Baptist churches and deacons

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonathan:
What is the practice of your church regarding deacon selection, ordination, and service and what is your biblical basis?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They are selected according to need on the basis of the qualifications of I Tim. 3:8-13, with consideration also of Acts 6 and Phil. 1:1. They are ordained by the consent of the church and with the laying on of hands of a presbytery (cf. Acts 6:6). They serve in material matters (at the direction of the church) that the elders may be free to concentrate on the ministry of the word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In every church (all Baptist) where I have served, Acts 6 figures very prominently in both the training literature and ritual of ordination. Doesn't Acts 6 refer to any and all lay positions of service rather than the single translated "office of deacon"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, in my opinion it does not. These men were singled out and set apart in a special service of the church. The church knows of no other ordained office besides the deacon, and this seems to be confirmed by I Tim. 3 & Phil. 1:1. The name deacon is not mentioned in Acts 6 but the verb is, though this may be only a "light" connection. I found it interesting that Tom used the term "prototype" of the office of a deacon concerning Acts 6. The old Pendleton church manual (as written by Pendleton) uses the term "deacon" in reference to Acts 6, but the new manual as printed by Broadman changed it to "prototype of".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doesn't Acts 6 also refer to a specific area of service needed (administration to the widows and orphans) infering a limited and fixed (both in time and area of responsibility) area of service? If so, how do we justify a standing board of deacons in our churches?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If we limited the service to just that, there would still be a need in most churches. I think taking the New Testament as a whole justifies the continued use of the office of deacon. I do not believe it authorizes the "standing board of deacons" as practiced by many Baptist churches today.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Concerning the service that deacons provide to your church (not including the board of directors function that has no biblical basis), could and should these functions be better performed by adult Sunday school classes or other similarly defined small groups within your church?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No. The deacon is a scriptural office and something else should not be substituted in its place. We should strive to remove all the unscriptural ideas that have arisen concerning the office - from the deacons running the church on one end of the spectrum to having no deacons so one individual can run the church on the other end of the spectrum. But the office itself is a good one, and, scripturally filled and worked, is a great blessing to a church (and its pastor).

 

Pastor Larry,

Thanks for further explanation and for the sense of humor. If Thomas reads that line about me not being saved because of having Tue night meetings, he would have to agree that you do have a funny bone. I almost thought you got a brain transplant from EB when I read it.

I did briefly mention why we have no official deacons but I can try to do it again with perhaps more detail. I am a missionary working with a group of around 12 people that God has saved. Evangelism in the place I am is slow and hard going because the people are VERY religious, similar to the Jews in Christ’s day. Presently I am acting as the pastor of this group of called out ones. We meet in a home and are about as simple as those groups described in Acts, early church history, and even our early Baptist history. While I’m not knocking those who have all the bells and whistles added along with your faith and practice, I have yet to see how the Western version of “church” must apply to every local group of believers.

Seriously, we have no shut-ins or sick within the group that require a special choosing of deacons. We all take an active part in helping each other. Even when we do eat together, not that that is a test of a church, we don’t need much set up for sitting on the floor and clean up is a cinch by letting the dogs clean up the mess. Now we are real heretics for substituting dogs for deacons in this area (My turn to have fun). : ) When a baby cries any of the women will serve the child and the mother of the child, without some special appointment of deacon for this job. Some how I see these few examples I listed as more in line with believers loving and looking after each other than the idea that a few men take care of a need, while the rest of the group sits on their spiritual or physical backside, thinking “that’s what we have deacons for” (Gal. 5:13-15).

While it is true that several thousand people added unto the church would bring joy and problems at the same time (such as in Acts) that does not mean that deacons have to be appointed if there is not such overwhelming problem. The church was a church after Pentecost before seven men were chosen to serve widows (Acts 2:41-47). Frankly I’m glad that our church (group of believers) has not had the complaining, jealousy, and infighting amongst our group, that led to men having to be picked to deal with it. While I’m realistic to know we will face those things as the church grows, I’m not anxiously awaiting similar fleshly attitudes that led to the need of special servants in the Jerusalem church.

While I agree that special servants had hands laid on them in Acts 6 for a special purpose, I can’t find anywhere that deacons “must be in place” to make a church a real church or doing right. I’m supportive of the position of deacon in a NT church but have yet been convinced that this position is a must in order to be a NT church.


BB How come the word "s****s" got beeped out the first time I posted, "clean up the s****s?"

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: PackerBacker ]

BB Hey now, it happened again. Now everyone is wondering what nasty word I must have used. the word was. S. C. R. A. P. S.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: PackerBacker ]

 

PackerBacker, your post brings this thought to me - a church does not necessarily need deacons to exist as a church. In fact, a church can exist without an elder or elders (pastors). But if a church is large enough to need deacons, and has men scripturally qualified to serve in the office, I think it is out of order to refuse to recognize the office. I know of a situation of a church that has had no settled pastor (just fill-ins) for a period of at least five years. I don't think they have ceased to be a scriptural church, but I do think they are seriously out of order. When a church is able and refuses in these and other scriptural obligations, I believe something is amiss.

 

By the way, to put the above statements in context, you might like to know that I believe if a church has more than one qualified elder in her membership, she is also out of order to leave him sitting on the sidelines while one preacher does all the work.

 

Packer,
So there are no needy among your church or your community that the deacons could minister to? I find that hard to believe. I hear what you are saying, but I just find it hard to believe that there are no temporal, physical needs that your church could be ministering to, thus utilizing deacons.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Packer,
I hear what you are saying, but I just find it hard to believe that there are no temporal, physical needs that your church could be ministering to, thus utilizing deacons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom,

I never said there are no needs. I’ve tried to make the point that we have no current needs that our church is not able to minister to. Believe it or not, there are not any needy among our church that we as a small group cannot meet the needs of. It seems silly to have a meeting, take a vote, and appoint someone to do something they are already doing (looking out for each other). “Ok so-and so, we have chosen you to be a servant to this body of believers. Be on the look out for the needs of your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.” His reply, “Ok, but I’m already doing that along with the rest of the group.” If we, as a small group, are all being servants to each other, I fail to see the justification in utilizing “specific servants.”

I get the feeling that you guys are addressing this issue based on your own current ministries in the USA and not on the situation I described. Ok it probably sounds too good to be true, what I have described, but it’s true. Actually, as I do look forward to the Lord continuing to add unto His church, I’m not looking forward to the problems that will surely arise which will involve the choosing of special deacons.

 

Some of you seemed shocked that we as a small church do not need the special appointment of deacons. It’s seems a bit foreign to some that a church could function properly in such a simplistic manner where it meets the needs of each other without official deacon positions. Ok let me give another example other than our situation.

Acts 2:44-47
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

I’m having a problem seeing why our church of baptized believers is out of order unless we are to say that the church from Acts 2-5 was out of order also. They were meeting the needs of each other, possessions were being sold, etc without any deacons. What was it that caused them to need deacons in the first place?

Acts 6:1
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

It was disorder that caused a need for these first appointed table servers. They seemed to be getting along just fine and orderly, as a huge church until the complaint of neglect caused problems. When a situation arose where the group and leadership could not handle it, they appointed people to meet that need. I’m 100% for this. What puzzles me though is how our small church situation seems to be following a pattern of the early church before overwhelming problems hit, and yet we are somehow out of order or missing something.

 

Anyone know where the whole thread on women as deacons went?