<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).
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).