[I’ll be returning both to “The Story” and “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes.” But this has been on mind lately.]
It’s long been taught in Churches of Christ that —
1. A church is not a true church unless it’s “scripturally organized.”
2. Scripturally organized churches have deacons, but only if they also have elders. If there are no elders, then the deacons become de facto elders and thus the deacons (“diaconate” is the word for the deacons as a group) should be disbanded.
3. Deacons are men who meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:8-13 who’ve been ordained by the church for the office.
4. Only males may be deacons.
5. Deacons are to oversee a ministry. Typically, they are heads over particular congregational ministries, that is, a single deacon might be appointed the head over the teen ministry, with the teen minister answering to the deacon, and the deacon speaking for the teen ministry to the elders.
In a smaller church, the deacon might be assigned to lawn mowing or opening and closing the building. In a larger church, those same jobs might be given to a non-church member, such as a lawn service or a janitor.
6. The deacons should meet as a body. In many churches, the deacons meet as a body, typically with the elders, and act as a sounding board or even a House of Representatives to the elders’ Senate, creating a bicameral governing structure — but with no clear understanding of what must come before both bodies.
7. “Deacon” is an honorific title. That is, it’s a title that in some sense elevates a deacon to a position of particular honor. Young men who receive this title often take great pride in the office. It’s the sort of thing that makes a mother proud: her son “made deacon”!
8. You can be a deacon and have no job assignment. Typically this happens because the deacon’s job is moved to staff or eliminated as the church moves on to other ministry priorities. However, because being a deacon is an honor in addition to being a job, removing someone as a deacon can be perceived as an insult — or even an indictment for an undisclosed sin.
Years ago, we reorganized the deacons and eliminated deacons with no job (“deacons at large”) and explained this to the congregation. One removed deacon came up to me and said, “I’m so glad that the elders finally did this. I’ve needed to resign for a long time, but knew that if I resigned, some would wonder if I’d committed adultery or something!”
Thesis:
I think nearly all of this is wrong and impairs the work of the church. We’d be far better off to follow the scriptures rather than our traditions. In fact, in my view, we should eliminate the office altogether or else limit the office to the description of the office in Acts 6. I particularly dislike the use of “deacon” as an honorific title. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Argument:
Tradition 1. A church is not a true church unless it’s “scripturally organized.”
The Churches of Christ borrowed the requirement that a church must be “scripturally organized” from the 19th Century “Landmark Baptist” movement, centered around Nashville. The Baptist argument (long since abandoned by most Baptists) is that the true church is determined by comparing certain “marks of the church,” and thus a believer should pick a denomination based on which denomination has the right marks.
To refute the Landmark Baptists, we took a wrong turn. We should have declared their argument legalistic and in violation of the entirety of the epistle to the Galatians (which the Southern Baptists did around the turn of the century). Rather, we bought the argument lock, stock, and barrel and argued that our position on scriptural organization is the right one.
From there, we argued that those with the wrong form of organization are damned in their sins for their rebellion against God.
But consider these scriptural realities —
* In Acts 6, the apostles appointed seven men to handle the distribution of food to widows. Most consider these men to have been the first deacons (as do I). But the apostles made these appointments to meet a particular, local need not so that the Jerusalem church would be “scripturally organized.”
I mean, do we seriously contend that the Jerusalem church was not scripturally organized before then? The church had tens of thousands of members (Acts 4:4 reports 5,000 male members, likely many years earlier). Surely they could have appointed deacons earlier had God commanded that churches have deacons.
* There is no mention of “deacons” except in Romans (highly disputed reference to Phoebe as a “a deacon [or servant] of the church in Cenchreae”); Philippians (epistle addressed to “elders and deacons”); and 1 Timothy 3 (addressed to Timothy while in Ephesus). That’s it.
The congregation in Ephesus had been around for decades before 1 Timothy was written. Just so, the Jerusalem congregation was very well established and very large before the first deacons were appointed.
These is simply no scriptural argument that a church without deacons is improperly organized and damned. If that’s the case, then the Jerusalem and Ephesian congregations were unsound and lost in their sins for decades before they got around to obeying God’s will for church organization.
It’s an absurd argument created to win arguments against Baptists.
In fact, as argued by John Mark Hicks, Alexander Campbell specifically rejected this argument —
[Campbell] certainly believed that it would enhance the “happiness and usefulness” of Christians to fully embrace and exactly implement the ancient order, but he did not think it necessary for a congregation to fully understand and practice the ancient order in order to be a faithful community of God. Campbell insists that he “never made [the ancient order of things], hinted that they should be, or used them as a test of christian character or terms of christian communion.”
You see, this argument actually contradicts some of the central tenets of the Restoration Movement, such as —
“We are Christians only but not the only Christians.”
“We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.”
The Bible nowhere says that you must be a member of a congregation that has deacons to be saved. It’s just not there, and it’s obviously just not true. We should not add to God’s holy word.
[to be continued]
Dear brothers in Christ,
Though I’m not in the Restoration movement I, like you, share a passion for unity among Christians based solely on the word of God. I suspect we have more in common beside the ability to reject the posture of, “my church is true, your’s is not.”
I have written an article on this called “Replacing the True with the Obedient” in which I repudiate true church ideology in favor of evaluating churches based on obedience to Scripture. perhaps this can advance the Restoration movement via the hermeneutic being espoused here.
If interested, its at http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/replacing-the-true-with-the-obedient/.
The web site is new and is still working out some bugs, but if your aim is unity among the body of Christ, that is, those truly called into fellowship with the risen Christ, then our aim is similar.
Thanks.
I think #3 is correct. Php 1:1 is pretty strong evidence that deacons were an identifiable group similar to elders, with great significance in the church. 1Tim 3:8 along with Acts 6 provide the logistics for how such a group is created. The fact that people misinterpret the term”deacon” as an honorific title doesn’t disprove the existence of such a group.
I sometimes wonder whether 1 Tim 3 should be applied as the minimum requirements for what we call a minister / preacher / evangelist. Surely a position of such responsibility ought to come with certain minimum spiritual requirements, and a period of testing.
But are they junior elders? Elders in training? Is their vote binding? Is it used to keep men attending church until they are old enough to become elders? If they can be quickly overruled by elders, then do they learn how to manage and learn from their mistakes or do they just learn what the elders will (not) approve?
The diaconate sadly has been and can be used to keep women out of leadership. I have seen churches that ran well using committees with no age and gender restrictions instead of deacons.
Bro. Ted, judging a local religion club by its “obedience to scripture” is the method by which the CoC traditionally has always proposed to decide who is or is not the “true church”. You rightly cast aside this divisive “true church” terminology, but you have not changed the underlying basis for it, You apply the exact same methodology to the local religion clubs in your area to determine which is “obedient” as others use to determine whether it is “true” or “sound” or “biblical”. That is, you judge the obedience of another man’s servants as to whether or not they please God by the necessary minimum daily requirement of obedience. This is the exact same song, with the lyrics modified only slightly.
I appreciate your desire for unity, mi amigo, but your approach is, in and of itself divisive, even if unintentionally so. It cannot produce unity because the church never has and never will find unity in the quality of its performance. We are incapable of this and have proven it. We are either one in the Spirit, and in our identity in Christ Jesus, or we are not “one” at all. We will never be unified as long as we feel comfortable making rulings on some other group’s “obedience” and whether it suffices to please God. Such arrogance is mutually-exclusive to unity.
I would notice that in your recognition of terms which are not found in the NT, you overlook “autonomous local congregation”, a concept which is entirely foreign to the scripture. Never has a better tool for division been developed than the idea of independent, disconnected mutually-exclusive owner-operated religious corporations in a city. This system validates us telling our brother, “No, you are not one of us. And that’s perfectly fine. We are not part of you, either.” Sigh.
Thanks, Jay, for setting that little stick of dynamite under this “scripturally organized” fiction. As it is based on yet another extrabiblical idea– the “autonomous congregation”– its foundation was shot, anyway. Once we admit that the religious organizations we have built are not “the church” but merely our own owner-operated groups of like-minded believers, perhaps we can stop trying to sign God’s name to our designs and admit that they are indeed of our own creation. Once we acknowledge this, perhaps it will make room for the requisite humility we need to examine our own practices… or better yet, to simply listen to the Holy Spirit.
It don’t matter one bit how deacons are chosen or serve if the church overall is not prayerfully seeking God’s will and being spiritual. Having the right leadership mechanics and structure won’t heal a church composed of members who merely cling to their doctrines and don’t humbly love and serve the Lord.
Jay,
The first step away from tradition is always the toughest step to take. Step 1 in this case: Stop accepting KJV terminology as if it is sacred. Step 2 re-evaluate traditions in light of Step 1. Step 3 start revising doctrinal teaching to reflect better interpretations based on better information. Step 4 put the true teachings of the scriptures into practice. Step 5 deal with the pockets of resistance with love and much grace.
Don’t call them deacons; call them servants. Don’t call them elders; call them shepherds and counselors. Don’t say, “The Leadership …” Say, “our servant-teachers and counselors.”
Expect shepherds to shepherd and preachers to preach and servants to render service.
Grizz
Grizz…. Let’s not omit “overseer” (episkopos) and “elder” (presbuteros) from the biblical terminology along with “shepherd”.
In my upbringing we never, ever heard about our Restoration Movement history of quotes of Campbell like this: ”never made [the ancient order of things], hinted that they should be, or used them as a test of christian character or terms of christian communion.” The reason given being that “we follow Christ, not Campbell.” But in glibly casting our beginnings aside, we lost the very spirit that made the RM. Increasingly, I don’t think was simply drift, I think this was intentional–as even simple quotes like these would have completely undermined our mid-century modern take on the Ancient Order®. So, we ditched Campbell and our ideals in order to hold onto our vision of “what ought to be.”
It has only been in the last few years that Campbell’s writings have been discussed in public. It started about the same time that the cofC started having to answer questions about her “traditions.”
Alan,
Overseer and elder are just fine … so long as we accept the meaning given in scripture. A recent series by Jay made it pretty clear to me that we have a very modern and very Western idea that we are loathe to shake off.
Jesus taught about servant-leaders in ways and terms most deny. Most begin with the Gentile view and modernize it. Jesus had a view that was foreign to Jews and Gentiles, at least in practice. Many still do not grasp that meaning well.
It goes back, to some extent, to God allowing different iterations of leadership while desiring a whole other kind of leadership among His people altogether. We run on the ‘desired by people’ side of that equation much too often.
Grizz
I find it ironic that we would re-organize the church from it’s original structural formation to add Deacons as an office and then claim that women such as Phoebe weren’t really Deacons but servants. CoC women deserve a few extra jewels in their crowns for their patience with the men !! Also, it seems odd that in Acts 15, well after the first deacons were selected, that they were never mentioned in the HUGE debate raging at that time. The text mentions the Apostles, the Elders and the Church/Brethren but not one mention of the Deacon body. Is it reading too much into this text to assume that the deacons were just regular members who happened to volunteer when the need arose ?
While some of the women have been quite patient with some of the men, some of the women want to keep the rest of the women out of leadership positions. Thus, the men should not get all of the blame.
All,
Sorry for being away from the comments for so long. I’ve been busy writing. I find that, when I’m in the mood to write, I’d better write, because the writing isn’t so good when I’m not in the mood.
mark,
In nearly all of our congregations, the decision whether to teach a truer doctrine of male/female relationships is up to the elders — who are men. Therefore, it really is the fault of the men, even if some women are co-dependents with them.
Price wrote,
Exactly.
And the Restoration Movement founders largely considered Phoebe a deacon. This was based on (a) the fact that they did not consider deacons to serve as a board and (b) early church history shows that there were female deacons even in very early years. They didn’t see the office as having inherent authority and therefore saw no reason to bar women.
mark wrote,
That’s a fair statement. The first time I taught on the RM was around 1980 or so, and the books available at the time were highly biased and selectively edited. It was obvious that they were hiding something. I can’t tell you how excited I was some years later to read the full text of the Declaration and Address — and discover that my suspicions had been true.
Since then, there have been many excellent books and, more importantly, the Internet, which has greatly expanded the ease of discovering the true history of the RM.
James G —
That’s exactly right. The writings of the RM founders were largely hidden and selectively edited for the sake of perpetuating a false picture. The prevailing Church of Christ theology in the 20th Century was nearly the exact opposite of what Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone taught.
mark wrote,
As have I.
Some of the greatest servants of the Lord I know are childless and unmarried. Like Paul.
The fact is that the Spirit has gifted many a women, single, and childless person to exercise leadership within the Lord’s church.
Ted,
Thanks for your comment. I’m pressed for time and so have not yet read your post. I would agree with your premise if you define “obedient” as the NT generally does — that is, as a condition of the heart rather than agreeing with a particular set of human interpretations.
That is, if I use grape juice rather than wine in the communion, prayerfully believing that God bans wine, then in my heart I’m obedient and, per Rom 14, God accepts my worship. Just so, if I prefer wine because I believe that is the NT practice, and I turn out to be wrong, I’m still obedient because, in my heart, I obeyed.
There is, of course, a boundary, and that boundary is faith in Jesus. Grace is only for those in grace. It’s the sacrifice of Jesus that allows God to judge my heart.
Hi Charles,
Thank you for such a well thought out response to my post. As I’m just getting familiar with the RM I have much to learn, and appreciate your feedback more than you know.
I wish I could talk at length with you, because everything you wrote is so provocative, but let me interact with this one item you wrote:
Doesn’t Paul require us to make such judgments in Rom. 16:17-18, and in v. 19 commend the church in Rome for their obedience, thus showing he feels comfortable making such rulings?
Hi Jay,
I know your time is precious. Thanks for taking some of it to answer my post. Feel free to ignore my post below if you don’t have the time for it – i totally understand. I’m very new to the RM, so if my questions come off as uneducated, its because they are.
You wrote,
Well, you are obeying your conscience, though that doesn’t mean you are obeying Scripture. For the record, i agree with you on your example, but disagree with your premise.
Obedience to Scripture requires a set standard for all, although the working out of that obedience is always done with some sin in the heart. Therefore we need a great Savior who cleanses even our acts of obedience.
In my original comment to you I was referring to a church’s obedience, not a man’s individual obedience. So when you discuss wine v. grape juice, I’m with you individually so long as we call such things adiaphora – i.e., things not critical, matters of free choice. What color carpet of the sanctuary, idea. But other issues are a matter of obedience to revealed truth. Yes, obedience is in the heart. But when we discuss a church’s obedience to Scripture we go beyond the subjective to the objective. We who cannot see into another’s heart must judge by the objective basis of Scripture. Even our judgment of self is highly skewed and not always helpful (1 Sam. 16:7, 1 Cor. 4:5). The Lord alone can judge church’ obedience subjectively – the 7 churches are measured for obedience and disobedience by the Lord in Rev. 2-3. But there is a standard….
The Bible reveals God’s will for us as individuals and churches by reinforcing it’s teachings by giving us revelation concerning what we must both do and believe in both precept and example. It gives us both so our faith is strengthened since in Scripture is “all the truth” we need to know about how to please the Lord and do what He ants us to (John 16:13-15).
Quick example; the Lord’s Supper. We have both precept, and example in the NT (Luke 22, 1 Cor. 11). Footwashing… we have only example, our Lord in John 13. Thus we do not consider a matter of obedience for the church.
So, taking precept and example, we would look for both concerning deacons, as per this post. Precept is given in 1 Tim. 3, example in Phil. 1:1 and Rom. 16:1-2. (sorry, I’m not a deacons-in-Acts 6 advocate).
So when you write, “…if you define “obedient” as the NT generally does — that is, as a condition of the heart rather than agreeing with a particular set of human interpretations….”
… are you saying all interpretations made by all men by nature wrong, or that interpretations of men can’t be proven wrong since obedience is subjective to the heart?
Ted,
When we start defining adiaphora (matters of indifference), we must decide who gets to decide. To me, wine vs. grape juice is adiaphora. But to many others, it’s a matter of obedience.
The history of the Churches of Christ is filled with disputes and divisions, most quite painful and destructive, over what is and isn’t adiaphora.
I think that draws the boundary of the church at very much the wrong place. The scriptures say that those with faith in Jesus as Messiah are saved. Why would we pick a different standard?
Of course, “faith” includes faithfulness, in the sense of repentance or loyalty, that is, a heart turned toward God. It does not require that we agree on everything. We must agree that we are to be obedient to Jesus (the very definition of faithfulness), and we must agree on the authority of the apostles (1 John 4:6). But we aren’t required to agree on wine vs. grape juice or many, many other things. Rom 14 makes that quite clear — as does the sad history of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century.
Thanks Jay, i know you are busy.
Umm, yeah. Feel that in my own background and experience.
Unfortunately, backing up to “faith in Jesus as Messiah” isn’t enough, much as you and i wish it were. If it were, Paul wouldn’t have needed to write lengthy letters to Corinth and other churches.
On the one hand we constantly deal with the fact that “faith in Jesus” is sometimes (often?) false faith, Hence Paul’s admonishment to examine oneself (2 Cor. 13:5). For Paul, some people he knew who professed faith in Jesus as the Messiah were in need of discovering if their faith was genuine saving faith. Others who had “faith in Jesus” were false apostles and were trying to destroy the faith of God’s elect.
On the other hand we have to make a distinction between individual obedience and church obedience, both of which must be observable to other men, for the Bible is written to teach us how to judge with godly judgment. If we don’t, how can we “keep watch over the flock?” as opposed to just the individual?
So i go back to my point about precept and example. Apply that to the wine vs. grape juice matter. Since the New Testament does not, in itself, require that distinction to be made, it is adiaphora. So, those men who make that distinction are simply being self-willed and disobedient, and are unworthy of teaching and leading the flock since they are not able to “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching.”
Nothing surprising there. But my point is not to give them a pass because they have a scruple and yet are otherwise good men, but to call them to defend their position by precept AND example. Force them back to Scripture. If they react foolishly, or sinfully, then there are godly judgments to be made about them, especially if they are teaching others to obey what God does not command. Our Lord had quite a bit to say about that, and so should we.
Ted, thanks for your reply and for your kind tone. I think there is a distinction between Paul’s admonition and our traditional practice of deciding that other groups of Christians are not “obedient enough” to merit being accepted by us as believers. Paul speaks of individuals in the Roman church who were to be avoided because their views were corrosive and spiritually toxic. For me to avoid Joe Hardcase because he is trying to divide my brothers is one thing. But for me to segregate myself from many of my brothers by my judgment of their “obedience level” actually makes ME one of those whom Paul warned against. Paul did not encourage the Romans to set themselves up as judges of the sufficiency of anyone’s obedience. To stretch Paul’s simple advice to such an extent actually stands this passage on its head, making US into the ones who are divisive. Paul’s intention here is clearly to encourage the brothers to insulate themselves from people who would make it harder for them to live as the body of Christ. If we start establishing performance standards by which we decide who is “in” and who is “out”, then Pogo was right, “We have met the enemy and he is US.”
We seem to sometimes think that we can make it easier for others to obey God by offering the valuable service of auditing their behavior and issuing report cards and threatening to not let them into our school if they don’t bring their grades up. I don’t think this is all that helpful. It seems to me that our first step in following Paul’s advice to avoid those who are divisive is not to be such people ourselves.
Ted appears to suggest that the fact that the church continues to receive instruction beyond faith in Messiah (say, John 5:24) means that such faith is thus an insufficient standard to be applied to accepting one another in Christ. Allow me to suggest that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, not to make them believers, nor to keep them believers, but AS believers. For me to continue to rear my children does not mean that somehow they were not entirely my children all along. Their obedience does not make them more my children than they were, nor does their disobedience change their genetics. God has chosen to reconcile us to himself through faith in Jesus Christ. Perhaps we could let His standard be ours.
Certainly, God expects our faith to produce good works. And it will. But those works cannot be used to determine whether or not we are born again. That is a spiritual matter. We see the outer man, God alone sees the heart. As to concerning ourselves with the potential “false faith” of another person, adding further requirements to him to prove his faith will not make a man a true believer. The Pharisees have already traveled this very road and Jesus was not impressed. We are indeed encouraged to make our own calling and election sure, but we are never instructed to extend that endeavor to others.
Hi Charles,
I so totally agree. I love your last line. POW!
In fact it doesn’t really matter “how obedient” you or I are if in fact we are regenerate. Now, i could be so disobedient that my church disciplines me out (Mat. 18) but should I be one of Christ’s own my spirit will be saved in the day of Christ (1 Cor. 5:5).
But if I am disciplined out of the church the same Christ commands my church to “regard me as a tax collector and Gentile.” If they don’t, they sin. So much for private judgment.
In this case private judgment is trumped by ecclesiastical judgment. So don’t write off making ecclesiastical judgments too quick, OK? I’m persuaded you are against all such unnecessary ecclesiastical judgments. The actual judgments on people we are to make as a church are quite few, though important, no?
I just keep going back to an objective standard – obedience and beliefs are to be measured by both precept and example in the NT. I’ve written on this: http://www.churchsonefoundation.com/precept-and-example/ and have refered to it in my discussions in this thread with Jay. In this we can find unity since the Scripture testifies to itself.
All blessings in Christ to you, Charles.
Ted Bigelow,
I followed your advise and your link to your web site and read many of your articles and by applying the P&E format that you have identified as the tool that all Christians have available for use would like to have posted many powerful P&E examples that I have gleaned from the scriptures that would shed a different view on many of your conclusions. But, I notice that you do not entertain that type of interaction on your site as Jay does here, therefore you totally control the conversation to your own conclusion, you even warn that you have a busy life and it may take a considerable time for a response to any comments made. I have encountered the exact same methods in use by some of the denominations whom I have attempted to enlighten about some of the doctrines they hold. I am so proud of Jay’s site here because I believe there is not a soul that reads this blog that does not have their theories tested and many times a door into a clearer understanding of God’s Word is opened and secured in their understanding. Because of your entry into the discussion here would you be uncomfortable in addressing some of the issues here that I found on your site? I noticed that you used an example that two or three Christians meeting at a local restaurant or gathering place could not be identified as a church because if one was in error in understanding and did not correct the error the church could not administer corrective judgment. Paraphrased by me.
Grizz wrote:
The scriptures used words from the common language. Those words mean in scripture what they meant in the original language. Overseer was a well understood term in ancient Greek. There are many examples of its use in government documents, for example, which clearly illustrate the kind of responsibilities and authority that the term connotes.
I’m 100% in agreement about servant leadership. But the scriptures also command us to submit to the authority of those appointed to watch over us. (Heb 13:17) While we’re diligently trying to restore the original role of overseers / elders / shepherds, let’s not be unaware of the influence of American culture that hates submitting to authority. Church leaders do carry authority, and they will be held accountable for how they use it.
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful words.
I do try to respond to comments quickly on my site but my prior commitment is my church and family. You know how it is in the internet world. People gets discouraged easily if they don’t get the immediate feedback. I usually do my blog interacting in the morning and try to limit my time doing it, but if its a quick item, will respond during the day. But perhaps your insights will require me to think and deliberate. It doesn’t mean I’m ignoring you. I’m just trying to read your thoughts, hoping to gain the most from them i can.
My site is more of a “full meal” than an appetizer site in that I do write to a conclusion to each full length article (dessert, if you will). I don’t do that on my blog posts, however.
So please, interact and disagree. Perhaps you will teach me and i will be forever in your debt.
I think the appropriate venue for your interaction with the items on my site is at that site. That way, others who read the articles might benefit from your insights as well.
Pingback: Saturday Shortcuts – Planned Peasanthood