Missio Dei

God willing, on Sunday, June 13, we are going to be ordaining three of our Covenant Members to diaconal ministry (deacons) for the church.  Honestly, as a church we have spent a lot of time looking at who and elder is and what an elder does, but we have not spent much time on who should be a deacon nor asked the question about the difference between and Elder and a Deacon.  One thing that I want to talk about to get us thinking about Deacons is a common mistake in many churches’ and denominations’ polities (government) in the misappropriation of spiritual authority to a plurality of deacons instead of to a plurality of elders. Too often, I have seen and heard of deacons put into positions where they are determining (whether collectively or individually) the spiritual direction which the church is taking. Today I want to work towards dispelling the myths behind this error. 

Deacons have no spiritual authority over the church.

Why were deacons (or “the diaconate”) created in the first place? During the ministry of the apostles, it was determined that individuals needed to be selected for meeting the physical needs of the local church. In Acts 6, the apostles noted,

 “Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:3–4, ESV)

The disciples then selected men to function as servants in the church. These men were the beginning of, or a precursor to, the diaconate.

Have you ever compared the different qualifications for elders and deacons? 1 Timothy 3 is a great resource for this because Paul lists some of the qualifications for deacons immediately following his list for elders. Some of the qualifications in these lists explicitly overlap each other: each is to be above reproach, the husband of one wife, respectable, not a drunkard, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. However there are other requirements that differ significantly.

The first difference I would like to point out is in the titles themselves: in this passage, elder is translated as “overseer” and deacon, in the original language, means “servant” or “helper”. Only elders are required to be “able to teach” (v 2) and “not be a recent convert” (v 6). Paul says that an elder must not be recent convert because “he may become puffed up with conceit.” I don’t think people typically become puffed up because they now have the title of “servant.”

Let’s consider one qualification more closely. A requirement for elders is that “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:4–6, ESV) but deacons have a much shorter version requiring that they “[manage] their children and their own households well” (v 12). The requirements are the same, but the implications are different: only the elders’ management of his household is brought over as indicative of his care for the church. Perhaps this is because there is no need for the church to be submissive to deacons as they are to elders.

Can women be deacons or, more properly, deaconesses? Ahhhhh… the question of the day!  Scripturally, I do not believe that there is a clear “no” to this question. This is, of course, assuming that deacons have no spiritual authority over the church. If deacons had spiritual authority over the church, then the answer would be more obvious, but that is not the case.

Consider with me one requirement for deacons that is not listed as a requirement for elders: “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things” (v 11 ESV). It is very interesting that this requirement would be explicitly defined for deacons’ wives, but not elders’. The same verse in the NASB reads “Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.” Perhaps this verse is not written to the wives of the deacons, but to female deacons themselves. It is reasonable to think that Paul offered this sentence to be specific about something women deacons would struggle with more than male deacons, namely, gossiping. In the original language, the word used could be rightly translated as “women” or “wives,” which allows room for both interpretations. One must consider, however, that the noun has no possessor (their) in the original language (Gunaikas), therefore, rendering a translation like “their wives” a bit of a stretch.

Consider also, Romans 16, where Paul writes in his salutations, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae…” (Romans 16:1, ESV). As you may recall “deacon” simply means servant, and that is the word used of Pheobe here. There is room for either translation, but both are valid renderings. If it is possible for women to be deaconesses, then the spiritual authority given to deacons should be considered carefully.

In closing, I should note that I mean what I say in this article, but I do not mean more than I say. When I say that “Deacons have no spiritual authority over the church” I do not mean that the work of a deacon is not spiritual in nature. Although a deacon is to primarily serve physical needs in the church, we Christians know that, inherently, something on a spiritual level is being given and received. I also do not mean that deacons are undeserving of respect. There are qualifications for deacons because the role is important and worthy of respect!

I say what I say to emphasize that it is not the role of the deacons to shepherd the church – that responsibility lies solely with the elders.

What do you think? What has been your experience been when it comes to deacons within the church? How should deacons be led or lead within churches? Is the diaconate an inherently masculine group? Make some noise below!