”But these also let them be proved by testing first, then let them be serving [as deacons] being unaccusable.”
-[Also] Proved by testing first. Also? Also, like the overseers? Or, also, in addition to meeting these other requirements? Overseers aren’t explicity being tested per se, but neither are they neophytes. But would we want to test deacons in a way which we might not want to test overseers? And what’s this first?
-Unaccusable. This is a different word than for the overseer/shepherds, yet no doubt similar. The one who is unaccusable would also be untouchable. Overseers, for their part, have passed the test of time. Apparently however there is a possibility that these guys could be newer believers, and so they need to pass muster. The outcome of their period of being tested should be that there is nothing for which they might be called in, called to account. I think this could a coaching period - they get the chance to learn how to serve as well as the chance to prove their mettle, their heart, the sincerity of their faith. They are beginning to serve, not (yet) in leadership, getting feedback, etc, and once they’re ready, once they’re fully trained and able to deaconize without any hiccups then they can be formalized as such. Either that, or ultimately before one is formalized as a deacon they must be held to a standard of intergity and good character which is similar to that of overseers.
No comments:
Post a Comment