Quote:
Originally Posted by fredtgreco  I did speak quickly on this. But here is the point. It is not the service itself that is the issue. All Christians are called to mercy ministry. All Christians are called to service. But Acts 6 presumes that someone is directing that effort. The person who directs is called a deacon. If the deacon did not have authority over those involved in the mercy ministry, we would have to suppose that no one but deacons could perform mercy ministry. Otherwise, why even have deacons? |
Well the way I had read Acts 6 previously was that it saying says that since the needy Greeks were getting the short end of the stick, all the disciples, both Jew and Greek were to gather together. The people were given the authority by the apostles to choose who would be their servants and serve them faithfully and fairly, since the apostles judged it to not be right that they themselves should wait tables at the expense of preaching the word and prayer. It sounded to me like the people tell the deacons who it is that needs something, and the deacons obey them. But... It does speak about management in the requirements of deacons elsewhere in scripture, so I think I can see what you were referring to. As far as the question you asked ("Otherwise, why even have deacons?") the way I would first read that is literally: Why have servants? or Why have table waiters? My first reaction is that the name implies lack of authority, not the fact of authority. They were originally to serve those who needed food. But I think I can now see how the other places where they are mentioned their duties encompass more than this. Thanks for your reply. Like I said, I just hadn't really thought about it much.