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