Response:
No church should ever, under any circumstances, elect an unqualified
man to any position just to fill it. But if qualified, spirit-filled
men are available, and willing to serve, it is right for the church to
select some to serve as deacons. I believe a pastor makes a big mistake
when he has Scripturally qualified men, but refuses to allow any of them
to be chosen by the church to serve as deacons.
First of all, he hinders his own ministry. In Acts 6, the apostles were
unable to take care of all the day to day operations of the church, and
still have time to adequately prepare, pray and preach. Some things
just weren't getting done. Thus, godly men were chosen by the
congregation to take care of the "work of the ministry" (Eph 4:12), so
that the "pastors" could concentrate on the "ministry of the Word" (Acts
6:4). This parallels Moses' experience in Exodus 18:13-26. His father
in law told him that he was not only going to wear himself away, but
also wear away the people he was leading (vs. 18) because he couldn't do
it all. His desire to handle all the responsibilities by himself was
"not good" (vs. 17). So Moses chose good men who handled the small
matters, and only bothered him with the "hard causes" (vs. 26). There
is nothing in the Scriptures that indicate that Moses made a bad
decision. He was no longer "wearing himself away". The apostles in
Acts 6 now had more time to concentrate on their primary objective:
praying and preaching. These are good things.
As noted in the passages above, not only does the pastor hinder his own
ministry, but he also limits the benefits given to the people he is
supposed to be ministering to. In Acts 6, widows were being neglected.
In Exodus 18, Moses was allowing the people to wear away. Is this an
appropriate way to treat those to whom you have been given leadership
and responsibility?
The pastor is also hindering godly men who are qualified to be deacons
from reaching the full potential of their service unto the Lord, and
perhaps also keeping them from fully using their spiritual gifts. Both
Philip and Stephen started out as deacons. They wound up being great
preachers and evangelists. I Tim 3:13 tells us that a good deacon
"purchases a good degree" i.e. he achieves good standing before his
fellow Christians, which implies that other Christians could come to him
for Biblical advice, or look to him for a spiritual example. It also
states that a good deacon purchases "great boldness in the faith". This
means that they learn to be strong in their faith in God, and they thus
have a much bolder witness for the Lord. Again, Stephen and Philip are
prime examples of this (Acts 6:8-7;60; Acts 8:5-8, 21:8). As far as
spiritual gifts are concerned, Romans 12:7-8 mentions the gifts of
ministry and ruling. There is nothing in that passage that indicates
that only pastors get the gift of ruling, which means that others can be
put in positions in the church where they can make decisions, either on
their own or with the pastor. This could certainly apply to a deacon.
As far as ministry is concerned, the Greek word translated "ministry" is
the same word from which we get the English word "deacon". Who better
to have and use the gift of ministry than a deacon?
Lastly, the pastor who won't have deacons may be hindering the
effectiveness of the entire church. In Acts 6:1, the need for deacons
is given. In verses 2-4 the qualifications for the deacons are given.
In verse 5 the deacons are chosen. In verse 6 they are prayed over and
commissioned or ordained. Then, note what happens in verse 7, the very
next verse: "And the Word of God increased, and the number of disciples
multiplied in Jerusalem greatly". A coincidence? Not when God connects
verses 6 and 7 with the conjunction "and". Verse 6 clearly helped to
produce verse 7.
One last thought. In I Tim 3, God lists out the qualifications for
pastors. At the conclusion of that section, Paul writes, "LIKEWISE must
the deacons...". No one would argue whether or not it is Scriptural for
a church to have a pastor. If it is right to have qualified pastors,
LIKEWISE it is right to have qualified deacons. These are the two
offices of the church, and to arbitrarily do away with one because of
past experiences or horror stories is wrong. We all know of selfish,
unethical, and even immoral pastors. Should churches not have pastors
because they know of other pastors who have done wrong? The answer is
obvious.
I hope this helps. May the Lord bless you.
|
By Dr Mark Montgomery
Ambassador Baptist Church
1926 Babcock Blvd
Pittsburgh, PA 15209
(412)477-3210
|