Deacons and Deaconesses: Do Local Churches have Biblical precedent for both or either?

Deacons and Deaconesses: Do Independent Baptist Churches have Biblical precedent for both? (Part One)

Most denominations I'm aware of have at least (at a minimum) one pastor/elder and if large enough one deacon. Some have one pastor and multiple deacons and some also multiple elders and with multiple deacons. We've discussed elders and congregations already but who are these deacons?  Men or women? Servants? What are the requirements or expectations?  Do they teach or have authority? Are they a rotating board? I would guess by what I can read and have experienced for over twenty five years in independent baptist churches that how you define the "purpose" or "function" of a deacon defines more who qualifies for this position than what the Bible actually says.  So on that note what does the Bible actually say? On another note, where have we made up as roles the Bible never gave or potentially never intended by God? 

To evaluate the scriptural data available there are two potential options?  (To be fair, we could even ignore what the Bible says and make it up--don't laugh we do this more than you think). First, we'll examine the references to deacons as a noun.  Then secondly, to examine the references to serving or acting as a deacon in verb form. We are left to appeal to the only forms where this church activity even exists. From there it just gets more complicated dealing with two divisive or contested verses: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. So let's begin.

The noun διάκονος appears 29 times in the NT and six times in the LXX. In the KJV it appears as three terms: minister, servant, and deacon (3x). At face value the terms minister and servant help us understand what role we're talking of in the local church.  The three references to the term deacon are simply transliterations and don't help us much. By way of reminder, a transliteration is copies the underlying letters of another language into the letter of the receptor language.  For example, consider the term ἄγγελος. A transliteration would be the term angel. You can almost without knowledge of Greek see with your own eyes the letters A-N-G-E-L.  If I wanted to translate the term I would use another English word such as messenger.  So simply seeing the English word deacon doesn't help much. However, the uses of this term contain several contextual issues of great importance which will be discussed in detail later. For example, these individuals minister or function as servants to include Christ himself modeling a servant (Rom 15:8-9). The three references to deacon (as a church "office") will be given special attention (Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3 (2x)). And of course once we get a good NT basis for what a deacon is or is not maybe this will help with Phoebe's role/function in Roman 16 as well.

As for the verb form: to minster or to serve how does this help us understand this role? Simply by the numbers it occurs 37 times in the NT. The NT has the following senses for this verb: to serve, to minister, or to wait on. No references to a leadership role.  This is a role or function or service.  Consider some examples. Jesus came to serve (Mt 20:28). The angels served Jesus (Mt 4:11). This was not the focused mission of the apostles (Acts 6:6). Remember Mary and Martha. One of them was zealous in serving (Lk 10:40). So this act of serving/ministering is seen by men, women, angels, and even Christ himself.  So the subjects who perform this verb doesn't help much. This is a simple term for serving/ministering to other people of multiple genders and classes.

So what can we take away?  Christ served. Angels serve. Men and women serve. There appears to be nothing inherent in this term of any idea of leadership. These are servants in particular situations. So to really get at the church function of deacons we'll have to dig into the references where they have been transliterated for this church function.  We'll have to look at each one of our "deacon" passages.  What do they tell us? How do they help us understand this role/function within the local church?

I'm afraid the NT available data for word studies is not helpful to answer this question.  However, it does provide some interesting starting points.  First, the underlying Greek in noun form is translated as servant, minister, and three times as deacon. Second, similar results are for the verb form: to serve or to minister. So to answer this dilemma we'll need to focus on the contexts where the term deacon is actually used as a local church role/function.

Read. Enjoy. Comment.

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.