[Biblemat] Deacons without elders

[Jack Critchfield]

Mike,

You can post this or not. It is just something I see as a flaw in 
reasoning.  If you want, I will post it on your bulletin board, but I 
doubt many will see it there.

I have read a couple of post on this list about the subject of deacons 
without elders, and I must say that I disagree with both.  Whether or 
not it would be a good idea to have deacons without elders is not the 
issue. Is it possible to do so is the question that was asked.

It has been pointed out that in Acts 6 the apostles were serving in the 
place of elders.  Today, in the absence of elders, the men of the 
congregation serve in the capacity of elders, so I don't see the 
difference.  Someone is going to say the apostles were inspired and men 
today aren't.  True, but you still have men who are not elders 
overseeing the work of deacons.  Where's the difference in relation to 
the question asked?

Another post spoke about unqualified men overseeing the deacons work.  
Well, that may be true also, but isn't that what you have anyway if the 
congregation is being overseen by men who are unqualified to be elders? 
So, what's the difference in men unqualified to be elders overseeing the 
work of the congregation and overseeing the work of deacons?


Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily advocating the deacons without 
elders, but the logic I am reading seems to me to be flawed.

Jack Critchfield