We have a special purpose this afternoon: the ordination of our first deacon in more than thirty years. Some time ago, in preparation for this day, we had five lessons on the office of deacon. I have no intention of repeating those lessons now, even though they may not be fresh in your memories. But I will assume that Calvary Baptist Church still possesses the principles I tried to convey. And with those principles in mind, let’s start this afternoon at the end, rather than the beginning.
In Acts 6 we see the creation of the office of deacon in the Jerusalem church. We see seven men who were already deacons in a sense, officially set into a new church capacity as “deacons.” By that I mean that they were already actively serving the Lord and His church, but here we see them appointed, set, and ordained into the ecclesiastical office of deacon. I acknowledge that the word “deacon” isn’t found in this paragraph, but I’ve never met anyone who denied that “deacons” are the subject of this scripture.
But what do I mean by “beginning at the end?” For that, please notice verse 7. In my Bible this verse is at the end of the paragraph begun in verse 1. And the following verse begins a new paragraph. In other words, verse 7 is a part of the thought and of the context of the ordaining of these deacons. It says, “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” I am not going to try to tell you that if we had seven deacons, the number of God’s disciples in our church would automatically begin to multiply – that people would be converted right and left, day after day – as it was in the Jerusalem church. The need for those deacons was due to the fact the word of God was already increasing and a great company of priests, widows and orphans were obedient to the faith. Because of a need, we see that church choosing and ordaining deacons. However, God’s blessings are found in the same paragraph in which we see the deacons’ installation.
As it was in Jerusalem, I want to see companies of people – men, women, children and even priests, coming to the Saviour. I would like to see the sort of problems that would arise if our church was growing rapidly and exponentially. It would be great, if every non-evangelical church, and every synagogue and mosque in this city, were angry with us, because their members were being saved, baptized and joining Calvary Baptist. IF there is a correlation between these blessings and problems and the office of deacon, then I want to make sure we duplicate that correlation here. I am not so naive as to think God will bless us with great revival because of this afternoon’s church service, but again, what we are doing is Biblical, so it must be pleasing to God if done correctly.
In that regard, and built upon those earlier lessons, let’s consider the use and misuse of the deacon’s office.
Let’s start with some of the MISUSE.
Each of these points are things I have either witnessed in other churches or I have read of them in Baptist history. If they are new to you, and you’ve never considered them before, praise the Lord and be thankful. And pray that they never raise their ugly heads here among us.
First, despite appearances, the office of deacon is not entirely a secular office. Obviously, those first deacons were recommended and elected in order to take care of the secular needs of the church widows and orphans. We read the words “serving tables” in regard to this office. Earlier in the Book of Acts, we were been told that the people of the church, “sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need” – Acts 2:45. And at least initially, “neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” – Acts 4:34-35. Unfortunately as the church exploded in growth, some of the silent and most needy members of the church were being left out of this distribution. And even though individual members should have assisted other needy members, there wasn’t much they could do, because they were already giving almost every surplus dime, denarii and mite to the church.
While the original service of these deacons was to take care of this deficit, notice their qualifications in verse 3: “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.” The deacons’ second responsibility may have included food, rent and utility payments for some of the older and more limited saints… Their first responsibility was to be exemplary servants of God, full of the Spirit, service and wisdom.
The lesson becomes this: today, when a church goes out searching for a potential deacon, they shouldn’t look for members who are among the most successful in the world of finances and commerce. They shouldn’t seek people with business degrees from secular colleges, presuming they should know how to manage church finances. When you read the qualifications for the office of deacon given to us by Paul in I Timothy 3, you read of things pertaining to Christian character and godly morality. In other words, the place to look for future deacons is at the church prayer meetings and not the business meetings. Look for those who are at the altar in the holy place, not at the money changer’s tables in the temple courtyard. In these areas, the office of deacon ceases to be merely a secular position, becoming spiritual in character.
Also, the office of deacon is neither a judgmental nor governmental office. I have heard of a Baptist church which has given its pastor a list of subjects about which he cannot preach. I assume that list was created by the deacons of the church. I have read about deacons who listened carefully to every sermon, jotting down notes and judging every aspect of every message. Then when there were things to which they, in their infinite wisdom disagreed, they went to the pastor to correct him. They believed that this their primary duty as deacons. Also I have known churches where the pastor was obligated to go to the deacons to beg for funds for each and every purchase to meet the needs of the church.
In other words, some churches are governed by the “deacon board.” In those churches the pastor is not the Lord’s under-shepherd, listening for and following the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Rather, he is the sheep dog, taking orders from the real masters of the church – the board of deacons. But Biblically, and before God, there is no such thing as a “deacon board.” In scriptural churches: there are pastors, often called “elders” or “bishops,” and then there are certain men who are designated as “deacons” of the church. There are no other official offices in a Biblical church.
The words “deacon” and “deacons,” are found only five times in our King James Bibles. But the Greek word “diakonos” (dee-ak’-on-os) is used 29 times, where it is translated, “minister,” “servant,” “waiter” and “attendant.” There is no judgmental or governmental aspect to the Biblical office of deacon. Deacons are “servants.” They are willing servants. They are joyful in their office of servitude. And if they are not willing servants, then they should not be considered as “deacons.”
Several times recently Brother Kjeldgaard has said either to me, or to us as a group, something to the effect, “I don’t want my election as deacon to be an issue of popularity.” That is my next point. The office of deacon is not a popularity office, and it is not an honor bestowed on some hard-working saint. Just like the call of a pastor, there shouldn’t be ten candidates, seven of which we’ll call “deacon” if they get enough votes. Every candidate should be considered on his own merits and the qualifications given to us in the word of God. Every candidate should be filled with the Holy Spirit and already be serving the Lord. I am not saying that the deacon should come from among the least loved and appreciated members, but at the same time it is not about popularity.
Furthermore, the office of deacon is not an un-disciplined office – it is not beyond discipline. There are Baptist churches in which the deacons are so authoritarian that they decide who should be members and who should be disciplined. For example, they are sometimes so closely tied to the church finances, they determine if someone is not giving sufficiently, and they determine if that is worthy of dismissal. And they stay abreast of who is coming and going, so they decide if someone has missed too many services and whether they should be removed from the membership for lack of attendance. In some churches, the deacons make all the membership and disciplinary decisions. But they also make those decisions in regard to themselves, which in effect means they can do whatever they choose without impunity. Rarely does the “deacon board” dismiss one of its own. Again, where in the scriptures do we see deacons with this kind of power?
What about the tenure of the deacon? Are deacons elected for life? That is certainly the opinion of a great many churches – in practice, if not in actual policy. Since the Bible doesn’t give us any direction in this regard, I would say that the office is open-ended. By that I mean while it is not permanent and inviolate. Deacons can resign and should resign, when the Holy Spirit shows to them they can no longer do the work. And those deacons can be removed when the church feels that it is necessary. I will come back to this in a minute, but Philip, for example, was not a “deacon” when he died.
And the office of “deacon” is not a rotating position. Some churches, perhaps because they have experienced or seen some of the preceding problems, have written into their constitutions that deacons can only serve for one, two, or three years. And many of those churches have staggered the introduction of their deacons, so that new members join the board every year, and every year one or two lose their spot on the board. Again, for whatever reason, good or bad, that is not wise – simply because it is not Biblical. The office of “deacon” is not permanent, nor should it have predetermined time limits on it.
And this raises one more question, which I suppose should never even come up. When a man is “ordained” as a deacon in one church, if he moves his membership to another church, should he carry with him the title of “deacon?” Does the office of deacon in one church extend into another? In reality this is a silly question, but it is one with which some churches have struggled in the past, probably because of the power of the deacon board. But since each church is autonomous, what one church, like Jerusalem, decides about Stephen or Prochorus or Nicanor, remains their decision, and it affects only their church. And if Prochorus decides to move to Antioch, he would do so as any other saint. Then if Antioch is in need of another deacon, it may look at Prochorus, observing his life and service, to see if, in their estimation, he is filled with the Spirit and would make a worthy deacon. But again, it is their decision alone. No, the office of deacon is not transferable.
Now we come to second part of my message: the BIBLICAL CHARACTER of the deacon’s office.
It is relatively simple: the “deacons office” is to be used to enable the church’s pastor or elders to spend more time in prayer and the ministry of the word. It is the deacons’ task, as Spirit-filled men, to carry out the daily ministration of the church – primarily among the members of the church. The Grecian widows were being neglected, and apparently they were unnecessarily living in poverty. The deacons were to seek out those members who were in need and minister to those needs. If, and when, a deacon forgets the meaning of “diakonos” (dee-ak’-on-os) he disqualifies himself from office.
And by the way, if that deacon is married, he and his wife should be considered a team. In Paul’s instructions to Timothy, he first describes some of the qualifications of the bishop. And then he says, “Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued” and so on. But then he adds, “even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” A good man, no matter how faithful and spiritual, will not be an efficient deacon if his wife is not right beside him in character, in spirituality and in a willingness to serve. And in that regard, Romans 16:1 tells us that Phoebe was “a servant of the church which is in Cenchrea.” The word “servant” there is the feminine form of “diakonos” (dee-ak’-on-os). No, I don’t believe that churches should have an official office for the “deaconess,” but every should have as many ladies willing to serve as they do men.
While to be a deacon is to be in the office of a servant, it is also a highly honorable office. In our testimony this morning James Challiss, praised the tender counsel and care of a man he called “Deacon Mulford.” Personally, I think that if young Challiss wanted to call his mentor “Deacon Mulford,” that is perfectly fine. But if Mulford insisted that Challiss or other members of the church always adress him as “deacon” then that church should have re-examined the man to see whether or not he was actually worthy of title. Such behavior reeks of pride. Pride is a problem for all of us, especially for pastors, bishops and deacons. As a sin which God especially hates, it should be considered something which disqualifies men from those offices. Just as it might be said that there is an honor due to the office of President of the United States, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the man in that office is honorable.
We might also say that the office of deacon is an open office. While Stephen was a servant of the church, he was not confined to waiting on tables and ministering to widows. He was also witnessing of Christ in various synagogues throughout Jerusalem. And Deacon Philip ministered in that office for some time, but eventually ended up with the title of “Evangelist.” We should assume that Spirit-filled servants of God are going to continue to grow in the Lord. That should be true of all of us. And those whom God chooses and especially equips will move on to other areas of service, perhaps even becoming bishops themselves – if that is the will of the Lord. We might say that the office of “Deacon” should not be narrowed to only the daily ministration of tables. It should be as broad as the Lord would have it to be. And in that regard, Bro. Kjeldgaard will periodically be teaching our Sunday School lesson, beginning next week.
I announced the title of this message as “The Use and Misuse of the Deacon’s Office,” but I’d like to add one more point. We all need to consider the abuse of the Deacon. That can come in two forms. First, just because Brother Kjeldgaard is our deacon that doesn’t mean that he is your slave. Just because he knows how to install a transmission in a car, or how to replace a roof, that doesn’t mean you have a right to ask him to do these things, because you don’t want to do it or to pay for it yourself. Remember the primary, Biblical function of the deacon.
And then second, the deacon is not your replacement in the service of God. If there is a need among the members or if there is something which ought to be done and you can do it – do it. We all have responsibilities as part of the body of Christ in Post Falls. We must not ask the finger to do what the foot should do. If you know of a widow of our church or an orphan in need, and you can meet that need, don’t come to me or to our deacon to do what you could do. “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well” – James 2:8. “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” – Galatians 6:2. The Lord Jesus said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.” The Lord has called all of us to be servants, even though only some fill the office of “deacon.” Don’t abuse the office.
Finally, what about the process of establishing an office of Deacon?
Here in Acts 6, the pastors of the church decided that there was a need. Since they were men of the Word and prayer, we should assume that it was the Lord who led them to recognize the need and to provide a solution. They went to the church, explaining the need, and asking the congregation to make their choice of appropriate servants. After some unspecified deliberation seven men were chosen and set before the apostles. Then in a simple ceremony the eleven apostles laid their hands on seven deacons, and it was done.
In just a moment I am going to ask Brothers Fulton and Kjeldgaard up to join me up here. Brother Fulton will be here as one of the servants of the church, and as an ordained minister of the gospel. I will lead in prayer, and then he and I will each put a hand on the shoulder of our new deacon. In doing that, I won’t pretend to be passing on the power of the Holy Spirit or any miraculous gifts. Our purpose will be nothing more than to signify that you have voted to accept Bro. Steve Kjeldgaard as your deacon, and that we are setting him apart to that office.
Following that, we will once again look to the Lord beseeching Him to make “the word of God increase, and to make the number of the disciples to be multiplied here in Post Falls.”