Deacons role in church

[Binaca Chugger]

The deacon's role is to be the pastor's helper. And the pastor rather than the deacon should define how he wants to use that offer of help.

I think that if the  men in Acts 6 were deacons, then there are many more deacons in  churches than are acknowledged.  How about the men who run the sound system?  Or maintain the church's web page?  Or clean the church?  All these, it seems to me, are identical to the situation in Acts 6 -- things that the pastor could do, but it would take time away from prayer and the Word. I know that these positions are not considered "deacons", but in light of Acts 6, it seems to me that such people are more like the people in Acts 6 than the ones called "deacons" in many churches today.

Deacons were also evangelists and caused the message of the Gospel to go forth greatly (keep reading Acts).  Note that the deacons in Acts 6 were not slaves to the pastor, or general laborers.  They had the responsibility to watch over and care for the needy.  Again, this means that the deacon is to care for the physical and spiritual needs of the laity.  This is the reason that most churches ordain their deacons, but not the nursery workers or PA crew.

 

[Walt]

The deacon's role is to be the pastor's helper. And the pastor rather than the deacon should define how he wants to use that offer of help.

I think that if the  men in Acts 6 were deacons, then there are many more deacons in  churches than are acknowledged.  How about the men who run the sound system?  Or maintain the church's web page?  Or clean the church?  All these, it seems to me, are identical to the situation in Acts 6 -- things that the pastor could do, but it would take time away from prayer and the Word. I know that these positions are not considered "deacons", but in light of Acts 6, it seems to me that such people are more like the people in Acts 6 than the ones called "deacons" in many churches today.

Deacons were also evangelists and caused the message of the Gospel to go forth greatly (keep reading Acts).  Note that the deacons in Acts 6 were not slaves to the pastor, or general laborers.  They had the responsibility to watch over and care for the needy.  Again, this means that the deacon is to care for the physical and spiritual needs of the laity.  This is the reason that most churches ordain their deacons, but not the nursery workers or PA crew.

Interesting.

As I recall, there were seven men selected, and we only know about two of them - Stephen and Philip.  Thus, I'm not sure how you justify the statement that "deacons were also evangelists".  Philip was heavily involved in people being saved in Samaria, and he gave the gospel to the Ethiopion eunuch, and baptized him as well.  Later in Acts, he was known as "the Evangelist".  Nothing is given about the other five; perhaps they preached; perhaps not -- maybe they were evangelists; maybe not. Stephen is known for his defense to the Pharisees (?) perhaps Sanhedrin (?) that resulted in his martyrdom.  Their job was, as I understand it, merely to see that widows were not neglected.  Nothing here seems to indicate that they had any responsibility to care for people's spiritual needs.  When these men were picked out, it was to do a specific task that the apostles did not have time to do.

We do know, that, as a result of the selection of these seven men, that the word of God grew and multiplied -- that doesn't mean that it was due to the efforts of these men, but the overall result.

I know that the common practice today is to ordain deacons; it just seems like people who mow the lawn or repair the buildings are acting much like the men in Acts 6.  It's work that the pastor / pastoral staff could do, but by doing it for them, they are freed up to study the word and pray.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

The deacon's role is to be the pastor's helper. And the pastor rather than the deacon should define how he wants to use that offer of help.

I think that if the  men in Acts 6 were deacons, then there are many more deacons in  churches than are acknowledged.  How about the men who run the sound system?  Or maintain the church's web page?  Or clean the church?  All these, it seems to me, are identical to the situation in Acts 6 -- things that the pastor could do, but it would take time away from prayer and the Word. I know that these positions are not considered "deacons", but in light of Acts 6, it seems to me that such people are more like the people in Acts 6 than the ones called "deacons" in many churches today.

Deacons were also evangelists and caused the message of the Gospel to go forth greatly (keep reading Acts).  Note that the deacons in Acts 6 were not slaves to the pastor, or general laborers.  They had the responsibility to watch over and care for the needy.  Again, this means that the deacon is to care for the physical and spiritual needs of the laity.  This is the reason that most churches ordain their deacons, but not the nursery workers or PA crew.

Interesting.

As I recall, there were seven men selected, and we only know about two of them - Stephen and Philip.  Thus, I'm not sure how you justify the statement that "deacons were also evangelists".  Philip was heavily involved in people being saved in Samaria, and he gave the gospel to the Ethiopion eunuch, and baptized him as well.  Later in Acts, he was known as "the Evangelist".  Nothing is given about the other five; perhaps they preached; perhaps not -- maybe they were evangelists; maybe not. Stephen is known for his defense to the Pharisees (?) perhaps Sanhedrin (?) that resulted in his martyrdom.  Their job was, as I understand it, merely to see that widows were not neglected.  Nothing here seems to indicate that they had any responsibility to care for people's spiritual needs.  When these men were picked out, it was to do a specific task that the apostles did not have time to do.

We do know, that, as a result of the selection of these seven men, that the word of God grew and multiplied -- that doesn't mean that it was due to the efforts of these men, but the overall result.

I know that the common practice today is to ordain deacons; it just seems like people who mow the lawn or repair the buildings are acting much like the men in Acts 6.  It's work that the pastor / pastoral staff could do, but by doing it for them, they are freed up to study the word and pray.

Allow me to lay some foundational opinion.  The church is a body and every part must be busy in the service of the King.  People who mow lawns or repair buildings or change diapers are incredibly important to the work of the ministry.  I do not slight these, or any other position, at all.

Deacon ordination happened in Acts 6:6.  Scripture points to certain character traits required for deacons (Acts 6:5 and 1 Tim 3).  I find striking similarity between the qualifications for these two positions.  I notice, among other things, that the deacons were (or should be): Holding the mystery of the faith in pure conscience (many consider this to mean properly teaching the Gospel), have great boldness in the faith and full of faith and the Holy Ghost.  It would seem that the deacon is not to be a novice in the faith, one who simply has clout in the community or connections. 

Such men were set in order by the church to minister to the helpless.  One of their express duties mentioned was to serve tables.  Some, in effort to gain supreme power for the pastor, have tried to define the word "minister" as simply a canned good delivery service.  However, the pastor claims to "minister" when he makes visits, does evangelism, counsels, encourages, teaches and other such duties.  I believe these men who were filled with the Holy Spirit and had great boldness of faith did much more than deliver food.

Directly after the ordination, we discover that the "word of God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly..."  Stephen even did miracles and boldly proclaimed the Gospel of Christ unto his death, as a deacon.

Yes, I believe a deacon should care not just for the physical needs of the laity, but also the spiritual needs of the laity.  What Christian who is bold in the faith would not care for the spiritual needs of a fellow Christian?  Yes, I believe the deacons were busily involved with sharing their faith boldly throughout their community.

I believe a deacon today should be bold in the faith, understanding the preciousness of the Gospel so that he cannot but speak about it throughout his work week and other social interactions.  I believe a deacon should be caring for the people of the church through prayer and provision - getting to know people and reaching out to them when there is a need for physical help (groceries, heating bill, moving, etc) and spiritual needs (prayer through difficult times, encouragement, sharing a cup of coffee to talk through life situations and even restoration).

 

[Walt]

See, I'm glad you're sticking around for discussions like these!

I cleaned out the earlier notes.

Allow me to lay some foundational opinion.  The church is a body and every part must be busy in the service of the King.  People who mow lawns or repair buildings or change diapers are incredibly important to the work of the ministry.  I do not slight these, or any other position, at all.

And I never thought you were.

Deacon ordination happened in Acts 6:6.  Scripture points to certain character traits required for deacons (Acts 6:5 and 1 Tim 3).  I find striking similarity between the qualifications for these two positions.  I notice, among other things, that the deacons were (or should be): Holding the mystery of the faith in pure conscience (many consider this to mean properly teaching the Gospel), have great boldness in the faith and full of faith and the Holy Ghost.  It would seem that the deacon is not to be a novice in the faith, one who simply has clout in the community or connections. 

Note that Acts 6 does not call these men deacons.  I'm willing to assume that they were; everyone I've heard or read calls Acts 6 the selection of the first deacons.

"Mystery of the faith in pure conscience" probably means that they know and understand the gospel. Where does it say "have great boldness in the faith"?  We know Stephen was, but I don't recall this in the qualifications.  "Full of faith and the Holy Ghost" - check.  By the way, this does not eliminate "important" or influential men.  It is silly to exclude a man from being a deacon just because he is "someone" in the community.

Such men were set in order by the church to minister to the helpless.  One of their express duties mentioned was to serve tables.  Some, in effort to gain supreme power for the pastor, have tried to define the word "minister" as simply a canned good delivery service.  However, the pastor claims to "minister" when he makes visits, does evangelism, counsels, encourages, teaches and other such duties.  I believe these men who were filled with the Holy Spirit and had great boldness of faith did much more than deliver food.

I believe that deacon means "servant", and a deacon is to serve the church needs to allow the pastor time for study.  This does not mean that the deacon is the pastor's servant; the deacon is the church's servant.  Deacons take care of church things to give the pastor time for study and prayer; they are NOT supposed to do things for the pastor to give him more time.  In my opinion, deacons should not be mowing the pastor's yard; that is the pastor's responsibility as a home owner - it isn't a church responsibility.  Nor should the deacons go shopping for the pastor (same argument). In Acts 6, they only took care of the widows in the church - at least, that is the reason why they were chosen.  The result of this good decision and quenching the grumbling was that "the word of God increased" (as you point out).

Directly after the ordination, we discover that the "word of God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly..."  Stephen even did miracles and boldly proclaimed the Gospel of Christ unto his death, as a deacon.

Presumably, Stephen proclaimed the gospel - he did wonders, we are told.  He argued (debated) with the Sanhedrin and they lost. In their hatred of him for winning the debate, they lied about him (not much has changed in 2000 years, eh?), and he had his defense that led to his death before the eyes of Saul.

Yes, I believe a deacon should care not just for the physical needs of the laity, but also the spiritual needs of the laity.  What Christian who is bold in the faith would not care for the spiritual needs of a fellow Christian?  Yes, I believe the deacons were busily involved with sharing their faith boldly throughout their community.

That's fine to believe that, but that cannot be drawn from the example in Acts 6 -- the seven men were chosen only to meet the needs of the widows; nothing more.  Anything else about them cannot be shown to be tied to their eligibility for the office of deacon.

I believe a deacon today should be bold in the faith, understanding the preciousness of the Gospel so that he cannot but speak about it throughout his work week and other social interactions.  I believe a deacon should be caring for the people of the church through prayer and provision - getting to know people and reaching out to them when there is a need for physical help (groceries, heating bill, moving, etc) and spiritual needs (prayer through difficult times, encouragement, sharing a cup of coffee to talk through life situations and even restoration).

This sounds good.

I was just making the comment that when I read Acts 6, I think of the people who clean the church on Saturday and ensure that the baptistery is filled and that the heater is working.  All this would be done by the pastor if no one else did it.  That seems to be very similar to the situation in Acts 6.  Probably a far reach on my part; no one else seems to think that way.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

See, I'm glad you're sticking around for discussions like these!

  Some of the conversations still have quality!

Deacon ordination happened in Acts 6:6.  Scripture points to certain character traits required for deacons (Acts 6:5 and 1 Tim 3).  I find striking similarity between the qualifications for these two positions.  I notice, among other things, that the deacons were (or should be): Holding the mystery of the faith in pure conscience (many consider this to mean properly teaching the Gospel), have great boldness in the faith and full of faith and the Holy Ghost.  It would seem that the deacon is not to be a novice in the faith, one who simply has clout in the community or connections. 

Note that Acts 6 does not call these men deacons.  I'm willing to assume that they were; everyone I've heard or read calls Acts 6 the selection of the first deacons.

Again, the similarity in qualifications, not being pastors, would help us understand that Acts 6 is the deacon.  We also have tradition (church history - which is sometimes skewed) telling us that these are deacons.

"Mystery of the faith in pure conscience" probably means that they know and understand the gospel. Where does it say "have great boldness in the faith"?  We know Stephen was, but I don't recall this in the qualifications.  "Full of faith and the Holy Ghost" - check.  By the way, this does not eliminate "important" or influential men.  It is silly to exclude a man from being a deacon just because he is "someone" in the community.

1 Timothy 3 speaks of the "great boldness in the faith" of the deacon.  I happen to believe that if you are full of faith and the Holy Ghost, you will be bold (though not hateful) in your witness.  Of course the qualifications do not eliminate wealthy or influential men from the office of deacon, but status is nowhere found as a qualification.  We all know that too many churches choose their deacons simply because of their financial standing.

Such men were set in order by the church to minister to the helpless.  One of their express duties mentioned was to serve tables.  Some, in effort to gain supreme power for the pastor, have tried to define the word "minister" as simply a canned good delivery service.  However, the pastor claims to "minister" when he makes visits, does evangelism, counsels, encourages, teaches and other such duties.  I believe these men who were filled with the Holy Spirit and had great boldness of faith did much more than deliver food.

I believe that deacon means "servant", and a deacon is to serve the church needs to allow the pastor time for study.  This does not mean that the deacon is the pastor's servant; the deacon is the church's servant.  Deacons take care of church things to give the pastor time for study and prayer; they are NOT supposed to do things for the pastor to give him more time.  In my opinion, deacons should not be mowing the pastor's yard; that is the pastor's responsibility as a home owner - it isn't a church responsibility.  Nor should the deacons go shopping for the pastor (same argument). In Acts 6, they only took care of the widows in the church - at least, that is the reason why they were chosen.  The result of this good decision and quenching the grumbling was that "the word of God increased" (as you point out).

You contradicted yourself, but I think we agree.  The deacon is serving the church and the laity of the church, not the personal request of the pastor.  I know a pastor who uses his staff to change the oil in his car, wash his car, mow his grass and run other errands for him.  He is hyped up on his own ego and treating his staff (which is supposed to be serving the church in the ministry) as his own personal slave.  I feel sorry for those staff members who feel trapped and finally decide that maybe this will be serving God somehow, so they stay.  Treating a deacon in such manner is only worse - he doesn't even get paid.

Directly after the ordination, we discover that the "word of God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly..."  Stephen even did miracles and boldly proclaimed the Gospel of Christ unto his death, as a deacon.

Presumably, Stephen proclaimed the gospel - he did wonders, we are told.  He argued (debated) with the Sanhedrin and they lost. In their hatred of him for winning the debate, they lied about him (not much has changed in 2000 years, eh?), and he had his defense that led to his death before the eyes of Saul.

Yes, I believe a deacon should care not just for the physical needs of the laity, but also the spiritual needs of the laity.  What Christian who is bold in the faith would not care for the spiritual needs of a fellow Christian?  Yes, I believe the deacons were busily involved with sharing their faith boldly throughout their community.

That's fine to believe that, but that cannot be drawn from the example in Acts 6 -- the seven men were chosen only to meet the needs of the widows; nothing more.  Anything else about them cannot be shown to be tied to their eligibility for the office of deacon.

Yes, we can.  Read again Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3.  There are several qualifications and an inquiry to be made before one is given the office of the deacon.

I believe a deacon today should be bold in the faith, understanding the preciousness of the Gospel so that he cannot but speak about it throughout his work week and other social interactions.  I believe a deacon should be caring for the people of the church through prayer and provision - getting to know people and reaching out to them when there is a need for physical help (groceries, heating bill, moving, etc) and spiritual needs (prayer through difficult times, encouragement, sharing a cup of coffee to talk through life situations and even restoration).

This sounds good.

I was just making the comment that when I read Acts 6, I think of the people who clean the church on Saturday and ensure that the baptistery is filled and that the heater is working.  All this would be done by the pastor if no one else did it.  That seems to be very similar to the situation in Acts 6.  Probably a far reach on my part; no one else seems to think that way.

In addressing our church on Sunday morning, I made the following statement:
"I contend that a complete church body requires that a vast array of people with various spiritual gifts fill various positions while being united together in the same purpose, which is Christ."
Thus, I agree with your sentiment that each part of the church body is incredibly important.  When the baptistery is being filled, it is done unto the Lord.  When the heater is being checked, it is done unto the Lord.  When the carpet is vacuumed, it is done unto the Lord.  For whatever reason, Scripture gives us two positions in the church:  Pastor and Deacon.  The Pastor is overseeing the flock, giving himself to study and prayer to the edification of the laity.  The deacon is caring for the physical needs of the weaker members of the laity.  All Christians are busily sharing the Gospel and discipling others.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I went to a deacon's meeting last night.  It was a beautiful event.  The Chairman delivered a challenge to the deacons to help the membership return to personal Bible study.  One by one, each deacon talked about the families in the church for whom they provided deaconship.  They spoke of health problems, praises, emotional issues and family situations.  By the time the full round had been made, we had heard about the need of each member of the church.  This was followed by a period of prayer for the church members and for the deacons themselves as they seek to be a help to the membership.

 

[RAIDER]

I went to a deacon's meeting last night.  It was a beautiful event.  The Chairman delivered a challenge to the deacons to help the membership return to personal Bible study.  One by one, each deacon talked about the families in the church for whom they provided deaconship.  They spoke of health problems, praises, emotional issues and family situations.  By the time the full round had been made, we had heard about the need of each member of the church.  This was followed by a period of prayer for the church members and for the deacons themselves as they seek to be a help to the membership.

That is fantastic!

 

[baptisthac]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

 

[RAIDER]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Bruh]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

I'm under the persuasion that the deacons should've filled the church in on why he left.

So, my question is, why didn't they address the church?

 

[IFB X-Files]

The pastor President had asked the deacons' advice of Congress on a certain situation.  Congress'sThe deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor President wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor President resigned and left.

This is what Trump will do when Congress doesn't go along with him.

 

[Walt]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

Interesting; I was a part of a church that went through a similar thing - the pastor was determined to do something, but it was only him - the church voted against it.  After the vote went against him, he left.  The church did not survive in this case -- it splintered, fell apart, and is disbanded today.

From the story above, it doesn't sound like the pastor & deacons had a "good" relationship.  To resign over one disagreement doesn't sound right.

 

[Walt]

Deacon ordination happened in Acts 6:6.  Scripture points to certain character traits required for deacons (Acts 6:5 and 1 Tim 3).  I find striking similarity between the qualifications for these two positions.  I notice, among other things, that the deacons were (or should be): Holding the mystery of the faith in pure conscience (many consider this to mean properly teaching the Gospel), have great boldness in the faith and full of faith and the Holy Ghost.  It would seem that the deacon is not to be a novice in the faith, one who simply has clout in the community or connections. 

Note that Acts 6 does not call these men deacons.  I'm willing to assume that they were; everyone I've heard or read calls Acts 6 the selection of the first deacons.

Again, the similarity in qualifications, not being pastors, would help us understand that Acts 6 is the deacon.  We also have tradition (church history - which is sometimes skewed) telling us that these are deacons.

We don't have any disagreement here.

"Mystery of the faith in pure conscience" probably means that they know and understand the gospel. Where does it say "have great boldness in the faith"?  We know Stephen was, but I don't recall this in the qualifications.  "Full of faith and the Holy Ghost" - check.  By the way, this does not eliminate "important" or influential men.  It is silly to exclude a man from being a deacon just because he is "someone" in the community.

1 Timothy 3 speaks of the "great boldness in the faith" of the deacon.  I happen to believe that if you are full of faith and the Holy Ghost, you will be bold (though not hateful) in your witness.  Of course the qualifications do not eliminate wealthy or influential men from the office of deacon, but status is nowhere found as a qualification.  We all know that too many churches choose their deacons simply because of their financial standing.

Well, I Tim 3 does not say that "great boldness in the faith" is a requirement for deacons; it reads more like it is a result of them being deacons:
For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree and purchase to themselves great boldness in the faith which is in Jesus Christ

Such men were set in order by the church to minister to the helpless.  One of their express duties mentioned was to serve tables.  Some, in effort to gain supreme power for the pastor, have tried to define the word "minister" as simply a canned good delivery service.  However, the pastor claims to "minister" when he makes visits, does evangelism, counsels, encourages, teaches and other such duties.  I believe these men who were filled with the Holy Spirit and had great boldness of faith did much more than deliver food.

I believe that deacon means "servant", and a deacon is to serve the church needs to allow the pastor time for study.  This does not mean that the deacon is the pastor's servant; the deacon is the church's servant.  Deacons take care of church things to give the pastor time for study and prayer; they are NOT supposed to do things for the pastor to give him more time.  In my opinion, deacons should not be mowing the pastor's yard; that is the pastor's responsibility as a home owner - it isn't a church responsibility.  Nor should the deacons go shopping for the pastor (same argument). In Acts 6, they only took care of the widows in the church - at least, that is the reason why they were chosen.  The result of this good decision and quenching the grumbling was that "the word of God increased" (as you point out).

You contradicted yourself, but I think we agree.  The deacon is serving the church and the laity of the church, not the personal request of the pastor.  I know a pastor who uses his staff to change the oil in his car, wash his car, mow his grass and run other errands for him.  He is hyped up on his own ego and treating his staff (which is supposed to be serving the church in the ministry) as his own personal slave.  I feel sorry for those staff members who feel trapped and finally decide that maybe this will be serving God somehow, so they stay.  Treating a deacon in such manner is only worse - he doesn't even get paid.

I guess I missed where I contradicted myself... but yes, the deacon is to serve the church, not the pastor. It seems to me that deacons tend to fall into two errors; one in which they are considered the pastor's "inner circle" and basically his yes-men and/or men the pastor uses to push his personal agenda.  The other error is for them to claim power and run the church.

Directly after the ordination, we discover that the "word of God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly..."  Stephen even did miracles and boldly proclaimed the Gospel of Christ unto his death, as a deacon.

Presumably, Stephen proclaimed the gospel - he did wonders, we are told.  He argued (debated) with the Sanhedrin and they lost. In their hatred of him for winning the debate, they lied about him (not much has changed in 2000 years, eh?), and he had his defense that led to his death before the eyes of Saul.

Yes, I believe a deacon should care not just for the physical needs of the laity, but also the spiritual needs of the laity.  What Christian who is bold in the faith would not care for the spiritual needs of a fellow Christian?  Yes, I believe the deacons were busily involved with sharing their faith boldly throughout their community.

That's fine to believe that, but that cannot be drawn from the example in Acts 6 -- the seven men were chosen only to meet the needs of the widows; nothing more.  Anything else about them cannot be shown to be tied to their eligibility for the office of deacon.

Yes, we can.  Read again Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3.  There are several qualifications and an inquiry to be made before one is given the office of the deacon.

Hmmm... "an inquiry"?  Where do you get that? 1 Tim 3 states "let them first be proved", but that seems
merely to state that a deacon should not be a novice (much like the pastor is not to be a novice). But I don't know that either Acts 6 or 1 Tim 3 details that any inquiry should be made.  In Acts 6, the pastors were not even involved -- the church body was told to select men that would be "appointed" (put in charge of) taking care of the widows.

[/quote]

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Walt,

I think we agree.  Concerning the "boldness," I do see where it is a result of being a good deacon, which, would still have the deacon proclaiming his faith, evangelizing and proselytizing.  "Being Proved" means that there is some looking into their background and spiritual life and personal life.  I used the term "inquiry."  Use whatever term you want, I think we are talking about the same thing.

We agree that a deacon should serve the church, not the pastor.  Let the deacons care for the souls of people, not just be delivery boys who take canned food out to people.  Let the deacons be looked to for leadership in the church as they are chosen by the church.

 

[RAIDER]

Walt,

I think we agree.  Concerning the "boldness," I do see where it is a result of being a good deacon, which, would still have the deacon proclaiming his faith, evangelizing and proselytizing.  "Being Proved" means that there is some looking into their background and spiritual life and personal life.  I used the term "inquiry."  Use whatever term you want, I think we are talking about the same thing.

We agree that a deacon should serve the church, not the pastor.  Let the deacons care for the souls of people, not just be delivery boys who take canned food out to people.  Let the deacons be looked to for leadership in the church as they are chosen by the church.

Think about the heartbreak and damage that could have been avoided if FBCH had had this philosophy.

 

[baptisthac]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

I'm under the persuasion that the deacons should've filled the church in on why he left.

So, my question is, why didn't they address the church?

The pastor told the church that he felt the Lord was moving him on.  He resigned in front of the congregation.  The deacons did address the church at the next service.  Because there was the blindly loyal group they made up their minds without having the decency to talk to the deacons.  These deacons were honorable men.  Again, I'm so glad my family took the time to meet with the deacons.  Today we have a relationship with the current pastor and previous pastor. 

 

[baptisthac]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

From the story above, it doesn't sound like the pastor & deacons had a "good" relationship.  To resign over one disagreement doesn't sound right.

They actually had a great relationship.  There had been unity for many years.  I'm guessing that the unity was because the decisions had gone the pastor's way.  This time there was not unity between the pastor and deacons and the pastor wanted his way.

 

[Walt]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

From the story above, it doesn't sound like the pastor & deacons had a "good" relationship.  To resign over one disagreement doesn't sound right.

They actually had a great relationship.  There had been unity for many years.  I'm guessing that the unity was because the decisions had gone the pastor's way.  This time there was not unity between the pastor and deacons and the pastor wanted his way.

I'm trying to make the point that it is not a "great relationship" when one side is merely giving in to the demands of the other -- it is merely an uneasy truce. A "great" relationship allows each side to disagree while still respecting each other.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Several years ago I attended a church  where the pastor and deacons seemed to have a great relationship.  The pastor was a good man, and the deacons were good men.  I watched them work together in unity for many years.  The pastor had asked the deacons' advice on a certain situation.  The deacons' advice was not in the direction the pastor wanted to go.  Long story short, the pastor resigned and left.

Because the pastor was well liked, some of the people begin to blame the deacons for him leaving.  Some families left the church without even having the decency to meet with any or all of the deacons to have their questions answered.  They just automatically made the deacons out to be the bad guys.

I was hurt that the pastor left and I had heard the rumors.  I'm so glad my family took time to meet with the deacons to ask questions.  The deacons had done nothing wrong.  The pastor was upset because they did not see eye-to-eye with him on a matter.  This caused him to leave.

Because of false rumors the church took a hit in attendance.  Thankfully many families stayed and the ministry is doing great today!

While I know there are churches with deacons that want to overstep their Biblical role,  we need to be careful judging them without giving them a hearing.  I would say the same for a pastor.

From the story above, it doesn't sound like the pastor & deacons had a "good" relationship.  To resign over one disagreement doesn't sound right.

They actually had a great relationship.  There had been unity for many years.  I'm guessing that the unity was because the decisions had gone the pastor's way.  This time there was not unity between the pastor and deacons and the pastor wanted his way.

I'm trying to make the point that it is not a "great relationship" when one side is merely giving in to the demands of the other -- it is merely an uneasy truce. A "great" relationship allows each side to disagree while still respecting each other.

For many pastors it has never occurred to them that they might be wrong, my last two pastors are prime examples.

 

[Fresh Air]

Twice in my 19 years in the pastorate my deacons have disagreed with me on a major course of action. One was a public disagreement and the other a private one, though neither were doctrinal.  In both cases I still think I was right, but in both cases I yielded. The deacons did not fuss with me and I did not fuss with them, privately or publicly.  We just disagreed, and I let their disagreement carry the day.

I did so for two reasons: 1) I greatly value church unity, and unity that cannot live through a disagreement is not unity; it is dictatorship from whichever direction it flows. 2) I do not want to become one of those preachers who begins well and ends badly. Often times in such situations in pride he comes to value his own opinion as the only valid one. He surrounds himself with yes men, men who will never tell him he is wrong.

The value of those two things is greater to me than the value of what I would have gained by forcing them to agree with me or else.

There are extremes or errors on either side. A cantankerous deacon board can make life a pure hell for a pastor and his family, and do much to damage a church. My own father has lived through some of that, and I have sought diligently to avoid it. But a dictatorial pastor can make life pure hell for himself and his church in the future if he allows his pride to demand constant, never-ending agreement. Wisdom lies in the balance between the two, and in love for the Lord and our brethren in Christ.