Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
Drake,
Yyyyyyyyyeahh........I am not referring to official titles. I am not thinking and do not think in clergy terms. I am well aware there are no titles. I am talking about descriptive terms used to refer to people who carry out the functions of that word. Even as you said, "elder" is not a title. It is a description of that person's function (just like "church in..." is not the name or title, it is just the description).
However, Nee does say there are only two offices in the church – that of elder and that of deacon. And deacons are also appointed in the course of their natural manifestation. So while it is not an official title, deacons are actually “appointed” and therefore “officially” deacons. Not in official title, but in appointed function. (And in communication we do have to use words and terms for things and people, or else we are up a creek.)
So for a group who tries to do everything so tightly according to the Bible, it is odd that the term "deacon" is not generally used, especially when there is even a specific portion in the word describing the qualifications for one. We have “elders” because it is in the Bible, why not “deacon”? You mentioned “serving one” and said that it covers deacons and deaconesses. Personally I would disagree on the grounds that "serving one" is used too broadly and can include saints who do not hold the qualifications of a deacon as described in the Bible, and moreover are not necessarily appointed. At one point or another most saints can end up being a "serving one" in some capacity, whether briefly or longer term. Under the large umbrella of "serving one", however, some can be deacons in function. (In other words, not all serving ones are deacons, but all deacons are serving ones).
Yes, in some LCs there are females who serve in certain specific capacities and who therefore do perform the functions of a deaconess. Why then, if these functions exist among the saints, are the Biblical terms not used to describe them? One realization I had was that to use the term "deacon" would then support the use of the term "deaconess", and having any female termed, or, yes, “appointed”, anything special in the local churches is a no-no. (I do not mean "special" in the sense of being above anyone else. Deacons/esses serve the saints; they are not there to be "over" the saints in a negative way).
You said you have heard the term deacon used. I have never heard the term deacon used myself, but accept that there may be LC's where it is used, although I have to suspect that that is a rare occurrence.
|
Ok. Fair enough. I see your point, Trapped.
But I think the reason may be simpler than you describe.
Assuming there is a conscious effort to not use the term “deacon” or “deaconess” it would more likely stem from the fact that the descriptor has been used and spoiled by institutional Christianity were it is a title, it is an official associated with the clergy class.... little deacon became big Deacon. That explanation would be consistent with the teachings and practices of the local churches and to avoid inadvertently creating classes in the local churches.
Yet, I have no proof that is why or how this low key use of the term deacon came about. I rather think it is because serving one is the meaning of the Greek diakonos. Just like we don’t use the term “called out assembly” but rather a vernacular expression ....”church”.
Drake