Pastor of the Second Baptist Church, Richmond VA
and the First President of the Southern Baptist Convention
THE success of an officer must always depend, mainly, upon his qualifications to perform the duties of his office. Incompetent or unfaithful men, either in the Deaconship or the ministry, invariably prove an incubus upon the cause their appointment was intended to promote. The apostles, guided by these considerations, describe with careful particularity the endowments necessary to be possessed to fit a man for this distinguished station. To the church in Jerusalem they said that they must be: " Men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom." (Acts 6:3) And Paul charged Timothy thus: " The Deacons must he grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre ; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved, then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly ; but, if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou mightest to behave thyself in the house of God.". (I Tim. 3:8-14)
Thus briefly are set forth in the Scriptures, the qualifications for the Deaconship. The subject presents Six distinct points, which we will proceed to consider separately.
Whether the qualifications of a brother render him eligible to the Deaconship, is, in the first place, determined by the character of his conjugal relations.
On this part of our subject we are thus admonished: "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife." Upon the first sentence in this text "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things" opinions are at variance. But our best and most judicious biblical critics have decided that it does not refer to the deacons' wives, but to another class of women mistaken for them by our translators. It is evident, however, that every man must be, more or less, influenced for good or for evil by his wife. If she does not maintain a reputable character, prudence at least would dictate, that the husband should not be placed in a position which will bring her so in contact with the church as to injure the cause of religion. It is exceedingly desirable that the wives of deacons, and the wives of all other christian men, should fully correspond with the apostolic description. This all, for very many reasons, will frankly confess. Next to the religion of Christ, a pious, intelligent, exemplary, zealous, devoted, affectionate wife, is the most precious gift of God. Happy is that man who is blessed with such a companion through life's weary pilgrimage. But why, if the passage does not describe the wives of deacons, should our translators have so represented it ? I know not. The church to which they all belonged, had dispensed with the Deacon ship in its original form, and had made the officer a clergyman. Supposing, as we may conjecture, that a minister's wife ought to be such a woman as Paul describes, and as it is not required of the bishops, and since with them bishops are made of deacons, they determined that it must be required of deacons ! This might probably have been the motive for our present version.
We have four reasons for believing that the passage does not refer to the wives of the deacons. With these we will content ourselves at present, and will resume the subject in a subsequent chapter.
In the first place, the inspired original will not sustain the interpretation. The literal rendering is simply "Let the women likewise be grave," &c. What women ? The conclusion is as natural that the apostle meant some other women as the wives of the deacons.
Secondly, the wives of the deacons are expressly spoken of in the next verse, and therefore, probably not in this.
Thirdly, it is not rational to conclude that more, on the score of religion and fidelity, would be demanded as to the wives of deacons than as to those of bishops, and no such requirements are challenged of the wives of bishops.
Lastly, it is the opinion of expositors generally, in which I feel myself obliged to concur, that the apostle delineates those fema assistants to deacons, usually called Deaconesses, of whom we read in several other places in the New Testament, whom we know existed in the apostolic churches, and of whom we hear so much in the writings of the early Christian fathers. He was describing the qualifications of deacons, and continues his theme down to this verse ; here he portrays "THE WOMEN ;" and in the next place the deacons' wives. By these "women" therefore, he must have meant the Deaconesses, who, like the Deacons, must be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. But more of this hereafter. We dismiss the passage as having no direct reference to the wives of deacons. If we do not materially err in these expositions, the only text which speaks of the conjugal relations of the deacons simply restricts them to one wife, without any especial direction as to what shall be her character, "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife."
Does this apostolic injunction make it necessary, to qualify a brother for the Deaconship, that he shall actually have a wife ? A misapprehension of the nature of the instructions here given, has led, in various quarters, to some singular errors. Supposing that a wife is necessary to a deacon, the Moravian church, the Reformed Dutch church, and some of our own churches, always require it. They indeed frequently go so far as to conclude, that it disqualifies him if he has lost his wife, or if he has been married a second time! All this, however, is inconsistent both with reason and the true meaning of Scripture. If the deacon must be a married man, so also must the bishop. The same authority that enjoins it in the one case, enjoins it, and in the same words also, in the other. "A bishop [a pastor] then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife." (I Tim. 3:2) Yet who among us supposes that a minister is, for want of a wife, disqualified to assume the pastorship? It not unfrequently happens that the same churches that refuse to admit a single man to the Deaconship, receive without scruple an unmarried pastor! Such inconsistencies prove a very great want of reflection, as well as inadequate conceptions of the word of God. The meaning of the passage is plain. It commands, not that the deacon shall have a wife, but that, if he be married, he shall not, at the same time, have two or more wives, but that he Shall have but "one wife."
But why this special admonition on such a subject, since no deacon in our age or country can possibly, according to law, have more than one wife at a time? No one would think of making a man a deacon who has two wives! This restriction, however, let it be remembered, did not always exist, and does not even now in oriental countries, where polygamy is still permitted by their governments and practised by the people. Our Creator, in the beginning, purposed that every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. Unhappily, not many centuries were counted in the world's history, before this wise and salutary provision began to be painfully perverted. Men married as many wives as they felt inclined, and the practice prevailed in all nations. Israel offered no exception to this general departure. Ultimately polygamy found its way every where, even among the most pious of the servants of God. David, for example, had many wives ; Solomon had several hundred ; and up to the days of the apostles, every man had as many as he was disposed to take. Among those who professed religion and joined the primitive churches, there were doubtless not a few who had more wives than one. It would have been strange if they had not had. I submit, with deference, whether it is likely, for many reasons which may readily be imagined, that every one who joined the Christians was required to separate from all but one of his wives. No such law was enacted at the time, and had it been, its enforcement in the then condition of things would, in many cases, have been attended with incalculable suffering.
However this may have been, it was the purpose of Christ to abolish polygamy, and to restore marriage to its original state. In accordance with this intention, the Scriptures peremptorily prohibit every unmarried person from taking but one wife, and if a man had more than one, although he might have retained his position as a private member, it was a perpetual disqualification for both the ministry and the Deaconship and, indeed, for any other sacred office. This is the meaning of the apostle when he says " Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife" If any man could deliberately disregard the authority of Jesus Christ in the matter of marriage, this was testimony sufficient of his unfitness for the Deaconship. The spirit of the injunction, as it applies to us, is, that he who is not pure in his conjugal relations, is not to be placed in authority in the church. He must partake, more or less, of the temper and moral feelings of his family. The possibility of his being "spiritually minded" is precluded. How can he cultivate such a knowledge of the word of God as is essential to "soundness in the faith ?" He cannot be a deacon.
The qualifications of a brother for the Deaconship are, in the second place, to be determined by his general reputation.
The deacons, said "the twelve" to the church in Jerusalem, at the institution of the office, must be "men of honest report." This, however, is a somewhat vague definition. More definiteness is necessary. To what particular points does it refer? In another place we have the requisite information. Paul charges Timothy thus: "The deacons must be grave, [of sedate and dignified carriage and deportment,] not double tongued, [speaking one thing to one person and another to another, on the same subject one thing in your presence and another in your absence,] not given to much wine, [so using intoxicating drinks as in any way, to endanger their habits of the most perfect temperance,] not greedy of filthy lucre, [ not desirous of base gain," not employing base and unjustifiable means to enlarge their revenues,] holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, [so acting and believing, as to have habitually a conscience void of offence towards God and towards men]. Let these also first be proved; [have given, as private members of the church, sufficient evidence of character, capacity, and readiness to act ;] then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless." They must be endowed with all the moral qualities here enumerated as entering into the character of a man "of honest report," and they must, in addition, have the reputation of possessing them, not with the church only, but also with the world " Having a good report of them that are without." This, at the first glance, will probably appear to be a hard condition. But it will not be so considered when we come to remember that every man really is, as a general rule, what he has the reputation of being, especially among those who are most familiar with him in the details of life.
To the success of a minister, an irrepioachable moral character every where is absolutely essential. Without it, there must necessarily be such a general want of confidence in his integrity and sincerity as will close the hearts of all who hear him. He has not "a good report of those who are without." Therefore, by his preaching, he rather dishonors Christ than advances the cause of religion. The multitudes will think him a hypocrite, and to all his instructions and exhortations they will reply with the old proverb " Physician heal thyself." He must be known as a man of exemplary piety. "A statue upon the house top must be larger than life, or it will appear to be much smaller." So those who are ever subjected to the public gaze, elevated in conspicuous stations in the church, must be more religious than other men, or they will appear much less so. These considerations apply with equal force to the deacons. They too must be "men of honest report." If he is light, vain, and frivolous in his intercourse not grave; if, on the same subject, he give different representations, not confining himself to strict truth is double tongued; if he drink intoxicating spirits, so as, even remotely, to bring his temperance into question is given to much wine; if he avail himself of any low or undue means to increase his wealth is greedy of filthy lucre; he is effectually disqualified for the Deaconship. Such a man can never acquire or maintain that influence over the public mind which the office demands ; he cannot inculcate, successfully, a pure morality ; nor can he offer, in his life, such an example as Will do honor to the cause of Christ. All these considerations require that the deacons should be, and should have the reputation of being, men of unsullied honor.
Other and paramount reasons exist why the deacons should support an unimpeached, and unimpeachable, moral character should be, indeed, "above suspicion."
They are the depositaries of all the common property and funds of the church; to supply the necessities of the destitute and suffering, they frequently receive contributions, disburse them at discretion, and no account is given, or expected to be rendered by them; and no remedy exists at law by which they can, in these, or, indeed, in any case, be compelled to fidelity. The whole church and congregation must, therefore, have in their incorruptible integrity the most undoubting confidence. If their characters, in any moral respects, are equivocal, this defect amounts to a disqualification. They must be "men of honest report."
The third qualification respects the religious character of the candidate for the Deaconship.
Men of distinguished piety are demanded. Than this, nothing less can surely be meant by the phrase, "Full of the Holy Ghost" in other words, full of the gifts and graces of the Spirit of God. Those who are thus eminently endowed possess sincere and unfailing religion, enjoy the love of Christ dwelling richly in their hearts. Of these acquirements the deacons, if they do their duty, will have pressing necessity. What else but the influence of the holiest affections can so attach them to the cause as to induce them promptly, patiently, and from year to year, to prosecute unwaveringly the many, and often extremely disagreeable duties, which they are constantly called upon to discharge? What else is there that is likely to prevent them from indulging in those neglects, to which unwilling nature so strongly prompts, and which, when permitted, are always so fatal to all the interests of the religion of Christ? They can never be borne onward by motives of worldly honor, because no temporal distinctions await them. Neither can they be prompted to duty by the influence of pecuniary reward. They receive none. Their work is a gratuity. Yet they must devote much of their time, make many personal sacrifices, bear a thousand perplexities, and toil on, under every discouragement that may beset them, unshrinking, and to the end! Can so much be expected from any but men of the most exemplary piety? For these, and other reasons, those who are appointed to the Deaconship should, if possible, be like Stephen, "Full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost."
They must, in the fourth place, be men of sound scriptural principles.
This characteristic in the qualifications requisite to the Deaconship, is enjoined with great emphasis "Holding the mystery of the faith." They may be strict in their morals; spiritual in their feelings; kind, courteous, and sincere in their Christian intercourse; regular and punctual in the performance of all their duties; and their hearts deeply imbued with the love of Christ. But even all this is not enough, if it is not accompanied by orthodoxy in their Christian doctrine they must "hold the mystery of the faith."
This requisition necessarily involves more than a very limited knowledge of the word of God. How salutary, how indispensable to us all, is the prayerful and careful study of divine revelation ? "Search the Scriptures," said the Redeemer, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." Without this we can form no stable system of theology, and our conduct, which is always based upon our principles, must be vacillating and unsteady. In our day, indeed, many professors of religion appear, doubtless in consequence of a want of competent information, to have hardly any definite doctrinal principles. Periodical excitements are looked to for almost every purpose. They carry us forward upon their resistless tide. As a natural result, our religion has assumed a spasmodic character, and seems to consist mostly, if not altogether, in feeling. With that denomination which happens to be convenient, therefore, the great mass, when they profess religion, unite themselves. They make, generally, almost no inquiry, are rarely informed what that church believe, they nevertheless profess to receive and to cherish their doctrines! Church membership has, in consequence, assumed a painful instability; and the tendencies to all descriptions of fanaticism art every where apparent. Who but the leading members of our churches the deacons especially are to stay this overwhelming tide of evil? And can they do it unless they are thoroughly fixed in the truth as it is in Jesus?
What the doctrines are that constitute the sum of "the mystery of the faith," it is, of course, not proper for me here to describe. The attempt would, necessarily, occupy by far too much space. I may barely remark, that they are such as the distinction of persons in the Godhead, the divine Sonship, the proper Divinity, and the distinct personality of Christ; the Deity, personality, and work of the Holy Spirit; the unity of God; the incarnation of Christ, and the union of the two natures in him ; the vicariousness of his sacrifice; justification by faith alone, through the merits of Christ; the duty of obedience to all the ordinances and commandments; the resurrection of the body, and everlasting life. In these, and such like doctrines of the gospel, it is necessary, to qualify a man for the Deaconship, that he be thoroughly orthodox.
Yet other reasons also require it. The influence which the deacons exert in the churches is to be considered. Should they be unsound in the faith it will not be difficult for them to find adherents, and thus bring additional evils into the body. They may, therefore, if defective "in the faith," instead of becoming a blessing, prove a source of the greatest injuries perhaps overwhelng and destroy the church itself.
The deacons will also be called frequently, especially in private even more frequently it may be than the pastor to defend the peculiar doctrines of the gospel. This they can never do if they are wanting in orthodoxy. On the contrary, every attempt of the kind would necessarily inflict a new and dangerous wound, because it would be a new advocacy of error, and an increased dissemination of false principles.
They will be called upon to instruct the erring and the weak, to confirm the strong, and to establish the-wavering. They must, therefore, not be unsteady or eccentric in their tenets; disposed, for any reason, to compromise truth; nor on the other hand, dogmatical and overbearing in its defence, but gentle, firm, and decided.
On these and many other accounts, it will be seen that the deacons must be men who hold unwaveringly "the mystery of the faith."
The qualifications for the Deaconship consist, in the fifth place, in intellectual capacity.
He who is chosen to that office must be, "Full of wisdom." Such is the apostolic admonition to the church in Jerusalem, and "it was written for our learning."
The term wisdom, as it occurs in this passage, does not, I presume, refer exclusively, or even primarily, to what is popularly known as human learning, or cultivation in the arts, sciences, and literature. Learning, I will confess, is very desirable; and yet instances often occur in which it is possessed profoundly, but blended with very little practical good sense. That kind of wisdom is doubtless meant, which will give them ability to manage the interests involved in their office, so as, on the one hand, to avoid all unnecessary difficulties, and on the other, by selecting the most appropriate measures, to gain, in the surest possible manner, the ends proposed. Literary acquire. ments, to any considerable extent, are not essential to the Deaconship, consequently, because they do not impart the peculiar powers required. And besides this, deacons are not, as ministers are, professionally teachers of the people. Frequently too, persons are found whose scientific advantages have been very limited, but who, nevertheless, have acquired much wisdom much of that discriminating perception of the character of men and things, which prepares them to act well the part assigned them in ecclesiastical as well as temporal affairs. Such is the wisdom demanded for the Deaconship.
The necessity for careful attention in this respect will be the more apparent to all, if we consider that without the capacity here required the deacons will never comprehend the nature, obligations, and extent of their duties. Enlarged views, a just appreciation of the objects proposed, and clear perceptions of the measures to be adopted to secure them, are indispensable. Otherwise they will be, as but too many already are, of little or no value. The time for action ; the manner of proceeding ; and how far any particular enterprise should be prosecuted; demand wise counsels.
These are some of the considerations that make it necessary that the deacons be men "Full of wisdom."
No one, in the sixth and last place, should be selected as a deacon, who does not, in the management of his own personal affairs, give promise of efficiency and fidelity in his sacred office.
Look around you. Examine into the private affairs of those you would place in authority. Mark the apostolic portrait "Ruling their children and their own houses well." "Let them first be proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon." As of a minister, so of a deacon: "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil." When the apostle instructs us that they must "first be proved," he does not intimate that they must, previously to their ordination, have exercised the office, and thus have evinced their qualifications ; but simply, that none be elected until, as private members Of the church and otherwise, they have given full proof of their character, religion, orthodoxy, wisdom, and ability, as well as their readiness to do the work of the Deaconship.
The admonition now under consideration is by no means singular. Others, besides the church, are accustomed to look to a man's family government, and to his general management of his own concerns, as criteria by which to determine his fitness for particular pursuits, his energy and the probability of his success. If we desire a partner in business ; or if we find it necessary to intrust our affairs to the guidance of another person ; our thoughts involuntarily turn to such considerations. If he is defective here, we hesitate to proceed. The same principles hold good in religion. If a man comes short in his own matters, "how shall he take care of the church of Christ?" Has he not promptness, energy, firmness, discretion. Has he not influence enough with his children to govern them? Has he not the requisite command over his servants? Is his business left at loose ends to drag itself along? Is he seldom ready to meet his engagements at the proper time? Then, in these respects, his character is the reverse of that which the word of God requires for a deacon. Whatever of influence he would exert with his brethren would tend to diffuse in the church his own defects, and thus deprive her of more than half of her strength.
Would you secure the services of an efficient deacon. who will conduct the church's affairs successfully? Select that brother who, if in other respects he is of the proper character, has his family, his children and servants under a regular, mild, and firm government ; in whose household economy, benevolence, and regularity, bear rule ; who conducts his own business with skill and success; and who attends promptly, honorably, and energetically, to all his duties as a man. He is "proved, and found blameless ruling his children and his own house well. Let him use the office of a deacon."
Such are the scriptural qualifications for the Deaconship.
Let us recapitulate. Those who are appointed to this office must be pure in their conjugal relations ; they must be men of unblemished general reputation ; men of devout piety; men of sound orthodoxy in principle ; men who are wise as to the character of men and things; and who conduct well their own household and business affairs. Will it be objected to me that brethren who fully answer to this description can be very seldom found, and that if all these qualifications are insisted upon, many churches can have no deacons at all? This supposition is, I think, mistaken; but even were it not, it would in no way change the case, as it is presented before us in the divine record. I have held up before you the inspired standard, by which your judgment is to be formed. Shall the law be lowered in its obligations, because we may imagine that few men, if measured by it, would not be found wanting? As well might we bring down the divine standard of Christian excellence, and think to adjust it to the prevailing character of Christian morals? Such a course is not admissible. Let the churches select as their deacons those brethren who, in their judgment, approach nearest the inspired rule ; and let all Deacons and people seek earnestly to reach it press ever "towards the mark for the prize of their high calling of God in Christ Jesus."