Deacon Requirements

[Deacon]

BibleboyII, you bring up some good points. I’d like to continue discussing this with you. Perhaps I may learn something. Mark, since you started this thread, please cut us off if you find we have strayed to far.
I’ve look at the way my church’s “Board” is run and feel as you do that perhaps we may function as elders, yet I still have questions regarding the role of deacons. I will continue here laying out my line of thought and study, but will eagerly listen to your responses with a wide-open mind.

I guess my first question to you is: Is the role of deacon task oriented or is it a responsibility? 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.

Since we are examining Acts 6:2-4, let me post it.

“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.

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.

 

[zyzex]

First of all, I'd consider any person who qualifies to be a Deacon, according to Acts. 6:1-7, who honestly fills these requirements, whether either person in the marriage is divorced and remarried, or not, is not for us to judge. (I'm sure that the restriction is speaking about polygamy, and not divorce and remarriage.) Leave this situation in the hands of God, and let Him take care of it, -if anything needs to be done, He will.

The next factor that needs to be addressed concerning a Deacon is that the Deacon appointment account of Acts chapter 6, was recorded before the gifts of the Spirit were fully understood -by the apostle Paul, because Paul was still ranting against the Church during the time of the Acts chapter 6 events. After God revealed much to Paul, the gifts as given in Romans 12:3-8, also mentions a gift of service, (note vs 7). It is therefore held that the term and office of Decon is no different than any other gift of the Spirit. It is that church traditions has taken this gift and made "much to do" about it.

 

[Frogman]

Yes, there is a certain degree of "honor" that comes along with being a deacon. That is because they take an active role in serving needy members of the church. The problem with the rest of your response is that as you say, "although not out rightly expressed, is a role of leadership (Phil 1:1, 1Timothy 3:1-13)." "Not out rightly expressed" means that you are adding something to the definition that is not found in the biblical text. The biblical text does not support the idea that a deacon is to have authority over the affairs of the church. They simply were/are servants. A servant has someone in authority above him. A servant does what he is told to do. The use of Phil 1:1 does not lend weight to the position that you are trying to support. It simply says that the church at Philippi had bishops (litterally Overseers ) and deacons (litterally servants) in place.

The authority within the church rests squarely with the bishops (Overseers)/Elders/Pastors (all these words are used interchangeably throughout the N.T. to refer to the same leadership office). Likewise, 1 Tim. 3:1-7 lists requirements for Overseers. These first seven verses do not apply to deacons. The requirements for deacons are given in 1 tim. 3:8-13.

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.

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.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Bible-boy]

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 ]

 

[Deacon]

Excellent post brother, I laughed when I read, In answer to your question I would say... yes. By that I mean that the role of the deacon is service oriented I though, duh, I’m stupid, I never though of that.

I’m agreeing with you, yet I have look at it practically too.
One of the responsibilities I am entrusted with is our church’s parking. If the Acts of the Apostles were written today perhaps it might read; “It is not desirable that our Pastors would neglect the Word of God in order to direct traffic.” I have arranged for a group of men to direct traffic. These men voluntarily submit to my directions. I oversee, I direct, I am in authority over these men. Only rarely do I report to our pastor, (I can’t remember the last time). No I’m not leading the affairs of the church but I’m leading a portion of it (in a way I direct the whole church, well…at least while they are driving).

Looking at the qualifications of a deacon we can see that they are very similar, yet distinct, from that of a Pastor/elder. While the deacon’s role is to serve, the congregation observes these men (and their abilities to perform in their assigned tasks) and hopefully will emulate them. Deacons are by example, leaders in the church. (Matthew 20:26-28) “…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Since it’s Veterans Day tomorrow in the U.S.A., I’ll use a military example. (God Bless all those who have served our country and stood for freedom!) One of the strengths of the American military is its ability to communicate and to think outside the box. Our Deacon Board acts in a similar way. The Pastor(s) are the ones who set the direction; at a deacons meeting we discuss strategy and coordinate our mission. Do we need parking assistants? Do we need busing? Would it be helpful if the greeters were there? How much will it cost/do we have the money? Will it require a clean up?

This paragraph will probably stir the pot up a bit and it is where I have questions regarding the way my church has things set up. (You clarified things quite a bit in your post above). Yeah, occasionally a deacon might have an idea or proposal that changes the direction we go, but it is the pastor who decides the course change. In small things (many of which are outlined in our church constitution) our Deacon Board acts as congregational representatives. After the Pastors and deacons have come to agreement, the proposal is brought to the congregation.

Perhaps it is related to the size and abilities of a congregation and its leadership. Our “sister church is less than a year old and only has a pastor, no “elected” deacons yet. I’ve served under a couple of different pastors and observed many others. Some Pastors are able to handle the tasks involved in micromanaging their congregation. Others are less able or less willing. As a result, there are some Deacon Boards that serve a pastor who directs each aspect of a deacon’s task (e.g. “We’ll need six parking attendants”). There are other congregations who have strong deacon boards, where able men work “almost independently” in their area of service. Properly serving deacons need to have the ability to adjust to these varying management types. Problems can occur when the congregation goes from one type to another, particularly from a strong board to a more managed board.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Lauding the good discussion and spirit here, not a particular "deacon". Blessing to just drop by and read the various views, insights, and doing what the BB was designed to do.

GIVE YOURSELF A HAND!

Unless you are a Deacon - what are you doing wasting time here; get busy!

 

[Frogman]

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.

I agree with the above statement, but how does this align with your earlier statement?

The authority within the church rests squarely with the bishops (Overseers)/Elders/Pastors

If this is true, how can the body/congregation realize any ability to dismiss an immoral or false teacher? Authority cannot 'squarely' rest on one, but be exercised by others. I agree the ministry should be supported by the body, however, I see such an arrangement with authority solely in the pastor to be denying the ability of the church.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

[ November 11, 2002, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

I agree with the above statement, but how does this align with your earlier statement?

The authority within the church rests squarely with the bishops (Overseers)/Elders/Pastors

If this is true, how can the body/congregation realize any ability to dismiss an immoral or false teacher? Authority cannot 'squarely' rest on one, but be exercised by others. I agree the ministry should be supported by the body, however, I see such an arrangement with authority solely in the pastor to be denying the ability of the church.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas</font>[/QUOTE]Hello Frogman (Bro. Dallas),

When I am talking about "authority" I'm talking about leading the church body, directing the affairs of the church, and teaching/preaching the Word. Those are the jobs of the Overseers/Elders/Pastors of the church. These do not fall within the relm of being a deacon.

The chruch is congregation ruled by the fact that the congregation selects its Overseers/Elders/Pastors and maintains its ability to dismiss these leaders if proven to be immoral or teaching false doctrine.

An Elder may be dismissed through the process of discipline of Elders as outlined in 1 Tim. 5:19-21; and Matt. 18:15-17). As such any two members of the congregation with reason to believe that an Elder should be dismissed express their concerns to the other Elders and, if needed, to the congregation. The dismissal of an Elder can then be handled by a secret ballot at a church business meeting, with prpoer advance notice. At my church an Elder may be dismissed by two-thirds of those voting at a church business meeting.

Granted it is easy to simply throw these ideas around out here in cyber-space. It is all together something else to have them worked out in practice in the church. It requires a detailed church Constitution and By-laws that fully explains how all these matters work together.

[ November 11, 2002, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Deacon:
I’m agreeing with you, yet I have look at it practically too.
One of the responsibilities I am entrusted with is our church’s parking. If the Acts of the Apostles were written today perhaps it might read; “It is not desirable that our Pastors would neglect the Word of God in order to direct traffic.” I have arranged for a group of men to direct traffic. These men voluntarily submit to my directions. I oversee, I direct, I am in authority over these men. Only rarely do I report to our pastor, (I can’t remember the last time). No I’m not leading the affairs of the church but I’m leading a portion of it (in a way I direct the whole church, well…at least while they are driving).

Hello Deacon,
That is funny (you do direct the entire church)! Like you said you have a group of men who help you to complete the task that you have been assigned. You give instructions to these men and even the congregation as a whole (while driving/parking). That is the "authority" that I was saying that a deacon has with respect to completing his ministry of service to the best of his ability. The point that I am trying to make in our discussion is that the "Deacon Board" should not have authority to tell the pastor what the church will or will not do, what he can and cannot preach, to determine the church budget, nor to direct the general affairs of the church (traffic excluded ).

Looking at the qualifications of a deacon we can see that they are very similar, yet distinct, from that of a Pastor/elder. While the deacon’s role is to serve, the congregation observes these men (and their abilities to perform in their assigned tasks) and hopefully will emulate them. Deacons are by example, leaders in the church. (Matthew 20:26-28) “…whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Yes, you as a deacon, and all of us as Christians are called to be servant-leaders (this especially applies to the men in the congregation). However, just because we are servant-leaders does not mean that we are given authority to direct the affairs of the church. The oevrseers/elders/pastors are tasked with that and hold that authority. It is simply up to the rest of us (including the deacons) to follow their loving leadership.

Since it’s Veterans Day tomorrow in the U.S.A., I’ll use a military example. (God Bless all those who have served our country and stood for freedom!) One of the strengths of the American military is its ability to communicate and to think outside the box. Our Deacon Board acts in a similar way. The Pastor(s) are the ones who set the direction; at a deacons meeting we discuss strategy and coordinate our mission. Do we need parking assistants? Do we need busing? Would it be helpful if the greeters were there? How much will it cost/do we have the money? Will it require a clean up?

This paragraph will probably stir the pot up a bit and it is where I have questions regarding the way my church has things set up. (You clarified things quite a bit in your post above). Yeah, occasionally a deacon might have an idea or proposal that changes the direction we go, but it is the pastor who decides the course change. In small things (many of which are outlined in our church constitution) our Deacon Board acts as congregational representatives. After the Pastors and deacons have come to agreement, the proposal is brought to the congregation.

It sounds as if you have a good system of church governmant that works well. However, because your Deacon Board and the Pastor jointly determine and agree on issues before they are brought to the congregation for approval, you could not have a woman serving as a deaconess. If so, she as part of the Deacon Board, would be exercising authority over the men in the congregation. That is why I said that deacons should not be in a position with that type of authority. If the deacons did not exercise that kind of authority within the church then you could have a deaconess whose ministry of service would focus on the widows and single moms and children in the congregation. A deaconess is a biblical term see Rom. 16:1 where Pheobe is called a deaconess (in Greek).

Perhaps it is related to the size and abilities of a congregation and its leadership. Our “sister church is less than a year old and only has a pastor, no “elected” deacons yet.

That is very common in almost all of the average sized Baptist churches across the U.S (50 to 150 church members). However, it is that Pastor's responsibility to identify a handful of spiritually minded men in the congregation and begin to groom them for service as deacons and even as overseers/elders/pastors. He, like Christ with the twelve, has to pour his life into the lives of a few men in order to reach the entire world.

I’ve served under a couple of different pastors and observed many others. Some Pastors are able to handle the tasks involved in micromanaging their congregation. Others are less able or less willing. As a result, there are some Deacon Boards that serve a pastor who directs each aspect of a deacon’s task (e.g. “We’ll need six parking attendants”). There are other congregations who have strong deacon boards, where able men work “almost independently” in their area of service. Properly serving deacons need to have the ability to adjust to these varying management types. Problems can occur when the congregation goes from one type to another, particularly from a strong board to a more managed board.

The type of church government that I am espousing does not mean that the pastor has to "micromanage" every detail of the church business. He can and should deligate his authority to other spiritually minded leaders within the church. A man who serves as the individual Senior Pastor of a church should identify at least two spiritually minded mature Christian men and groom them to join him in serving as Elders for the church body. Of course the congregation would have to approve of these men being placed into the postion of elder. Likewise, that pastor should be on the lookout for spiritually minded men with the gift of service to become deacons.

Yours in Christ

[ November 11, 2002, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Frogman]

Thanks BibleBoyII for your reply, that explains things better. I would not agree with a 'secret ballot' only because I believe if concern warrants the discussion of dismissal of a pastor, and evidence is proven correct, then the matter should be openly discussed and the vote should be openly displayed. This is how things would be done in the local church where I belong. I agree with the majority vote being needful.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[hrhema]

If you study the beliefs of the translators of the KJV you will understand that considered all sexual immorality as "Fornication." Many people were put to death for fornication who were committing Adultery, and even Homosexuality.

Jesus said the person who divorces except for sexual immorality on his or her partners part commits sexual immorality themselves. So many people want to sit and judge others when they have no right to.

God is not going to punish the guiltless and say You have to stay married to the person who is unfaithful to you and you cannot remarry because they sinned against you. You have to stay single as punishment for their sin against you.

I believe when we worry so much about what people think and believe when they are totally wrong we one day will have to face God. It is God who does the calling not men and it is time for people to quit sitting as God. God is not going to say you cannot do a work for me because your spouse cheated on you over and over again.
God does not punish the guiltless and Christians need to quit punishing them.

 

[Frogman]

If you study the beliefs of the translators of the KJV you will understand that considered all sexual immorality as "Fornication." Many people were put to death for fornication who were committing Adultery, and even Homosexuality.

First of all, fornication is not equal to adultery, the former being the commission of 'immoral' sexual acts outside of marriage, the latter being married while there is a living ex-spouse.

The failure is that many marriages are based upon 'passion' rather than a real love, then this is discovered after the marriage is entered and often you hear people say; 'we grew apart' or we fell out of love, or I don't love you the way I used to. These kinds of statements are then permitted to be 'justifiers' of entering into other relationships whereby this 'love' supposedly is found and renewed, when in truth more often than not the second is also from feelings of passion.

There is no way to reconcile adultery, when you recall Jesus equated to it, the act of thinking upon a woman in one's heart, then you realize it is something more than just falling out of love and then back into love with someone new, but a sign of the condition of the heart. The person is backslidden.

Too often, our society mirrors this as well, witness the recent situation enjoyed by my own state's governor, these 'extra-marital affairs' are viewed as something unseemly, but not as the sin they are.

We need a return to the teaching of Scripture, I am not advocating a return to 'stoning' we are under Grace, yet, still we need to teach all who hear us, Christian and Lost alike, Sin bears a certain consequence. This is not playing God, but following the order God has established in Scripture. IMHO it is closer to play God to say that these things are able to be overlooked, yet, as I said that is just my humble opinion.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[mark]

Deacon, I have no problem with straying (from the topic..lol).. I think this is a very healthy discussion... but when is our concensus here?

[ November 14, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: mark ]

 

[Johnv]

In a feeble attempt to reel this in....

If the "husband of one wife" means a divorced and remarried man can't be a deacon, what of a widower who's remarried? The marriage did not end in adultery, yet the man is married again.

From what I read, the phrase refers to monogamous married man vs polygamous married men (of which there were a few in the roman empire of the time).

 

[Deacon]

This thread has helped me understand more about the role of a deacon but my position is still a work in progress.

I’d like to hear more from BBII regarding his position on divorce and remarriage, his reasoning and arguments have been very thought provoking and well presented, I’m willing to wait until his finals are over though.

I have to admit I've failed to thoroughly study the issue of divorce as it relates to a deacon, thinking that the teaching was clear. Apparently it isn’t so clear. I’m beginning to see some other sides that make sense.

Anyway I would guess that BBII would agree with me when I say, “I’ll let my pastor take the lead in any changes that are needed regarding the tasks and services of our deacons”.

[ November 14, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello Deacon,

I'll post some more follow up material on the divorce issue following my graduation on December 14, 2002. That will give me time to focus on final exams and papers. Plus I have to complete a mountain of paperwork for the graduation process. Then I have to find the time somewhere to complete the application to enroll in the Master of Arts in Intercultural Studies (a Missions degree) here at Southeastern (one degree almost down and one maybe two to go). Likewise, I have to have time for personal Bible study and prayer, to serve/lead my wife and kids, and serve in my church. Boy am I busy!

 

[Frogman]

what of a widower who's remarried?

However, the man would not have a former living wife.

Bro. Dallas