Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Russell Moore on deacons

A very interesting post on the topic of deacons by Russell Moore of Southern Seminary, Is a Deacon just a servant?. I like much of what he wrote but I am less enthusiastic about other sections. Especially where he seems to equate Baptist church traditions with Biblical commands. For example, I liked this:

Some have asked if I believe deacons are “just to be servants,” not leaders in the congregation. Now, first of all, there’s no such thing for followers of Christ as a category of “just a servant.” Servanthood is not menial. Our Lord Jesus himself is the servant of all, and is thus Emperor of the universe.

Not so much this:

Pastors and teachers can’t give up “prayer and the ministry of the Word” (Acts 6:2), but they certainly are not the only Christians who pray or proclaim the Scriptures. Every Christian is called to interpret and explain the Scripture, to exhort unbelievers to know Christ and to build up the rest of the church with the Word of God. Pastors are uniquely given over to lead the Body in these gifts, to equip the rest of the Body to take the gospel everywhere (Eph 4:12). The office of pastor is unique because the pastor is, week-by week” teaching his people to “preach,” to their families, to their neighbors, to themselves.

Is Acts 6:2 a reference to pastors or is it referring to the apostles who were engaged in evangelism? Are most sermons designed to teach people to preach? Is "pastor" an office?

Give it a read and let me know what you think.


Bookmark and Share

6 comments:

Alan Knox said...

Another interesting thing that I've noticed... the apostles' concern in Acts 6 that they focus on "prayer and the word" seems limited in time. Not long after this, and the apostles are running all over the Roman empire.

-Alan

Arthur Sido said...

I don't have a good handle on deacons in the NT at all. I need to study it a lot more.

Alan Knox said...

Good luck. There's not much about deacons in the New Testament.

I'm not convinced that Acts 6 even refers to deacons.

-Alan

Arthur Sido said...

I kinda don't either. I know we traditionally assume it does but I don't think the linkage is very solid. Do you have any posts on deacons?

Alan Knox said...

Well, I haven't posted much on deacons. Here are a few: "Just Semantics? (Servant)", "To deacon or not to deacon", "Deacons", and "Seven chosen to serve".

-Alan

A. Amos Love said...

Arthur

Like elders and overseers
there are qualifications for deacons.
Can you have deacons with out qualifications?

1 Tim 3:10
...being found blameless.

This is the same “blameless”
for elders and overseers.

Blameless... How important is this word?

Webster’s - Without fault; innocent; guiltless;
not meriting censure.

Synonyms - faultless, guiltless, innocent,
irreproachable, spotless, unblemished.

Computer - that cannot be reprehended,
(cannot be, rebukable, reprovable, cannot find fault)
not open to censure, irreproachable.

Strongs #423 - anepileptos
inculpable, blameless, unrebukeable.

How many, who honestly examine themselves,
seriously considering these qualifications,
can see themselves as blameless, without fault
and thus qualify to be an overseer, elder, deacon?

And if you can see yourself as blameless;
Is that pride? And no longer without fault?

The Bible talks about bishops, elders and deacons.
And qualifications for bishops, elders and deacons.
Can you have one without the other?

This is only one of many qualifications.

Peace.