Chapter VII: On the Qualifications of Deacons, and Mode of Appointment

Clearly as the Divine authority of the office of deacon may be made out, a most important inquiry remains,—what are the qualifications for the discharge of the duties of the office? Without these the office degenerates into a mere name. Happily we can be at no loss to know. Scripture is very full on the subject, and we cannot do better, in the following observations, than make a few remarks on its requirements. The simple circumstance, that so many of the qualifications which the inspired volume demands in the deacon, it also demands for the bishop or pastor, is a plain proof of the high use and estimation of the office. Surely it cannot be proper for us, or for any Christian Church, to neglect what the Word of God so strongly recommends: so much inspired writing was not intended to be in vain! Supernatural gifts, in primitive times, doubtless made up for some qualities which now must be obtained by ordinary means, such as fair education fitting for the usual business of life. It is taken for granted that deacons possess this measure of knowledge and its instruments. Without them they would be obviously unfit for the management of the business of the poor, and of the Church. These, to allude to nothing higher, demand arithmetic. It may be added, that it is not enough to possess some of the qualities in considerable force; it is necessary that the individual enjoy a fair share of them all. Apart from this, he cannot be a good deacon, whether in town or in country parishes.

Let us now advert to the qualifications which Scripture has detailed. At the original institution three were mentioned. The seven deacons were required to be men, 1st, full of the Holy Ghost; 3d, of wisdom. In a case on which the peace of the Church, and the welfare of its private members, are obviously suspended, superior character is essential. It was necessary, first of all, that the deacons be men of tried integrity, of an honesty which was above all suspicion. Money and other delicate interests were to be committed to them—interests as to which their fellow men were peculiarly jealous; hence, it was necessary not only that they be honest, but of honest report, that they should bear a good reputation among the members of the Church, and in society generally. Though a man be of the strictest integrity in heart and conduct, yet if he do not sustain a blameless reputation with others, he is not fit for the deaconship. Next, they were to be men of the Holy Ghost, men of decided piety, under the teaching and sanctifying grace of the Spirit. This is essential to animate with that activity, love, fidelity, zeal and perseverance which the duties of the office demand. It is only true piety which, during a long succession of years, will sustain the heart in tenderness to the poor amid trials and difficulties, and which will uphold the deacon in the unwearied, and sometimes unrequited care of the house of God. And, lastly, he is to be a man of wisdom, a man of discernment and prudence, not carried away by the impulse of his feelings; but one able intelligently to judge between real and unreal cases of indigence, the proportion and manner in which charity should be dispensed, the best advice which the circumstances not only of the poor, but of the Church generally, in perplexing seasons may require. Such were the comprehensive qualifications for which the apostles called, and they did not call in vain. Seven men were immediately found who bore them all. In Stephen and Philip, the only persons of whom we have any further notice, the development of spiritual character and usefulness is deeply interesting. Their names are sufficient to honour the new order of deacons.

But from the earliest let us turn to a later statement of qualifications, detailed by Paul in the 3d chapter of 1st Timothy. These are more minutely given there than in Acts, but there is no inconsistency with the former.

The deacons are to be grave, not austere or morose, but of dignified gravity. Few things are more injurious to Christian influence, or more unsuitable for one whose business it is to deal in cases of distress and Christian distress, than levity, or even excessive pleasantry and lightheartedness. All instinctively feel that this is unbecoming. It never recommends the Gospel or the Christian Church to the favour of any.
They must not be double-tongued,—in other words, they must be sincere. A deacon, to be relieved from the annoyances sometimes connected with the discharge of his duties, is tempted to put the poor off with insincere words—to say one thing to one man, and an opposite to another. He is in danger also, perhaps, of promising to the pastor, and not fulfilling. This is justly fatal to character and to usefulness. It prevents confidence and creates contempt. The deacon, then, must be sincere.
It is not less essential that he be temperate. Fresh from the corruptions of heathenism, not a few of the primitive Christians were exposed to temptations, which we would scarcely expect to find associated with the name of office-bearers in the Church. The deacon must not be given to too much wine. His office may sometimes carry him into social meetings, but he must shun every tendency to excess. Intemperance not only destroys credit, and unfits for the discharge of official duty; it mars religious character; it unfits for devotion, and lays the man open to a multitude of sins. Who can conceive any thing more incongruous than a drunkard to be a distributor of alms to the pious poor, and a leading manager in the external affairs of the house of God, paying the minister, &c.?
He must be free from avarice, not greedy of filthy lucre. Considerable sums pass through the deacon’s hands for the use of the poor and of the church. He will, if he seeks them, find opportunities for misappropriation and embezzlement; hence the importance of being superior to the temptations of avarice, both for his own sake, and to encourage the church members to give liberally. I need say nothing of the incongruity of a hard-hearted, narrow-fisted deacon, starving the poor, keeping the minister in pecuniary anxieties, and all the while secretly accomodating himself. What character can be more detestable? what spirit more fatal to everything which deserves the name of religion?
He must be well acquainted with the doctrines of the gospel. This is the meaning of “holding the mystery of the faith.” His previous qualifications imply a knowledge of divine truth; but his knowledge must be superior. He must be familiarly acquainted with the gospel of salvation, so that he may be able to speak of it, and to commend it to others, especially when dealing out among them the donations of charity. A pious, intelligent deacon may, in giving, make his alms preach. He may, from the bread which perisheth, mount up to the true bread which came down from heaven, and bestow upon the indigent better gifts than money. But,
The knowledge of the Gospel is not enough. The Christian Church is apt to err in regard to the spiritual character of deacons. Drawing a just distinction between their office and that of the ruling elder, she may sometimes be tempted to speak as if good moral character, apart from piety, would suffice for the deaconship; but this is a serious mistake. While the office of elder demands superior Christian excellence, every office in the Church requires, and should possess, decided piety. Not only is this indispensable for the deaconship itself, but because the office may be a step to a higher. Hence the apostolic counsel and qualification. The well-qualified deacon must hold the mystery of the faith “in a pure conscience.” He must be strongly and conscientiously attached to it. He must not abandon it for the world,—in short, he must be conscientious and resolute. What a comfort to a faithful pastor, to feel himself surrounded by such deacons! While the poor do not suffer, what a strengthening does an office-bearer of this character impart to the church, and to those associated in the same labours with him! How must the deep and unalterable impression of gospel truth, too, upon the heart sustain under difficulties and perplexities, and encourage him to persevere in his work!
The deacon must be proved previously to entering on his labours. The office is highly important and responsible. Every one is not qualified for its duties, and yet his unfitness many not be immediately obvious. Hence the advantage of an antecedent trial. The very fact of resorting to it proclaims the seriousness of the duties, while it provides that the Church shall always enjoy the services of the most able officers. It seems to be intended that the deacon shall be a young man as compared with the elder. Hence, by Moshiem and others νεοτεροι, young men, is interpreted of deacons. This renders any invidiousness connected with a preliminary probation less felt.
The deacon must be the husband of one wife. Not that he must always be married (though a man who knows from experience what family ties are, will better sympathize in the family distresses of the poor), but that when he is married he must have but one wife. It may seem singular to us, that such an exhortation should be necessary in connexion with any office-bearer of the church, but we must remember that the great body of the early Christians consisted of those who had recently been heathens. In such circumstances, there was no small danger even of renewed men retaining, or thinking lightly of pagan customs most discreditable to Christianity. Hence the qualification before us. It is scarcely necessary to add, that the great original law of marriage, binding in all ages, is one wife to one husband, that there is no approval of polygamy in the Word of God, that most of those who practised it in Old Testament times suffered for it, that there is only one case recorded for the first 2000 years of the world’s history, and that apparently associated with crime and the Divine displeasure. Even were the practice lawful, it is plain, that in a deacon it would be most unwarrantable, and occupy time and attention which should be devoted to the interests of the poor and of the church. Besides, apart from other things, it would draw many serious evils along with it.
The last qualification of character which is demanded of the deacon, is ruling well his own family—“Ruling their children and their own houses well.” This may seem a small matter in a public servant of the church, but both as indicative of character and conducing to usefulness, it is most important. The deacon is, to a certain extent, a ruler; and it is the principle of God’s providence to prepare men for a higher government by previous success in a lower. Those who acquit themselves well in the humbler, will be found the best qualified for the higher relations of life. Hence the importance of deacons ruling their own houses well. It will train them for public usefulness. And more than this. There are few things which, in the estimation of the world, discredit the head of a house more than having no authority at home, and bringing up a disorderly and disliked family of children. The men of the world often boast, in this respect, of their good management, and have no patience for slovenliness and unruliness on the part of professed Christians, and especially church office-bearers. Few things recommend religion and its friends more than excellence in the relative duties of life. No wonder, then, that Paul sums up the qualifications of the deacon in ruling his own family well.

Such are the scriptural qualifications for the office of deacon; and, combined together, what an interesting and estimable character do they form! How important and useful to the church and to society! Though numerous, they are not rare or inaccessible in the Christian church. Sound piety, intelligence, a talent for business, tenderness for the poor, and good management at home, embrace the leading points. Let these in any fair measure be present, and no one who is called to the office should hesitate to accept. Let none despise the office. The apostle Paul evidently regards it as of high value; and important as it is, he teaches the deacon to aspire after a sphere of more extensive usefulness. He calls upon deacons, by their diligence, intelligence, zeal, perseverance, and other good qualities, to approve themselves meet for the higher and more spiritual offices of the church—those of the ruling elder and the pastor. He would have them thus to “purchase for themselves a good degree.” Surely it is to the honour of the office of deacon that it is not only good in itself, but is a step and a preparation for higher good.

Connected with the qualifications, we may shortly notice the Mode of Appointment to the Office. These go together. One of the reasons why the qualifications are so fully unfolded in Scripture is, not only that the deacon may be instructed in his duties, but that the Christian Church may be taught what sort of men she should call to the office. Happily nothing can be more clear than the testimony of Scripture as to the mode of appointment. There may be diversity of opinion as to other offices, but there can be none in regard to the deacon; and many will judge that it sets forth the principle on which all appointments to permanent church offices should be made, that no difference of opinion ought to remain respecting any of them.

When it was necessary to institute the deaconship, how did the Great Head of the Church proceed? The inspired apostles were present, and could, in virtue of their spiritual gifts, among which, the discernment of spirits was one, have easily pointed out the men of best qualification. Was this the mode pursued? No. The apostles called upon the church members, the communicants, to elect; and that though they had been so recently formed into a church, that they could scarcely be supposed to know much of each other. Then it is worthy of remembrance, that they were called upon to judge, not as to common-place qualifications—the mere honesty and general decency of the parties, but of spiritual qualifications—whether they were men of the Holy Ghost, and of divine wisdom, and of honest report. Here, then, the members of the Christian Church, in the presence of the apostles, though but partially acquainted with each other, were required to judge of spiritual qualifications. What can better teach us the mode in which the Spirit of God would have men elected to the deaconship? Does not this recognise, and that in unfavourable circumstances, the ability of the Christian people to judge of spiritual character?—and if so, why should this principle be excluded in any case? The apostles not only did not themselves nominate, they did not call upon the elders or the more known and influential Christians to elect—they threw the choice entirely upon the members of the Christian Church, however humble and poor; and in doing so, were they disappointed in the result? Did the people fall into factious, divisions, confusion? Did they choose unsuitable men—men so obviously unfit for the duties, that the apostles found it necessary to interpose their authority and prevent the appointment being completed? No. Their choice was marked by the greatest wisdom. We have no reason to believe that the apostles could have improved it. Philip, who conducted himself with such propriety that he afterwards rose to the high distinction of being an evangelist—an extraordinary office-bearer in the church—the companion and assistant of apostles, was one of the number; and Stephen, the first, and we may say the most illustrious of martyrs—at once meek and heroic and divinely acknowledged, was another. See, then, how admirably the Christian people chose; and if the same parties are judged not qualified to elect deacons now, is it not plain that either Christians are not now what the primitive Christians were, or that they are maligned? Whichever be the case, there is no authority for the Church withholding from them a privilege which the Spirit of God bestowed, and which experience and history prove them amply able to exercise aright.

It is to misapprehend the case to say that men may be safely intrusted with elections which concern property, but that they are not trustworthy in calling to a spiritual office. Here it is taken for granted that men’s love of money will prevent them from making an improper choice—such a choice as would run any hazard of endangering it. But it is forgotten that the property in the case before us was not the property of individuals but of the Church—a large body; and experience can attest whether appointments to this sort of trust be always scrupulous and exact. Besides, the qualifications in regard to which the apostles required the Christian people to judge were not mere financial business, property qualifications, but moral and spiritual qualities.

Though there can be little doubt that the appointment to the office of deacon, so long as its scriptural character was retained, was like those of the pastor or bishop in primitive times, the popular call of the Church, yet this order does not seem to have been observed in all the Churches of the Reformation. From the “Discipline” of the French and Dutch Churches, about the middle of the 17th century, it would appear that at the first institution of deacons, the Christian people were to nominate, but that afterwards the order might be kept up by the appointment of the consistory, subject to the approval of the congregation. In other Churches the practice was different. The First Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland (1560) contemplated the free election of the Christian people, and the Belgic (1566) followed the same order. “We believe,” says the Belgic Confession, “that the ministers, elders, and deacons ought to be called to those their functions, and, by the lawful election of the Church, to be advanced into those offices—earnest prayer being made unto God, and after the order and manner which is set down to us in the Word of God. This especially every one ought to take diligent heed of, that he do not by unlawful means thrust himself into those offices; for every one must wait until he be called of God himself, that he may have a certain testimony of his vocation, and may know that it is from the Lord,” (Harmony of Confessions, sect. 11.)

However the popular call was exercised, whether more or less fully, the separation and ordination to the office were solely in the hands of the regular church courts. So it was in apostolic times. The people chose the deacons, and set them before the apostles, but they went no further. They did not ordain the seven. This was left to the apostles and their successors in the ministry as their appropriate work. The following remarks on this point, by the late Rev. Dr Dick, professor of theology to the United Secession Church, are just and seasonable:

The right of the people extended no further than the election of the deacons. They had no power to exercise in their appointment to office. Their separation to it, their investiture with authority to perform its duties, was the province of the apostles. “Look ye out seven men whom we may appoint over the business.” It is the ordinance of Christ that to those who sustain any office in the church, authority shall be transmitted from Himself, its original source, by the medium of its ministers and rulers. The exclusion of the private members from any share in the transmission, is clearly marked in the passage before us. The limits are distinctly drawn—the people elected, and the apostles appointed. We never read in the Scriptures that there is a power lodged in the Church at large to preach the Gospel, administer the sacraments, and govern itself. This power was committed to apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, whom Jesus Christ has given to the Church, as an absolute sovereign delegates his authority to certain persons, bearing such titles and exercising such functions as he is pleased to confer upon them.—Eph. iv. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 28. When a voluntary society is to be formed, the members first meet and determine what shall be the form of government, and who shall be the governors; but in the case of the church, the governors were before the society. The Christian Church did not exist when the apostles received their commission, and those who at present bear rule in it are their successors in every thing pertaining to their office which was not extraordinary. It is manifest, therefore, that their power does not flow from the people, unless an express law can be produced, altering the original constitution, and ordaining, that though the apostles received “the keys of the kingdom” immediately from Christ, and the first office-bearers derived their power from the apostles, it should be afterwards communicated to the Church in its collective capacity. (Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 138.)