I am always happy for an opportunity such as this to consider with you a subject that bears mightily on our life together as a church and congregation of Christians, but which we do not very often have occasion to consider. Church government is not, of course, at the top of the Scripture's list of most important themes. And, even when it does appear, as, for example, in Micah's condemnation of the spiritual leadership of the church of his day, -- which we have been studying Sunday evenings of late --, his treatment is of moral and doctrinal failure, not a systematic account of how the church ought to be governed.

The information in the NT is still much sparser than that in the OT. With respect to the office of deacon, for example, we have the account of its institution in Acts 6, from which we can certainly learn something about the office, though only in very general terms, the account Paul gives of the necessary qualifications for any man who would hold this office in 1 Timothy 3 -- an account that differs very little from what he says about the qualifications for an elder --, and, this one obiter dictum, a single instance of Paul addressing a congregation and mentioning in his address the elders and deacons. We are not, I mean to say, always stumbling over material concerning church government in our expositions of the Scripture.

Even regarding this particular address in Philippians 1:1 -- "together with the overseers and deacons" -- there is some uncertainty. There are only two offices mentioned -- elders (for "overseers" is the other term for "elder" in the NT; the two terms are clearly synonyms, one referring to the character of the man, "elder", the other to his function, "overseer") and deacons. But where are the ministers in this greeting? Is Paul leaving them out on purpose and addressing himself only to those who really form the congregation itself, the ministers, like the priests of the OT, being a separate body, with a separate membership?

That is possible. I can imagine someone writing to this church today and addressing himself to the congregation with its officers and wanting to make a separation between the congregation (including its elders and deacons) and the ministers who serve the congregation but are not precisely a part of it.

It is more likely, however, that Paul is using "overseers" here in its more embracive use for church rulers in general, a class of church officers that included both ministers and elders. We have that use clearly established in the NT itself. In Judaism the term elder could refer specifically to the lay rulers of the people, or it could refer generally to all church governors, which included not only elders per se but priests. For example, in Acts 5:21 the Sanhedrin is referred to as "the elders of the people" though, as a matter of fact, it included both lay rulers and priests. The High Priest, for example, was always the president of the Sanhedrin, and other priests sat in this "council of the elders" as it is also called. Paul makes a similar use of the embracive term elder in 1 Timothy 5:17 when he calls both rulers and teachers "elders." So, though the term "elder", then, could refer to either a minister of the Word and sacrament or a lay ruler, those offices were not confused, just as they were not in Judaism. You could refer to both priests and elders by the one term "elders", but no one thought that, for that reason, the priesthood and the eldership were the same office.

In that case, we would have three officers mentioned in Philippians 1:1: the three officers of a Presbyterian church today: minister, elder, and deacon, with minister understood as one of the two offices referred to by the term "elder."

And Presbyterians have long thought that each of the offices represented an essential function of the church and that, for that reason, each office was very important and necessary.

Here is a statement from the Second Book of Discipline of the Church of Scotland, written during the days of the Reformation.

"The hail polity of the Kirk consisteth in three things, to wit, in Doctrine, Discipline, and Distribution. With Doctrine is annexit the administration of the Sacramentis. And according to the pairts of this division ariseth a three-fauld sort of office-bearers in the Kirk, to wit, of Ministeris or Preachers, Elderis or Governors, and Deaconis or Distributeris."

For a church to be healthy, so it has been taught for ages in our church, there must be sound teaching and worship -- the responsibility of the ministers; there must be faithful adherence of the church and the Christians in the church to the laws and standards of God's Word -- the responsibility of elders; and there must be an active life of charity and mutual love expressed in the most practical ways -- the responsibility of the deacons.

It is not hard to see how the lack of any of these would weaken the church, endanger the saints within her, and spoil her witness to the world. If you had no sound teaching, the church must finally collapse in every way, because as with an individual Christian, so with a congregation, "as a man thinks, so he is." But if you had sound teaching but no discipline and the people who listened to that teaching were permitted to live disobedient and faithless lives, the truth that was taught would be undermined by the example that was set. So it has been in countless homes and families and so it will be in this family. Church history tells this sad tale many times over. But if there is sound gospel teaching and outward conformity to the law of God but there is no practice of love and generosity, the Christian faith loses its power and vitality. If I know all mysteries and speak in the tongues of men and angels but have not love, I am nothing.

We may have, we especially who live at the end of the 20th century, may have other ideas about what makes a good church, a faithful church, a successful church. But the Lord seems to think that, most fundamentally, a faithful church rests on sound teaching and worship, faithful rule and discipline, and the practice of charity. So much did the Lord think this, that he established an office in the church to see to oversee each of those activities.

Now, from these few facts, drawn from the biblical data, I want to offer a few observations bearing on the government of the church in our day.

One of the most influential modern works advocating Presbyterianism was the small booklet by the Irish Presbyterian Thomas Witherow entitled The Apostolic Church: Which is it? Young men preparing for their licensure and ordination exams all know Witherow. In that study Witherow reduces the Presbyterian system to six principles:

1. Christ is the only King and Head of his Church.
2. The terms bishop (overseer) and elder are synonyms in the NT and so do not designate separate offices.
3. There is to be a plurality of elders in every church.
4. Church officers (ministers, elders and deacons) to be elected by the people.
5. Ordination is an act of the Presbytery.
6. The duty of submission and right of appeal is extended beyond the local congregation to the church as a whole.

If you have those principles in practice, you have Presbyterianism. That is Witherow's point. Well those are magnificently important matters, but it is easy to see how much is left still undecided. These principles, by themselves, do not determine whether ministers will be members of Presbyteries as in American Presbyterianism or churches as in Continental Reformed Churches. These principles, by themselves, do not determine exactly how the church will be divided -- presbyteries and General Assembly as in our church; Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly as in other churches. For historical reasons ministers in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland are paid from the central headquarters of the church; in American Presbyterianism they are paid by local churches. The PCA has a thick book of procedures called The Book of Church Order. Very little of that book derives from actual statements in the Bible. It is an attempt, better in some places, worse in others, of doing things in conformity with general biblical principles and decently and in good order.

Francis Turretin, the great Swiss Presbyterian theologian of the late 17th century, whose textbook on theology was a standard at American Presbyterian Seminaries until the middle of the 19th century, held that a church could be consistently Presbyterian and have a powerful President with wide-ranging authority over the church, so long as his powers were subject to the review and control of the church's elders. But that was far too strong meat for American Presbyterians, weaned, as we are, on anti-Episcopal, anti-authoritarian arguments.

Or take a more contemporary issue that surfaces in our own Presbyterian Church in America. There are a number of ministers and elders in our churches who approve the ordination of women to the diaconate. If they had their way PCA churches would have a mixture of men and women among their deacons. They argue that while the NT forbids women elders, the case for a male-only diaconate is not so strong, and, and here is their coup-de-grace, since the diaconate is not an office of authority in the Bible, as is the office of elder, the principle of women not exercising authority over men would not be violated by the election of women deacons.

Now, in my judgment the case for women deacons is considerably weaker than these advocates think. When the apostles instituted the office they told the church in Jerusalem to choose seven "males" -- the word is the specific word for male as opposed to female. And that, in fact, is what the Jerusalem church did. They chose seven males; all the first deacons were men, even though the establishment of the office was prompted by a problem of the church's ministry to widows! It is often an argument that we need women deacons for ministry to women. What is more Paul speaks of men in setting out the qualifications for the office and, as confirmation, we have the evidence of the early church, whose deacons were all men. There were deaconesses in some places in early Christianity, but no one confused them with women deacons!

But, here is my point. Who says the office of deacon has no authority in it? The Bible never says that. The nature of the office, the work required, the responsibility for the collection and distribution of money, all of this requires the exercise of certain types of authority. Everyone in our culture fully understands that the people who control the money have real authority. And what of the sort of ministry charity demands of deacons -- making judgments about people's behavior, giving help but counsel as well, making demands as well as giving assistance. All of this is the exercise of authority.

There was even a deliverance of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, the old Northern Presbyterian Church, in 1857 that protected the sovereignty of the deacons over the deacons' fund, even going on to say that in regard to certain decisions the deacons had an absolute control, not subject to the consent of the elders. [Hodge, Church Polity, 299-300]

The Bible has no word for "office" such as we use in talking about church government. The thing is there, but not the word. What we mean by "office" is a status or position in the church, occupied by certain persons set apart by gifts and calling to the exercise of certain functions and responsibilities. The deacons have an "office" in that sense, just as elders and ministers do. The more faithfully they fulfill their office, the more faithful this church will be. The more they exercise the authority of their office in a faithful, devout, loving way, the more faithful this church will be to God, the safer its people, the happier, and the more fruitful.

Now this has a bearing on our life as a church today. What should be the ministry of our deacons? In what should they invest their time and our time and money? In Calvin's Geneva they ran hospitals and orphanages. Perhaps they should again, though it is difficult to see how they might run a hospital in our day. For several centuries they have had little to do with education, but today they are back where the deacons in John a Lasco's refugee church in 16th century London were, providing Christian education for children in the church who otherwise could not afford it. And exactly how should they collect the funds needed for the church's ministry to folk in need? These are no questions the Bible answers for us. Wise and godly men must think these questions through and determine what they think would be the best way of ministry for us today. These are not easy questions to answer, believe me. But they must be asked and answered because, while there is no formula for this provided in the Bible, the thing itself, the charity, the care for one another, the love must be the pattern of a church's life.

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27

The Bible's formula is godly men in three offices seeking to fulfill the general responsibilities of that office in the best possible way. A church will be well served if her elders and deacons are determined not to rest until the church is doing all she ought to be doing in obedience to and service of Christ and doing it in the best possible way. We should be praying that our officers never grow tired of seeking for more and more from us and in us for the Savior's name sake and that God would give them wisdom in knowing how best to do that. Because that is the way a church prospers and Christians prosper.

Thornwell, the champion of the Southern Presbyterian Church in the 19th century, defined Presbyterianism this way. "The government of the church by parliamentary assemblies composed of two classes of elders, and of elders only, and so arranged as to realize the visible unity of the whole church. This is Presbyterianism."

Well, I have some quibbles -- where are deacons and why use a loaded political term like parliamentary -- but it is the last part of the definition that I want you to observe: "and so arranged as to realize the visible unity of the whole church."

That is the Presbyterian vision -- one church of Jesus Christ, ruled by its assembled elders, however many congregations there may be in any place. Our vision is of the church in Tacoma being one Christian church ruled by its assembled elders. But, of course, we cannot put that vision into place any further than we can persuade others to share it. And, in our day, in our city, there are not many like-minded Christians. Fact is, there are not many Christians much of the same mind as any other considerable number of Christians. We are a scattered and divided lot, we evangelicals.

There is but one PCA church in our entire county, much less in our city. In Philadelphia, where there are many PCA churches in one metropolitan area, there is a diaconal ministry to homosexuals sponsored, directed, and underwritten by the Presbytery churches together. In the Tennessee Valley Presbytery, around Chattanooga, there is a widows’ ministry sponsored and underwritten by the Deacons of Presbytery. In older days Presbyteries and Synods ran orphanages, welfare agencies, schools, and hospitals.

In the Pacific Northwest Presbytery we have just taken our first step in establishing a ministry sponsored and underwritten by the churches of this Presbytery, viz. the chapter of Reformed University Fellowship at the University of Washington. But in diaconal ministries we have not yet been able to enlist the collective strength and unity of the church for ministry. I pray that day will come before too long, when there are enough like-minded Christians in our area to bring the ministry of food, shelter, education, even health care to our community in a fashion that is distinctively Christian, offered in Christ's own name and at the expense of his people.

There is a little of this in the town, of course. I don't mean to deny the good work done by Christian agencies, some of which our deacons support. Still it is not the comprehensive effort that could be made and should be made by the church as a whole. Meantime, we must do what we can and pray for the men who are responsible to see that we do!

All of this is to say just this. If we are to be faithful to our Savior and serve him in the world, if we are to be a church that nurtures Christians young and old in our holy faith and instills in them a zeal to bear fruit for the love of Jesus Christ, then we need the truth to be taught faithfully, we need to worship God according to his Word with heart and soul, fortified by the sacraments he has appointed as part of that worship, we must hold all who wish to be renown as Christians to the standard of Christian faithfulness that is set for us in the Word, without which no profession of faith in Christ can be believed, without which there can be no true assurance of salvation. For such things we have ministers and elders and they are men who must give an account for those sacred matters over which they have been made responsible.

But, in addition, if we are to be faithful Christians and a faithful Christian church, we must practice charity toward one another and the world. The coat of arms of the Christian church, someone has said, is a "basin on a field of towels." That was the picture the Lord left us with as he washed his disciples' feet and told them to do likewise.

C.S. Lewis reminds us to be careful about this. "I believe that the men of this age...think too much about the state of nations and the situation of the world.... In the poor man who knocks at my door, in my ailing mother, in the young man who seeks my advice, the Lord Himself is present: therefore let us wash His feet."

But we will not do this so well individually, if we are not doing it well together as a body. And to that end God has given us deacons. And it is ours to pray for them and encourage them and obey them so that Christ may find us, at the end, demonstrating that we love him by keeping his commandments.