Deacon Justifications

In today's reading, 1 Timothy 3:1-16, Paul touches on an interesting concept, the qualities of a church leader. He gives a listing of the characteristics of Deacons and Elders. Temperance, gentleness, peacefulness, maturity, faithfulness... And he states that those who exhibit these characteristics have the makings of a good deacon, as long as they have shown that they can fulfill the offices of the church well. "A deacon must be faithful to his wife, and he must manage his children and household well." (3:12)

I know of people who are temperate, gentle, peaceful, and faithful, who are dedicated to their families, and who are not deacons, and indeed, not Christians. I also know of church leaders who outwardly appear to be gentle and faithful, managing their family well, who are vicious and controlling of their family so that they can be perceived as "managing" their family well in order to "get" to be a deacon or other church leader.

Utilizing the appearance of faith as a justification of leadership seems to be as dangerous as utilizing the appearance of "non-faith" as a justification for the castigation of the "out-group," or those not of the faith. The simplistic, "if this, then this..." approach to the appearance of Godliness or the admission of faithlessness has always been the "easy way out" for a non-thoughtful or non-prayerful group of people. A failure to participate in the struggle of understanding, true understanding, is secondary to a complacent belief system that does not encourage that struggle.

Legalism creates a complacency by giving a rational justification to things, the myth that everything somehow has a rational explanation. If we believe that things can be explained, then we can be complacent that someone else will derive that explanation, and it is not our duty to find the explanation on our own. That is, if we believe in an "answer," then someone more skilled or more dedicated can be "trusted," blindly, to gain that rational answer, and will probably do so in a way that overshadows our own pursuit of that truth. Obviously, once we "trust" that person in the position of authority, our motivation to seek our truth can be subverted. That person we "trust" will find the "truth" we legalistically believe in, better than we can find it (by virtue of our "trust"), and we let that person do his or her job.

But what if there is not an answer, but we are still left with that longing for the answer? If we don't believe in rational, legalistic ideals (A deacon is a good person is a deacon is a good person is a deacon...), then if we remain hungry for a truth that can have no rational explanation, our hunger forces us to seek our own answers, not depending on someone who cannot find "the" truth, since our assumption is that there is no legalistic truth to be found.

Paul gives a great idea in this chapter, but laziness and complacency, fed by legalism, can corrupt his intent in a closed human system. Deacons can "abuse" their children, and not have it called "abuse" because they are deacons, and therefore are infallible. Their actions just become another word, called "management." Not being vigilant for the truth, not seeking God's mercy and love, not desperately trying to understand the interplay between accountability, justice, mercy, and love, creates a closed and frigid architecture under which horrible moral abuses can be justified.

It's our duty to delve, question, seek, and understand. It's our duty to apply accountability with love and mercy. It's our duty to save people from "management," misapplied. Paul had the right intent, but if we are lazy, it can have a truly terrible outcome for us, for children and families, and for those who love them.