PCA BCO 9-7 (deacons' assistants) - What to call 'em?

[raekwon]

Our church is currently in the midst of training guys to be examined for the office of Deacon, but in the meantime, we have six overloaded & exhausted elders, no deacons, a ton of diaconal work that needs to be done, and a number of godly men and women who are chomping at the bit to do such work.

As providence would have it, our Book of Church Order provides for a Session-appointed group of such "godly men and women" to assist with diaconal duties. We've decided to appoint such a group to fill in the gap until (and possibly after) we have ordained deacons, but . . . what do you call such a group?

Here are some "maybes" and some "nos" I've already come up with. Any other ideas?

POSSIBILITIES:
1) Deacons' Council (I'm leaning toward this)
2) Diaconal Assistants (Descriptive, but cumbersome)
3) Mercy Team

NO WAY:
1) Diaconate
2) Unordained Deacons

 

[N. Eshelman]

I call them 'small d deacons'. Not too pretty, but they are!

You could also call them commissioned deacons since they come with a commission from the session, but have not been set apart by the congregation.

 

[raekwon]

I call them 'small d deacons'. Not too pretty, but they are!

You could also call them commissioned deacons since they come with a commission from the session, but have not been set apart by the congregation.

That would be fine with me personally, but using the word "commissioned" along with "deacons" (especially if the group can include women) will open up a huge can of worms that we don't want to deal with.

 

[fredtgreco]

I would go with either #2 or #3. #1 sounds like a council of deacons.

 

[fredtgreco]

I call them 'small d deacons'. Not too pretty, but they are!

You could also call them commissioned deacons since they come with a commission from the session, but have not been set apart by the congregation.

That would be fine with me personally, but using the word "commissioned" along with "deacons" (especially if the group can include women) will open up a huge can of worms that we don't want to deal with.

Ugh. Why not call them "small e elders" if they are old, or "small p pastors" because they are involved in ministering to others?

 

[Romans922]

I would vote like Fred: 2 or 3. I would vote for 2 over 3, so it is absolutely clear what these people are doing and who they are.





(wow that is angry looking soapbox - my soapbox isn't mean in anyway)

In my opinion, you really don't need to call them anything. Everybody in our time wants to have a title of some sort, to give meaning to their responsibilities. So personally, i wouldn't call them anything, but if I was going to, to communicate what they do. Then please don't do something like what my job title was when I worked at a hospital: Environmental Technician. Horrible. I was a janitor. Call me a janitor.

If you plan on commissioning, I would say not to.

Why can't the elders (during their session meeting) just say, you guys have a willingness to serve, we think you all are godly and we believe you are qualified to serve and assist the deacons, would you do it? 'Yes'. Okay, for now this is what you need to do, when the deacons are ordained, you will fall under their authority. You will need to help them in any way they need it.

Nothing formal needs to take place in my opinion, like 'commissioning' or 'installing'. I would try to stay away from getting involved with the 'mess' that occurs in the PCA altogether. And if you do something before the Church, PLEASE don't do it during worship.

Stepping off of my opinionated non-angry soapbox

 

[larryjf]

As providence would have it, our Book of Church Order provides for a Session-appointed group of such "godly men and women" to assist with diaconal duties. We've decided to appoint such a group to fill in the gap until (and possibly after) we have ordained deacons, but . . . what do you call such a group?

I think "Deacon's Assistant" would be the best term for the individuals in such a group. For organizational purposes it might be best to form a "Committee of Deacon's Assistants" where they would meet and conduct business, giving their reports to the Session for oversight.

 

[P.F.]

Are they deacons in training? If so, that might work. Otherwise, "service fellowship" is a harmless-sounding option.

 

[Montanablue]

I would vote like Fred: 2 or 3. I would vote for 2 over 3, so it is absolutely clear what these people are doing and who they are.





(wow that is angry looking soapbox - my soapbox isn't mean in anyway)

In my opinion, you really don't need to call them anything. Everybody in our time wants to have a title of some sort, to give meaning to their responsibilities. So personally, i wouldn't call them anything, but if I was going to, to communicate what they do. Then please don't do something like what my job title was when I worked at a hospital: Environmental Technician. Horrible. I was a janitor. Call me a janitor.

If you plan on commissioning, I would say not to.

Why can't the elders (during their session meeting) just say, you guys have a willingness to serve, we think you all are godly and we believe you are qualified to serve and assist the deacons, would you do it? 'Yes'. Okay, for now this is what you need to do, when the deacons are ordained, you will fall under their authority. You will need to help them in any way they need it.

Nothing formal needs to take place in my opinion, like 'commissioning' or 'installing'. I would try to stay away from getting involved with the 'mess' that occurs in the PCA altogether. And if you do something before the Church, PLEASE don't do it during worship.

Stepping off of my opinionated non-angry soapbox

Fair enough, but it gets a little awkward to organize a group that doesn't have a name. For the sake of announcements in the bulletin having a name is nice.

At my church we have a similar group and we call it the "Mercy Ministry." Its headed up by the deacons, but anyone who wants to volunteer to help the deacons can join. Also, if someone has an emergency and can't get into contact with the deacons, they can contact a member of the ministry. (Another reason why having it formally organized and names is nice.)

 

[N. Eshelman]

I call them 'small d deacons'. Not too pretty, but they are!

You could also call them commissioned deacons since they come with a commission from the session, but have not been set apart by the congregation.

That would be fine with me personally, but using the word "commissioned" along with "deacons" (especially if the group can include women) will open up a huge can of worms that we don't want to deal with.

Ugh. Why not call them "small e elders" if they are old, or "small p pastors" because they are involved in ministering to others?

Fred,
Small d deacon was good enough for Paul when talking about Phoebe... but I guess we are beyond him now.

 

[matt01]

members.

 

[J. David Kear]

I like #2) Diaconal Assistants. You should have made this a poll!

 

[gene_mingo]

volunteers.

 

[Edward]

I like the 'Mercy Ministry' suggestion, or perhaps 'Mercy Team' or 'Care Team'. Then there is always "Godly men and women' (or GMW, for a shorter option). Servant leaders. Or something creative - Servants called to aid believers (The SCABs - not good if you have a lot of members who are in a trade union). COBS (Caring for Our Brothers and Sisters)

I'll quit before I get myself in trouble.

 

[raekwon]

I would vote like Fred: 2 or 3. I would vote for 2 over 3, so it is absolutely clear what these people are doing and who they are.





(wow that is angry looking soapbox - my soapbox isn't mean in anyway)

In my opinion, you really don't need to call them anything. Everybody in our time wants to have a title of some sort, to give meaning to their responsibilities. So personally, i wouldn't call them anything, but if I was going to, to communicate what they do. Then please don't do something like what my job title was when I worked at a hospital: Environmental Technician. Horrible. I was a janitor. Call me a janitor.

If you plan on commissioning, I would say not to.

Why can't the elders (during their session meeting) just say, you guys have a willingness to serve, we think you all are godly and we believe you are qualified to serve and assist the deacons, would you do it? 'Yes'. Okay, for now this is what you need to do, when the deacons are ordained, you will fall under their authority. You will need to help them in any way they need it.

Nothing formal needs to take place in my opinion, like 'commissioning' or 'installing'. I would try to stay away from getting involved with the 'mess' that occurs in the PCA altogether. And if you do something before the Church, PLEASE don't do it during worship.

Stepping off of my opinionated non-angry soapbox

Barnes!! You've Barnes-ed the thread up! (Kidding. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, really. )

Anyway, a few counterpoints here . . .

1) This isn't a matter of people "wanting titles". Our congregation actually doesn't know we're going to appoint this group. It'd just be really awkward for there not to be some sort of collective name to call them. We'd end up saying things like "the group of folks we've appointed to assist the deacons we don't have yet."

It just makes sense to give them some sort of designation.

1a) I'm totally with you on the "if I'm a janitor, don't call me an 'environmental technician' thing." Sheesh.

2) If any of my co-laborers mentions anything like "commissioning", I will strongly discourage that.

3) The way we're planning on selecting folks isn't too far off from what you're suggesting. We're putting out a call for interested members on Sunday, but also pulling folks aside that we'd like to strongly consider serving in such a way.

4) The most "formal" thing that'd happen would be us announcing "here are the names of the folks who'll be serving in this way", and praying for them -- probably during worship. After all, their ministry is part of the ministry of the church. No reason not to.

 

[toddpedlar]

Seems to me that Diaconal Assistants is perfectly legitimate, descriptive, and wholly appropriate.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I vote for #2 - but I think calling them a diaconate is perfectly acceptable as well.

 

[Romans922]

I would vote like Fred: 2 or 3. I would vote for 2 over 3, so it is absolutely clear what these people are doing and who they are.





(wow that is angry looking soapbox - my soapbox isn't mean in anyway)

In my opinion, you really don't need to call them anything. Everybody in our time wants to have a title of some sort, to give meaning to their responsibilities. So personally, i wouldn't call them anything, but if I was going to, to communicate what they do. Then please don't do something like what my job title was when I worked at a hospital: Environmental Technician. Horrible. I was a janitor. Call me a janitor.

If you plan on commissioning, I would say not to.

Why can't the elders (during their session meeting) just say, you guys have a willingness to serve, we think you all are godly and we believe you are qualified to serve and assist the deacons, would you do it? 'Yes'. Okay, for now this is what you need to do, when the deacons are ordained, you will fall under their authority. You will need to help them in any way they need it.

Nothing formal needs to take place in my opinion, like 'commissioning' or 'installing'. I would try to stay away from getting involved with the 'mess' that occurs in the PCA altogether. And if you do something before the Church, PLEASE don't do it during worship.

Stepping off of my opinionated non-angry soapbox

Barnes!! You've Barnes-ed the thread up! (Kidding. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, really. )

Anyway, a few counterpoints here . . .

1) This isn't a matter of people "wanting titles". Our congregation actually doesn't know we're going to appoint this group. It'd just be really awkward for there not to be some sort of collective name to call them. We'd end up saying things like "the group of folks we've appointed to assist the deacons we don't have yet."

It just makes sense to give them some sort of designation.

1a) I'm totally with you on the "if I'm a janitor, don't call me an 'environmental technician' thing." Sheesh.

2) If any of my co-laborers mentions anything like "commissioning", I will strongly discourage that.

3) The way we're planning on selecting folks isn't too far off from what you're suggesting. We're putting out a call for interested members on Sunday, but also pulling folks aside that we'd like to strongly consider serving in such a way.

4) The most "formal" thing that'd happen would be us announcing "here are the names of the folks who'll be serving in this way", and praying for them -- probably during worship. After all, their ministry is part of the ministry of the church. No reason not to.

How you responded seems to show that you understood what I meant.

But I do agree, you should've made a poll. oh well...

 

[toddpedlar]

I vote for #2 - but I think calling them a diaconate is perfectly acceptable as well.

Given that diaconate implies that all the members of it are deacons, how can this be appropriate?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I vote for #2 - but I think calling them a diaconate is perfectly acceptable as well.

Given that diaconate implies that all the members of it are deacons, how can this be appropriate?

Well, they are doing diaconal work. So if they are doing diaconal work isn't it appropriate to describe them as a diaconate with the understanding that they aren't ordained?

 

[fredtgreco]

No. In the same way that you would not refer to people who are assisting in shepherding work as "elders" or a "session".

 

[raekwon]

I just went with "Deacons' Assistants". Thanks for the discussion, peeps!