The Puritan Eye

Deacons and the Poor

Samuel Miller(1831)

Editor's note: This is a slightly edited excerpt from Samuel Miller's book The Ruling Elder, written in the early part of the nineteenth century. While Miller obviously did not have our modern situation in view -- i.e., the existnece of a massive welfare state and the current attempts to increase its involvement in health care -- his argument for the proper functioning of the office of deacon relates clearly to the church's direct responsibility to those without "universal coverage."

n the first place, every scriptural precedent is worthy of serious regard. The office of Deacon was evidently brought into the Church by inspired men. And although it is not contended that it is essential to an organized Church to have officers of this class, inasmuch as the Church, undoubtedly, did without them, for a short time, after its first organization; yet as the office is an institution of infinite wisdom, and necessary to a full array of all the officers which belong to the visible Church, it seems expedient to retain it, in all cases in which it is possible.

Secondly, we know that, in every Jewish synagogue, before the coming of Christ, there was a class of officers whose peculiar duty it was to collect and dispense the money contributed for the support of the poor. This seems to have been an invariable part of the synagogue system. And as that system was evidently the model on which the Christian Church was formed, we may presume that a feature of it so strongly recommended by age and experience, is worthy of adoption.

Third, some churches may plead an excuse for discontinuing the use of this office, saying they have no Church poor, and, therefore, no occasion for the appropriate services of Deacons. Yet the question is, ought they to allow this to be the case? What though the laws of the State make provision of a decent kind for all the poor? Are there not within the bounds, and even among the communicants, of every Church of any extent, and of the ordinary standing in point of age, generally found a greater or less number of persons who have seen more comfortable days, but are now reduced -- aged widows, persons of delicate, retiring spirits, who are struggling with the most severe privations of poverty in secret, but cannot bring themselves to apply to the civil officer for aid as paupers; who, at the same time, would be made comparatively comfortable by a pittance now and then administered in the tender and affectionate spirit of the gospel? Now, ought the Church to take no measures for searching out such members, w ho are not and cannot be reached by the legal provision, and kindly ministering to their comfort?

But if there be no class of officers whose appropriate duty it is to make this whole concern an object of their attention, it will too often be neglected, and thus the interest of Christian charity seriously suffer. It is not a sufficient answer to this argument to say, as those who philosophize on the subject of pauperism say, and, to a certain extent, with great truth, that this very provision would probably invite application, and perhaps, in some instances, induce improper reliance upon it, to the neglect of economy and diligence. Supposing this, in some degree, to be the case, would it not be better to relieve some portion of the poverty brought on by improvidence, than to allow humble, tender piety to pine in secret, unpitied, and unrelieved, under the pressure of that helpless penury, which was induced by the hand of a sovereign God? Nay, is no pity, no active sympathy due from the Church even to indigence notoriously induced by sin?

The considerations which have been suggested, furnish, indeed, a good argument for having Deacons of suitable character -- men of piety, wisdom, benevolence, practical acquaintance with the world, and with human nature, who would be likely to perform their duty with discernment, prudence, and unfeigned Christian charity, cautiously guarding against the evils to which the relief they are commissioned to bear is exposed, but no argument at all against affording such relief when really needed.

In the fourth place, it is a great error to suppose that Deacons cannot be appropriately and profitably employed in various other ways besides ministering to the poor of the Church. They might, with great propriety be made the managers of all the money-tables, or fiscal concerns of each congregation. I refer to the Church's contribution to the various great objects of Christian enterprise which distinguish the present day. These contributions to the cause of the Bible -- missions, foreign and domestic, Sabbath schools, and the various other Christian and benevolent undertakings for promoting knowledge, virtue, and happiness, both temporal and eternal, among men, ought to be continued, and greatly increased. No one who looks into the Bible, or who knows any thing of the Christian spirit, can for a moment doubt this. It is quite evident, too, that these contributions ought to be perfectly voluntary, and that any attempt to render them otherwise, would be both unscriptural and mischievous. But would it not t end to render the whole business of liberality to the cause of Christ more regular, more easy, more abundant, and ultimately more productive, if it were placed under the enlightened advice, and wise management of six or eight Deacons in each Church?