# Choosing the number of church officers



## SRoper

> Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
> 
> (Acts 6:1-6 ESV)



This is a follow up to a post from a year ago about how the number of church officers is to be determined. There was agreement that the number is based on the number of candidates that receive a majority vote by the congregation and not based on a predetermined number of slots. But how does Acts 6 factor into this? It appears that the number is predetermined to be seven [edit: in this particular case it was seven]. Isn't this biblical warrant for predetermining the number of positions ahead of time [edit: not necessarily seven positions, but some number determined by the need]?

What of teaching elders? Isn't the number of teaching elders almost always determined by the congregation ahead of time? Shouldn't there also be a predetermined number of ruling elders and deacons, according to the needs of the congregation?

I'm curious how these objections would be answered.


----------



## jwithnell

Last year, I coordinated the cleanup of the new addition that had been made to our building. I determined that 4 crew leaders were needed to oversee the different sections of the job. Does that mean we have to have 4 crew leaders every time we need to clean up? Or that the church up the street would need 4 for theirs? No, it was what was needed at a particular time and place. Nothing else in scripture indicates that the number had any significance, but the job itself and the qualifications for that job were generalized and applied by Paul in letters to Timothy and Titus.


----------



## Scott1

Acts 6 doesn't have in view "seven" as qualification of the number of men because it was an incident of the number of men who were full of the Holy Spirit in that situation. What if a church only had six members? What if a church only had two men with the requisite qualifications?


----------



## wsmeathers

"What if a church only had two men with the requisite qualifications?"

I suppose that one would naturally take over as leader and make the other one subservient - I suspect that there's safety in numbers when those numbers are wise men, but there is danger in just a few even when those few are wise.


----------



## SRoper

I guess I was not clear at all in my first post. My question is not about any significance in the number seven but about predetermining the number of positions ahead of time. Why, for example, can't a session decide that they need three more deacons and ask the congregation "please pick three from among you to join the diaconate, keeping in mind the qualifications for deacon"? Isn't that the example in Acts 6? In that case they decided ahead of time they needed seven men and they got seven men. Or, why, when an elder leaves the session, can't the session say to the congregation, "nominate men to the position of elder, and select from those approved one man to replace the departing elder"?


----------



## Scott1

From the standpoint of PCA procedure,
I think the polity is that the authority of Diaconate and the authority of Session each flow directly from Christ.
In other words, the Session does not control the Diaconate (in the sense of saying we'll have ten, or two... or none) because God calls and the congregation chooses.
I'm not seeing any authority in the BCO that allows Elders to set the number of officers, either and I think that power would need to be clearly enunciated.

Now, if you are arguing from the broader standpoint of Scriptural example, that might be a different discussion. At this point I would only say that it is pretty clear that the PCA as an historic biblical reformed communion does not confess doctrine that Elders "limit" Deacons.


----------



## Tim

wsmeathers said:


> I suppose that one would naturally take over as leader and make the other one subservient



But this wouldn't be Biblical....elders have equal authority.


----------



## SRoper

I used deacons only as an example--it could be the session decides to limit its own membership. And I don't mean to limit it to the session deciding the number. The congregation could decide through its bylaws that there ought to be five ruling elders or there should be one deacon for every twenty-five members, etc.

For the purposes of the discussion, let's assume that the person making the argument is saying the BCO needs to be interpreted in light of Scripture which appears to at least allow limiting the size of the diaconate (and by extension, the session, since it is from Acts 6 that we get our procedure to elect officers).


----------



## jwithnell

God determines the number by putting that number of men in the congregation who have the qualifications and desire to serve. It is for this reason that many reformed churches see the calling as an elder or deacon to be a life-long calling. You never see Peter or Paul sending instructions to appoint x number of deacons or elders. The appointment in Acts 6 is descriptive. The general, prescriptive directions are given in Timothy and Titus and that sets no standards for anyone predetermining a number to appoint.


----------



## SRoper

I see two objections:

If Acts 6 is merely descriptive, then why do we have the congregation elect officers at all? Timothy and Titus were to appoint officers, but it doesn't say how such officers are appointed.

We don't say God determines the number when selecting teaching elders. What if there are five willing, qualified candidates for the position? Do we say, "God must have given us these five for a reason"?


----------



## wsmeathers

Tim said:


> wsmeathers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that one would naturally take over as leader and make the other one subservient
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this wouldn't be Biblical....elders have equal authority.
Click to expand...


True, but equal authority may not always be equally exercised and having biblical standards and living them are two different issues – some personalities are naturally stronger than others and I’d be concerned that one of the two would emerge as the de facto leader and may end up leading without any real accountability and then, worse, begin to really like leading without any real accountability. I understand when young churches have just one or two elders, but I suspect that there may be cause for concern when a church gets to be 20 years old or older and still has not found any more elder candidates – knowing that I’m paranoid, I’d still wonder why? 

However, setting a number in advance is ripe with problems too – having to fill an elder quota from unqualified candidates would be an even worse problem. Maybe, that’s why there’s not a set biblical number. Still, the biblical model is plural for good reasons and it’s probably wise to consider those reasons when selecting elders. Anyway, I’d rather submit to the authority of six well-selected elders than just one or two since it’s not as likely that all six would come down with a nasty bout of bad theology at the same time. It’s possible, but just not as likely.


----------



## Scott1

Thinking through the PCA process:

congregation nominates
candidate qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus I
candidates wife, if married, examined by I Timothy 3
candidate acknowledges internal call
congregation votes
Session ordains (ordinance of worship)
Installed for term of office

yet, calling is perpetual, not to be easily set aside


----------



## Scott1

The limitation on number (in the PCA process) could occur one of several ways:

congregation does not nominate 
candidate does not appear qualified by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1
(candidates wife does not appear qualified by I Timothy 3)
candidate does not have inner calling
congregation does not confirm

It would seem things like term of office (e.g. 3 years) would be incidents, that could be regulated by Session for good order.


----------



## SRoper

Scott, I understand that is the typical process in the PCA and arguably the one that is best in keeping with the BCO. The question is whether it is at all permissible to limit the number to serve ahead of time (so that, perhaps, you have more candidates than available positions). If this is not permitted, how would you deal with the objection that appeals to Acts 6 and the objection that appeals to our process for teaching elders?


----------



## Scott1

We don't know how often the church in Acts 6 did this, appointed men filled with the Spirit to serve. Remember, they are not explicitly called the office of Deacon here, but there is an analogy to it, at least. 

We do know that the explicit qualifications of the office of Deacon in I Timothy 3 and Titus I do not limit the number.

We also know that "the twelve" were the apostles. They were given a special, one-time commission of signs and wonders. Their role was to lay the foundation of the Christian faith (built upon the Prophets and Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone) once for all, until the end of this world.

So they were not quite analogous to the Session (plurality of elders) governing the local church, or an area (synod or presbytery).

If we were to use that logic, we would have to say each church must choose twelve elders.


----------



## SRoper

Those who would take the position I've presented would say that the qualifications in 1 Timothy and Titus are necessary but not sufficient conditions. A man is not entitled to serve if he meets those qualifications; he must be elected to a specific office.

This logic would not require twelve elders, but it might require a specific number of elders depending on the needs of the congregation. Again, the argument is not that there is any significance in the number seven or the number twelve. Rather there was a need _at that time_ for seven, so they chose seven. So why can't a congregation now determine how many officers are needed ahead of time and choose from among the qualified men to fill those positions?


----------



## jwithnell

> We don't say God determines the number when selecting teaching elders. What if there are five willing, qualified candidates for the position? Do we say, "God must have given us these five for a reason"?


 We are told specifically to provide for the one who teaches, and most churches max out with what they can provide. I'd also observe that if a congregation has "too many" people who qualify for the position of elder, they are likely setting standards lower than what the scriptures dictate. In my 30 years amongst Presbyterians, I've never seen solid, Biblical churches with too many elders; generally they are waiting for the Lord's provision.


----------



## SRoper

But if you say "God will determine the number" why wouldn't you also say "God will provide"?

By the way, I appreciate the discussion as it is not just an academic question for me.


----------



## Scott1

SRoper said:


> Again, the argument is not that there is any significance in the number seven or the number twelve. Rather there was a need at that time for seven, so they chose seven.



I'm not intending to argue this as a point, only trying to track with your reasoning....
It seems the issue is whether the elders are given authority to limit the number of Deacons (before qualification), or for that matter, limit their own number.

What the Apostles (the twelve) did in Acts 6 doesn't establishes that. It was analogy for the office of Deacon that would later become explicitly qualified- and that not by total number. Nor does it establish that Deacon authority flows from the Elders.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

So, the principle all church officers (bishops, ministers, elders, deacons) derive their authority from Christ.
There is no hierarchy because all must acknowledge the kingship of our Lord.
And the authority includes teaching the word and protecting from error (harm), but it includes ministering to both the spiritual and physical needs of the people.
That involves Elders and Deacons whose authority comes from God, though they are elected with approval of the congregation.


----------



## J. Dean

What about a fixed ratio of elders to congregants as a base?


----------



## SRoper

Let me try from a slightly different angle. Where do we get the idea that God determines the number of officers by the number that happen to be elected? The best example we have of the election of officers is in Acts 6. There they said let's choose seven. And they chose seven.

---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> So, the principle all church officers (bishops, ministers, elders, deacons) derive their authority from Christ.
> There is no hierarchy because all must acknowledge the kingship of our Lord.
> And the authority includes teaching the word and protecting from error (harm), but it includes ministering to both the spiritual and physical needs of the people.
> That involves Elders and Deacons whose authority comes from God, though they are elected with approval of the congregation.



I don't think anyone would disagree with that.


----------



## Scott1

SRoper said:


> Let me try from a slightly different angle. Where do we get the idea that God determines the number of officers by the number that happen to be elected? The best example we have of the election of officers is in Acts 6. There they said let's choose seven. And they chose seven.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the principle all church officers (bishops, ministers, elders, deacons) derive their authority from Christ.
> There is no hierarchy because all must acknowledge the kingship of our Lord.
> And the authority includes teaching the word and protecting from error (harm), but it includes ministering to both the spiritual and physical needs of the people.
> That involves Elders and Deacons whose authority comes from God, though they are elected with approval of the congregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Click to expand...


There is an impression sometimes that Deacons are kind of "deputy" elders, or are delegated authority by the elders. From that, it might be inferred that elders can limit their number based on elder's judgment, but not really.

This came up in the PCA discussion about assistants to deacons (male and female) appointed by the elders v. deacons, nominated and elected (and qualified) by the congregation.

Some argued (wrongly both by constitution and Scripture) that the "assistants" were really what Deacons were.


----------



## py3ak

May I suggest a scenario?

There is a congregation (let's say, Wild Oaks Presbyterian, located in Missoula, MT) of 500 members, that currently has 3 elders. In seeking additional elders, 50 men are nominated and pass the screening process. Should the church take all 50 to be part of the session? Or should the church take only 10 of those? To put it another way, does the session have to put all 50 forward for a vote, in spite of their belief that a 53-member session is wildly inconvenient? Or can they put forward for a vote only some of those who are qualified? _Is it the presence of qualified men for the eldership that determines how many elders there should be? Or is it the need for the work of elders?_


----------



## jandrusk

J. Dean said:


> What about a fixed ratio of elders to congregants as a base?



I think you could use a ratio as general framework for determining the number, but also think you need to take into consideration the needs of the congregation, the dynamics of the congregation, and the personalities of the nominees (Introvert vs. Extrovert). I think this becomes important in the realm of home visits if you have a 500 member congregation and only 2 ruling elders and even if each elder could visit 10 families a week, it would take 25 weeks to go through the entire congregation. So if you wanted to visit each family at least once a month, 5 families a week per elder is probably more realistic. Let's say for out 500 member congregation there are 200 families. You would need 10 elders, or 1 elder for every 20 families or 5% of the total number of families in the congregation.


----------



## Scott1

py3ak said:


> There is a congregation (let's say, Wild Oaks Presbyterian, located in Missoula, MT) of 500 members, that currently has 3 elders. In seeking additional elders, 50 men are nominated and pass the screening process. Should the church take all 50 to be part of the session? Or should the church take only 10 of those? To put it another way, does the session have to put all 50 forward for a vote, in spite of their belief that a 53-member session is wildly inconvenient? Or can they put forward for a vote only some of those who are qualified? Is it the presence of qualified men for the eldership that determines how many elders there should be? Or is it the need for the work of elders?



One way to look at this is that the "screening" process is a substantial one, both in terms of substance, confirmation and usually, time.

In the PCA,
the congregation first nominates, then officers train and are examined to see if they have the I Timothy 3 and Titus I qualifications. This is part of discerning if they have an "inner call" for office. Part of that even involves qualifying the wife of an officer. Then, all qualified candidates stand for election by the congregation, which can limit their number.

In practice, anecdotal evidence, the qualification process yields many, the majority not qualified or "not yet." So, if 50 were nominated, if would be far more likely 25 would end up standing for election if a biblical testing process is followed.

The question partly boils down to faith-
do we have faith God will provide a sufficient number of officers for the benefit of the covenant community for this season?
Will those seeking discernment find it?

What are God's purposes in having fewer, rather than more elders at a given time? What are His purposes in the lives of those who test out they are not called at a given time?

We don't know.

The answer to this is a resounding yes, even if we don't understand it.

It is, after all, His church.

That's why a systematic limitation, man-made is unwise.


----------



## SRoper

py3ak said:


> May I suggest a scenario?
> 
> There is a congregation (let's say, Wild Oaks Presbyterian, located in Missoula, MT) of 500 members, that currently has 3 elders. In seeking additional elders, 50 men are nominated and pass the screening process. Should the church take all 50 to be part of the session? Or should the church take only 10 of those? To put it another way, does the session have to put all 50 forward for a vote, in spite of their belief that a 53-member session is wildly inconvenient? Or can they put forward for a vote only some of those who are qualified? _Is it the presence of qualified men for the eldership that determines how many elders there should be? Or is it the need for the work of elders?_



In the PCA at least, the session is required to present all those who are nominated and found to be qualified.


----------



## py3ak

Thanks, Scott. I was hoping my scenario would help people grasp the original question. It seems that as far as the PCA goes, then, you might have your answer.


----------



## rbcbob

SRoper said:


> But how does Acts 6 factor into this?



This may address some portion of your question

View attachment 2839


----------



## SRoper

py3ak said:


> Thanks, Scott. I was hoping my scenario would help people grasp the original question. It seems that as far as the PCA goes, then, you might have your answer.



I'm sorry, my answer short-circuited any meaningful discussion on your helpful illustration. And in my answer I veered from the original intention of this thread--the previous thread already focused on the constitutional question. However, even with considering constitutional questions, it remains to be seen whether the _congregation_ can decide whether they will only elect, at most, a smaller number. Perhaps they could do this on the day of election or through their bylaws.


----------

