What is a church trustee?

which should be pursued in our giving, and not only in our giving, but in the way the gift should be handled by those who have the business of dealing with it. Paul himself was the chief trustee in connection with this collection made amongst the Gentile assemblies, and he took great care that all should be administered with openness and integrity. His own words are, "Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men" (2 Cor. 8:20-21). In pursuance of this care he associated with himself no less than three brethren, one of them Titus, who was Paul's nominee in the matter. The other two were messengers of the churches and chosen by them for this service. Of these two, one was much esteemed as an evangelist, the other was noted for his diligence.

Now this at once clears the way. The Lord calls, not the church; the Lord sends, not the saints; the Lord controls, not the assembly. -I speak now of the ministry of the word. There are certain functionaries whom the church does or may choose: for instance, the assembly may nominate the persons it thinks fit to take care of the funds, and to distribute of its bounty. The church may employ its servants, selecting them according to its best wisdom; and the Lord owns this choice. So it was done of old, as we read in Acts vi, where the multitude chose, and the Apostles laid their hands upon those chosen to look after the tables. So it was where " the churches " (in 2 Cor. viii.) chose brethren as their messengers; and so, again, where the Philippian church made Epaphroditus their messenger in ministering to the wants of Paul. (Phil. ii.)

Why do you suddenly mix deacons and elders together when we are only speaking of elders, with reference to which examples fail you? The deacons (this is the meaning of the word) of tables, of the wants of the poor, of the administration of the funds of the Church. The Church gave money, its servants administered it. The word does not leave any doubt or any uncertainty on this point; it does not confound the offices as you do; it leaves no room for the confusion by which you seek to escape the force of what it says. It shews us those who fulfilled the functions of deacons chosen by the churches; and the apostles desiring that it should be so. It shews us those as elders appointed by the apostle or by his delegates and by none else. In cases where such must occur without his intervention, the apostle took care that it should be done by his delegate. The elders are bishops or overseers, that is to say, authorities in the Church, to guide it, to watch over it, to take care of it; and the authority comes from above, not from below. The deacons are servants, and servants of the Church. It is thus that scripture speaks. There might be, and there even were, women on whom this title was conferred; whilst all authority in the Church was forbidden to women. It is only by trying to introduce confusion that you can avoid the perfectly clear force of the word. You say, "No one can pretend that the election of elders and deacons pertained exclusively to the apostles and their delegates." There is nothing to pretend, sir; one has only to receive what the word says. It says, that in every case those charged with the money-matters were chosen by the churches; and that, in every case where it was a question of elders, they were chosen by the apostles or by delegates of the apostle. In the one case they were servants (diakonoi), in the other overseers of the Church from God.

354 Now here are the proofs. At Jerusalem there were murmurs with regard to temporal helps; the apostles would not occupy themselves with such matters, and they call upon the Church to choose persons to do it; and this took place (Acts 6). In 1 Corinthians 16:3, persons approved of by the faithful were to take charge of the money derived from the collections. In 2 Corinthians 8 a brother was chosen by the churches to carry the money which they sent to Jerusalem; for the apostle, though he might go there, would not take charge of it alone, though ready to share in doing so. That is to say, in temporal and money matters the word shews us that the apostles desired men to be chosen by the churches, who should have charge of them.

The three principles are quite distinct: (1) the Lord choosing and sending those whom He gives as gifts to the church, (2) the apostle, or an apostolic man by express commission, choosing or establishing elders; and (3) the assembly choosing the administrators of its funds, whom the apostles set solemnly over this business.

Deacons were also apostolically appointed. Their charge was the secular affairs of the assembly. But in their appointment the church had a voice. They selected the men and placed them before the apostles. (read Acts 6) What the assembly gives (money, etc.) it is allowed a voice in the administration of, what Christ gives (ministry) He holds entirely in His own hand. Good moral qualities were looked for in deacons, as in elders, and they must be "proved" men, (1 Tim. 3:8-13). The ecclesiastical idea of a deacon appointed to read homilies, etc., with a view to priesthood, goes in the face of all this instruction.

Verse 8. The deacon is simply a ministering servant, occupied particularly with the care of temporal arrangements and necessities in connection with the local assembly. In Acts 6 there were seven of these appointed to wait on tables. In this case the brethren were told to look out from among themselves seven men of honest report, and these were appointed. The apostles left the assembly free to choose these men. This was not so as to elders, who were rather appointed by apostles or by one who had been specifically delegated by an apostle. The saints are not allowed to decide who is to have spiritual oversight in the assembly: God decides this independently of them. But for the care of their temporal things the assembly is perfectly right to decide who is to assume responsibility.

It remains for us now to briefly consider this branch of service in the Assembly. "Deacon" is an untranslated Greek word and always rendered simply "servant," or "minister.". The work of a deacon is to look after the temporal, -material things of the Assembly, while the elder has to do with the spiritual care of the Church. This word deacon is only found in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8-13, the latter passage giving the qualifications required for such. We get an example of the service of the deacon in Acts 6:1-6 where seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, were chosen by the Church in Jerusalem and appointed by the apostles over the material business of caring for the widows in the daily ministration. Though they are not called deacons here, this is what they were servants of the Church in administering the material things. Here we notice that the Church chooses and the apostles officially appoint them. For if the Church gives money and material things it is God's will that she should have a voice in the selection of those whom she feels will, with wisdom and good conscience, distribute these offerings wisely. So today the Church can choose those it wishes to take care of its material things. But as to formal appointment and laying on of hands, this likewise can only be done by apostles if we would follow the divine pattern closely.

If any wish to call those servants of God who are endowed with wealth His stewards, we shall not object. Wealth is a trust from God, just as other things, material and spiritual, are. The wealthy Christian may acknowledge the money that he possesses as a solemn trust, and may show the fidelity of his stewardship in his administration of it as the servant of Christ. If he is one entrusted by his fellow-Christians with funds to administer on their behalf, he is, of course, responsible to them. But his primary responsibility even in this is to the One whose servant and steward he is.

The entire management of religious societies is left to the control of a Committee, or a board of directors. Now a Committee, or directory, is that which has suggested itself to worldly prudence, as the readiest and easiest way of furthering its own plans. Christians have therefore in this instance borrowed from the world. They have not the power to delegate the government of themselves, in the things in which they are engaged, if indeed they be the things of God, to those in whom they may choose to confide. True it is indeed, that according to apostolic rule and practice, where money was concerned, it was left to the people to select those gifted of God as competent for the service (see Acts 6, 1 Cor. 16:3-4, 2 Cor. 8:19-20). But the Committee of a religious society is entrusted with far more than a faithful application of its funds. Looking at religious societies, either as Bible or Missionary societies, the committee have the control of translations in the one, a most important work indeed, and of the missionaries in the other, which is equally important. Now these functions are the very highest in the church, and yet they are formally delegated from year to year to a nominated committee. Surely such a proceeding at once shows, that they are not recognised as so placed of God; for if they were, there needed not the renewal of their commission. And then to whom do the Committee so constituted stand in immediate responsibility? If they held any church place, their responsibility would at once be to the source from whence their power was derived — that is, the great Head of the church Himself. But however fitted and gifted, even by Him, a number of individuals forming a committee might be for the execution of so important a trust, yet being dependent on annual choice for their existence, the sense of direct responsibility to Him is much deadened; and, what is of importance too, it tends to induce forgetfulness of individual responsibility, "as every man hath received the gift, so minister the same, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."

Likely these priests were thoroughly trustworthy men, but it was still necessary to have more than one or two in charge of the property, in order to honor the truth that Paul emphasizes in 2 Corinthians 8:20-23, -- "avoiding this, that anyone should blame us in this lavish gift which is administered by us." Indeed the more honest a man is, the more he should desire to have his actions carefully scrutinized by others. Thus too, those who are trusted to handle money in an assembly should be careful to have the amounts and the disposition of any funds closely checked by others.