Deaconship

[natv]

I was a deacon at a C of C in the late 1980's until I moved to another state. I was asked to be a deacon again at my new church in the early 1990's. During the week before the installation, I was called into an elder meeting and told that one of the elders had an objection to one of my qualifications. It was that I didn't have children even though I had one child. His interpretation was that children means more than one child and I was disqualified. This hurt because it was only one out of the five elders that objected and the other elders supported him. I never did find out who it was, but he threatened to resign his eldership if I was installed as a deacon. Everyone I talked to thinks that the elders were wrong in rejecting me. Were the elders right or wrong?

[Pitts S2C]

Of course, the La Vista coc seems to have a franchise on ‘the Truth’ so here’s their take:

"A more subtle difference between the qualifications is in the wording of "children." The Greek phrasing for an elder indicates two or more children while a deacon indicates one or more."

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVansw ... /05-09.htm

[KLP]

Honest people can disagree but still they have to figure out what should be done. In your situation somebody was going to have to "give in" or "submit" or "change their mind". In your case you were new guy, low on totem pole and there was probably no urgent need for another deacon...the deacon thing is sort of a title ego boost anyway IMO...a junior associate elder. I mean the "work" is going to get done whether somebody has the title or not. In your case it sounds like they screwed up by saying they were going to make you a deacon and then this "objection" creeps up last minute...and it was probably no secret that you only had one child, so it is a suspect objection. Probably some other member who had an issue or beef with you got to one of the elders...that is my guess based on how local church stuff operates.

The elders being Right or Wrong is sort of subjective. I mean maybe they really did you a long term favor in which case they were "right" LOL

In a sense the elders were right to not act where there was not a unity or not all being in agreement. So in a sense they were right to not go on a majority rule about something where a minority had a serious reservation. Being approved or accepted in to some role or office at one congregation does not mean the matter cannot be considered differently at another congregation. Congregations are supposed to autonomous but at the same time they are to have the same doctrine...but some matters are under the direction of the eldership. Not every preacher is appropriate for every congregation. Different congregations have a right to decide what is right for themselves. And sometimes the decisions are whacky...and in your case hurtful. I too was "kind of a big deal" and deacon and fast track elder and moved to another congregation and was seen as a threat and a big explosion happened. almost from the get go. It was very hurtful and confusing to us...we had always been good cofc people and now we were false teachers???? whatever

But to the specific topic of the term "children" being plural is an area for a lot of discussion. I am sure you have thought this out or heard it discussed. The term plural could be used to mean each had to have multiple children or the plural term could mean to include all cases where there is at least one child. "Everyone bring their children into the basement because it is about to tornate out there" would be silly to think that a one child family should not take shelter. So it is possible and reasonable to consider the use of a plural term to include cases of the singular and to mean the singular. But what about in the case of establishing elders in every city according to these qualifications. What about cities with multiple congregations...do the elders preside over the "city" or just one congregation. What if each congregation had only one qualified man, would that still mean that the city had "elders" and why not include all cities with elders, some where there is only one elder and other congregations that had multiple? Does the husband of one wife mean one wife at a time or one wife for life? There are a number of variations in possible understandings of a term that is plural and used to apply to groups.

One approach is to say just about any plausible understanding should be included (a plural term like children includes both singular and plural). Another approach is to say is there a case that satisfies every understanding of the passage (and cannot possibly be a violation)? Yes, having plural to always mean plural is the simplest approach that is sure to not be any violation. Me personally, I have always thought the deacon requirements were a bit weaker and therefore the children thing was not as critical, so one should be fine. I would have voted for ya on this point....not that it matters.

[AtPeace]

I have been out of legalism for so long. So all I can say is, "This is just plain silly and ridiculous." Sounds like the ancient debates in Judaism about whether it's ok on the Sabbath to pick up a burning coal and toss it back into the hearth. Just silly.

[agricola]

It's the 'edge' cases that are interesting to talk about and dissect, I guess. Personally, I think the stated objection was silly, and of course you can pick up and throw a burning coal back into the fire because otherwise you might burn the house down, and saving your life trumps the rules, (almost) always.

At this point, what difference does it make? You are safely out of there and can leave their silly objections behind.

[Lev]

This discussion about child/children is certainly interesting but the real grammatical interest to me is this:

"Everyone bring their children into the basement because it is about to tornate out there".

Not having ever lived in the Midwest, I've been deprived until now of the verb form of tornado. Brilliant.

Lev

[B.H.]

This discussion about child/children is certainly interesting but the real grammatical interest to me is this:

"Everyone bring their children into the basement because it is about to tornate out there".

Not having ever lived in the Midwest, I've been deprived until now of the verb form of tornado. Brilliant.

Lev

See, you learned something.

[GuitarHero]

A better question to me would be "why would you want to be part of an organization that doesn't want or value you, based solely on whether or not you successfully impregnated your wife more than once?"

I mean, geez, it mattered nothing whether or not you were capable of doing anything. They didn't care if you were intelligent, talented, or even a witty conversationalist. All that mattered was whether or not you could ejaculate spermatozoa that were capable of breaching an egg inside your wife's uterus, a feat which any half-witted drunken dumbass can do without even meaning to do so.

Also I kinda get that you like having the title, but seriously, being a deacon in a piddly denomination like the COC has all the meaning and honor and prestige that being employee of the month at McDonald's carries. Nobody gives a shit but you and a few other bucktoothed hillbillies.

Count yourself lucky that you are out of that mess.

[AtPeace]

Guitar Hero, the big difference I see is that being

employee of the month at McDonald's

is truly an honor. Sounds elitist to be so dismissive of someone working hard. In my book, anyone who works hard at any place of employment has my full respect.

[GuitarHero]

Guitar Hero, the big difference I see is that being

employee of the month at McDonald's

is truly an honor. Sounds elitist to be so dismissive of someone working hard. In my book, anyone who works hard at any place of employment has my full respect.

I agree. I was speaking, generally, of how the world views it.