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.

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine, or fond of sordid gain;

But holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. (I Tim. 3:8-9)

Let’s begin here.

Traditionally, legalists have taken the darkest interpretation of these words. As a result, many have thought deacons must be humorless, colorless, occasional drinkers, and misers. These stiff undertaker-types are caricatured in countless novels, and made out to be mean-spirited critics of everything good and anything fun.

But, “occasional drinkers?” If we took literally what Paul wrote, that would be our position. Except for two things….

!) We have plenty of other scriptures on this subject and 2) we live in a world far different from Paul’s. Today, even light social drinking sets a horrible example and may lead to major addictions and traffic deaths. In the first century, perhaps the worst that could happen to an over-imbiber would be to fall off his camel. It’s a different world.

What would a spiritual interpretation of these two verses produce? Answer: Godly, responsible, and mature men of the Christian faith. What’s wrong with that? (The legalist would say it leaves too much room for interpretation. He wants everything spelled out so there is no question. Sorry. Even the most demanding legalist cannot achieve that without playing word games with a hundred texts.)

And let these also first be tested; let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. (I Timothy 3:10)

The legalist wants to require members to belong to the church at least ____ years before becoming eligible to serve as deacons. Why? Because–and this is the hangup–if deacons are to run the church, then newcomers might not understand how things are done around here. But what if deacons are servants and not church bosses?

How long does one have to belong to a church before qualifying to serve?

A spiritual interpretation does exactly what this verse calls for: insists that no one be chosen who has not proven himself faithful, whether a newcomer or a longtimer. Luke 16:10 provides an excellent principle: if they have been faithful in small things, they can be trusted with larger. If they have not been faithful in small tasks, then to give them bigger assignments would be foolhardy.

“Above reproach.” If this means sinless and perfect, no one will ever serve. Usually translated “blameless,” the word literally means “not to be called to account.” That is, there are no outstanding charges against the man. It calls to mind Stephen, whose enemies, unable to find charges to bring against him, resorted to bribing false witnesses (Acts 6:10ff).

God wants the best people in the place to represent Him.

Let deacons be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. (I Timothy 3:12)

How much (ahem) fun church people have had over the centuries trying to fathom two things about this text: what Paul had in mind in the First Century and what to do now regarding the ticklish situations they were facing. (The church boss wants his son to be elected as a deacon, even though he’s on his third marriage. At the same time, another man who had a brief first marriage a generation ago and has been successfully married to a godly woman ever since is a great candidate. What to do?)

Many people know precisely what Paul had in mind here and will not even consider the possibility they could be mistaken. This is the perfect recipe for dissension within the body.

Strict interpreters of “husband of one wife” are all over the map on this: one wife in a lifetime, even if the first wife died; one wife at a time, which forbids polygamy; one wife living, so it’s all right to remarry if the first wife died; and strangest of all, the deacon must be married if he is to serve.

Those offering a spiritual interpretation are just as divided over what Paul means. Some will say whatever the fellow did in his pre-Christian life was erased at Calvary and is irrelevant. Some will say if the individual had “just cause” for a divorce (referring to the “except for fornication” clause in Matthew 19:9), remarrying is acceptable. For others, divorce is precluded, but if the man remarries and lives a faithful life for years, he can be considered. Finally, some throw up their hands and conclude that the issue is so convoluted, we should ignore this “husband of one wife” thing altogether.

So where does this leave us?

It leaves us with the famous triad: “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”

This is a non-essential. (“Horrors!” someone calls. “The very idea!”) If it were an essential to the ongoing of the Lord’s church, it surely would have been repeated elsewhere and demonstrated somewhere. This is the only reference to the marital status of deacons.

I am not saying whether deacons are living sound, godly lives with exemplary home relationships is unimportant. Only that once we get into enforcing the specifics of these details, we often contrive traps for the unwary, send horrible messages about the Lord, and burden good people unnecessarily. It’s so easy to emulate the Pharisees here. “They tie up heavy loads and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger” (Matthew 23:4).

Let each church come to its own understanding on this matter. And let the rest of us honor their choice, even when we disagree.

The part of the qualification about “husband of one wife” sucks all the air out of the room so that we end up ignoring the “managing their own children and their own household.”

I’ve known deacons who took this text seriously to resign when their families became rebellious or unfaithful. The first time, it was such a surprise I had to ask someone why Pete had left.

“It’s his wife,” I was told.

“What?” I said.

The deacon leader said, “She is such a pain to live with. She’s so harsh toward her husband and son, he felt that he was not living up to ‘managing his own household.'”

I knew his wife was bossy and high maintenance for our ministers, but if I may be permitted to say, most churches I’ve pastored have had plenty of those.

Where do we draw the line? I do not know. I will say that I’ve known many a pastor who would have had to resign if the congregation held him to the similar qualification(I Timothy 3:4 is pretty clear on this subject).

The bottom line for me personally is this: Pray for good sense. Pray for the Spirit to lead you. Pray for balance in interpretation and love in the application. Pray that the Lord will be exalted and the church strengthened through all the choices we make.

It’s a good thing to remind oneself what the qualifications are about. What exactly is a deacon to do? Answer: to serve the congregation.

We are not enlisting CEOs to run the congregation, not in search of managers of the Lord’s work. We are looking for a few faithful members of each flock who will have their heads screwed on straight, their hearts right with the Lord, and their lives reflecting honor to Christ and the body of believers.

After all….

Those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. (I Timothy 3:13)

It’s good to be a servant of God’s people. It was the image the Lord Himself wanted to portray during His three-year ministry. It is the call He gave to His closest followers as their life assignment: “If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.” (John 13:14-15)

After all, Jesus continued, “A slave is not greater than his master; neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.”

Every deacon–and would-be deacon–should let this sink deeply into their minds and heart: To make of your assignment one in which you boss the preacher and run the church is to abrogate your calling. In doing so, you are second-guessing the Lord Jesus and deciding that ruling is far superior to serving.

The Lord being the all-wise God knew people would do this, of course. That’s why He added the next sentence, the one that hits it out of the park:

“If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.” (John 13:17)

The blessings of Heaven are not given to those who know the Lord’s word or teach it or love it or study it, but only to those who obey it.

Let us seek the mind of the Lord when we read His word, then go forth to do it. Amen.