Originally posted by Deacon:
I guess my first question to you is: Is the role of deacon task oriented or is it a responsibility?
In answer to your question I would say,... yes.

By that I mean that the role of the deacon is service oriented (read that task oriented) with a responsibility to carry out the tasks that he has been given by the Overseers (Elders/Pastors) of the church to the best of his ability. Does he (the deacon) have some implied "authority" over the people that he serves? I don't think so. His being chosen to carry out acts of service (meeting physical needs etc.) within the church body does not place him in a position of authority to determine the general direction and affairs of the local church itself.
I will try to give you an analogy of what I am trying to express. However, bear in mind that I understand that generally analogies tend to break down at some point. Anyway, here goes:
Let’s say that I choose a certain qualified auto mechanic to service my car. He accepts the job. He then assesses the job and reports back to me with an estimate of the expected expense of the necessary repairs. I authorize him to make certain repairs but not others. His responsibility is to complete the work that I have authorized him to undertake. Then I have to pay for the work that he has completed. However, by my choosing him to service my car I have not made him responsible to pay for my car loan, to choose the insurance provider, nor given him authority to determine when, where, or even how I will drive the car. Does he have some measure of latitude in determining how best to service my car? Yes, but he must do so within the confines of the work that I have authorized.
Likewise, qualified deacons are chosen to serve the members of a local church body. They assess the needs of the congregation. They do their best to meet those needs within the confines of the ministry that the local church Overseers (Elders/Pastors) have authorized for them. However, the deacons are not given authority to “rule” over the affairs of the local church.
Frogman states:
1) Christ is the only head of the church. Deacons are servants, in this capacity they do the determined service as delegated to them from the church. All this, ideally is to be in line with the Scripture, which would thus make the only authority figure Christ.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
Frogman also states:
2) Pastors do not hold an authority position in the church either. Not in a position as to be lording it over the others. All decisions are to be made through the body, the congregation. These two offices are allowed to provide a direction (as long as they are scriptural), but they have not the autocratic ability to alone, or as a board to determine the course of the body.
I disagree slightly. He is correct in that Christ is the head of the Church. However, 1 Pet. 5:1-6 states, “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the suffering of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive a crown of glory that does not fade away. Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for ‘God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.’ Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:1-6, NKJV).
In this passage we see that Christ is the Chief Shepherd and that the elders (pastors) of the local church are the under-shepherds who serve as its overseers. Furthermore, according to this passage the congregation of the local church is to submit to the loving leadership of the overseers/elders/pastors. Frogman is correct in that the local congregation is to appoint/select its overseers/elders/pastors (all referring to the same office). However, I believe that this passage teaches that we (the congregation) are then to willingly submit to and follow the loving leadership of our chosen overseers/elders/pastors. As long as these leaders are not immoral or teaching false doctrine we should make their ministry a joy by willingly following their leadership. However, the local church congregation must always have the ability to dismiss any overseer/elder/pastor that is proven to be either immoral or teaching false doctrine.
Now, to return to Deacon’s statements and questions:
Once it becomes a responsibility, there is some authority assigned. Even in Acts 6, the position was not, “just to serve tables”, but as you said, (and I agree with you,) “The first deacons served the church by serving food equally between the Hebrew and Gentile widows.” Responsibility requires oversight. If I have control or responsibility over a group of people, I’m overseeing them, and I have an assigned authority over them.
I don’t see a deacon as “
having control or responsibility over a group of people.” His “control” is over the area of the ministry of service that he provides. Meaning he determines how best to accomplish the task that has been assigned to him. His responsibility is to carry out the ministry of service that the overseers/elders/pastors have assigned to him. Like I said above I don’t see the Bible giving the deacon (servant) authority to direct the affairs of the local church. There is no passage of Scripture, like 1 Peter 5:1-6, that directs the congregation to submit to the authority of the deacons.
Since we are examining Acts 6:2-4, let me post it. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />“It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” (KJV)
Other translations read the first part as, "It would not be right,” or “not be pleasing”. What was the rationale for having the deacons serve? The driving force was reason. They perceived a problem. They were being drawn away from their primary purpose or role. The church wanted their leaders to minister the Word of God. The text states, “it is not reason" that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” Deacon Boards receive their authority from their Pastor/overseer who finds that tasks that remove him from ministering the Word are not pleasing and are unreasonable, and deacons receive their support from the church body, that agree.</font>[/QUOTE]The NKJV translates Acts 6:2 as, “…not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.” You are correct in that the Apostles recognized a need and a problem within the church. They directed the church body to select from among themselves men to act as servants for the needy members of the congregation. As I have attempted to explain above, the deacon’s “authority” that is derived from the overseers/elders/pastors is to accomplish some set of specific tasks in order to minister to the local church body. However, by selecting these men to act as servants they were not given a blanket authority to administrate the affairs of the entire local church. The “authority” of the deacon is to determine and act in the best way to accomplish the ministry of service that has been set before him.
Likewise, 1 Timothy 5:17 states, “Let the
elders who
rule well be counted worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17, NKJV). This verse teaches us two things: 1) elders rule in the affairs of the church; 2) some elders labor in the word and doctrine (NIV says “preaching and teaching”), and other elders apparently do not labor in the word and doctrine. So what do these other elders, who do not labor in the word and doctrine, do? I would argue that they administrate the affairs of the local church. They oversee its ministries, they are responsible for the church finances, they provide the oversight and authority for the ministry of the deacons, they conduct the day to day business of the local church, they organize the work of missions and evangelism, etc., etc., etc. Thus, the combined efforts of these other overseers/elders/pastors, and the recognized deacons, and other servants of the local church all work together to free up the Senior Pastor/Teacher to labor in the word and doctrine.
Regarding divorce and the wives of deacons, the idea is again, not out rightly expressed but implied. “Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect,” (1Timothy3:8). Matthew 5:32 says: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. A hedge of protection, yes but with thought and purpose.
I fully understand the desire to keep the office sacred and ensure the holiness of those who serve as deacons. However, consider this: by adding these extra-biblical requirements for the wives of proposed deacons you may well be blocking a man, who God wishes to use, from service in Christ’s local body of believers. I understand your argument from 1 Tim. 3:8 and Matt. 5:32. However, Christ gives an exception to this in Matt. 19:1-12 and also 1 Cor. 7:15 speaks about the freedom for a believer to remarry if disserted by an unbelieving spouse. This is a huge debate and I really do not have time to address it right now (I’m approaching final exams, papers due etc.). I have a logical biblical argument for my position here. Nevertheless, this specific issue simply demonstrates the need for our churches to be actively involved in conducting church discipline and restoring our brothers and sisters in Christ to repentance and actively becoming involved in families where divorce may be about to occur. It is a difficult and painful business, but the church must stop turning a blind eye to the problem because the divorce rate in America is as high inside the church as it is outside. We are losing fully 50% of those that God may well have desired to use in the ministry of the local church. We have got to get involved and head off divorce through the process outlined in Matt. 18.
[ November 10, 2002, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]