Is your leadership a team?

Investigating what Scripture says about the relationship between elders and deacons

How does your church leadership work?

In particular, if you are in an independent church with a New Testament, congregational polity, which sees the pastor as one of the elders, how is the relationship between elders and deacons set up? Traditionally, broadly speaking, the deacons look after the fabric of the church building and the finances, while the elders are concerned with the more ‘spiritual’ aspects of the church.

But I want to challenge that way of doing things. That traditional structure often doesn’t seem to work well and can even be the cause of tension in a leadership. Where do you draw the line between the two areas of responsibility? There can sometimes be almost a turf war between the different spheres of responsibility which can sour the whole atmosphere of a church.

Leadership is vital for a church. The way it is structured will affect the whole decision-making process and the effectiveness of a church’s ministry.

Scriptural principles

Stepping back to get an overview there are three things to underline at the beginning.

First, throughout Scripture we find the marvellous promise from the Lord: ‘You shall be my people and I shall be your God.’ This is a promise to God’s people corporate-ly, as a body, to know the Lord. The purpose of a church and therefore of its leadership is to bring that promise into something of a concrete form locally. Leaders must not forget that prime aim. Let’s not be diverted by the details of the weekly nuts and bolts from this grand end.

Second, in God’s wisdom, he has seen fit, under Christ as head, to give churches local leadership. In Scripture we find just two offices in a local church – those of elder and deacon. There is different nomenclature – elder, overseer, bishop – but it is the same office (cf. Acts 20.17, 28; Titus 1.6,7). Elders are to ‘be shepherds’ (Acts 20.28), or to ‘pastor’ the flock (Ephesians 4.28).

Thirdly, though all leadership in a church is ultimately service (Matthew 20.24-28), the dominant words used with regard to elders is that they ‘manage’ or ‘rule’ (or ‘direct the affairs of the church’ – 1 Timothy 5.17), whereas the deacons ‘serve’ (1 Timothy 3.10, 13).

In the NT we only ever find elders (plural) in a church. There is to be equality among elders so that together they rule under God’s word. There is also to be diversity among the elders. Though all must meet the qualifications with regard to their personal godliness, family life and doctrinal stance (set out in 1 Timothy 3.1-7; Titus 1.5-9), different elders have different gifts. And the elders’ rule must be a serving rule which promotes not themselves, but the honour of Christ and the welfare of God’s people.

Biblical data

The thesis I want to present is this: the work of the deacons and the work of the elders are not separate entities, but the work of the deacons is a subsection of the elders’ work, which has been deputed to the deacons who are accountable to the elders as they carry it out. I suggest that this is actually a matter of enormous practical significance. First, we argue for this understanding of the relationship between elders and deacons from the Bible.

The general principle is that elders are responsible before God for the whole flock. The elders must guard and give an account for the whole flock (this must include deacons if there are any – Acts 20.28; Hebrews 13.7). This would naturally suggest that the buck for everything concerning the church must ultimately stop with the elders. For example, the elders cannot say: ‘We look after people’s souls but not their physical welfare, that’s the deacons’ responsibility.’ Neither can they say: ‘We know the building is falling down, but that’s got nothing to do with us. Talk to the deacons about that.’

Though responsibility for the upkeep of the building, or the providing of meals for those in need in the fellowship, may have been deputed to the deacons (or others) by the elders, nevertheless the elders must be ultimately responsible because they are to ‘direct the affairs of the church’. Though they are not meant necessarily to do everything themselves, they are to oversee everything.

We find this worked out in the NT. When churches are planted – after having been given a time to settle – we find that Paul appointed just elders (Acts 14.23, Titus 1.5) – not elders and deacons. Deacons seem to be a later addition.

In Acts we often find elders doing what is traditionally seen as ‘deacons’ work.’ Barnabas and Saul take the monetary gift from Antioch and give it, not to the deacons, but to the Jerusalem elders (Acts 11.30).Warning the Ephesian elders, Paul tells them to work hard, as he had done, to support the weak (with gifts, Acts 20.34,35). When folk are sick they are to call for the elders (James 5.14).

If the men appointed in Acts 6 may be looked on as ‘proto-deacons’ (note connection of diakonos with serving tables) to take the pressure off the apostles, then this may be a pattern. Deacons are appointed to help the elders as responsibilities increase.

It seems significant that the office of deacon in Scripture is only found in conjunction with that of the elder (1 Timothy 3.1-12; Philippians 1.1 – except perhaps Romans 16.1). Also the qualities required for a deacon in 1 Timothy 3 parallel those for an elder, with the exception of being ‘apt to teach.’

The conclusion, which seems to emerge here, is that deacons are not restricted to a particular kind of work, but are generally helpers to the elders. The elders begin as the sole leaders, but then as the work grows, deacons are appointed to take the pressure off in order that the elders may focus on pressing priorities.

Some practical implications

It is worth noting that the result of the appointment of the seven in Acts 6 was that ‘the word of God spread. The numbers of disciples in Jerusalem increased…’ (Acts 6.7). It seems that as the apostles refocused on prayer and preaching the word, as they were released from certain tasks by the deacons, a new impetus was given and a new fruitfulness was seen in gospel ministry. Have the elders in your church got too bogged down in the detail of church management, rather than being teachers and carers of the flock? Perhaps they need to be willing to depute greater responsibilities to the deacons.

Traditionally, evangelical churches tend to appoint deacons before appointing elders. This seems completely the other way around from the procedure we find in the NT.

It means that deacons should not use their position as a separate power base used to challenge the authority of the elders. This can happen, for example, when trustees or child protection officers in a church are deacons and misuse the power entrusted to them.

Harmonious working of elders and deacons should not depend on a strict division of labour, but on good relationships. Building warm social relations is helpful here. Good communication between elders and deacons is essential. Though they may need separate meetings (e.g. elders must keep confidences about their pastoral involvements), joint meetings are necessary too.

Though the tradition of ‘material’ work for the deacons and ‘spiritual’ work for the elders may be helpful at times it is not to be a rigid rule. We can afford to be more flexible and entrust deacons with spiritual matters at times – maybe interviewing for membership while the elders are having to address some crisis in the church.

It requires a proper trust. Deacons need to be men whom the elders can trust with projects and who will get things done. Otherwise the temptation will be for the elders to try to do everything and this will move their focus from shepherding the flock to ‘projects’ of various kinds.