Deacons and Deaconesses: Who are they? What do they do? (Part Two)

Last time we began a cursory study of deacons. We looked at noun forms of the Greek term and uses of the verb form: to serve or minister. Today I'd like to pick up on the two key passages which probably cause more people to stress out or exegetical back-flips than any other (at least on this topic). Those passages again are Romans 16 and 1 Timothy 3. 

Before tackling those two passages two ideas need to be recalled.  These two points serve as a reminder before we continue with this topic. First. deacons/servants are not leaders in the local church. This position of leadership is reserved for pastor/elders (there is simply no NT evidence to support otherwise). Second, local independent Baptist churches, at least ones without a plurality of lay or staff elders, have a tendency to create a rotating deacon board (which tends to be given a source of authority). Its almost as though a plurality of leaders is felt to be essential, but I would suggest history puts that leadership with elders, not with deacons. But in the end these deacons can be rotated out and do not stand on the same authority as their selected senior pastor or preaching elder. But to fair even churches with a plurality of elders in leadership tend to have deacon (s) in some capacity. So with that placed forward lets tackle the two main texts.

First, Romans 16:1-2, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant (διάκονος) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help here in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well" (ESV). Let's extract some pertinent details. First, Phoebe is without a doubt a woman. She is described with feminine terms throughout: sister, feminine pronouns (twice), and of course here name is clearly feminine. Second, she is a deacon 
(διάκονος) from another church, not from Rome, yet she is to be received with this identification. Third, she has been helpful to Paul and to many other Christians as well. Perhaps she took flowers to a shut in or helped a young lady change for their baptismal service.  

What are our concerns? First, for those who have deacons in positions of leadership, even the thought of Phoebe holding a church office causes recoil in their conservative sentiments. Second, this misunderstanding of the role or function of deacons has caused unnecessary stress. Our family has attended multiple independent Baptist churches over the years, and yes some have even had a form of deaconness. Some I think fear this idea from giving this office false authority or overly male qualifications, and I'm guessing even setting a bad precedent for potential women elders or pastors. Some simply refer to her as a helper or servant in the local church without an official local church office (Ryrie Study Bible Notes, p. 1813). MacArthur comments, "Whether Phoebe had an official title or not, she had the great responsibility of delivering this letter to the Roman church" (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1723). The ESV Study Bible considers both as legitimate options (p. 2184). We'll wrestle with the applications at the end.

So from here we turn to the other major passage, 1 Timothy 3:11, "Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things" (ESV). Our main concern is simple: are these women the wives of male deacons or are these actual female deaconnesses? Consider if these are simply deacon wives, then why is there no mention of elder wives? On the other hand, deacons (at least if men only) are to be "the husband of one wife." I think if would at least be fair to say, if this a female deacon (deaconness), her husband is still the head of their home (1 Cor 11, Eph 5). In comparing English translations, every significant translations uses the gloss "their wives" (ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, and ESV). The only one that takes the alternative option is the NASB, "women." The NASB adds a marginal note, "either deacons' wives or deaconnesses" Just to stir up the pot a little, the TNIV, shifting away from the original NIV 1984, also uses the term "women" including a similar footnote in the margin. Quite interesting, the one English translation believed to be the most literal is the only one taking the opposite position.

Study Bible notes on this particular passage are various.  Again let's consider some well known Study Bible comments.  MacArthur comments "Paul likely here refers not to deacons' wives, but to the women who serve as deacons" (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1835). Ray Van Este, who provided the study notes for the pastoral epistles provides three options for 1 Tim 3:11, provides three options: wives of deacons, women deacons, or women who assist deacons (p. 2330). He closes his section hypothetically if deacons are involved in "church-wide teaching" then "1 Tim 2:11-15 would not permit women to carry out these functions" (ESV Study Bible, p. 2330).  Ryrie states concerning 3:11, "Most likely a reference to the wives of deacons, rather than to a separate office of deaconess." (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1921). Lastly, Gerald Bilkes, NT Study Bible editor writes, "The apostle here supplies requirements for the wives of deacons. Women are not office bearers..." (Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1756). 

So based on translations, comments and even leading Study bibles, what are we to conclude on this issue? First, are deacons men? Obviously yes, men are deacons, "the husband of one wife." Second, do we have an example of this same Greek term applied to a woman? Yes, her name was Phoebe. Third, the vast majority of conservative translations chose the gloss, "their wives" as the best contextual understanding. The NASB and TNIV being the dissenters. 

So can women be deacons in your local church? If you want to proceed down this route or way of thinking I would advise several alternatives as a priority. First, reteach or perhaps for the first time teach you people or read about the biblical roles for elders and deacons. Second, put the priority into establishing and training men of godly character to serve as lay elders in your church. By definition these are ordained men, no less important or authoritative than a bivocational pastor, of which don't rotate off the board and help lead the church as a group of men. Leadership is invested in them and the congregation. Third, if your truly want or need women deacons, then clearly establish these are not leaders in the local church but servants of the church. Even a basic understand of servant-hood extends to every member in a church. Overall advice here is simple: don't worry about ecclesiastical titles in your church and whether you qualify for them and instead start serving people. 

Read. Enjoy. Comment as appropriate.

What does Acts 6 offer for local church elders, deacons, and pulpit committees?

What does Acts 6 offer for local church elders, deacons, and pulpit committees?

So what's Acts 6 got to do with elders, deacons or even pulpit committees? Well we need to consider the text itself, its context, and ramifications for the church today in 2018.  After we understand what the text says we will then begin to struggle with the applications for today (we can't skip this step).  By what standard do we determine what was then and what continues on till now?  Where are the commands for today or perhaps principles we can use to guide our steps today? Do we say pulpit committees aren't forbidden therefore we can have them? I assume this would include the fact that any age, gender, or level of maturity can't be held against someone.

These may sound like simple questions but they have massive implications for the church today.  By what standard do we determine what proof-texting is allowed in churches today? By way of reminder, when we talk in terms like "descriptive" what we mean is the biblical text is simply describing what events were happening in the first century (or earlier).  Question: is this NT first century pattern binding on the church today?  That's a big issue. When we use the term "prescriptive" what we are saying is that the NT writer, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is telling us exactly what we are to be doing today.  Do this because doing this is being obedient .  This is what right looks like.  This verse over here is what wrong looks like, don't do this thing or have this motive or desire.  Get the point.

Back to our discussion. Typically, those who are against a plurality of elders view the passages in Acts as merely descriptive (that is the ones mentioning more than one elder).  They are not for the church today.  Or as some writers have stated, these references are only "permission" they are not really "prescriptive" for directing local churches today. Consider the consistent ramifications for these principles: believer's baptism by immersion, speaking in tongues, plurality of lay elders, Lord's day practices, and missions.  The list could go on and on, the point is when do we determine it was only a "transitional" period in Acts or whether its only describing what happened then but not for today?  Is it possible for us today to selectively pick proof texts of our own convenience?  I can be just as guilty about this as anyone else.  But I want to be consistent and not hypocritical in my understanding of this concept. What value do Paul's epistles and other general epistles help in this area? Do the epistles confirm or clarify any ambiguities in the book of Acts for either elders, deacons, or congregational decision making?  This is a tremendously important issue.

So what's going on in Acts 6? Let's apply this discussion from the previous paragraphs to our issue of pulpit committees. The first six verses are key for this conversation. Summary of the content is as follows: (1) some individuals (widows) are overlooked in receiving some form of beneficence ministry (2) the twelve apostles tell the disciples to pick (imperative verb) some people to address this issue; (3) the disciples pick seven men; and (4) the twelve apostles lay hands on these seven men selected by the disciples. I'm going to hold off on technicalities for a later series on servant/deacons but the following comments should provide a significant degree of spiritual food for thought:

First, those who made the initial decision to address the issue were the twelve apostles.  A complaint (grumble, murmur) was brought to their attention. These twelve apostles are no longer with us today. In fact Acts 1 explicitly limited those who qualify for this specific office to a very small select group of individuals. So to be honest we need to acknowledge we are changing the terms from "the twelve" to local church pastor/elders. If your comfortable making this change to make it applicable for today I'm sort of curious what else your willing to change to make it applicable? Gender? Moral qualifications? Or for our topic at hand, pulpit committees are not made up of apostles today.

Second, the focus of discussion, as far as I can tell is a reference to famine relief or a beneficence type of service, meaning food provision or service. The text suggests this ministry is to be understood in this manner. It occurs "daily" (v. 1) and involves "tables" (v. 2). I gather this combined idea produces this form of food provision hence the translation "to serve tables" (NASB, ESV, and KJV). Three primary conservative translation all agree here. So again, the context is not the selection of pastor/elders but men to distribute food. Does one imply the other is possible?

Third, not to be picky, but the apostles told the disciples to pick seven men (masculine). This is a simple positive command (do something) as opposed to a prohibition. The disciples complied and selected seven men. So I am left to assume that they understood and obeyed the command to pick only seven men for this service (not six or eight). They also only chose men, significant, cultural, descriptive only? Some are very clear, these seven men are not local church deacons (See MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1644).

Fourth, the command/imperative "select" (NASB) and "pick out" (ESV) both are in plural form given to the "congregation of disciples" (v. 2) which appears to be agreed up by the same group "the whole congregation" (v. 5). Either this is the same group twice mentioned or perhaps a smaller group finding approval by a larger group. Both groups have the same underlying Greek term meaning "multitude."  I'm not sure there's much help here. So if we are to be consistent today with at least some of the details, the apostles are giving instructions to the believers to carry out a task. So even this selection of servants initiates with the elders/apostles. So we have congregational involvement. So how do the contextual details carry over for today? Does the congregation act when a plurality of leaders makes exhortations? Do congregations tell the plurality of elders what to do? Just food for thought. Is blind obedience required even when unbiblical decisions are made?

Fifth, the subject and verbs still point to the idea of an ordination by plural elders/apostles. Consider the simple clauses of verse six, "these they brought before the apostles." I think its safe to assume the "these" are the seven men selected by the congregation. The verb "they brought" refers to the congregation who are bringing the seven selected men. Lastly, who are they bringing these seven men to? The apostles. On to the next clause of this verse, "and after praying, they laid their hands on them." Who prayed? Who laid hands on them? First, I would suggest this is the apostles praying for the seven chosen men. Second, it is these same apostles who will lay hands on them. I think this pattern best matches what we have seen in Acts 13, 14, James 5, and 1 Timothy 4. The apostles/elders (the leadership) are laying hands on the selected candidates. There is nothing to prohibit the congregation or any member from praying but what does the context point to here.

So when it comes to decision making in a local church, what model is typically followed and on what actual reasoning were those proof texts chosen. I would suggest the following points are verifiable in a typical local baptist congregation (at least one without lay elders) based on our opening paragraph discussion or descriptive/prescriptive passages. I'm not saying I agree with the following I am simply stating why I think the typical baptist church believes this text trumps all the others in area of means or decision making methods.

First, this passage is most likely prescriptive and not descriptive. That means it is the local church congregation making the decisions and the selection of candidates not the elders in a local church. So what hermeneutical principle produces this product?  Congregational polity. Put simply: passages that teach a congregational polity with one pastor are prescriptive and all passages to the contrary must be descriptive. All passages focused on church discipline and doctrinal matters (Matt 18, 1 Cor 5, 2 Thess 3, Gal 1) also are implied to mean congregations make the decisions in a local church--for which in those texts I agree that the congregation has a responsibility to church discipline a sinning brother, or to keep a pastor or church doctrinally accountable.

Second, all the other passages referencing to a plurality of lay elders in local church congregations are merely descriptive  (including Luke, Paul, Peter, and James). Again, all those passages were merely saying what was going on in the first century or only those particular churches had elders or were given "permission" to have more than one elder. Again back to the hermeneutics, what principles are being used to determine what patterns are kept and which ones are discarded?

So in conclusion I've tried to avoid the specific deacon/servant focus of this passage. Or even its place as a perennial first deacon/servant selection by believers. All I can ask is does this understanding of the passage by typical baptist churches match the text? I want our practices to be biblical and meeting God's approval.  So how are we doing? Again, the congregation has tremendous decision making abilities and responsibilities, however I just don't see it in these texts in the selection of pastor/elders.

But if the Bible says nothing of pulpit committees where did it come from historically in local churches? That's a question you're gonna have to wrestle with (I recommend you start looking in the 1940s--but you have to do your own homework).

Read. Comment. Enjoy.