Optimum number of Elders and Deacons

[Notthemama1984]

In a perfect scenario, what would you consider the right ratio of elders to the congregation and the ratio of deacons to the congregation?

 

[Herald]

I am not sure this is an easy question to answer. We have approximately thirty members and three elders. That is sufficient for our needs.

 

[Skyler]

That depends heavily upon the particular demographics and needs of the congregation in question. There is no across-the-board formula.

 

[KMK]

Under Moses God set aside one tribe out of the 12 (or 13 depending upon whether you count the half tribes) for the purpose of ministry. That was roughly a ratio of 1 Levite family per 11 or 12 other families. I think one minister family (elders/deacons) per 11 or 12 families is a good target.

 

[Edward]

It would depend to some extent on the size of the church. To have a plurality of elders, a smaller church is going to need a larger ratio of elders to members than a larger church would. And tiny congregations might not be able to have a separate diaconate, with those duties falling on the Session.

To start the discussion, I'd suggest perhaps one deacon for each 80-100 members after a church passes 400. From 200 to 400, perhaps 4-6 deacons. Under 100 members (25-30 families) consideration should probably be given to having the duties fall to the session.

 

[Scott1]

This is not something specific by Scripture, nor are there even clear principles there from which to discern such.

And, there are honest differences in biblical interpretation as to exactly what the offices do.

Suffice it to say, a covenant community of believers is called to have faith that God will call and appoint the right number from among them. Men with sufficient doctrine and an exemplary, not perfect, but exemplary life pattern, and, if married, whose wives also meet the qualifications (I Timothy 3).

From a practical standpoint, the more officers a congregation has, the more they can do for it. One end of that being to take some burden off the Pastor especially, and then, likewise, to lessen the burden on the other officers.

 

[raekwon]

Enough that the pastoral and temporal needs of the church are taken care of well. There's no math for that.

 

[Jack K]

It's also important not to appoint men who aren't called, just so you can reach a target number. I think much depends on the maturity of the available men in the church.

 

[uberkermit]

It would depend to some extent on the size of the church. To have a plurality of elders, a smaller church is going to need a larger ratio of elders to members than a larger church would. And tiny congregations might not be able to have a separate diaconate, with those duties falling on the Session.

To start the discussion, I'd suggest perhaps one deacon for each 80-100 members after a church passes 400. From 200 to 400, perhaps 4-6 deacons. Under 100 members (25-30 families) consideration should probably be given to having the duties fall to the session.

Brother, I would respectfully disagree with your statement for the number of deacons on the low end. Surely a man who has gifts for the work can be found to serve the church as a deacon, even if there were only 40 people. The elder's primary function is to shepherd the flock of God, including teaching, praying and visiting. It is not scriptural to tie them up with other duties, if not absolutely necessary (and by necessary, I mean the work of a church plant has just begun, and there truly is nobody qualified for that work available), and as I have stated, even with 40 people, a suitable man is most likely already there to do the work of a deacon. As an aside, I will grant that you have worded this more as a suggestion, and not a hard and fast rule.

Blessings,

 

[Edward]

It's also important not to appoint men who aren't called, just so you can reach a target number. I think much depends on the maturity of the available men in the church.

A point well made.