It’s About Time

As mentioned in earlier blog, I have always attended Baptist churches that only have two offices: Pastor and deacon.  It is only when in the States that I got to hear about Baptist churches having pastor, elder and deacon.  Usually the Presbyterians are the ones with three offices in the church.  Having said that I am not against the plurality of elders – that is having more than one pastor in a church.   After all, Paul greeted the pastors and deacons (οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις) in his letter to the Philippians. 

I am of the persuasion that the terms: elder (πρεσβύτερος), pastor (ποιμήν) and overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) are different facet of the same office.  The elder having the dignity of office possesses spiritual maturity and thus fit to provide counsel to his community (church); the pastor being the extension of the imagery of shepherd who feeds and protects his flock, and an overseer who supervises the ministries under his charge. He may delegate but he is still ultimately responsible for the efficient operation of the ministries under his charge.  Paul in his address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 reminded them of their responsibilities as overseers and shepherds within the same context. The apostle Peter in 1 Peter 5:1-4 likewise uses overseeing and shepherding in his counsel to the elders.  If these three terms refer to the same office, then I find it hard-pressed to have three offices.  Of course some would say there are possibly four (deaconess).   

The Presbyterians, however, distinguished between ruling elders and teaching elders – the former group is responsible for the administration and running of the ministries whereas the teaching elders focus on the pedagogical aspect of the church ministries.   It is not uncommon for them to have elders who are elected by the church but not have the ability to teach but they ‘rule’.  The justification for this differentiation is 1 Tim 5:17 “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.”  Thus the two categories of elders found in the Presbyterian Church.  I have a problem with this polity because the main distinction between a deacon and an elder/overseer is the latter’s “apt to teach.”

In my view, if one has spiritual qualification but not apt to teach, he ought only to be a deacon.  That does not mean he is lesser for spiritual qualifications for both offices are similar; it is just that if a man does not have the ability to teach, he cannot be an overseer; he should instead be willing and eager to be a deacon, for that is where he will excel.  

As mentioned earlier, pastor, elder and overseer are different facet of the same office; not three officers.  In other words, there are elders who are good at ruling, but there are those who besides ruling well, also excel in word and doctrine.  Paul commands these particular elders to be doubly honored.  The word honor also refers to financial remuneration.  Thus they should be doubly-paid!  It also reiterates the primary ministry of elder/pastor/overseer is that of word and doctrine.  

I believe in plurality of elders but not elder-rule.  Affirmation of plurality of elders does not negate congregational polity. In fact, plurality of elders means the church is better cared for because the work load is spread out; there ought to be greater synergism, not competition within the leadership.  

Will it be accepted in my local circle of independent Baptist circles? I doubt so because they are so entrenched in traditions that it would take a seismic overhaul to change their mindset – to look at their long-held beliefs under the search light of Scriptures.  

Having grown up in Baptist churches that have two offices – pastor and deacon, it required some thinking on my part into the issue of deaconess.  Holding on to tradition seems to be the easier way out – no need to think about it; just do it.  After all, we’ve always done it this way.  Hanging on to tradition seems more plausible. However, the main question is – how does it square with Scriptures?  

Over time, I thought much about deaconess, as well as elders serving alongside pastors and deacons in the church. The latter is another subject matter for another day perhaps.  It took awhile to work out this question about deaconess to my satisfaction and more importantly, more consistently with Scriptures and practice.  So here’s my take:

I see the ministry of the deaconess essentially as an issue of function rather than an office.  Once you are able to distinguish between the two, you will not be easily confused regarding ministry of women in the local church.  

The function of deacon is that of ministry of humble service (διακονία) to others in the local church.  The term διάκονος did not come to be an office until later in Paul’s ministry (eg, Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3).  I believe Dr Hauser is right when he said that Acts 6 is a prototype of deaconate, not the official setting up of the office of such.  The early church is pretty much simple in its set up.  Only as the church grew that it becomes necessary for it to have more structure in place for effective ministry.  

Though there are 2 main views regarding the deaconate, I am still not persuaded that 1 Tim 3 is referring to deaconess as well as deacon. It would seemed strange that Paul would talk about the criteria for deaconate for the man, and then insert a verse for the woman, before resuming his discussion (see, 1 Tim 3:10-12).  I take it then that Paul was addressing the fact that the deacon’s wife will either enhance or hinder his ministry by her speech and lack of self-control.  I have encountered individuals who would have been excellent candidates for the office of deacon but for the testimony of their wives.  It reflects badly on the man’s ability to lead and teach his wife, and possibly his children.  IMHO, this view will be more consistent with Paul’s listing of qualifications for both Pastor and deacons in 1 Tim 3: The testimony of the wives of these men have an effect on the credibility of their husbands. 

Though Paul uses the term διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς  in Rom 16:1 in reference to Phoebe, it seems like Paul was commending her as a great helper than describing her office.  In the early church, women servants cared for sick believers, the poor, strangers, and those in prison. They instructed the women and children too (cf. Titus 2:3-5).  This term is further clarified by Paul that Phoebe had been a great helper (προστάτις) to him.  I suppose that when these women had faithfully served and later on were widowed and destitute, they were to be cared for by the church (1 Tim. 5:3-16). 

I don’t there is anything wrong is ascribing the title of deaconess to women who serve other women in the local church. I believe the Pastor’s ministry is exceedingly enhanced by these faithful women as his ministry is extended further into the lives of children and women. The word προστάτις is where the English word for prosthetics derived its meaning – an extension of the limbs, artificial thought it might be.   

The distinction between function and office is important in deciding types of ministry that women can participate in the local church.