homeaboutgatheringsconnectresources

Deacons at CityView

While CityView Church has technically been open to having deacons for some time, we have not formally installed anyone that might qualify.  Further, we have seen very few “self-starters” in this area to cause us to be more attentive to this potential leadership gap.  Therefore, several months ago, I approached our other pastors and then our larger leadership team (comprised of pastors, pastor-candidates and deacon-types) about having a season of focused and proactive recruitment, observation and eventual installation of Deacons that will fulfill significant management responsibility and leadership within CityView Church.  

In short, my desire was to create a more formal and identifiable process for non-elder leaders to be ushered into areas of significant responsibility so that they could be under a time of testing in addition to any possible leadership development.  This will hopefully have the same effect that it had in the early church—seeing ministry accomplished in a more efficient manner for the Gospel while also granting CityView’s Pastors (Elders) the opportunity for ministry in prayer and the preaching/teaching of the Gospel.

For the remainder of this essay, I want to outline a vision/philosophy for our deacon ministy and describe the qualifications of those that would serve our church as Deacons.  Before reading this, I want you to have an open mind and put away any wrong-thinking, wrong-teaching or wrong-acting that you might associate with the term "Deacon" from previous church experience.  Please join myself and CityView's pastors in redeeming this Scriptural term.

Vision/Philosophy

I base the majority of my thought on the subject of Deacons on Acts 6:1-7--the genesis of the Deacon role in the early church.

To begin with, Deacons were created in response to a management mess in the early church (it should be pointed out that the term Deacon was not established at first, but eventually became the term of choice for this new leadership role).  This management mess response would be the modern day equivalent to things either not getting done that should get done OR things being done in a way that's less than ideal--either things done poorly or done by pastors when the pastors should be doing other things.

In the Acts 6 example, the Apostles apparently thought that they could have made a difference or could have possibly fixed the situation.  However, they thought it unwise to do so when their calling was so specific and necessary regarding prayer and the Word/Gospel.  While some might point out that the office of Apostle was unique to the original 12 disciples and Paul and that we cannot equate the calling of the Apostles to prayer and the Word with Elders, I would point out that their predicament was no different than a modern Elder who’s calling and responsibilities have strong similarities w/ the Apostles (w/ the exception of miracles and signs and the transcription of written revelation).  Additionally, Paul writes 1 Timothy (chapter 3) with an assumption that Deacons have continued to serve the church under the leadership of Elders.

The first deacon-like leaders were chosen or identified by the full number of the early disciples…which might have been equivalent to CityView's covenant membership.  Then the apostles appointed/installed them to their particular task--which was food distribution in the case of Acts 6.  Sometimes it might take multiple deacons to handle a particular task…sometimes not.  It seems they chose 7 men because they felt that was the number that would be needed for this particular task (I’m engaging in reasoned speculation at this point).

Why these 7 men?  These men might have been chosen due to the type of work/labor that was required because they had the right skill-set to get the particular job done (again, speculating).  At CityView, there might be many qualified to serve as Deacons, but we will only let the needs drive our approach to appointing these leaders--no Deacons will ever serve without a specific area of management responsibility.  One more point needs to be made regarding these 7 men.

The fact that they ONLY chose men to be a part of the original 7 Deacons might speak more to the type of job and not to the permissibility of women to serve as Deacons (or deaconesses).  My only defense to this is that Phoebe seems to make the appointment of female deacons/leaders potentially permissible (Romans 16:1).  As with anything that lacks 100% clarity in the Scripture, I would like us to approach this issue carefully/prayerfully when (or if) we were to ever install female deacons.  Under our pastors current thinking, we are not likely to appoint a married women unless her husband was also serving our church as an Elder or Deacon so as to keep home and church consistent in family leadership.

Reading on, the results of these early Deacons being appointed were seemingly positive.  I expect that verse 7 is meant to be both descriptive AND prescriptive.  Not only does it tell us what happened as a result of the Deacon appointment, but it also tells us what happens when pastors focus on their calling (The word/Gospel of God increased) and when deacon-like under-leaders do their job well (of course, we recognize that disciple-multiplication is a Spirit-enabled thing...but it always seems to happen when people are utilizing their varied gifts in proper ways and operating in rolls that fit them and the church best).  

Now...as we were to read beyond verses 1-6, we get one more insight into how these early Deacons served.  Verses 8-15 and chapter 7 remind us that these Deacons were not merely “table-waiters” that were background-type workers.  They were front and center leaders in the early church alongside the Elders (Philippians 1:1) that knew how to speak their faith clearly and powerfully when it was required.  They did not HAVE to be qualified to teach or preach...but they were not prohibited from doing so either (Stephen preached powerfully before being executed).  However, all Deacons should at least be able to know and defend the truth of the Gospel as is pointed out in the qualifications below:

Qualifications

These qualifications come from 1 Timothy 3:8-13:

1.  Must be dignified…which is further defined by:

  • Not being double-tongued—they’re honest and consistent in what they say to various people.
  • Not addicted to much wine—not only does this cover drunkenness, but it covers a “preoccupation” with wine.
  • Not greedy for dishonest gain—Deacons apparently handled the distribution of funds in addition to the distribution of other items…therefore, they cannot be given to “perks” or looking to their position to get them something (be it material, status, special access, etc.).

2.  They must hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience…which means two things.

  • They must understand the Gospel well (the previously hidden mystery as to the details of how the faith would unfold in Jesus)
  • They must hold to this Gospel with a clear conscience (life must match their doctrine—in other words, they must be living the Gospel as well).

3.  Tested first—they must be observed DOING for as long as it takes to see one’s character in one’s work.  Then, they are to be installed to serve as a Deacon.

4.  One-woman man—he has eyes/heart for his wife alone (if married).

5.  Must manage their children and their household well (if children).

For the reasons described in the early church and our own church's season of ministry and having brought Scriptural clarity to both the Vision/philosophy and the qualifications for the role of Deacon, the Pastors of CityView believe that we are at a crucial time to be proactive in our approach to identifying potential Deacons within our church.  Please join us in prayer to continue to identify both important management areas AND the people to lead/manage those particular areas.