(This question is a follow up to “Whose Servant?”)

     Help me understand how Philippians 1:1 deals with elders having scriptural oversight over deacons?  How does this passage say that “deacons serve elders”?

Sincerely,
Context Please

Dear Context Please,

In hindsight, Php 1:1 does seem like a rather obscure reference without a little clarification.  Our point was that the only time that deacons are ever mentioned is with elders.  There are multiple references of elders without deacons, but zero Bible examples of deacons without elders.  Paul told Titus of the urgency to appoint elders in every church (Tit 1:5).  Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the congregations that they had started (Acts 14:23).  As Paul said, the elders have the responsibility to feed the church (Acts 20:28), and that is the pattern we see over and over again.  Congregations need elders because elders lead those congregations.  On the other hand, we are never told that congregations have that same need for deacons, nor do we see any congregations that had deacons without elders.  Php 1:1 was a reference (albeit all too vaguely) to that fact.

The word ‘deacon’ just means ‘servant’ and is used throughout the Scriptures.  Matt 22:13 uses the same Greek word to describe a king’s servants.  Rom 15:8 refers to Jesus as a deacon of God to the Jews.  Deacons are always mentioned alongside those that they serve.  Since the deacons we are talking about are never mentioned without elders, the implication is that the deacons serve the elders, and if you don’t have elders, you wouldn’t have deacons… the exact pattern we see throughout the New Testament churches.

The Bible gives no example of a congregation having deacons without elders.  Where the Bible is silent, we must be to (1 Cor 4:6).  Hope that provides the clarification we should have given in our first answer.

     The New Testament gives qualifications for men to serve the local congregation as elders and as deacons.  If there are men qualified to serve as deacons but there is not a plurality of men qualified to serve as elders, should the congregation ask men to serve as deacons when there are no elders?

Sincerely,
Deacon Dilemma

Dear Deacon Dilemma,

No elders means no deacons.  A deacon without an eldership is a servant without someone to serve.  Deacons are servants of the church.  The word ‘deacon’ comes from the Greek word ‘diakonos’ which literally means ‘servant’.  The deacons who meet the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3:8-13 are a specific type of servant in the church – they serve the eldership (Php 1:1).  Deacons are given authority by the elders to oversee various responsibilities within the church.  These responsibilities might be building maintenance, the treasury, benevolence, etc. – whatever tasks the elders need help doing are the tasks deacons are to fulfill.

My family and I go to a small Baptist church.  One deacon didn’t like the preacher even though the congregation loved him.  The deacon didn’t like the way the preacher walked back and forth across the pulpit, and the preacher was too emotional when he gave testimony.  Our preacher resigned, and we lost over half the congregation because of it.  My two kids and one other are the only children there now.  My husband won’t go back because he thinks it is corrupt now.  I asked him if we can go visit other churches, and he said, “Why?  If one is corrupt, they all are.”  How can I convince him they are not all corrupt?  I want to keep my family in church.  I don’t know what to do.  My kids are getting where they don’t want to go on Wednesday night now because they are the only kids there.

Sincerely,
Grasping At Straws

Dear Grasping At Straws,

There are congregations all around the country that aren’t corrupted by denominationalism, personal opinions, or traditions.  Our recommendation is that you show our article “Down With Denominationalism” to your husband and read it together.  There are so many problems with modern religion, and it all comes down to opinions being placed above Scripture.  When we leave the Bible pattern, all sorts of chaos and trouble ensues (2 Tim 1:13).  The church is supposed to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), but most churches have become places for petty arguments or the latest worship fad.

We know of congregations all over that reject this philosophy and really do put the Bible first.  It may be hard for your husband to believe because he has seen so much of the opposite, but it is true.  Just because there are lots of bad mechanics doesn’t mean that you stop driving a car – just because there are lots of bad churches doesn’t mean we can give up on the Lord.  Comb through past articles on our site, and you’ll see that we do our very best to always give book, chapter, and verse for what we do.  Our congregation isn’t alone, and if you want, we can help you find one near you that has the same attitude.  Feel free to e-mail us at askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org with any further questions or if we can help you locate a church.

     This guy made a video that has had over 15 million views on YouTube.  It’s entitled ‘Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus’.  Is this Scriptural?  Thanks.

Sincerely,
Viewer 15,000,000,001

Dear Viewer 15,000,000,001, 

We watched the video, and we can sympathize with that young man’s frustration with religion.  We share a lot of his feelings… but like all the other manmade views that he talked about, his views aren’t totally biblical either.

We are saved by grace, and no one can live a good enough life to deserve forgiveness (Rom 4:3-5).  If you need forgiveness, that, by definition, means you did something wrong!  Salvation is based upon our faith in Christ, not some behavior that we could boast of (Rom 3:27).  Yet, what we do does matter.  The man that says he has faith in God but shows a life of wickedness isn’t faithful at all (Matt 7:20, Jas 2:17).  Faith without works is as dead as a body in a casket (Jas 2:26).  Christians must strive to modify their behavior, but we can’t just modify our behavior, we must give our hearts and loyalty to Christ.  When the choices we make are controlled by our love and faith in Christ, then we are becoming the people we ought to be.  We would agree with this young man that it isn’t enough to “talk the talk”; we must “walk the walk” (Jas 1:25).

On the other hand, to use the blanket statement that, “I hate religion but love Jesus,” makes no sense.  The English Dictionary defines ‘religion’ as ‘a) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, b) a particular system of faith and worship’.  Using either definition, Jesus died to set up religion!  Jesus purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28), and the church is guided by the systems and laws found in the Bible (1 Tim 3:15).  Jesus also died, so people would worship God and devote their lives to Him (Jhn 3:16).  Jesus’ death was designed to start a religious movement that would change the world (Acts 17:6, Matt 28:19-20).  If we say that we love Jesus but hate religion because it gives us rules and ordinances for “behavior modification” (as that video calls it), we are making a contradictory statement.  If we love Jesus, we will modify our behavior (Jhn 14:15).  Jesus hated false religion and manmade religion, but He loves His church (Eph 5:25).

So, we would say the video gets some things right and some things wrong… about par for the course when we talk about spiritual things without using the Bible as our manual.

      Is a congregation responsible for caring for the health of its needy saints?

Sincerely,
HMO

Dear HMO,

One of the things the church is told to do is to take care of Christians in need.  Acts 11:28-30 shows the saints in Antioch taking care of the hungry brethren in Judea because of a famine.  Paul told Timothy there was a time to help out poor widowed Christians (1 Tim 5:9-10).  We also see the church in Jerusalem doing this (Acts 4:34-35).  When brethren have needs, including health needs that are beyond their ability to care for, the church has the right and responsibility to step in and help.

      What can a church do when they outgrow their building but do not have the money to build or buy a new one?

Sincerely,
Busting At The Seams

Dear Busting At The Seams,

What a wonderful problem!  Church buildings have always been an expediency for a local church to assemble and fulfill the commands found in Heb 10:24-25, Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor 16:1-2, etc.  The word ‘expedient’ means ‘convenient or practical’.  The command for the church to assemble has to be fulfilled somehow, and church buildings have often been a convenient and practical way to do that… but in your situation, the building is no longer practical or convenient.

A congregation doesn’t need to own a building to be faithful.  Renting out a school gymnasium, movie theater, or other facility is just as Scriptural and in your case, probably more expedient since it is cheaper than purchasing a facility.  The issue of where and how to meet is a matter of wisdom, not right or wrong.  A congregation that is getting too big for the space they are in can do everything from starting a second congregation in a nearby town to renting a larger facility for Sunday worship.  It is just a matter of what is the most convenient and practical solution to a problem that is really a blessing.