Reading: Case Study: A Tale of Two Deacons — Listening vs. Answering

Case Study: A Tale of Two Deacons — Listening vs. Answering

Introduction

Effective communication is central to the ministry of deacons, whose role is to embody the mercy and compassion of Christ in practical and relational ways. Deacons are often the first point of contact for individuals in the congregation and community who are experiencing need, crisis, or discouragement. In these encounters, words and presence matter as much as actions. Scripture consistently emphasizes the importance of listening well and guarding one’s speech. James reminds the church: “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to become angry” (James 1:19, WEB). Similarly, Proverbs teaches, “The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of fools gushes out folly”(Proverbs 15:2, WEB). These passages highlight that the ministry of mercy requires restraint, humility, and attentiveness.

Yet in practice, deacons often fall into contrasting patterns of communication. On one hand, some cultivate the discipline of active and empathetic listening—entering conversations with patience, humility, and a readiness to understand the person behind the words. These deacons reflect Christ’s posture toward those he encountered: he not only healed but also listened to their cries and honored their dignity. On the other hand, some deacons become what might be called “answer people.” Rather than listening deeply, they assume their role is to provide immediate solutions, quick fixes, or moral instruction. While well-intentioned, this approach can dismiss the complexity of people’s struggles and leave individuals feeling unseen or unheard.

The distinction between these two postures is not trivial. Communication is more than exchanging words; it is a ministry of presence that can either build trust or create distance. Poor listening can cause harm, while wise listening can foster healing and reconciliation.

This case study presents the story of two deacons in the same local church—Deacon Sarah and Deacon Mark—whose contrasting approaches to communication profoundly shaped both their ministries and the lives of those they served. Their example illustrates the importance of listening as a spiritual discipline in diaconal service and highlights the potential dangers of rushing to answers without first hearing the heart of the other.

The Listener: Deacon Sarah

Sarah quickly became known among congregants for her patience, presence, and steady attentiveness. She embodied the wisdom of Proverbs 18:13: “He who answers before he hears, that is folly and shame to him” (WEB). Rather than rushing to speak, Sarah cultivated the discipline of being “quick to hear, slow to speak” (James 1:19, WEB).

When members of the church came to her with concerns, Sarah practiced active listening. She was intentional about maintaining eye contact, avoiding the pull of distractions such as her phone or wandering thoughts, and leaning in with her body language to signal that she was fully engaged. She asked clarifying questions, not to interrogate, but to ensure she truly understood. Often, she paraphrased what she had heard: “So, it sounds like you feel overwhelmed because of the pressure at work and the lack of support at home. Is that right?” This practice of reflecting back not only confirmed accuracy but also reassured the speaker that they had been genuinely heard. Many testified that just being able to articulate their burdens in Sarah’s presence lifted their emotional weight before solutions were even considered.

In addition to active listening, Sarah excelled in empathetic listening. She was attentive not only to words but also to tone, facial expressions, and body posture. If someone said, “I’m fine,” but their voice trembled or their eyes betrayed unease, Sarah gently probed: “You say you’re fine, but I sense you may be carrying something heavier. Would you like to share?” This sensitivity to emotional cues often opened doors to deeper conversations, allowing people to express struggles they might otherwise have hidden.

Her ministry illustrated that listening itself was an act of mercy. She did not treat conversations as interruptions to her service but as opportunities to minister through presence. Like Jesus, who asked Bartimaeus, “What do you want me to do for you?” (Mark 10:51, WEB), even though the man’s blindness was obvious, Sarah respected the dignity of each person by inviting them to voice their needs rather than assuming she already knew.

Congregants often testified that Sarah’s listening helped them discern God’s guidance more clearly. In moments of uncertainty, they left conversations with her not merely with advice but with the assurance that they had been heard by both Sarah and, through her, by God. When appropriate, Sarah connected individuals to further resources—such as counseling, prayer partners, or benevolence support—yet she never rushed to these steps. She believed that the process of being heard was itself part of healing.

The result was that Sarah built deep reservoirs of trust. People sought her out not because she had all the answers, but because she created a safe, sacred space where they could be honest without fear of judgment or dismissal. In a world often dominated by noise, quick fixes, and shallow interactions, Sarah’s presence offered a rare gift: the ministry of truly listening.

Her example demonstrates that listening is not passive but profoundly active, requiring humility, attentiveness, and restraint. By embodying these qualities, Deacon Sarah became a living illustration of the truth that “the tongue of the wise brings healing” (Proverbs 12:18, WEB).

The Answer Person: Deacon Mark

In contrast to Sarah’s posture of presence and patience, Deacon Mark approached his ministry through the lens of providing immediate solutions. He saw himself as a kind of “spiritual troubleshooter.” For Mark, the role of a deacon was to quickly diagnose a problem and prescribe a remedy, much like a mechanic fixing a car. He often referred to himself as someone who could “get straight to the point” and believed that people came to him primarily for answers, not for conversation.

When congregants approached him with struggles, Mark frequently interrupted before they had finished speaking. He offered advice in short, prescriptive phrases: “Here’s what you need to do—pray more, budget better, and things will turn around.” His intent was sincere. Mark genuinely wanted to help people and was motivated by a strong sense of responsibility to offer practical direction. However, his tendency to rush into “fix-it mode” often backfired.

Mark’s communication style reflected a lack of active listening. Because he did not take time to fully hear the person’s story, his responses often addressed only surface-level symptoms. For example, when a young father shared that he was “struggling to keep up with bills,” Mark immediately advised cutting discretionary spending, without realizing that the man’s real issue was not financial mismanagement but the emotional toll of caring for a child with severe health challenges. The advice, while practical in one sense, felt tone-deaf and dismissive because Mark had not created space for the deeper story to emerge.

As Proverbs 18:13 warns: “He who answers before he hears, that is folly and shame to him” (WEB). Mark’s quick answers, given without sufficient listening, sometimes caused more harm than help. Congregants often left conversations with him feeling that their concerns were minimized. Instead of experiencing the mercy of Christ through empathetic presence, they felt as though they had been handed simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Over time, this communication pattern began to erode trust. Congregants stopped seeking Mark out, preferring instead to share their burdens with others who would take time to listen. Some even confided privately that his advice increased their sense of shame, leaving them feeling unseen and misunderstood. For example, when a widow shared her loneliness after her husband’s death, Mark quickly urged her to “stay busy and join another Bible study.” While his advice was not wrong in itself, the timing and delivery failed to acknowledge the depth of grief she was carrying. She later told friends, “I felt like I was being told to move on, when all I needed was someone to sit with me in my sorrow.”

Mark’s approach also highlighted a subtle but important danger in ministry: the assumption of expertise. By positioning himself as the answer person, he unintentionally conveyed that he always knew better than the person in front of him. This created a relational imbalance, where congregants felt “talked down to” rather than walked alongside. What Mark saw as efficiency, others perceived as arrogance.

The unintended consequence was that Mark’s ministry influence diminished. Instead of becoming a trusted servant of mercy, he became a last resort for many congregants. His desire to help quickly—without first listening deeply—limited his effectiveness as a deacon. The irony was that while Mark prided himself on having answers, his communication style closed the very relational doors through which true pastoral care could occur.

This case illustrates a vital lesson: quick answers without deep listening can wound rather than heal. A deacon’s role is not to dispense advice like prescriptions, but to embody the compassionate presence of Christ. By failing to listen, Mark missed opportunities to demonstrate mercy in its most powerful form: the ministry of being present, attentive, and patient with those who suffer.

Comparative Analysis

The experiences of Sarah and Mark highlight two contrasting paradigms of deaconal communication:

This comparison underscores that listening is not passive but deeply active, requiring humility, discipline, and restraint. By contrast, rushing to answers can betray pride and short-circuit true pastoral care.

Lessons for Ministry Practice

The contrasting examples of Deacon Sarah and Deacon Mark reveal that communication is not incidental to diaconal service but foundational. Their stories demonstrate that how deacons listen and speak can either strengthen the church’s witness or undermine it. From their experiences, several lessons emerge for deaconal ministry today.

1. Listening Precedes Helping

Deacons must resist the natural impulse to “fix” problems quickly. In a culture that prizes efficiency, it can be tempting to assume that the most faithful form of ministry is to supply immediate advice or tangible solutions. Yet the ministry of mercy begins with hearing deeply. Listening is not a passive act but an intentional form of service that honors the dignity of the person in front of you.

Scripture affirms this priority: “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame” (Proverbs 18:13, WEB). Sarah’s ministry illustrates how the simple act of being heard can lift a burden, while Mark’s example shows that answers given too quickly can create frustration or even deepen shame. By listening first, deacons give people space to name their struggles, discern their own thoughts, and sense God’s presence in the conversation.

2. Trust Is Built by Presence

Trust is not earned through clever words or quick fixes but through the steady presence of one who listens without judgment. Congregants value being heard and understood more than being managed or instructed. Sarah demonstrated that by creating a safe space for people to share, she built deep reservoirs of trust that made her a sought-out confidant.

Theologically, this mirrors Christ’s ministry of presence. Jesus often began by asking questions—“What do you want me to do for you?” (Mark 10:51, WEB)—rather than immediately providing solutions. His willingness to enter people’s stories and attend to their humanity built trust and opened hearts to transformation. Likewise, when deacons demonstrate that they value the person and not merely the problem, trust grows, and with it the opportunity for genuine pastoral care.

3. Communication Shapes Witness

Every word a deacon speaks reflects the character of Christ to those they serve. Rash, dismissive, or careless words can wound like “sword thrusts” (Proverbs 12:18, WEB), leaving people feeling diminished. By contrast, gentle, wise, and compassionate speech can bring healing and encouragement.

Communication is, therefore, not merely a functional tool but a form of witness. When deacons listen patiently, speak thoughtfully, and respect confidentiality, they embody the gospel in their relationships. When they interrupt, trivialize, or gossip, they undermine both trust in themselves and the reputation of the church. Ministry of mercy requires a communication style that mirrors Christ’s own—full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

4. Training in Active Listening Is Essential

Finally, the case study demonstrates that good listening does not come naturally to everyone. Mark was sincere in his desire to help, yet his instincts led him to offer quick answers rather than deep presence. This suggests that churches must intentionally train deacons in the skills of active and empathetic listening.

Such training might include:

• Reflective listening techniques, where deacons restate what they hear to confirm understanding.
• Body language awareness, recognizing how posture, eye contact, and facial expressions communicate attentiveness or distraction.
• Empathetic listening, discerning the emotions behind words and asking gentle questions to draw them out.
• Confidentiality practices, ensuring that sensitive information is safeguarded and trust is not broken.

By investing in these skills, congregations not only equip deacons for greater effectiveness but also cultivate a culture of mercy where people feel valued, understood, and safe.

Summary

Listening, presence, communication, and training form the backbone of effective deaconal ministry. Deacon Sarah’s example illustrates the transformative power of careful, empathetic listening, while Deacon Mark’s story warns of the relational damage caused by quick answers and shallow communication. Together, they teach that how deacons listen and speak is as important as what they do. When deacons communicate with patience, humility, and wisdom, they embody Christ’s mercy and strengthen the church’s witness to a world longing to be heard.

Conclusion

The tale of two deacons demonstrates that the heart of diaconal ministry is not about providing quick answers but about embodying the patient, merciful presence of Jesus Christ. Deacon Sarah’s ministry flourished because she listened with empathy and humility, while Deacon Mark’s influence waned because he relied on quick solutions without truly hearing.

For deacons, the call is clear: embrace listening as a spiritual discipline and a core practice of ministry. In doing so, they reflect the wisdom of Christ, who not only spoke words of life but also attentively heard the cries of those he came to serve.

Discussion Questions

Listening vs. Answering

1. How did Sarah’s approach to listening communicate Christ’s mercy more effectively than Mark’s quick answers?
2. Why do you think many leaders (like Mark) feel pressure to give answers immediately rather than first listening deeply?
3. Have you ever experienced a situation where simply being listened to was more helpful than receiving advice? What made the difference?

Building Trust and Presence

4. Why is trust so central in diaconal ministry, and how does listening help build that trust?
5. In what ways can a deacon unintentionally break trust through poor communication?
6. How does valuing the person before the problem change the way deacons approach their ministry?

Communication as Witness

7. Proverbs 12:18 says, “Rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” How does this verse apply to the case of Sarah and Mark?
8. How can the way deacons communicate—tone, posture, body language—shape the church’s public witness in the community?
9. What does Jesus’ question to Bartimaeus (“What do you want me to do for you?” Mark 10:51) teach us about communication in ministry?

Training and Growth

10. Do you think active listening is a natural gift, a skill to be trained, or both? Why?
11. What specific listening practices (e.g., paraphrasing, reflecting feelings, avoiding distractions) could you personally grow in?
12. How might your church provide training or accountability to help deacons develop better listening habits?

Personal Reflection

13. When you serve others, do you tend more toward Sarah’s listening posture or Mark’s “answer person” approach? Why?
14. What habits or distractions keep you from listening well (e.g., phones, thinking ahead to your response, impatience)?
15. How can you make listening itself part of your ministry of mercy in the coming weeks?