08/20/2026
THE DEACONSHIP
No authority questions it being apostolic to have an
officer in the church known as a deacon. But in no one
particular have the Primitive Baptists, and all religious
organizations, come so near disregarding the apostolic mark
as in the use of this office.
As to being apostolic, Catholics and Protestants can
make no showing doctrinally, as compared with the Primitive
Baptist; but when it comes to this one office of the
church, although Arminian bodies have generally disregarded
the power and degree of the office, and the Primitive
Baptist in this particular make a office we find our people
have fallen for short, and in many places have practically
abolished the office, except in a form.
Primitive Baptist churches, claiming to be the churches
of Jesus Christ, should have a better record than this. We
should not only be apostolic in doctrine, but in practice
as well. When there is apostolic authority for but two
offices of church officers, then for us to abolish one of
them in practice, is departing too far for those who love
the doctrine of grace, and who would prove that they love
the Master by keeping His commandments.
Some may question that these statements are not
warranted, but ministers who are acquainted with the
practice of the churches, and who have given the matter
proper study, know that the facts sustain them.
These pages have been written to call attention to
practices undoubtedly authorized and commanded by the
scriptures. To this end I wish to examine the office of the
deaconship in light of the sacred word and try to point out
the best of my ability an approved practice.
First, I would like to engage the attention of the
reader with the importance of the subject. Suppose some
person should assert that sprinkling is just as good as
immersion for baptism. What answer would a Primitive
Baptist make? No doubt he would say, “our Lord commanded
believers to be baptized. Christ’s own example shows that
He understood baptism to be immersion in water, for He was
baptized in the river Jordan and came up and out of the
water. Every allusion and example, as far as given, show
that the apostles and believers of their day understood
baptism to be immersion. Since the apostles’ time there has
been no power authorized to change any doctrine or practice
-36-
delivered to the church. So one who is no immersed cannot
have a Christian baptism, and if we were to receive
anything else for baptism we would at once lose our right
to claim that we are churches of Jesus Christ, because we
would not have a baptism that was apostolic.”
So with the doctrines of the church. We contend that if
a church departs from the doctrines of the Bible and
persists in such error, she loses her identity with the
Church of Christ.
Now if some Arminian should turn these arguments against
us and ask, “What was the work of the New Testament
deacons?” And then ask if Primitive Baptists did like work,
what would we say? Then if it should be urged that because
of this lack or error, we did not have a right to call
ourselves churches of Christ, what defense could we
make, except we could truthfully say we still believe in
the duties prescribed for deacons just as taught in the
scriptures, and this difference in practice of our deacons
and the New Testament deacons was only a temporary falling
off or deviation and not because we had rejected the New
Testament teaching?
If the difference in practice arose because we had
actually usurped the authority to change the duties of the
office, as some have done, then the reason we assign for
not recognizing the various organizations as churches of
Jesus Christ, would fall with dreadful weight upon us and
deny our claims, too.
But if we can be said to still hold the theory of the
office as it was in the days of the apostles, and it is
only the indifference of our members that causes us to fail
in our practice, how can we expect the blessings of the
Lord when we say, but do not do, the things He has left on
record for us to follow? Are not these considerations of
sufficient weight to prompt us to an immediate
investigation of God’s word to see how our practices agree
with it.
I hope no one who reads these pages will feel that it
makes no difference! In the eyes of Him who taught that we
are to follow Him, every obedience and disobedience is
important. We may look ancient Israel and see this
principle clearly taught, and no doubt their experiences
are recorded that we may learn from them the real issues of
life to the child of God.
As we now view their journeying we see what ingratitude
-37-
it showed to God to depart from His laws, and bring in
observances which He had positively forbidden. They no
doubt felt at first when they went astray that it was of
little consequence, and that God would not take any notice
of what they did to hold them to account for every
violation. Sometimes, no doubt, they believed if their
practices were according to the traditions of the elders,
it would be all the justification needed. But when Christ
came we see how severe His denunciation was of those who
thought traditions made void the word of God!
Beware, brethren, lest we take a course similar to that
disobedient and stiff-necked people. We should remember our
God is a jealous God and His glory He will not give to
another. - - Isa. 42:8. He will not allow His people to
follow the traditions or heresies of men and pour His
blessings upon their course. To do this would be to make
His laws of no effect. If we may do them or not do them,
and the result will be the same, then His laws are of no
consequence. But Primitive Baptist can never admit such a
theory as this. “He is our lawgiver.” “There be gods many,
and lords many, but to us there is but one God. - - 1 Cor.
8:5,6.
If we have deacons we want New Testament deacons in
practice. As our deacons fill an office recognized by God’s
word, they should do it in a manner approved by that
authority. If our churches have gone astray upon this
subject, they will have to repent - - leave off the present
practices - - and return to that warranted by the word of
God.
We may expect to find opposition. Our people may follow
tradition, and when they do so, they are loath to give up
such things as others; in fact, they seem in some cases to
hold to them with greater tenacity, for they get to
thinking of their practice as being approved of God, and
generally, what an Old Baptist esteems as coming from God
he does not readily give up, for we are taught to view His
teachings with greater reverence than other people do.
So we cannot expect to see a change in a few months, or
even years; it will require patience and continued effort
for the truth, but no true soldier will falter on this
account. It is our duty, and our high privilege, to contend
for the Lord’s way and word and leave the result entirely
in His hand. By reading the history of ancient Israel we
may see that wrong practices often found their way in among
-38-
them, and when they had to suffer for it, then they would
be inclined to put the evil away from them. May we not hope
the Israel of our God will arise now and put every evil way
behind her, and trusting in the God of Abraham, take His
law as the only rule of faith and practice? She should not
be satisfied to merely believe the doctrine of grace, she
should obey her Lord.
I come now to consider the office of the deaconship. The
Greek word that is translated “deacon” in the New Testament
means, servant, attendant, waiter. This word in its verbal
and noun form occurs one hundred and one times in the New
Testament, but it is only rendered “deacon” five times. It
is rendered “minister” sixty-four times. In its general
meaning of ministering, it is applied to pious women (Matt.
27:55), to brethren (Matt. 25:44), to preachers (Eph.
6:21), to apostles (Acts 20:28).
But it is used in a special sense to indicate an officer
of the New Testament church and should be used by us in the
same way to denote the same thing today.
That there is another office beside that of elder
indicates that there is other work to be done besides
ministering the word. To judge from the practice of some
churches only one officer is needed (a preacher), and he is
shorn of all power, to look after the interest of the
flock, except at communion time a deacon is needed to pass
the bread and wine to the brethren.
I will here state that I have never read a text of
scripture, nor have I ever heard anyone make any reference
to one, indicating that the deacon rather than any other
person, should pass the bread and wine. Some refer to Acts
6:2, where it is said by the apostle that “is not reason
that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” Is
taken to be the tables spread at the Lord’s supper, but it
has no reference to such at all. The “tables” the apostle
did not have time to serve, was daily ministering to the
Grecian widows, who were being neglected because the
disciples were multiplied.
How much time is saved to the minister by the deacon
passing the bread and wine? What does the minister do at
that time that he could not do as well as pass the emblems
himself? So far as I know this is the only passage referred
to, and it is evident upon consideration that this had no
reference whatever to the communion table.
But as there is nothing stated just who may, or who may
-39-
not, assist at communion seasons, our custom of having the
deacons to do so is not in violation of God’s word. But
instead of this being their principle duty it is only one
of the many things that may be laid upon them as being in
harmony with the character of the work to be expected of
deacons.
It would be more in keeping with the exact wording of
our Lord when any brother has been served, for him to pass
the bread or wine to another brother, so long as all are
conveniently situated, and only call for the deacon’s
assistance then brethren were not convenient to each other.
As to providing the emblems, and the articles necessary for
communion, it is evident from the nature of the deacon’s
work that they should do this.
I will here remark that the objection of some deacons to
passing the bread and wine at churches where they may
visiting are not acquainted with all members, seems to be
well taken, for they are liable to miss some, and to offer
them to others who should not partake of them. I have known
persons to take of the communion under such circumstances
who were not members of the Old Baptist church at all. They
had no scruples themselves, and took license from the fact
that the emblems were passed to them. It is presumed that a
deacon would know who was entitled to eat at his own
church.
Coming to the occasion for the appointment of deacons in
the apostolic church, it will be found that there was work
for them to do, and such character that it was necessary to
select men especially fitted to do it. This is one
peculiarity of the church of Christ; work is to be done by
persons peculiarly fitted for it. The work of deacons was
principally to handle and distribute money, or its
equivalent.
The militant (or visible) church of Christ is made up of
men and women who, though born of God, are subject to
life’s ills and needs, and he who has wisdom to build the
earth and sky, and all things therein, did not set up His
church and overlook this important fact. Christ affirms,
“Your Father knoweth that ye have need of all these
things,” and everything proves that He does, and that He
who hears the ravens when they cry, and sees the sparrows
when they fall, cares for us in all life’s sufferings. - -
1 Pet. 5:7.
I have heard unthinking brethren affirm that their
-40-
church had no money system in it. While I feared that they
were telling the truth, I knew if it was true, their
church, in that respect at least, was not apostolic. He who
set up the church keeps all the worlds in motion by a law
that will never fail until His purpose has been worked out
and He Himself shall bid it stop. Would He, who always
went about doing good, healing the sick and relieving the
distresses of the poor, forget that there would be poor in
the church in the ages then to come? O, no, for He said
“The poor ye have with you always.”- - Mark 14:7.
Is the theory of men correct that Jesus made no
arrangements for caring for the poor and distressed and
keeping up the ministry, and that now it is necessary to
organize societies and helps for that purpose, the church
not being adapted for such work?
No, a thousand times no! The church as set up by our
Master is all complete and nothing lacking. And just as
there is a law which He gave having the sun which shall
keep on shining as long as He designs, without having to be
renewed, so the system he devised for equalizing the
burdens among the members of the church of Christ will
never need revision, nor need anything to be added to it.
We do not need ministerial boards nor aid societies that
our ministers may give themselves to him who has called
them. The church in herself has every needed arrangement,
and it will be found perfectly adequate to every emergency
when our people thrust in God and obey His word. We need
never trouble ourselves to devise a plan for anything
connected with the church of Christ, everything is already
devised and laid down in God’s word, and we may be sure if
the plan we are following is not laid down there it will
not be successful in the accomplishment of a Bible end.
Deacons were chosen to take charge of the funds of the
church as a part of their work. It is questioned by some
that the seven (Acts 6:3) were deacons. But from the fact
that there were deacons in the churches later on, and no
authority for the office is given except this in Acts 6,
and that the duty as set forth in that chapter and
elsewhere is in harmony with the meaning of the word, I
conclude that the seven were in fact deacons.
That the church had a fund will appear from the fact
that as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold
them and laid the price at the apostles’ feet (Acts
4:14,35). From the common fund so formed the apostles made
-41-
distribution to all as they had need. But the number of the
disciples increased until the apostles were unable to see
to the needs of all, and some of the Grecian widows were
neglected. The apostles also had to preach, and there was
not time to attend to both matters (Acts 6:1). As the work
of caring for these widows was the express purpose for
conclusion that the church fund passed into they’re hands.
Even prior to the crucifixion of our Lord a common fund
was provided as will be seen from the fact that when they
sat at meat before Judas had betrayed our Lord, Judas was
in charge of what money was needed for Jesus and the
twelve. Some of them thought, because Judas had the bag,
that Jesus had said unto him, “Buy those things that we
have need of against the feast; or that He give something
to the poor.” - - John 13:29.
From this we learn that Jesus had been training the
disciples in the course they afterwards recommended to the
church. Christ and His disciples had a common fund and they
used it to supply their needs and to help the poor. If it
had not been the practice to give to the poor out of that
fund the disciples would not have thought that Judas had
been told to do anything of the kind.
Who supplied that fund we are not told, but as the
disciples were all poor, and there in no record that they
stopped to work, except when the disciples went fishing, we
may believe, without drawing very hard on our imagination
that there were friends of the cause of Christ who were in
a position to help and had liberal hearts.
The fact that Judas had the purse, and was a devil, has
nothing to do with its being right or wrong. Up to this
time he had been a follower of Christ, and there is no
proof that he did not do as the other disciples did. Judas
followed Christ, but that did not make it to be a follower
of Christ.
Now if a church has no fund, and will not maintain one,
it has no use for deacons. Any member may use his own funds
for the relief of the needy, but it is the business of a
deacon to use the funds of the church for that purpose. I
have known churches to ordain deacons when it was not the
intention of the members of the church to put anything into
their hands, at any rate they did not. This is to trifle
with solemn obligations and make much ado over form and
deny the plain teaching of God’s word. If the elders of the
churches who form presbyteries would be true to their
-42-
conviction, they would say to the churches when called on
in such cases, we will not use our authority to put a
brother in an office and then have you withhold that from
him which is necessary to the performance of his duty. To
ordain a deacon in a church that will not keep any funds in
his hands is to lay upon him a solemn responsibility and
then have the church tie his hands and force him to noncompliance with the obligations of his office.
A brother chosen in a church to be a deacon knowing it
had not been the practice of the church to keep any funds,
and had reason to believe that unless they viewed the
matter different to the general impression among the
members there would be nothing put into his hands, might
well refuse to submit to ordination until there was a more
scriptural understanding on the subject. These questions
should be answered, not only by the brother chosen, but by
the members of the church as well:
1. Is there a necessity for deacons in the church?
2. What is the duty of the church to the deacon?
3. What is the duty of the deacon?
4. What are the qualifications of a deacon?
I. Necessity for Deacons
With the view that there is no duty for the deacon but
to assist at communion, it cannot be made out that there is
any necessity at all. As before stated, there is no passage
of scripture indicating that any member of the church might
not properly do the work of the deacon usually does at
communion.
If the view be taken that he is only to look after the
spiritual interest of the members, then his place is more
eminently filled by the ministry, and if there is necessity
for more careful oversight, spiritually, then there should
be more elders, or the pastor should give himself more
wholly to the work. From this standpoint there is no
necessity whatever of choosing deacons.
The necessity, as it is stated in view of the New
Testament, is to take charge of financial matters and after
the needs of the members of the church, being supplied with
the means to do this by voluntary contributions of the
members.
I repeat, if a church does not intend to keep funds in
the hands of her deacons, she does not need deacons.
-43-
It may be said in reply to this that it would be the
duty of the deacons to look about and see if there were any
poor, or need expenses, or if the pastor needed help, and
report it to the church and get instructions what to do and
receive supplies from the church.
I would say, in the first place, to admit this view a
member who had but little judgement would make about as
good a deacon as expected to exercise his judgement in any
case, but must always wait until he has been directed just
what to do. While the qualifications given indicates that
he is to act on his own judgement.
Then, in some cases of immediate need, if the church met
only once a month, as most of our churches do now (in
1899), the needy brother or sister might pass in great
suffering and distress beyond the need of anything
ministered by human hands.
But the objector to the fund suggests that in such a
case it would be the duty of the deacon to either
contribute of his own means, or see the brethren and
collect something.
This is purely an innovation on God’s design, as He has
set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, and the example of
the Primitive (original) church. Paul gives instruction
that there be weekly collections, that when the time for
the use of the funds arrived, that there would need to be
no collection taken (1 Cor. 16:1,2). The deacon might be
poor himself and need not have enough to supply the needs
of others, and it very often happens that very poor
brethren are very prompt to do their duty, and would make
just as good deacons as any.
Further, if the deacon is just to make report to the
church of cases of need, any brother (or sister) can do
that, and there is no necessity for a special appointment.
The fact is this; it is the duty of all the members to
report to the deacon.
A church cannot do in a proper way, and most likely will
not do it at all, the things done by apostolic churches
without active deacons. “The Lord has nothing done except
for a good reason. If the church can do as well without
deacons as with them, then what reason can be given for
their appointment, unless the office is to be considered
merely ornamental rather than practical, simply dignitary
without duty.
-44-
Certainly it will be conceded by all who revere the
sacred word that there must have been, and as yet, a
necessity for the deaconship in the church, not simply that
the church may say she has a deacon, but that the work of
the deacon may be done. So a church should consider it is
not in complete working order until the work of the deacon
is recognized and carried out. When churches are organized
after they have secured a pastor, and sometimes before,
they choose deacons, the inference being, even when the
statement is made, that a church is not fully in working
order without deacons. But it is clear in some cases that
this is a mere recognition of the office, and not of the
work of the office, for no attempt is made to make the
deacon of any practical aid to the church and the cause. We
should look deeper than mere form. The fact that there were
deacons in the (primitive) apostolic church should be
argument enough with Primitive Baptists that the office was
necessary, and also if necessary then, it is necessary now,
or else the apostolic church would not be a pattern for all
ages to follow. This admission would let in all he
innovation of the day, which no Primitive Baptist could
agree to at all. As proof that there were deacons in the
apostolic churches, see the following scriptures: Acts 6:3-
6; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13.
So if we are to lay claim to apostolic form in our
churches we MUST have deacons, and it is certainly of more
importance to have the work of the office done than it is
to have the officer.
II. Duty of the Church to the Deacon
As to the question, “what is the duty of the church to
the deacon?” If the members of the church do not recognize
that there is a binding duty, the office might as well
remain vacant. It is not the duty of the man who is filling
the office, but the office work as a function of the
church. We do not care for the hand or the foot as having
any dignity of themselves, but because they are a part of
the body, and without them the body would be maimed.
So must the office of the deaconship be considered. Here
is a function of the church to be performed through this
office, and if she does not have this office, she either
does not do the work, or does it not in a scriptural way.
-45-
The church should not choose a brother as a deacon to honor
the man, but to use him as a servant to carry out the full
work of the church.
A church cannot raise a brother to the work of the
ministry, that is God’s work. But she can put any brother
into the deaconship who has the qualifications, though
there may be other deaconship who has the qualification,
though there may be other brethren who are just as well
fitted for the place who are not needed. God appoints the
minister to do a special work, and the church appoints the
deacon to carry out the active work that falls to the
church as a body.
A church has much right to do away with baptism as it
has to do away with the work of church that is to be done
through deacons. She may have deacons in form; yet do away
with the work of the deacon. If a member of the church has
never done anything through the deacon’s hands, that member
has done away with the work of the deacon so far as he is
concerned, and has committed as much of an offense against
the Great Head of the church as though he had attempted to
make void anything else that belongs to the house of the
Lord. Indeed, it is hard to say if there is anything else
connected with the church, except it be the ministry of the
word, but it could be struck down with less hurt than this.
To appoint deacons and then ignore them in administering
the financial part of the church’s business is gross
contempt for God’s law as head of the church. It would be
as though an Israelite of old had said, “I will ignore the
priest who is to minister the temple and do the work
myself.” Many brethren make this statement in substance
when they say they will not have the deacon to fill his
office, but what they have to give they will give it
themselves.
If the apostolic church is to be taken as a pattern (and
if it is not we have none), we must consider the deaconship
as an office of God’s own arranging and should not hesitate
as much to change it or abolish it as we would to change
the doctrines given in the scriptures, and should feel that
as great a curse will fall on us for the one as for the
other.
The deacon is the hand of the church she stretches out
to all who are in need, and to keep her affairs working in
decency and in order.
-46-
Some brethren try to step behind this passage, “but when
thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right
hand doeth,” and conclude that what they do they must do
very privately, not letting anyone know what they do, not
even the deacon.
This is plainly straining the passage to mean something
it was never intended to mean at all. It is wrong to make a
display among men, and these words of the Saviour were
spoken in condemnation of such practice. In the same
connection the Saviour tells His disciples that when they
pray they are to enter into their closets and pray in
secret and not before men (Matt. 6:5).
Is it wrong to pray in public? Most of our church rules
say that our services ought to be opened by singing and
prayer. According to this construction this would be wrong
and no one ought to offer prayer in public. The absurdity
of this construction at once appears.
It may be that brethren who have urged such a
construction have done so, violating the true principle in
their hearts. It may be they wanted the recipient to know
just whose liberality he received, and they did not put it
into the hands of the deacon because then it would never be
known by the recipient who has made the contribution.
Sometimes when there are several preachers at a meeting
a brother wants his favorite preacher to know that he is
appreciated, and prefers to give out of his own hand; for
if it was given to the deacon it would be divided up and
those who were in greatest need would get the most, and his
favorite would ever know just how he appreciated him. This
is the very spirit our Lord was condemning, and the plea is
a mere pretext. If one is willing that his liberality
should not be advertised, let him put his gifts in with the
common funds in the deacon’s hands.
If the church is to feel as she ought toward the
deaconship it must be viewed as God’s way of attending to
certain affairs, and must be sacredly guarded from those
who would change or abolish it. If a brother be chosen by
the church to be put into the deaconship it is has right to
know that the church rightly understands her obligations to
the office, and is disposed to recognize them, before
assuming obligations himself that he cannot discharge
unless the church will first do her duty.
-47-
A church should not consider the work of the deacon as
being apart from her own acts, but every member should feel
that God has made it His duty to do certain things, and
that these things are to be done through the deaconship.
The scriptures teach that we must be baptized and then
leaves us no discretion as to manner or mode of baptism - -
we must be dipped under the water.
Now it is the duty of members of the church to do
certain things, and then it is specified that this is to be
done through the deacon’s hands. It is contempt for God and
His word to say, “It can be done as well some other way.”
The duty of the church to the deaconship is such that it
is open rebellion to say to the deacon, “stand thou here,
we can do all there is to do without having any need of
thee.” What right has any member or individual to ignore or
make void an office that has the approval of the sacred
word!
The duty of the church toward this office is such that
they should hold all their possessions subject to the needs
of the church, as did the saints in the time of the
apostles. While it is not obligatory now, nor was it then,
to sell one’s property and put it into a common fund, yet
the principle is that each brother and sister should be
willing to support the cause with all that they have, and
to that end should keep sufficient funs in the hands of the
deacons to discharge the obligations of their office.
III. What is the Duty of the Deacon?
This is the next question to be considered by all the
church in setting apart a deacon.
It would appear strange that a church should ever set
apart a member to a work when very few of the members
understood clearly what that work was. But such might be
the case. Every member should be able to answer the plain
question, in choosing a deacon, “what is he going to do?”
The necessity for this will be apparent upon reflection. If
the members of a church do not properly understand the duty
of a deacon he will not be able to discharge his duty, if
his performance in any ways depends upon them, for they
will not cooperate with him. So a brother, when chosen by
a church to this office, might very properly demand of them
what they expect him to do.
-48-
If the members only expected him to assist the pastor at
the communion, and bear unkind criticism, as every one put
into any prominence must do, he might with good ground
refuse to accept the responsibility because the church was
not scriptural as to the duty of deacons.
No pastor should permit a church of his care to go into
the selection of a deacon without thoroughly instructing
them as to the duty of the deacon. Here is where many of
our pastors confess error, and failure to discharge their
obligation. Too often the only things considered are the
moral qualifications of the deacon without respect to what
the deacon is to do.
How is it possible to decide on the qualifications of a
person to an office without deciding what he is to do?
Here is where many mistakes have been made. Often, if a
brother is exemplary in his walk and character as a man and
a Christian, he is considered fit to be into the deacon’s
office.
Certainly no member of the church should consider
himself competent to enter into the choice of deacon
without first defining to his own satisfaction the work of
the deacon, and then considering the peculiar fitness of
the brother who is to be set apart.
The work of the deacon needs to be decided upon and
understood by all, so that the brother chosen to the office
may be impressed with the fact that certain things are
expected of him, and knowing it is the mind of all tat he
is to do these things, he will fell a greater obligation to
discharge his duty. For, if there be a diversity of opinion
regarding his work, he can never act without the feeling
that his course was disapproved by some, which is a very
discouraging condition.
But, if all of the members are properly instructed, the
deacon will feel encouraged to perform the duties of his
office, knowing his work is known to all, and that a
failure to do it will meet with criticism, while to act
faithfully will endear him to all his brethren.
It is, indeed, very essential that all the members
understand what the work of the deaconship is, and that
they regard it not as being separate and completely apart
from their work, but rather the channel through which
individual members and the whole church, are to discharge
certain obligations.
-49-
By reference to Acts, the sixth chapter, it will be very
clearly seen that he is to make distribution of the church
funds to all who have need. None will contend that the
church ought to neglect or overburden any of her members,
but different brethren will propose different plans for
equalizing the burdens and caring for all who should be
ministered to. This ignoring God’s plan, and certainly His
plan must be the best plan.
Some would advocate that each brother or sister must act
for himself or herself, and minister to all whom they find
who have need. Now, certainly, there is nothing in God’s
word that would stand in the way of anyone taking this
course. But the members of churches are weak human beings,
and some who have plenty of means have little charity, and
some who have great sympathy for the cause, and for the
suffering, have but little means. So, if left to
themselves, the burden will fall most unequally, for many,
who are able to help, will evade any occasion for bearing
the burden of others, leaving the few who are willing,
whether able or not, to do whatever is done.
So it is evident that if the burdens of the church are
to be equalized, and those who need help are to receive it,
the New Testament, plan is the only one that will meet al
the conditions to be provided for.
Here only will be found a stimulus for those who have
been blessed with plenty, but who have a covetous
disposition; her only will be found a check for those who
are liberal beyond their means, and funds sufficient for
the needs of all.
Besides this, the pastor should have an efficient
helper, one who is full of Godly wisdom, leading an
exemplary life before the members for them to follow after,
and an officer of the church full of the Holy Ghost and
faith.
It is a wise provision by the Great Head of the church
for equalizing the burdens among members that the means
contributed by each member to go into one common fund, of
which the deacons have charge. The deacon will know whether
a member is contributing according to his ability, but the
deacon is not to say how much any member shall give, for
the needs of the church are to be met by voluntary
offerings, as were the necessary things for the tabernacle
and its service; but he will know who is giving as the Lord
has prospered them, and if they fail to do this in love for
their poor and afflicted brethren, and after proper
-50-
instruction, and reproof if necessary, they should be
reported to the church as being covetous, which is a
grievous sin, and should be summarily dealt with
Send a message to learn more
