Is a Deacon Just a Servant?
— Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 —
There’s an entire generation of conservative evangelical churches where one would be more likely to find an unfrozen caveman in the congregation than a biblically-functioning deacon.
Some churches have known little more than a “board” of deacons making decisions for the church. Some have, at worst, a thugocracy in which the meanest and most aggressive men in the church intimidate the rest of the Body through verbal bullying or the threat of a loss of financial support.
God’s Spirit seems to be, as he almost always does, shaking things back into order in Christ’s church. Congregations across the world are rethinking deacons, and reclaiming the old pattern of deacons as servants, the pattern laid down by Scripture itself.
As with almost anything else, there’s a danger of being reactionary, and over-correcting the problem. We could swing from a corporate board model to a non-profit volunteer co-op model, and miss the biblical pattern just as surely (though, admittedly, without all the wreckage).
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.
Beyond that, the “just a servant” question misses a key point. The question is not whether a deacon serves (the very meaning of the word, along with the biblical task assigned, makes that clear). The question is how he serves. When deacons appear in the biblical narrative, it is because the Spirit prompts the apostles to ask the congregation to choose men who meet certain qualifications. They don’t simply place a title on those who are currently serving. Instead, the Spirit mandates men who are “of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (Acts 6:3).
The qualifications for deacon are likewise meticulous about spiritual and leadership characteristics in Paul’s letter to Timothy about the matter (1 Tim 3:1-13). Like pastors, they must “manage” their households well, with the assumption being that, like pastors, they’ll be called upon to “care for God’s church” (1 Tim 3:5) as a leader.
The question is not whether deacons serve or lead. Leadership, scripturally defined, is servanthood. The question is in what way do deacons lead. Deacons maintain the unity of the Body by giving leadership to the serving of temporal needs. They’re not a corporate board, nor are they a spiritual council of directors. They serve the Body by removing potential obstacles to unity by meeting human needs.
The acrimony in the Jerusalem congregation was the perceived slight to the Grecian widows. By organizing, with wisdom and Spirit, the care of those widows, the first deacons were empowering the Body to keep its mandate from its Head to care for widows and orphans (James 1:27), while at the same time maintaining the gospel witness of Jew-Gentile unity in the Messiah (Eph 3:6).
If deacon were simply a synonym for “servant,” then every member of the church would be a “deacon,” because every member of the church is called and gifted to serve one another (Eph 4:1-16; 1 Cor 12:4-27). Deacons serve, but as they do so they equip the rest of the Body to serve.
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.
In the same way, deacons organize servant ministry, whether by serving at the Lord’s Table, or setting up a shut-in ministry or by supervising a children’s neighborhood immunization clinic, in order to equip the saints to serve, and to ensure that the service being done results in the unity of the faith and the advance of the gospel.
That kind of servant leadership is more significant than any corporate board, congregational or otherwise.
A deacon is to be a just servant, to be sure, and wise, and holy. But “just a servant”? There’s no such thing.
17 Responses to “Is a Deacon Just a Servant?”
Trackbacks
- A must read regarding Deacons and their purpose…
- the role of deacons « native pilgrim
- The Role of a Deacon | Be The Fruit
- Is a Deacon Just a Servant? « Biblical Paths
- Deacons: Leaders or Servants? « Simul Iustus et Peccator
- Show and Tell: Favorite Links for Week of 9/27/09 | thejakers
- Great Article on Deacon Leadership « Chris Aiken





Very well said! I’ll remember this the next time I feel like I have too much to do in my service unto the Lord…I needed this encouragement. Thanks.
Reply
Dr. Moore,
Do you think the Bible permits women to serve as deacons? From your article you seem to view deacons as those who have authority over others, though they don’t fill teaching roles. If no to deacons, how about assistants to the deacons (ala, Ligon Duncan’s view)?
Reply
Dr. Moore,
Great post and I am very glad to see that churches are going back to having biblically functioning deacons.
I would like to echo Garrett’s question as well. Women deacons?
Reply
[1] Do the comments about deacons and elders having to be in control of their families, mean that deacons and elders have to be married as well as men?
[2] How does the role of the deacons fit into the role of the elders? (by which is meant: the senior lay leadership of a congregation).
Reply
Interesting thoughts. I would ask if Acts 6:2 is really speaking of vocational pastors or if it is just an issue reserved for the apostles?
Reply
“thugocracy” - beautiful. Thanks for the good post especially the magnificent addition to the lexicon. I will find a way to work it into a sermon, or better yet, a board meeting.
Reply
In phaze 1 of the administration of the affairs of the church at Jerusalem, the Apostles attended to all matters relating to the life of the community. It was only after the numbers of believers had increased to between 5000 -6000 that the need arose to appoint helpers in the supervision of certain fellowship programs which had been established to achieve their specific purposes and goals. Deacons, per se, were not needed until then and smaller congregations to-day could well combine the functions of Elders and Deacons, as Baptist churches have traditionally done. The biblical model of church administration shows flexibility and development. A particular practise does not establish an universal principle !
Reply
Ross, I do not believe that elders are lay leadership at all. I think the biblical pattern is that “elder” is synonymous with “pastor” which is synomymous with “overseer” which is synomymous with “bishop.”
That means that an elder must meet all the 1 Tim 3 requirements for pastoral ministry, including a call to the task and an “aptness to teach.”
Now many of these pastors are bivocational (or trivocational) as was the Apostle Paul, so the issue isn’t whether he is “full-time.”
Still, I think the pattern of churches calling out highly gifted “laymen” for the task of elders, without a recognition of them as bona fide pastors with a call to ministry, is an error.
Reply
Garrett and Matt,
I do not think the Scripture permits women to be deacons. I’ll explain why in a post sometime a little later this week.
Reply
I’d say servanthood is menial - that’s the point: unskilled, almost useless labor. God’s doing the work; we’re not. Apart from that, a fantastic article.
“The question is not whether deacons serve or lead. Leadership, scripturally defined, is servanthood. The question is in what way do deacons lead.” That’s such an important point for any position in the church. It’s not a matter of serving or not serving or leading or not leading. Everyone does that (or should). It’s a matter of “how”.
And your closing remark: “But ‘just a servant’? There’s no such thing.” Right on.
Marshall Jones Jr.
Reply