The old joke–it’s probably more of a parable–has the mice plotting what to do about the cat. Finally, they decided to tie a bell around the cat’s neck so they could hear it coming.

The only thing they could not agree on was who would bell the cat.

It’s one thing to talk about reforming the deacons, and another thing to do it.

How would one go about it? Where would you start?

Let the deacons take the initiative.

Why them? Because the alternative might create an uproar unnecessarily.

Imagine someone standing in your church business conference to propose a complete reorganization of the deacons, including qualifications, membership, assignments, accountability, and limitations.

Now, imagine this coming as a complete surprise to the deacons.

Imagine further that the deacons are being run–and I do mean “run”–by a few strong-willed individuals who see this as their way of controlling the church and its ministers. And in their mind, that’s a good thing.

You may as well have called them crooks and challenged them to a duel. They are shocked, stunned, enraged, and ready to tear the church up to salvage their honor and prevent this from happening.

That’s why you’re not going to do it. (There is a good reason no mouse volunteered to bell that cat. It’s a suicide mission.)

NOTE: We assume here that the deacon body is in need of wholesale changes, a “drastic overhaul.” If something less than that is needed, you may choose to skip what follows.

Let the deacons take the initiative.

Ideally, if the church’s deacon system is not working or is causing more trouble than it is solving, all the deacons will see and acknowledge it, and will agree to bring the matter to the church.

If that’s the case, the church will do it in a heartbeat.

The second approach is not as clear-cut but better than the alternatives of putting up with the defective status quo or springing it on the deacons in a business meeting.

Continue reading →

On Facebook this week, a woman asked, “Why are you on this kick about deacons?”

I replied that in the last few days, two pastors have emailed me about rogue deacon groups that are making their lives miserable, presenting silly lists of requirements which they have to meet, and threatening them with termination. By what sick interpretation of Scripture does anyone find that kind of activity in God’s Holy Word, someone tell me?

And now, this morning as I sit at the breakfast table typing, one of the pastors emails to say he and his entire staff are being forced out. The church business session he moderated last night, he said, felt like “The Jerry Springer Show.” After the meeting ended, several fist-fights almost broke out. He added that most of the godly leadership of the church is resigning also. (I referenced this pastor in an earlier piece as saying the previous pastor had been forced out after 30 months. “And I am in my 30th month,” he added.)

That’s why. Someone needs to protect the church, not molest it.

The Bride of Christ is being molested. Gang-attacked, if you will.

Safeguarding the Lord’s Church begins with the ministers, those assigned to oversee and shepherd the flock. It continues with a group of people who should be the healthiest, most normal, kindest and most Christlike people in the church: The Deacons.

But if the deacons themselves are not healthy, if they are trouble-makers and preacher-bosses, if they are constantly at war among themselves and often at odds with the rest of the church leadership, the church is at great risk.

What is a healthy deacon ministry? Short answer: it will be right Scripturally.

Longer answer: A healthy deacon ministry will be based on these five pillars:

Continue reading →

The Bible does not tell us how to choose deacons.

In fact, it doesn’t even command that we do so. Each church decides for itself whether to have deacons. Once it does to do so, the question then becomes how to choose them.

I cannot tell you the best way to select your church’s deacons, but I can tell you the worst.

By popular vote.

There is no worst system on the planet than simply handing a ballot to the membership containing the names of all adult men and asking people to “Please mark no more than 10” or whatever.

The results will be all over the map.

Some good and godly men will be named, but you may count as fact that others nominated will be without principles, without integrity, and some even without a faith in Christ.

What are people thinking, you wonder. Answer: They’re not.

I have seen churches whose popular vote system allowed for the nomination of men with as few as ten mentions on the ballots. Is there a worst system imaginable? Probably, but I can’t think of one.

“Oh, but you’re asking my church to change the way it elects deacons? That’s not going to happen.”

Then your church deserves the trouble that is coming its way.

A church–initially, its pastors and key leadership–has to decide whether its present system is working or failing. Only the fainthearted among us would want to keep a non-working system because changing it would create waves within the membership.

Sometimes making waves is a good thing. Leaders without the courage to make needed changes in the church structure for fear of stirring up opposition have no business calling themselves leaders.

Continue reading →

A most unusual thing happened.

A church found itself with an internal problem and no one blamed the preachers.

Now, at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.

But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:1-4)

The congregation was being torn apart by dissension and no one blamed the preachers.

When the preachers brought the congregation together with a solution, no one protested that the apostles were being autocratic.

No one argued when the disciples insisted that others should deal with this issue in order for them to keep to their priorities (“the word of God”).

No one enlarged the spiritual qualifications to include their pet peeves about deacons.

The congregation followed the lead of the pastors, the pastors held to their priorities, the congregation chose seven godly men, and the matter was dealt with beautifully.

Amazing, ain’t it?

And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.

And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:5-6)

No one seemed to mind that all seven of the men were men.

No one seemed to mind that all seven of the names are Greek, indicating that the congregation chose these men from the minority group that had caused the ruckus in the first place. An incredibly mature act.

No one protested that after selecting them, the congregation then brought them to the disciples (the apostles) for their approval. The disciples prayed for guidance from the Lord, apparently received it, then “laid hands on them,” the equivalent of ordaining them.

No one seemed to protest.

What a strange church. A problem arises and they meet it head on. There is no protesting, no rebelling against spiritual leadership, no insistence on “my rights,” no need to alter the recommendation, and no delay. There is unity, love, and submission.

No wonder outsiders wanted in on this.

And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7)

Question: How long has it been since your church solved an internal problem with such swiftness and sweetness that outsiders were impressed and wanted to join?

Continue reading →

What should deacons do?

If Acts 6:1-7 is to be our example and guide, the work of deacons may be defined as: whatever the congregation decides it needs, as prompted by the leadership, as chosen by the congregation, as solves the situation, and as will enhance the proclamation of the gospel.

We would appreciate a few more examples from Scripture as to what deacons did in the early church. Not having them, we are left to follow the few principles found there and the leading of the Holy Spirit as we perceive it.

Before sharing our list of 50 acts of deacon service, let us make these five observations concerning their work:

1. There is no definitive list anywhere giving the responsibilities of deacons.

5. The work of deacons will vary from church to church, and from year to year. But, as in Acts 6:7, their service should always reflect so positively on the Lord Jesus Christ that outsiders will want to join such a wonderful fellowship.

Continue reading →

The qualifications for deacons, given only in I Timothy 3, have been used, abused, and misused by church people over the years to further their own vision on what the church should be.

I suggest we quit working by the letter of the law here and start paying closer attention to the spirit.

Uh oh.

The danger in leaving behind the letter of the law in favor of the spirit is that strict constructionists, who love their legalistic interpretations and are only too glad to exclude anyone who thinks otherwise, will accuse you of not taking the Word of God seriously.

I know this from experience. I’ll go online and see where some article from this website has been ripped to shreds by a preacher who accuses me either of not knowing the Word or caring little for it. I try to respond kindly–wondering, for example, why he did not care to communicate this to me before displaying it on his billboard–but almost never get a response. This kind of preacher loves his tirades more than his brethren, thus violating John 13:34-35.

Here is a guide we rarely hear mentioned today: “(He) has made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (II Corinthians 3:6)

The letter kills. That’s what legalism does when it comes to interpret the Word. Putting their strict interpretation ahead of the believers involved or the particular circumstances the church finds itself facing, legalists end up misrepresenting the Lord, abandoning the people who were looking to them for direction, and painting themselves into the kind of corner from which there is no escape.

The Spirit gives life. This refers both to the Holy Spirit as well as to a spiritual interpretation of His Word. Only through God’s Spirit can we find the (proper) spiritual interpretation of Scripture.

We can see Jesus spiritually interpreting the Word throughout the Gospels. To the woman caught in adultery (John 8), to the harsh Pharisees who strained at gnats and swallowed camels (Matthew 23:24), and to the critics who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath law (Matthew 12:2), Jesus interpreted the Word spiritually and not legalistically.

Jesus spiritually interpreted the Old Testament (the only Bible they had then) when He told the resurrection-denying Pharisees that they had missed something in Scripture. “Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ Well, He is not the God of dead people but of the living.” (Matthew 22:31-32) Pow! Take that.

He interpreted the Scripture spiritually when He said to those making Sabbath-observance the essence of obedience, “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.”

Examples abound.

It will not surprise you to know the so-called “defenders of God’s Word” were furious at Jesus. They had their pet interpretations of Scripture and He refused to play that game. God’s Word is not and was never meant to strait-jacket His people.

Regarding I Timothy 3:8-13, where Paul lists qualifications for deacons, the church has frequently painted itself into some dark corners by its insistence on harsh, narrow interpretations. Turning the text into shackles, it has bound itself hand and foot.

In no way do we intend what follows as the final word on anything. Longtime readers of these articles will know that I simply hope to get good people to discussing the subject and misguided people to giving a second look at what they have been doing.

Continue reading →

Here’s what happens.

A few deacons fellowshiping over coffee deal with various subjects about the church. Eventually, someone brings up the preacher and that ignites the interest of the rest of the group. One or two have some concerns and suggestions.

“The pastor is so effective, but he could be moreso if he would just do this.”

“I agree. And the thing my wife mentioned, he should be doing that.”

“Well, who’s going to tell him? And how would he take it?”

From there, the group decides on a plan. After all, how could the pastor not receive this well? Aren’t we all in his corner? Haven’t we shown him how much we appreciate him? And hasn’t he been preaching about how we are to grow and improve? Surely, he’ll want us to bring these suggestions to him.

What the deacons either do not know or do not care to know is that Pastor Tom carries scars from his dealings with a rogue deacon group in his previous church. And even though he loves his present flock and sees God blessing his ministry, something inside him expects another bomb to go off, for some little group to show up at his door demanding that their wishes be met if he wants to remain in that church.

This is a delicate moment in the relationship of Pastor Tom and this assemblage of deacons. The problems are twofold: the pastor does not see it coming and thus is not prepared, and the deacons have no idea what they are about to stir up.

It does not go well, and here’s why.

Continue reading →