Is the office of deacon part of the government of the church?  The answer to that question should be painfully obvious to any blue-blooded Presbyterian, so obvious one might even scoff at the question even being posed.  Of course they are a part of the government of the church.  The deacons are part of the government of the church as officers. 

In my previous article, I looked at how the office of deacon is established in Acts 6 and how the details of the narrative of Acts indicate that the office of deacon is contained in the office of elder. In this article we will look at the way that Presbyterian polity understands church office to be representative in character and apply the implications of this fact to the office of deacon.  The representative government exercised uniquely in the office of deacon invests the deacons with a species of church authority over the Body whom they represent in their office.

Much has been made of the fact that the PCA’s Book of Church order defines the office of deacon as “not one of rule, but rather of service” (BCO 7-2).  This phrase seems to be a way to try to explain the discrepancy between the offices of deacon and elder.  After all, the oversight of the entire government of the church does not rest in the hands of the deacons in Presbyterian polity.  It rests in the hands of the elders.  D. Clair Davis ponders the puzzle this distinction has presented to Presbyterians:

Still, why did the Presbyterian Church from its beginning in America in its installation form of deacons include that the congregation should obey deacons?  Obey servants?  What can that mean?  Neither Hübner nor anyone else I know has addressed that question.  It couldn’t be simply quoting the bible, could it, that the Lord calls upon you to care for the poor?  I don’t know.[1]

The definition of the office of deacon as one of service and not of rule has been pressed as one reason to evacuate the office of any ecclesial authority and thus open the way for complementarian Presbyterians to ordain women to the office without running afoul of 1 Timothy 2:12.  The rationale, put simply, is that since the office is one of service not of rule (or at least not coextensive with the rule of the office of elder), that therefore it is not an authoritative office.

This reasoning is problematic for one conspicuous reason though.  If Davis’ question creates problems for the diaconate, then it equally creates problems for the idea of obedience to Teaching Elders who are ministers (i.e. servants) of the word and indeed for Christ himself who is the chief Servant/Minister of his Church.  Obey servants?  What can that mean?  Whatever it means in the end it applies to all the officers of the church.  As Edmund Clowney observes, “All government in the church is stewardship: i.e. its leaders are servant-managers, who use their authority only to advance the interests of those they represent and serve.”[2]

The title of “servant” unto itself in no way precludes the proper structure of authority which Christ has instituted in his church and the obedience which it entails.  What it does accomplish, however, is to situate that authority and obedience in the cross-shaped, servant form which flows out of Christ’s own three-fold office (munus triplex).  What can it mean to obey a servant?  Whatever it means, it is the obedience which the Church owes to all of its officers, who are all servant-managers.  To obey a servant is the nature of all obedience to lawful authority in the Church which has been entrusted with a power which is everywhere and always only ministerial.  As Herman Ridderbos observes, “Decisive for the significance of the concept of ministry… is that young Christianity learned to consider and to characterize every activity in the church important for its upbuilding as diakonia.”[3]   So, the servant character of the office of deacon unto itself is not sufficient grounds for us to evacuate the office of authority over the church.

To answer the larger question about whether or not the office of deacon is authoritative in some way and thus that it is entirely proper for congregants to take vows of submission unto its deacons, it is better to ask another set of related questions.  Is the office of deacon part of the government of the church?  Is their office an office which is representative of the whole Body of Christ in a congregation in its function?  And do they exercise a particular kind of church power which has been authoritatively invested in their hands?  Here we will attempt to develop an answer to the first two questions which will then help us to answer the third question in the next article.

The PCA’s Book of Church Order has taken its stand on a particular debate within the history of Presbyterian polity.  That issue is the question about where exactly church power has been invested by Christ.  Has Christ invested the power of his church in its government in the officers of the Church exclusively or in the whole Body of Christ?   BCO 3-1 takes a side on that question.  “The power which Christ has committed to His Church vests in the whole body, the rulers and those ruled, constituting it a spiritual commonwealth.”  But, being a Presbyterian document, the PCA BCO goes further.  “This power, as exercised by the people, extends to the choice of those officers whom He has appointed in His Church.”  The act of a congregation electing church officers is an exercise of church power.  It is the church exercising the power of the whole body recognizing in a man the calling of Christ to church office by the manifest approbation of God’s people (BCO 16-1).  That principle of Presbyterian government finds expression again in BCO 16-2: “The government of the Church is by officers gifted to represent Christ, and the right of God’s people to recognize by election to office those so gifted is inalienable.  Therefore, no man can be placed over a church in any office without the election, or at least the consent of that church.”

This aspect of Presbyterian church government is bound up with another feature which is crucial to the overall question of the authority of the office of deacon, and that is the representative character of the government of church officers. This principle finds expression in BCO 1-1:  “The scriptural form of church government, which is representative or presbyterian, is comprehended under five heads: a.  The Church; b.  Its members; c.  Its officers; d.  Its courts; e.  Its orders.” Church officers have a special representative relationship to the Body of Christ which has recognized the calling of Christ in them unto Church office.  They are representative organs of the Body of Christ as a whole in the exercise of the government of the Church which has been entrusted to them.

Read More