Chapter VIII: On the Duties of Deacon

We now come to the consideration of the duties of the deaconship. These have, in part, been already indirectly noticed. The nature and importance of the office imply some acquaintance with its duties, but they deserve a separate reference. The leading duty of the office is obviously the care of the poor. Here a question, however, arises: What poor? Is it the general poor of the community, whether religious or irreligious, or is the office intended only for the Christian poor? This is a very important inquiry. There can be no doubt that the poor members of the congregation are the peculiar objects of the deacon’s care, and are, it may be, entitled to a higher provision; but the question is—Is the deacon to exclude all other poor from his special regard? Some have contended that this is the proper mode of management—that there is no authority in the New Testament for the deacon watching over any poor but the Christian poor; and cases are appealed to where the limitation of his attention, or that of the elder (who usually takes the charge of the poor in Scotland), to this class, has been attended with the best results, relieving the elder from many distracting duties, and leaving him free for the discharge of his more appropriate spiritual calling. There may be plausibility in this view, but, it is apprehended, nothing more. The circumstances of the Christian Church, in apostolic and in present times, are evidently very different. In the former case, she stood, except in Judea, in the heart of heathenism, and every where unrecognised by the State. It could not be expected that her humble members were to take charge of all the pagan poor who surrounded them in multitudes. This, in the nature of things, was impossible, and hence there is no scriptural example of it. There could be no such example, and it is unreasonable to demand it. At the same time, the Church required her members to do good to all, especially to such as were of the household of faith. The circumstances of the Christian Church at the present day are widely different. Besides her own poor, she is surrounded with many poor who do not belong, by living membership, to her communion, but who make a profession of Christianity; most of whom have received Christian baptism; many of whom have but temporarily fallen away from Christian ordinances, owing to the pressure of circumstances, and may, ere long, be restored. There is no authority in Scripture for restricting the donations of the deacon to poor communicants; and unless this be made a test (on other grounds undesirable), there is no very well-defined principle by which poor, professing Christianity, can in one party be received, and another party be denied the good offices of the deacon. Besides the nation not only recognises Christianity, but has territorially divided the country, and given the charge of its moral and religious interests (into which the management of the poor seriously enters) to the Church of Scotland. It is obvious, then, that there is a very marked distinction between the circumstances of the Christian Church in primitive and in present times—so marked, that it would be unfair and inconclusive to draw serious inferences from the one to the other, especially if the inferences be on the side of restricting the duty of the office-bearers of the Church.

It may be true, that such a mode of management as that referred to may, to take the illustration from a large town, where above seven hundred poor were parcelled out among thirty or forty elders, have been a greater improvement. This may, in the nature of things, have been demanded. No elders could be expected to bear such a burden for a succession of years; but the question is—Was the change a wise one? Was it in the right decision? It may have relieved the elders, and not only reduced the charge of seven hundred to a charge of a hundred and fifty, but made the work among them much more pleasant. To deal with a hundred and fifty poor communicants must be a much more agreeable employment to a Christian mind, than dealing with indiscriminate poor, many of whom have no tie to the Christian Church. The change may have improved the eldership both in numbers and quality; but the question recurs—Was it good for the poor? Would it be advantageous to roll over the care of the far larger body of the poor on overseers who have no religious qualifications of character—who may be Christians, or who may be infidels. It appears, from the Reports of the Poor Law Commissioners in England, that very many of the overseers were eminently illiterate, ignorant, and inefficient, before the recent change. Would it be desirable to commit to the tender mercies of such persons the care of multitudes of poor, many of them religiously educated, who have fallen into poverty, but who now cannot claim any connexion with a Christian Church? Would this tend to soften their day of adversity, or to improve their character, and aid their restoration? The true remedy for such cases as those referred to, is not to relieve the deacon or elder at the expense of the poor, but, by the multiplication of deacons, to make the labour of all manageable. Let them be sufficiently numerous, and then no one will be burdened; while the poor will enjoy the services of Christian men, and of an office which the Great Head of the Church has himself instituted, and which it may be expected, therefore, He will especially bless. We conclude, then, that in a country professing Christianity, and where the Church occupies such a position as that of the Church of Scotland, her deacons should attend to the wants of all the poor. With the exception of the larger towns, the great mass of these poor make some sort of profession of Christianity—a profession which it is not desirable to set aside or despise. Besides, it is an honourable light in which Christianity is presented, when she appears as the friend of the poor, even those who do not make a profession of religion. It is fitted to recommend her to general favour, while it supplies office-bearers of the Church with excellent opportunities of doing good to the soul when attending to the wants of the body. It would not be creditable to the Christian Church to say that a large number whom she had baptized she cast aside, so far as her official care was concerned, to perish. This would surely not recommend her claims to the irreligious or the infidel, the more especially, if it appeared that there was sufficient number of persons, in most congregations, to act as intelligent deacons. Where such office-bearers cannot be obtained, of course this alters the case; but it is a conclusion at which parish or congregation should hastily arrive. So much for the poor who fall under the superintendence of the deacon; and now let us shortly advert to the mode in which he should treat them.

First of all, he should visit them in their own houses. It is believed that deacons, and elders who act as deacons, often, if not generally, content themselves, after they are satisfied with the circumstances of their poor, with giving the donations at the deacon’s house. This may often be done with perfect safety and propriety; but it seems very desirable, for the sake of moral and religious influence, that the deacon should occasionally, if not frequently, give the charity in the houses of the poor. This would give an opportunity of knowing the real character and condition of the parties—it would tend to prevent deception—it would be well taken by the poor, and draw forth their regards for the deacon. It would also afford an opportunity for mingling prayers with alms, which, from the case of Cornelius recorded in Scripture, seems to have been not only a beautiful but an efficacious combination. There would be a greater scope, too, for consultation and advice as to themselves and their families, than can be had when a number of poor are assembled together like so many mendicants.

And, secondly, the deacon should feel it to be his duty, not only to minister to the actual wants of the poor, but to give that counsel and open up those facilities in his district which may prevent poverty, or tend to restore those who have fallen to decay. Happily much may be done this way in the age in which we live. In most towns there are a variety of institutions for the relief of disease, such as dispensaries, infirmaries, &c. To meet particular wants at certain seasons of the year, there are societies for clothing and fuel. There are also friendly societies and provident institutions for accumulating the savings, not, perhaps, of the poor, but of classes which may become poor. There are schools, too, for the education of children—the Sabbath and week-day school for all—the evening class for those whose education has been neglected. By making himself master of all the means of humane, literary, economical, and religious good in his district or town, and becoming acquainted also with the respective managers, an intelligent deacon may do much to prevent poverty and suffering, and greatly mitigate them where they exist. He may likewise open up many channels of communication between different ranks in society,—and, by finding situations and employment for those who have no occupation, and acquainting the working classes with means of improving their condition, and strongly recommending the savings’ bank when they are in circumstances to save, and discouraging to the uttermost whatever is fitted to waste the means and resources of the people—the spirit shop and the pawnbroking establishment, &c.—he may not only win the confidence of the families of his district, but really enrich them to an extent which silver and gold cannot estimate. As an illustration of what may be done to prevent poverty, I beg to refer the reader to the working of an association at Manchester, to which there is reference in Appendix IV. It is plain that what is here done by volunteers might be done most appropriately by deacons, and that, being office-bearers in the Christian Church, they would fulfill the duty with greater effect.

It may be desirable to be a little more particular. I have said that one very important way in which deacons might promote the welfare of the humbler classes, would be by assisting them to husband their own resources, and directing them to the best means of doing so. This may be accomplished in various forms, particularly by the Friendly Society, the Savings’ Bank, and the Loan Fund each possesses its appropriate recommendation. Men in the middle and higher ranks of life enjoy the benefit of all these institutions, where they choose to avail themselves of them. Why should not the poor man have the same? The Friendly Society corresponds to the insurance company. It presents many advantages to the poorer classes, and they have, to a large extent, availed themselves of them; but much more might be done in this way that has yet been attempted. As there have not unfrequently been disappointments, owing to such societies being founded on insufficient principles, the counsel of an intelligent deacon might be highly useful in directing to safe institutions, and guarding against the insecure. Though the security which a friendly society supplies is most important to all, especially to the family of a poor working man, some may not be able always to command the periodical payment which is required, or they may grudge to pay into its funds for many years, without having any certainty that they will need the benefits which it holds out. To this numerous class the Savings’ Bank presents superior attractions. There the parties are always certain of enjoying the advantage of their self-denial and providence, with an addition of interest, and the payments may be made at any season as best suits their convenience. It is pleasing to see the progress which such institutions have made, especially of late years; but much may be done by the kind Christian deacon to extend their advantages yet more. He may throw out the suggestion and supply the necessary information, and afford facilities for enrolling the poor man and his family as contributors to the provident bank. There can be little question that the higher proportion of female servants above other classes, which avail themselves of the advantages of such institutions, is owing to the advice of intelligent and well-disposed masters and mistresses. Let the deacon occupy their place in regard to the great mass, who have no such considerate guardians. Nay, more, let the deacons, in reference to the savings’ bank, act upon the aggressive principle. Let him not content himself with mere advice; let it be part of his office regularly, from week to week, or month to month, to collect the savings of the working classes of his charge, especially where belonging to the same Christian congregation, and pay them into the bank. Let him, so to speak, become their agent and collector, and no one can tell the amount of good which, at a small but regular sacrifice of time and trouble, may be wrought out. This plan has been pursued at Manchester with the best advantage.¹ But even this does not exhaust the devices of a wise and benevolent deacon. Why should not the deaconship of every congregation have a loan fund, from which, on suitable recommendation and security, they might lend to the poorer classes? In cases of protracted sickness, or when there is any important object for which a little extra money is needed, such an institution would be of the highest advantage, often not only saving the poor man and his family from beggary, but putting them in a way of making themselves independent. The middle and higher classes have the advantage of credit, founded upon character. If they need money on any emergency, they go to a banker and receive it. But the poor man, who often needs it more than others, cannot do so. He has no resource but the pawnbroker, who, in effect, becomes his banker, and a most expensive and miserable banker he is. When the poor man’s savings at the bank are exhausted, too often his course is, and necessity compels him, to part with one article after another, till his house and family are literally robbed—till his own Sabbath clothes, perhaps, are forfeited, and ere he can replace them the Sabbath taste and habits are also gone, and nothing remains but beggary and woe,—without God, and without hope, in which, alas! his wife and children unhappily share. What is the remedy for this too frequent state of things? It is for the deaconship to have a Loan Fund, on the principle of the Mont de Pietè in Ireland. According to this system, I understand that a working man wishing a loan must bring security for the amount, from two decent people in his own class, with a recommender besides, who also becomes a security that the borrower shall repay the loan by regular installments. The only danger here seems to be, that the money will not be repaid, and that henceforward none will be willing to become sureties. Experience proves the very reverse to be the truth. So far from the parties borrowing failing in their engagement, the loan fund at Powerscourt, the other year, had £250 of surplus profit, which the managers expended in clothing, &c., for the poor. Whether there should be such a thing as profit at all, in connexion with loan funds, may admit of question; but, at least, the result proves that there is no danger the lenders will not receive again the money which they have lent. Besides the accommodation which such institutions afford to the industrious classes—the preservation from the ruinous sacrifices of the pawnbroker which they secure—the ability to purchase articles at the greatest advantage, and to avail themselves of favourable openings—the independence and family comfort to which they lead;-in addition to all these, what is scarcely less important, the poor man is taught the value of character, and the different ranks of society are, through means of this tie, interlaced one with another. At present, he has little pecuniary advantage from character, and this becomes an argument against caring much about it. It would be otherwise under the proposed loan system. Then he would feel that his station, and convenience, and advancement, all ed upon character,—that it was only where he was a reputable man, associating with reputable parties, that he could hope to share in those advantages by which he saw friends and acquaintances around him get on in the world. Where deacons were the administrators of such funds, not only would the worth of character, and Christian character, come to be more understood, but the attention of the higher and more opulent members of a congregation would come to be fixed upon industrious and deserving families, and sons and daughters from the midst of them would be promoted to creditable places. The loan system would form a good introduction among families.

I need say nothing of the spirit in which deacons should discharge their duties to the poor—that is sufficiently obvious from the very nature of the case, and especially from the qualification of character which Scripture demands. Animated by the spirit of his office, and acting out the character which the counsels of the Word imply, he will not be haughty, or harsh, or suspicious; he will not be cold, and formal, and repulsive, discharging his work as if it were a burden; he will be frank and easy in his intercourse with the poor; take an interest in their avocations, their health, and welfare; kind, and tender, and sympathising, especially when in sickness; but withal firm, and not easily persuaded to what his judgment does not approve. He will also have a deep conviction of the insufficiency of all his efforts to benefit the poor of his charge without the blessing of God, and hence he will not fail to seek the blessing in the exercise of diligent and persevering prayer for the Holy Spirit.

With regard to the duties which more directly concern the finance of the Church, the faithful deacon will administer the sums drawn, whether by collections or otherwise, with integrity and wisdom, in the spirit at once of justice and benevolence. He will remember the claims of the pastor, and encourage him, so far as circumstances will allow, by the liberality of his arrangements. And he will see that all other funds, such as school funds, Sabbath and week days’, are properly attend to, regularly collected, and made available for the ends for which they are raised, and that nothing be allowed to fall behind. In short, he will labour to introduce into the financial management of the house of God all the skill, promptitude, and accuracy which mark a well-conducted worldly business. This is the leading duty of the deacon in this connexion, and, if well done, it will redound to his honour, and add in no small degree to the comfort and success with which the affairs of congregations and churches are managed. There can be little question that the absence of an intelligent body of deacons has often led to confusion and disorder in carrying forward the different moral and religious schemes of parishes. Funds have not been raised at the proper time; there is a consequent embarrassment and crippling, if not hindrance of the whole plans of public usefulness. Few things are more discouraging than an exhausted or irregularly-supplied exchequer. It will be the great care of the enlightened deacon to provide against this, and to keep the wheels well oiled.