Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Friday, November 26, 2021
Keep in mind that by this time the Jerusalem church probably numbered between fourteen and eighteen thousand. As the church grew, new men were needed to continue doing what the elders had been handling, that is, if the elders were to continue to focus on the Word and prayer. The deacons took up three duties that formerly had been done by the elders: the administration of the church, the resources of the church, and the mercy ministry of the church. The reason deacons are to be ordained is because they perform roles the elders formerly did. One very practical tip Reeder gave to elders and sessions was this: try not to redo the work of the diaconate.

On a beautiful, crisp Saturday in October, Southeast Alabama Presbytery (SEAL) deacons held a half-day conference focused on deacons and their biblical role in the church. Hosted at Eastwood PCA in Montgomery – strategically, on a “bye” week for Auburn football – about 40 men attended, mostly deacons from several Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) churches plus several teaching elders (TE) and ruling elders (RE). The conference organizer, Montgomery attorney and Eastwood deacon Samuel McLure opened the event by remarking that, as far as anyone knew, this was the first-ever SEAL presbytery gathering to focus on deacons and their role.
Mr. McLure provided handouts of an 1859 article in The Southern Presbyterian Review by the Rev. James B. Ramsay that addressed “The Deaconship.” One of Ramsay’s excellent thoughts was, “A man cannot be a Christian without seeking to assist, comfort and elevate, all that are Christ’s, to the extent of their wants and his ability.” The Apostle Paul gave considerable attention to the taking up of collections and their proper distribution to the poor of the churches he ministered to, Ramsay pointed out. The Virginia pastor argued that the deacon “as a distinct officer” is to have charge of that important, “distinct function of the church.”[1]
Following the welcome and introduction, TE Jere Scott Bradshaw of Covenant PCA (Auburn, Ala.), preached a sermon from Acts 6-7 on the life and ministry of Stephen, one of the seven men full-of-the-Spirit and wisdom chosen to serve the Jerusalem church as a deacon, thereby enabling the elders to focus on prayer and the ministry of the Word. Pastor Bradshaw had three main teaching points: the character of the deacon, the confidence of the deacon, and the incompetence of the deacon.
The writer of Acts, the apostle Luke, relates that Stephen’s character was marked by grace and power, wisdom and evidence of the Spirit, and tenacity in the message of grace in Jesus Christ. Stephen’s confidence was reflected in his message, “one of the greatest speeches in the history of the world,” as Bradshaw said. Stephen emphasized to his audience that God was not confined to Israel. But the problem his audience faced was not one of the distribution of bread or of church resources; rather, it was the defilement of sin. His audience needed a new creation, a new birth, a new LORD, a new witness. Stephen courageously pointed them toward Jesus Christ, the one who fulfills all that the scriptures had led God’s covenant people to anticipate. Yet Stephen was unable to bring about their change of heart. Pastor Bradshaw observed that, like the elder, the deacon is utterly incapable of bringing about change in another’s heart; only the True Deacon, Jesus Christ, is competent to change the heart. Connecting with the biblical account of Stephen’s death, Bradshaw reminded the men that it was this True Deacon who changed the murderous Saul into the Apostle Paul.
Pastor Bradshaw continued, “Dear brother, you will be utterly incompetent in your service as a deacon.” Your service often will go unnoticed; it will receive unmerited criticism; it will be ineffective in bringing about lasting change in people. “And, beloved, this is the joy of being an officer in the church” (both elder and deacon). Because we, as mere men, are unable to produce transformation – neither in ourselves nor others – we must look to Jesus Christ. Deacons must live for the approval of only one voice . . . the Glorious God, who says, “Well done, good and faithful servant. . . .” Jere Scott Bradshaw closed with these words to deacons: “May you rest and work in the power of the Holy Spirit as you manifest the gospel of grace in acts of mercy.” “Then,” added Bradshaw, “you will truly be serving ‘with much advantage.’”
Bradshaw’s closing remarks played into the title and theme of the conference, taken from the PCA’s Book of Church Order, section 9-6: “The deacons may, with much advantage, hold conference from time to time for the discussion of the interests committed to them” (emphasis added).
Following the sermon, the group watched a recorded interview that Sam McLure had conducted with Pastor Harry Reeder of Briarwood PCA (Birmingham, Ala.), specifically for this conference. Pastor Reeder encouraged the men to be concerned with “church health” rather than “church growth.” Normally, a healthy church will also grow numerically. In some churches, however, he noted, the pastor is doing the work of the elders, the elders are doing the work of the deacons, and the deacons are “just doing some work.” Focusing on Acts 6, he suggested the partiality of the elders toward the Hebrew widows at the expense of Gentile widows was “functional but not spiritual” partiality, or prejudice. The earliest elders at Jerusalem were ethnic Jews and so, by virtue of prior relationships and traditional networking in today’s parlance, they easily were aware of the needs of the Jewish widows in their midst to a degree that could not be duplicated among the Gentiles. Keep in mind that by this time the Jerusalem church probably numbered between fourteen and eighteen thousand. As the church grew, new men were needed to continue doing what the elders had been handling, that is, if the elders were to continue to focus on the Word and prayer. The deacons took up three duties that formerly had been done by the elders: the administration of the church, the resources of the church, and the mercy ministry of the church. The reason deacons are to be ordained is because they perform roles the elders formerly did. One very practical tip Reeder gave to elders and sessions was this: try not to redo the work of the diaconate. Enough said.
Following Harry Reeder’s talk and a short break, Eastwood’s diaconate chairman, Brian DeHuff, spoke on the duties of the deacon. “The work of a deacon is sacrificial,” he observed, and if they don’t do their job then the elders will have to pick up the slack. In the imagery with which Alabamians so easily relate, the deacons are “the offensive line for elders” in the church. Deacon DeHuff went on to discuss several duties of deacons today, including collecting and distributing the resources of the church, promoting the members’ giving and stewardship, the care of widows and orphans, maintaining the buildings and grounds as well as the church’s financial and budget records, and preparing the sanctuary for worship. He encouraged deacons to look for opportunities to secure other men in the church with gifts or qualifications in certain areas to assist in ministry. Men with carpentry or other home skills might assist in repairs for a widow. A CPA might help with financial counseling of a member in debt, and so on. An insightful observation he gave the men was this: God looks at giving in terms of how much we keep back. The poor widow in the gospels who kept nothing back was the one who gave the most from Christ’s perspective. “Our wealth is meant to be shared with those who have need,” DeHuff said, and, “One of the cures for greed is generosity.” The best deacons are “do-ers” and “pray-ers.”
Following Brian DeHuff’s talk, the men enjoyed a lunch and fellowship time before wrapping up, and were done by one-thirty in the afternoon. The 5-hour conference was instructive, encouraging, insightful, practical, and cheerful. We recommend other churches and presbyteries consider doing a deacons’ conference of their own. To that end, we note the conference website, WithMuchAdvantage.com, created to encourage deacons to zealously and faithfully own their domain.
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.
[1] James B. Ramsay, “The Deaconship,” The Southern Presbyterian Review, vol. 12, no. 1 (Apr. 1859): 1-24.

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
At the founding, and for most of America’s history, the moral formation at America’s schools and universities included instruction in religion. George Washington warned, for example, in his Farewell Address that we must not “indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” Massachusetts’ Constitution speaks similarly: “The happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depends upon piety, religion, and morality.” John Adams’ comments on the necessity of religion for true virtue show that it was Christianity, not some nebulous sense of the divine, that must be promoted. Christians recognize, or should do so, that education independent of moral formation is not only impossible, it is undesirable.

Every day or so I encounter a conservative (sometimes even an exasperated moderate on the left) bemoaning the capture of America’s educational system by woke zealots; 2+2=5 and related nonsense. I bemoan the capture of this system too. Although my children are home-schooled I know how bad it is going to be when today’s publicly-schooled children grow up and land in positions of power and influence in government, business, and culture. We’ve got plenty of signs already for what that will mean. However, what I can’t do is join in the refrain of well-meaning conservatives: “Just teach the facts. Education, not indoctrination. Etc.” Such slogans are not only impossible; they are undesirable, even if attainable. They arise out of the same mentality that has left conservatives unable to respond adequately to transgenderism and other social maladies. Instead of addressing the root problem, they address a symptom. We get opposition to men in women’s sports and locker rooms, when the real problem is that transgenderism is a perverse rebellion against the created order that must be opposed in its totality. Likewise, timid conservatives think that the only way to remove harmful ideologies from the nation’s schools is to require schools to teach nothing but supposedly neutral facts, the basics of math, grammar, writing, and so on.
But education cannot avoid moral formation. That is the point of education. Schools exist (they should anyway) to form hearts and minds, to provide students with facts and the moral framework in which to understand those facts. “Education, not indoctrination,” if pressed to its logical conclusion, would produce mindless repositories of random facts, perhaps capable of performing tasks in the marketplace and making money, but little more.
No subject can be adequately taught in a moral vacuum. Consider history. Is the study of history simply the memorization of names, places, and dates? I suppose one could attempt to approach it in that way. In addition to being intensely boring, however, such a study would be utterly pointless. The reason we study history is to learn from the past, not in a superficial “history repeats itself” way in which we think we can predict the future based on historical parallels, but in the sense that we see in our study that people, despite many technological advances, tend to act in certain ways. We learn that certain kinds of situations tend to produce certain kinds of outcomes; “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” Benjamin Franklin warned; “As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” And so on (all quotations in this column are from Thomas West, The Political Theory of the American Founding, chapters 8-9). What about literature? Is literature of value only as a diversion and time-waster? Or is it not beneficial because it enables us to peer into the human soul in its manifold diversity? Can math facts, or physics facts, or grammar facts, be learned without considering the use to which those facts should be put?
With a little reflection I think most people can see that an amoral approach is not only impossible, it is undesirable. While I share the dismay of my fellow citizens as they watch leftist ideologies destroy America’s schools, what is needed is moral formation in what is good, true, and beautiful, rather than an attempt to reject moral formation completely. American conservatives would do well to return to the founders of our nation to see what they thought about education. Doing so would reveal how thoroughly out of step the “neutral” approach to education is with the founding spirit.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Rev. Benjamin Glaser |
Monday, October 11, 2021
We must remember that architecture communicates much truth. It speaks loudly to what is important. Where the pulpit is in the house of the Lord says something to those who are listening.

We’ve all heard the jokes about Presbyterian’s being anti-fun, the so-called frozen chosen. The seen, but not heard denomination. The post you are about to read is going to sound like it came from the official spokesman of the “Presbyterians against anything nice” coalition. Maybe it’s true, maybe I am the grumpiest Presbyterian alive, but my goal here today is not to get hits or cause trouble. Rabble rousers are boring people. Men who seek out controversy don’t have enough to do and they aren’t really seeking to win converts to their position. They just like to see the fight.
At the end of the day I’m really a harmless little fuzzball who just wants Presbyterians to be Presbyterians, Baptists to be Baptists, and Anglicans to be Anglicans. Good fences make good neighbors. If you know where the other person stands it makes it easier to know where you stand.
The topic I’d like to get into today is about the meeting space. Some call it the “sanctuary”, others the “preaching hall”, and whatever you want to call it is fine by me. I’m not interested in getting into arguments over words. There are legit reasons why some people demur from the sanctuary term, and why others like it as a description of where we meet for worship. Christians who are members of long-standing congregations likely are used to a more traditionally-expressed term than church plants and/or younger churches. But regardless of where you meet or what you call it there are certain things as Presbyterians we should expect to see, and not see.
In this brief piece I want to talk about some of the reasons behind the austere look favored by the Reformed, where it came from, and why it matters. To be sure there is a sense in which in the New Testament it doesn’t matter where we meet with God’s people. As men and women who descend from Covenanters who hid in vales and caves to lift up the psalms to the Lord and be fed by His word we should acutely feel that. This is also a very American, if not Western, question. I’ve never been to the nations of Africa, but it is a safe assumption through pictures and the witness of native believers that what is expected in Malawi is different than what is to be understood in South Carolina. Part of the beauty of Presbyterian worship is that you don’t need a fancy place with a bunch of pomp and circumstance. All you need is a Bible and Christians. The Scriptures contain the text for instruction and the book of songs to sing, the people have the voices to raise to Heaven.
What more do you need?
Read More