Although some among us would defend both biblically and historically the practice of referring to lay volunteers as deacons or deaconesses, others find this to be a distressing refusal to abide by the BCO as currently written. Overture 71 would prohibit this nomenclature even more clearly than the BCO currently does. However, keeping the lay volunteer model for mercy ministry while avoiding officer-like nomenclature is on firmer footing under the current BCO – at least relatively speaking, though the wording and application is confusing and disputed. 

Please note that the Editorial Board of Presbyterian Polity does not necessarily endorse all views expressed on the blog of this site, but the editors are pleased to present well-crafted position papers on issues facing Presbyterian churches and denominations. What follows is one such paper for our readers’ consideration. ~ The Editors

A child walking to school might come to a street corner and encounter a crossing guard. This friendly volunteer provides a responsible presence, encourages all passersby to follow established regulations, and may have a sharp exhortation for any who appear not to be doing so. However, a crossing guard is not an officer of the law. A police officer at the same street corner would have a very different presence, projecting authority and carrying the power to arrest any wrongdoers who may appear. On the other hand, for most school crosswalks, a police officer would be far more than is needed and a crossing guard would be sufficient.

Within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), our Book of Church Order (BCO) defines elders and deacons as officers of the church and also defines deacon’s assistants as lay volunteers who are not officers. One way to understand the differences among these roles is to consider the difference between a police officer and a crossing guard. An elder might seem analogous to a police officer (or, perhaps better, to the elected officials who oversee police officers), while a deacon’s assistant is clearly analogous to a crossing guard. But what about the deacon?

A number of articles have recently expressed a diversity of views within the PCA regarding the nature of deacons [1]. All sides in this conversation agree that the office of elder involves the exercise of spiritual authority over other believers. The point of disagreement is whether the same is true of the office of deacon. In terms of our opening analogy, the question is whether a deacon is akin to a police officer or a crossing guard. If a deacon is like a police officer (exercising authority over others), then the logic of limiting the office of elder to men (cf., 1 Timothy 2:12) would also apply to deacons. However, if a deacon is more like a crossing guard (carrying out hands-on tasks under the authority of others), then the same logic would not apply.

I am writing to suggest that we focus on a different but related question: Does every congregation in the PCA need mercy ministry work to be done by someone with authority like that of a police officer? Or, in many cases, would someone more like a crossing guard be sufficient?

The Scriptures are a good place to start in finding an answer. The first mention of a deacon-like role appears in Acts 6:1–6. This is not the beginning of the church overseen by the apostles in Jerusalem, but rather some time later. Prior to this, we see the collection of gifts being overseen directly by the apostles – they personally receive offerings in Acts 4:35–37, and there is an explicit story of Peter doing so in Acts 5:1–11. At this point the congregation in Jerusalem was already many thousands (Acts 2:41, 4:4), so it seems unlikely that we should imagine the apostles visiting every widow personally. Rather, it seems plausible that other volunteers helped them with this work (along the lines of deacon’s assistants as defined in BCO 9–7). After this glimpse of the apostles administering the diaconate directly, we see that “more than ever believers were added” (Acts 5:14) and that “the disciples were increasing in number“ (Acts 6:1), right up to the point of the complaint. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude that the reason for the change is not that the first arrangement was inappropriate, but simply because at that time and place it wasn’t working in practical terms (Acts 6:1) – it was no longer possible for them to oversee this large and complex work without neglecting the ministry of the Word and prayer, which would not be right (Acts 6:2). 

Read More