those elder with those younger in the faith: "Likewise, ye younger..."

 

[Jerome]

Both bishops and deacons may be called ministers or servants

Yes, this sort of thing was noted in Spurgeon's Sword & Trowel:

"the term elder is applied both to bishops and deacons....distinct officers were recognized by the Church, but they were lovingly blended together. There was no contention about a name as expressive of an authority, which it would have been sacrilege for others to invade."



and our 1689 London Baptist Confession enthusiasts may be interested to know how its signers actually identified themselves back then (just like today, mostly 'Pastor', but also 'Minister' and 'Preacher'):

ARBCA • 1689 Baptist Confession Signatories

"Hansard Knollys, Pastor, Broken Wharf, London
William Kiffin, Pastor, Devonshire-square, London
John Harris, Pastor, Joiner's Hall, London
William Collins, Pastor, Petty France, London
Hurcules Collins, Pastor, Wapping, London
Robert Steed, Pastor, Broken Wharf, London
Leonard Harrison, Pastor, Limehouse, London
George Barret, Pastor, Mile End Green, London
Isaac Lamb, Pastor, Pennington-street, London
Richard Adams, Minister, Shad Thames, Southwark
Benjamin Keach, Pastor, Horse-lie-down, Southwark
Andrew Gifford, Pastor, Bristol, Frvars, Som. & Glouc.
Thomas Vaux, Pastor, Broadmead, Som. & Glouc.
Thomas Winnel, Pastor, Taunton, Som. & Glouc.
James Hitt, Preacher, Dalwood, Dorset
Richard Tidmarsh, Minister, Oxford City, Oxon
William Facey, Pastor, Reading, Berks
Samuel Buttall, Minister, Plymouth, Devon..."

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Bishop and deacons are distinguished in I Timothy 3 as well!

By slightly differing qualifications - only bishops are required to be "apt to teach." Also, the KJV has "bishop" singular and "deacon" plural, though I don't know if that's the case in the original Greek. (And I see the numbers of those leaders as being a matter of individual church liberty.)