While the use of the word deacon is somewhat varied in Scripture and church history, the constitutional Standards of the PCA clearly define that word for use within the bounds of the PCA. Why then is the word deacon used in such diverse and even contradictory ways by PCA congregations?

Modernism was characterized by a quest for objectivity and certainty, but it failed to deliver. Post-Modernism arose in response and questions all objectivity and certainty. Post Modernism thrives in the society of our exile.
Perhaps nowhere is the impact of Post-Modernism more glaring than in language.
Language is hard. The meanings of words evolve over time. For example, four centuries ago a “stew” was a reference to a bathhouse or brothel. Today a “stew” is a thick soup that is especially popular in colder months. But you can see the relationship between the archaic meaning and the current understanding of “stew.”
However, in our postmodern day the meaning of words has become almost completely fluid. Consider this somewhat absurd example in the meaning of the word literally as it is currently understood according to Oxford Languages: “in a literal manner or sense; exactly,” or “used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.”
So what does literally mean? I literally don’t know.
There seems to be similar trouble over the meaning of the word deacon in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Deacon in Scripture
The word deacon (and its feminine, deaconess) simply means servant. I am not going to do an exhaustive study of the word here; that has been done by others elsewhere. Nonetheless, a brief survey will help set the context.
Romans
It is used of Nero by Paul in Romans 13:4 – for he is God’s deacon (διάκονός; diakonos) for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Later in Romans, the Apostle Paul uses the same word to describe the woman who apparently carried Paul’s epistle to the church at Rome – I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon (διάκονον; diakonon) of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well (Rom. 16:1, 2).
So it seems in Romans the word deacon does not have a technical, official sense (i.e., referring to a church office), but is rather used to describe both men and women who serve, whether in government or in the church.
Acts of the Apostles
Acts 6 is generally understood by Reformed Christians to explain the origin of the office of deacon by Christ through His apostles. Although the noun often translated deacon does not actually occur there, the verb form is used to describe the work the apostles and elders will not do, but to which ministry they will set apart seven men elected by the Church – And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve (διακονεῖν; diakonein) tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty (Acts 6:2, 3).
Interestingly, a noun form of the verb translated serve in verse two is used in verse four to refer to the ministry of the apostles and elders – But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry (διακονίᾳ; diakonia) of the word.
The words appearing in Acts related to what is elsewhere translated deacon don’t seem to have taken on a technical or official sense.
Read More
Related Posts:

God’s promise is not that he will free us from what ails us—not yet, at least—, but that he will enable us to carry it for as long as he deems fit. God’s promise is not that he will remove that burden but that he will support us so that we have no need to fear that we will stumble or fall. With God’s support, we have no need to fear that we will undermine the work he intends to do or to fail to remain faithful to the end.

So much of what we experience in this life is so very heavy. So many of the burdens God calls us to carry are so tremendously weighty that they threaten to crush us to the dust. We bear the weight of our own sin and depravity, the shame of doing evil and the pain of failing to do good. We bear the weight of other people’s sin and depravity as they hurt and harm us, sometimes intentionally and sometimes purely inadvertently. We bear the weight of griefs and losses, of illnesses and sorrows, of unhealthy bodies and infirm minds, of broken relationships and shattered dreams. We all at times stagger under the weight of all we are made to bear upon our weak shoulders.
It is in such times that we turn to God for help, in such times that we call upon his precious promises to sustain and uplift us. Among the best of them is this: “Cast your burden on the LORD, and he will sustain you; he will never permit the righteous to be moved” (Psalm 55:22). When we are heavily burdened we are to take one specific action: cast. We are to throw or hurl or toss our burdens upon the Lord. We are to bring them to his attention and to plead with him for his help. And so we close our eyes and pray or we lift our eyes and cry out for his help, his assistance, his deliverance.
What we want, no doubt, is for God to take them from us.
Read More
Related Posts:

As Christendom has collapsed in the West, Wilson has offered a vision that plays on the fears and emotions of those who are panicking. This is precisely why the mission of the church, all of the sudden, takes a drastic turn in its elevating of cultural transformation while “saving people from their sins” becomes only a means to this greater end. While we might look at the psalm-singing, the community, the safe space, the building of schools and churches in Moscow as good things (and I do indeed admire much of it) we can’t miss what has drawn such an attraction.

This entire article may be a fool’s errand. I mean, it’s easy to watch two men mud-wrestling from afar with the hopes that none of the mud lands me as a spectator. But there are some fights so nasty that the mud is unavoidable. And if you are one to pray for rain, you certainly have to deal with the mud. That’s somewhat how I feel reading the responses to Kevin DeYoung’s article that raised concerns over the “Moscow Mood.” As a whole, I thought DeYoung’s article addressed some very fair concerns about the trajectory of what is clearly a movement that should concern Christians in terms of mission and witness. Yet, the responses indicate, as I suspected, that the issues plaguing Christians over the end of Christendom are far beyond that of a mood.
I’m not convinced you can take on Doug Wilson over style alone. As one friend said, that’s like teeing up your head and Wilson likes to swing with bats. Jared Longshore likes the metaphor since he expressed that DeYoung certainly teed this up for Wilson, but he just didn’t mention the bat. Yet, to engage Wilson over style is a losing battle—every time. Many will silently read a piece like DeYoung’s and say, “just another critique of ‘Moscow man bad’ over tone.” There is much more to the issue, of course—things to which DeYoung alluded—but to make any progress in helping people see clearly through the issues, theological substance has to drive the critique.
But the present confusion of Christ and culture is complex, and we American Christians do not like complexity. There is a sense that something must be done to curb the flood of iniquity coming upon us. It’s a tough pill to swallow in accepting that what happens in the culture is the will of God, especially as he executes his righteous judgments. But exactly what our calling should be in a moment like ours dominates the minds of Christians in the West. Wilson has taken the reins and is offering a vision forward that few seem to have. Yes, it’s all about vision. And I agree, other current eschatologies are not resonating with people at the moment in terms of vision. No matter how many different reasons Wilson may present as to why people are flocking to Moscow, what undergirds it all is an eschatology that gives people a sense of doing something to stop the avalanche of our culture. And therein lies the heart of the issue.
Wilson’s vision stands somewhat alone in its robust, Billy Sunday, strong-man approach, while many quarters of the church are caught up in the pathetic woke ideals that have invited much of this reaction to begin with. Who can forget Mark Driscoll convincing us that he was a tough guy from the other side of the tracks in his constant take down of effeminate men? It worked, certainly–for a while. And let me say that unequivocally, I agree that wokeism is a neo-orthodoxy that also is crippling the church’s witness. I’m only going to assert here that the approach under consideration is not the solution.
Read More
Related Posts: