Is Congregational Voting Biblical?

For most of us, voting is a common experience. Many vote for our government representatives and, if we are involved in civic groups, we may vote in them as well. Voting is a means by which we express self-determination. “We the people” have the privilege and duty to help choose our future directions.

Voting is also how most congregations make their most important decisions. In Episcopal-style churches, the congregation votes on large purchases and on who will serve in various leadership positions. In “representational” churches, such as Presbyterian and American Lutheran, the congregation vote on leadership appointments, large purchases, and other membership matters. Independent churches such as Congregational, Baptist, or Bible churches vote on budgets, leadership appointments, large purchases, committee appointments, doctrinal changes, and membership matters. Voting is a common practice in most congregations, granting members a voice in the church’s affairs and decision making.1

It is widely assumed that voting in church is biblical, or if not biblical, a matter of freedom. Many believe it provides safety for the congregation and is a good way to build consensus in the church. In fact, have you ever read anything to the contrary? I struggle to think of anything in print that calls into question a practice so commonplace in our churches. It’s not like anyone is debating the practice voting in our churches, or even our synods, assemblies, presbyteries, conventions, conferences, etc.

Just as we vote in church we also claim to follow the Bible. Our doctrinal statements and constitutions are up front about this. Most churches claim something similar to the following:

This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.2

But we all know it is one thing to claim that our church accepts the Bible as authoritative over “proclamation, faith and life,” and another to live it out. That excellent statement you just read comes from a Lutheran denomination that debated and voted at their 2009 convention to ordain openly homosexual men and women to the office of elder. That was a truly sad event. Claiming the Bible led them, they voted against the Bible.

My recent book, [amazon 1453831274], examines the matter of voting in the light of Scripture, because neither Paul nor his protégé Titus led churches or appointed leaders with votes. The difference is surprising since this is how we who live 2,000 years later would have expected an apostle and his protégé to lead churches. So it’s worth repeating. Paul and Titus didn’t use votes in church. The reason is deftly simple. They were serving God’s redeemed people, not an agenda. Titus was on Crete as a shepherd with a heart of compassion for hassled and distressed sheep. He came to build the church, not coalitions.

So like the Lutheran statement says, we profess Scripture’s authority over our faith and practice. That being the case let’s take the opportunity in this chapter and the next to apply Scripture to the practice of church voting. It’s a major part of church practice and affects everybody, even those who don’t participate. I start with an awkward lunch I had once with an area pastor.

“We vote as often as Jesus and the apostles taught us to.”

Several years ago the pastor of a medium sized Baptist church (GARBC) and I got into a discussion about voting and its role in church. Like many Baptist churches, his holds firmly to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Indeed, the very first declaration in their doctrinal statement is this: “We believe that the Holy Bible is…the only, absolute, infallible rule for all human conduct, creeds, and opinions.” That put us on the same page, theologically speaking.

While talking over coffee he shared they were going through some dark days with congregational infighting and distrust of the leadership. Within the past few weeks, he and the other elders had been out voted by the congregation at the annual meeting, and people were leaving.

He went on to explain that he and his fellow elders thought they had prepared themselves for a small amount of conflict at the meeting. They had their talking points down and believed they were ready to lead the congregation into a building project. However, the church meeting turned sour when budget issues and the building project were raised. Some members were upset about friends who had recently left the church with unresolved complaints about the leadership. My pastor friend had been chosen as the elder to address that issue, and he tried to explain the situation to everybody’s satisfaction. But instead his answers only led to more questions.

He was confronted with a Catch-22 situation: either give detailed answers to the church about private matters, or explain his unwillingness to share details and leave the voting members dissatisfied and possibly upset enough to vote down the budget. To his own regret, he admitted that he went too far trying to satisfy the people in the hopes of getting the vote passed. He felt he shared too much in explaining the problems of the people who had left and how the elders viewed it. His indiscretion also hurt the subsequent vote. The meeting ended with a series of votes defeating the proposals laid before the congregation by the elders. The pastor told me that people were now distancing themselves from the elders, that distrust was increasing, and folks were leaving.

Eventually I asked him how he felt the situation reflected the Bible’s teaching on church practice and voting. He fell silent. I suggested that votes aren’t really necessary in a healthy church, and can even bring disunity. He looked at me quizzically, because he believed they produced unity. It was then that I dropped what was, at least for him, a bomb. I told him that we don’t hold votes in our church. He again looked at me, completely taken back. He pushed back from the table, tilted his head to one side, and squinting his eyes looked at me with something close to disdain. He had never heard of a church that didn’t vote.

His reaction caught me off guard, so I explained our position this way: “We do church votes as often as Jesus and the apostles taught us to.” A wry smile crossed his face as he went through his mental concordance searching for every verse on church voting. He quickly admitted that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever taught Christians to vote, but claimed that voting in the church is a morally neutral practice. “Oh?” Given the agony his ministry was going through, now I was the one who pushed backed—tilting and squinting.

Taking the opportunity, I explained that there is only one reference to voting in the entire Bible, and that one reference is far from neutral. It is Paul’s vote that helped put Stephen, the first martyr, to death (Acts 26:10). His vote was murderous and resulted in the first martyrdom in church history. “If voting were morally neutral,” I asked him, “then why would Paul confess his vote as sinful?”

Of course there are such things as morally neutral practices, such as the time church should start on a Sunday morning, the color of the carpet, and a thousand other matters. Each local church is free to judge that for themselves. There is even a word for such neutral practices: adiaphora. But voting is not adiaphora since it allows for disunity in the body and can lead to apostasy.

I believe the church is built on the teachings of His apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20, 3:5), Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. Yet neither Christ nor a single apostle initiated a church vote, taught a church to vote, or encouraged a church vote. Not once, not ever. What shall we make of this? Were they stupid? Or worse, do we now know 2,000 years later a better way to make church decisions than our Lord and all of His apostles?

They certainly knew how to vote—all it takes is the raising of a hand. But they built every local church with godliness and unity. Under the pure and wise guidance of God they wrote inspired letters to churches that form the content of our faith. These teachings do, indeed, reflect what my friend’s Baptist church’s doctrinal statement says: “the only, absolute, infallible rule for all human conduct, creeds, and opinions.” If we believe that, and Scripture doesn’t teach us to vote, why do it? In fact, when apostles encountered churches that used practices like voting they revamped them so they would obey Scripture. This is the kind of thing that happened to Crete’s churches (Titus 1:5). Apostolic ministry to dysfunctional churches began at the level of polity, radically altering them from the top down in order to makes them healthy, unified, and safe.

My pastor friend didn’t stay much longer at that church. Sadly, things got progressively worse for all. The disunity eventually affected the leaders as well as the rest of the membership, and in sadness and distress, he moved far away to lead another church with the same voting polity.

Notes

1 For further information on church structure, see Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 10th ed., (Nashville: Abingdon Press, revised 1995).

2 “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,” 19. Reference from online edition, current as of August 2009, (accessed November 11, 2009) at http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organiza….

Discussion

I’m curious if anyone practices household voting? Each household gets one vote.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[Charlie] I’m curious if anyone practices household voting? Each household gets one vote.
Charlie,

In the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which I was raised in — and perhaps in other confessional Lutheran church bodies — only over men over age 21 (in my home church; 18 in others) may attend the business meetings or vote.

The practice is based on 1 Cor. 14:34, 35.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

10-2 against going into the Promise Land. Majority rules in a democracy. Who’s idea was that???

[Larry]
[Susan R] e) In every congregation, there are milk-drinkers and meat-eaters- do spiritual babes also get a vote?
Only if they have the Spirit. Otherwise, no. This is why regenerate membership is necessary. If you allow the unsaved to be members, you will have problems. If you guard the membership of the body, you can carry out the examples and commands of Scripture with strong elder leadership.
Biblically, spiritual babes are immature in the faith but regenerate- I wasn’t talking about the lost.

Ok, two random thoughts.

One, I wonder where Ted is today. I’m sure he’ll be dropping by as soon as he has opportunity… and will have a bit of catching up to do. I know the feeling.

Two… posted this on the SI facebook page a bit ago. There’s a bit of discussion going on there also.

When I was a kid, a pastor nearly got ousted from a church I attended via the same process. Some folks who didn’t like him got a bunch of long-inactive members to show up for a vote. I don’t remember how, but he survived that particular crises. Eventually resigned though.

I think it’s the extreme implementations of each polity that tend to give each a bad reputation to different groups. I suspect that where there are wise, godly leaders, the various polities tend to have roughly the same results… because the leaders are winning “the people” over to their vision anyway or, failing that, don’t push their agenda. No point in dragging a church along kicking and screaming. They need to truly “buy” the idea, regardless of whether there are votes.


In the end, there’s just no substitute for good people leading. It’s wise to organize in a way that makes it more likely that good leaders will be chosen and in a way that makes misuse of power less attractive, but in the end, a power-hungry “wolf” (to use Paul’s term in Acts 20) will find his way around almost any official decision making process.

Jim’s got some great ideas. Why vote on removing every member that gets removed from the role? Establish a policy and automate it. Of course, that makes more sense in a large congregation. No need for that in the Boycevilles of the world. But Mark Dever has a very different approach. Each “inactive” member is handled as a serious case and, if I remember right, a potential disciplinary case. So they really go after folks who have gone off the radar—to try to reclaim them.

But I think the gist of Jim’s point is solid: in many churches more voting goes on than is really necessary if the body is doing a decent job of choosing leaders.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I’m guessing that Ted will give a more in-depth study of the NT texts, in subsequent posts? And those who affirm congregational voting could do the same, given the opportunity.

I’m more interested in how the elder rule idea is argued. No matter who is teaching it, they tend to start out with a personal narrative about the excesses of congregationalism…sad stories about unhealthy churches.

But there are more than enough parallel stories from the world of elder rule to remind us that carnality is not limited to congregational votes. [Insert personal narrative here!] In a city where I used to minister, the elders of a certain church voted out their senior pastor because of “conflicting agendas” for the church. And my buddy, the youth pastor (and an elder), cast his vote against the senior pastor. Then the elders mailed a letter to all of the other evangelical churches in the city, explaining in detail why they had voted out their pastor (but not allowing the pastor any equal time to explain his side of the story).

Pick your system: congregational, episcopal, prebyterian…each can be disrupted by carnality. So I think the introductory arguments will eventually give way to a more substantive exploration of the text.

[Joel Tetreau] I’m trying to finish a book on the topic of the Decision-Making (DM) Process of the Local NT church. I’m answering thee questions - The What, The Who and The How of ecclesiastical DM. I’m taking a chapter for each of the following: the role of the Senior Pastor (the NT call is the Pastor-Teacher), The role of the elders, The role of the deacons,


Hey Joel,

Thou art not far, brother :). Are you sure you want to defend that the NT teaches 3 offices? That’s the episcopal position. Eph. 4:11 doesn’t teach offices, but gifts, eh?
The NT gives several areas where the congregation has a part of decision-making. One can make a case that congregations took place in “placing out” (church discipline)
The congregation is to submit and respond to the established evidence of the witnesses, per the command of Jesus in Mat. 18:17. That response is not vote, but go and confront. By itself it “decides” nothing, but only recognizes impenitence as reflecting Christ’s already made in heaven judgment (18:19).
“sending out” (missionaries/evangelists from their midst) as well as having a part in the identity of who executive leaders might be. There may be a few other kinds of decisions the Scriptures give congregations.
Are you thinking Acts 13:1-3 please look up the referents to the particles like praying, sent, fasting. the Greek will tell you if it refers to the church (singular feminine) or masculine plural - the men named in 13:1.

@brothers - Just finishing my last day of 2 weeks of the most amazing ministry in my life in South Africa. I’ll try to get back to you when I get into Malawi tomorrow. Assuming the internet works there.

Biblically, spiritual babes are immature in the faith but regenerate- I wasn’t talking about the lost.
Right, and my point is that the Spirit works in immature people as well as in mature. There is, in the NT, no spiritual maturity test for being part of the congregation. There is only a regeneracy test.

To argue that the priesthood of the believers (which is what we are talking about here) is limited to spiritually mature people is not possible from Scripture, at least any where that I can see. I would be glad to entertain an argument but I don’t know what it would be.

But even if we limit votes to spiritually mature people, what criteria do we use for that? Ted’s (and others) define this as being elected to eldership. But I know of no practical way and no biblical instruction by which one would be qualified to be a part of the congregation other than a credible profession of faith illustrated by believer’s baptism.

I’m still hung up on the idea of a vote equaling a measure of authority/leadership. A vote determine whether a church collectively zigs or zags. So…we don’t let spiritual babes teach a class, and teachers must meet several criteria, including things like background checks, but we’ll let someone newly saved or spiritually immature cast a deciding vote simply because they show up and they haven’t shot anyone lately? And I guess I’m also bothered by the idea that someone who is flying under the church’s radar with major moral issues is going to have a hand in leading the church in a particular direction. Been there, seen that. Burnt the t-shirt.

To be clear, I’m not advocating any particular solution. I’m rather befuddled by the subject, and appreciate all of the perspectives offered here.

Ted,

I put your book in my shopping cart. I’m interested to see if you have a more extended argument.

Your anecdote would seem to argue against your position, though. That church was had pretty significant problems. The congregation did not trust the leadership. In that situation, it is hard to imagine how things would have been better if a group of “ruling” elders would have pushed through their building project.

[Jim Peet] It would be nice to vote “less”

Examples:
  • Inactive members. After X months of inactivity, let the leadership team (elders / deacons) remove from membership and simply inform the body (say at an annual meeting)
Big things vote on:
  • Church discipline (other than inactivity)
  • Budget
  • Call of pastors
  • Election of officers (elders / deacons)
  • Purchase and sale of property
Others … not so much
I agree with this except for Church discipline. I feel this is an elder responsibility that contains alot of sensitivities of details that shouldn’t be “out there” to the congregation. This is a spiritual area in which the congregation needs to trust their elder group to be led by the Holy Spirit. If a member doesn’t trust their elders in a spiritual matter, then they probably should not be a member.

[Barry L.]

I agree with this except for Church discipline. I feel this is an elder responsibility that contains alot of sensitivities of details that shouldn’t be “out there” to the congregation. This is a spiritual area in which the congregation needs to trust their elder group to be led by the Holy Spirit. If a member doesn’t trust their elders in a spiritual matter, then they probably should not be a member.
So in your view, “tell it to the church” is essentially just a report on the actions of the elders as to whether the member is retained or not?

Dave Barnhart

[Susan R.] I’m still hung up on the idea of a vote equaling a measure of authority/leadership.
Here’s the main thing, in my mind: The Bible declares that the church does several things (e.g., select deacons, remove someone from the church, readmit someone to the church). The Bible does not attribute this to part of the church (e.g., elders, men, etc.). In fact, Matthew 18 specifies that the two or three are not sufficient to remove someone. The church must have a say.

So, for instance, the fact that the Bible forbids women from having authority over men, and at the same time gives instruction for the church to do certain things together, means that the “vote” (however you characterize obtaining the congregation’s consensus) is not a measure of authority that would violate any teaching on authority. So if a vote is a measure of authority, then it is certainly within the bounds of Scripture’s teaching.

In another instance, one person teaching a class is not the same as one person voting in a congregation of others. The Bible never equates that and I don’t think we have any reason to.
[BarryL] I agree with this except for Church discipline. I feel this is an elder responsibility that contains alot of sensitivities of details that shouldn’t be “out there” to the congregation.
If this is true, why does either Jesus or Paul limit the responsibility to the elders? Both place this in the realm of the “church.”

In case anybody was wondering, I really didn’t plan to post this when Ted would be out of the country so we’d be able to gang up on him. :D

(He may have mentioned his SA trip, but it didn’t sink in… not unusual for me)

Anyway, the book does sound interesting. Dan Miller… maybe you’d be interested in writing a review for us?

I’m quite sympathetic to the general concept of “elder rule,” since the term is almost always plural in the NT (and the OT concept is obviously plural). But, as Dever recently noted at ATC, small churches in rural settings can have a pretty hard time finding more than one qualified elder (one of the main qualifications being “desire,” 1 Tim.3:1 - yes, I take “bishop” and “elder” to be the same thing).

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.