Quote
The one I have a problem with (perhaps because it would apply to me) is the requirement that they be a deacon first. The diaconate is not a "stepping stone" to the eldership. While it is true that it happens often that deacons get called by their congregations to be elders, i don't see it as a biblical mandate that it must be this way. They are two separate offices and should be treated as such. While certainly not ideal, a church can function without deacons, but cannot without elders.
I almost wonder if that requirement is a holdover from what most three-fold office* (bishop/priest/deacon) churches (Rome, Orthodoxy, Anglicans) believe about these offices: that the office of deacon is contained in the office of priest or presbyter and the office of priest/presbyter is contained in that of bishop. Therefore one is always ordained as a deacon first, then later as a priest or presbyter; a man cannot be a priest/presbyter without first being a deacon.

Theo

*There is probably a better term for this than "three-fold office" as I know that also describes a Presbyterian view about the offices of ruling elder, teaching elder and deacon--but right now I can't think of a better term.

Edit: Of course the term I'm looking for is simply the "episcopal" form of government. Those churches would generally treat the diaconate as a transitional office on the way to the priestly/presbyteral office.

Last edited by Theo; Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:15 PM.