No two churches are like and every church has different strengths and weaknesses. But one place I believe the vast majority churches could improve is in the role of the deacons.
The transition in deacon ministry models that most churches have undergone in the last several decades has been a step in the right direction. But the transition is incomplete. And this has caused deep frustration and confusion that negatively impacts entire churches.
Based on Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3, I would describe the deacon as “men of Godly character working to improve the kingdom effectiveness of the local church, primarily through serving others”. This perspective moves the deacons away from the old model of being a board of directors or the executive council on all things church. In every church I have pastured I have emphasized that it matters far more who a deacon is, than what a deacon does.
But what am only now beginning to really understand is that biblical deacons were deep men of character….but they also did stuff. Our men today are willing to lay aside the old role of directors, but they hunger for something meaningful to do for the kingdom and they become restless serving without a purpose.
Programs have been developed to fill this gap. (The SBC Deacon Family Ministry Plan comes to mind.) But these plans often only address one area of need in a church and often only fit the gifts of a small portion of our men. I believe each deacon should find his own sphere “to improve the kingdom effectiveness of the church through serving others”.
When I asked my deacons this week, how I could help them fulfill their role as deacons, they simply said “tell us what needs to be done.” I am committed for their sake and for the church to do just that. Because it turns out, it is just as important what a deacon does as who a deacon is.
The transition in deacon ministry models that most churches have undergone in the last several decades has been a step in the right direction. But the transition is incomplete. And this has caused deep frustration and confusion that negatively impacts entire churches.
Based on Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 3, I would describe the deacon as “men of Godly character working to improve the kingdom effectiveness of the local church, primarily through serving others”. This perspective moves the deacons away from the old model of being a board of directors or the executive council on all things church. In every church I have pastured I have emphasized that it matters far more who a deacon is, than what a deacon does.
But what am only now beginning to really understand is that biblical deacons were deep men of character….but they also did stuff. Our men today are willing to lay aside the old role of directors, but they hunger for something meaningful to do for the kingdom and they become restless serving without a purpose.
Programs have been developed to fill this gap. (The SBC Deacon Family Ministry Plan comes to mind.) But these plans often only address one area of need in a church and often only fit the gifts of a small portion of our men. I believe each deacon should find his own sphere “to improve the kingdom effectiveness of the church through serving others”.
When I asked my deacons this week, how I could help them fulfill their role as deacons, they simply said “tell us what needs to be done.” I am committed for their sake and for the church to do just that. Because it turns out, it is just as important what a deacon does as who a deacon is.
Still breathing, still learning.
Tim
Posts
2 comments:
Tim,
I've just recently finished an article that I'll email you on the role of Convention Press on deacon ministry within the SBC (forthcoming in Florida Baptist Heritage Journal in November). You've noticed the transition well, but it is a bit of a stretch to assume automatically that Acts 6 actually speaks of deacons (probably more like pastoral assistants/associates in our modern understanding). Reasons for this include no use of the term "deacon" (though the verb for "serve" occurs twice) as well as no mention of deacons for another 25 years in the NT?! (not until Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3, and possibly Romans 16:1) The office of pastor is mentioned numerous times during that span, but nothing of deacons. Many NT scholars today reject Acts 6 as the origin of the diaconate. Just food for thought.
JRB
Joel
That sounds like a very interesting article. I look forward to reading it.
I am aware of the questions concerning Acts 6. When we discuss this passage I typically do address the fact it is not a "slam dunk" reference to deacons.
But I seem to lean the opposite direction as the "leading NT scholars" (and I like to think I am closing the gap). Even in the absense of the exact title there is a strong linguistic connection between the verb to serve (Acts 6) and the noun deacon (1 Tim). I also would say that something that appears to be as critical as deacons in 1 Timothy was not likely to be a new paradigm of ministry at that time.
But smarter guys than us have failed to reach a solid consensus over the years.
Thanks keeping the comments page interesting.
Tim
Post a Comment