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

[Aaron Blumer] 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
Aaron—Mark Dever was quick to point out that he does not practice “elder rule.” His church has a plurality of elders, but congregational government.

They didn’t make decisions like “What color carpet?” “What CD to put our stockpile in?” “Repaving the parking lot or building b-ball court?”

[Larry]
Rick Warren clearly states that voting is bad; he says it brings disunity and makes for winners and losers. And he says this repeatedly.
So if the disunity isn’t expressed then it doesn’t exist? I hardly think that is true. If people disagree, then they disagree whether or not they raise their hand, check a box, or speak up to express it. Lack of voting will not create unity. The only thing that creates unity is agreement to walk a particular direction, and submit individual will to the will of the body of Christ in a particular locale.
To the contrary, issues are avoided. For example, if the board of deaconesses picks the colors for all rooms, then matters are handled there and contained. Or if one person picks the color, matters are contained. If you vote, you have winners and losers and people will often vote to support their friends. How many churches have split over decorating decisions, as a simple case in point.

Think about it: why should someone who might be 6 months old in the Lord have the same vote as a spiritually mature man who sees the long term picture. That’s crazy. Everyone’s opinion should NOT count the same.

In our church, the members only vote:

—to confirm officers

—if a purchase is beyond their spending limit

—to hire a new pastor

Elders handle all discipline and ministry decisions beyond that.

"The Midrash Detective"

…so I too will share our voting style

The congregation votes every year to accept a budget proposed by the deacons and pastors (elders are pastors in our church—right now just one active elder but hoping to make that plural soon). It is not line item, but up or down vote. It has always been passed because they trust the deacon’s leadership.

The congregation must vote to remove a member from the church

The congregation must vote to add a member to the church (I am not sure I always like this one b/c the NT seemed to be a little more automatic when it came to being a part of the church).

The congregation votes on any extra expense over a certain amount not within the budget.

The congregation approves the financial reports (that is more of a practice of openness, it is basically saying this is what it is, does everyone agree that this is what it is?-kind of a rubber stamp vote because how do you vote against a report—you can’t change what it says?)

The congregation approves any changes to the Articles of Faith and By-laws.

Whether there is congregational rule or not, the leaders (Pastors/elders in the doctrine and spiritual matters and deacons in the mundane) must be trusted and dependable.

For all those mundane things, the deacons and deaconess’ (the deacon’s wives in our situation) take care of them. decorations, kitchen, furnishings, building, finances, etc. They are authorized by the pastors and approved through the budget to spend and make decisions in each necessary field.

The ministry issues are decided upon and led by the elders.

On another note, I found what excess voting could do by seeing my own heart become a problem in one meeting. Before I was a pastor, I was in a church that was buying a new piano. They brought in two new pianos and spent an entire evening having the piano players travel from piano to piano playing various songs. Throughout the evening, the piano players and musicians would make comments here and there. At the end of the night, they had a secret ballot to vote for piano a or b. Without any intention, I found myself, (who is not a musician BTW) internally dividing from my brothers. “I began to want to argue for the piano that I thought was best, even though before the meeting started, I could have cared less. That democratic format encouraged disunity and led to believers taking sides on such a silly issue. I remember thinking to myself toward the end “What is wrong with you, who cares?” but for some reason, I cared. I learned something about church and business meetings early on in the ministry from that evening.

I liked what Kevin Bauder said at a conference held at our church. He said that while all members (in good standing was implied) receive just one vote, not all members have an equal voice. He explained that he meant, in a spiritually minded congregation, good members will give more weight to leaders and the spiritually mature. Enough so that if the spiritually mature are opposed to the new believer, he should re-think his position.

my two cents

To the contrary, issues are avoided. For example, if the board of deaconesses picks the colors for all rooms, then matters are handled there and contained. Or if one person picks the color, matters are contained. If you vote, you have winners and losers and people will often vote to support their friends. How many churches have split over decorating decisions, as a simple case in point.

Think about it: why should someone who might be 6 months old in the Lord have the same vote as a spiritually mature man who sees the long term picture. That’s crazy. Everyone’s opinion should NOT count the same.

In our church, the members only vote:

—to confirm officers

—if a purchase is beyond their spending limit

—to hire a new pastor

Elders handle all discipline and ministry decisions beyond that.
Ed, I notice a lack of Bible here. Isn’t that a significant omission on your part? I think it is.

Here’s my response:

Why in the world would a church be voting on colors for all the rooms? Anyone who does that deserves what they get.

On what biblical basis do you say that a six month old should not have the same vote as a spiritually mature man? I don’t see those distinctions made in Scripture and you didn’t give any Scripture to support them. The Bible commands/examples are about “church,” not parts of the church. In Acts 6, all believers were less than six months old and the apostles were spiritually mature, and yet the apostles gave the six month old believers authority to do something instead of the apostles appointing them. You would seem to be saying the apostles should not have done that.

Do you allow six month old believers to confirm officers? Purchase beyond the spending limit? Hire a new pastor? At what point is someone qualified to vote and what biblical basis do you use to establish that?

You say elders handle all discipline. Yet the Bible says the church is to do that. Jesus had a word for “elders” and instead used the word for church. When Paul writes to Corinth, he tells the church, not the elders, that they should have done something. When Paul writes to the church to restore the man, he doesn’t write to elders, but to the church.

On the contrary when Paul gave instructions about protecting the flock, he did not write to the church but to the elders (Acts 20; Pastoral Epistles).

So the point is that the Bible does make a distinction between elders and the church. It simply does not seem to do it the way that you say we should.

On another point, failing to vote doesn’t create unity. It simply masks it. If people don’t like a color on the wall, not having a vote on it won’t change that. They still won’t like the color on the wall. If they don’t like the budget, they won’t like it more because they didn’t get to vote on it. It may cause dissension and dissatisfaction because they will feel shut out.

And I would think if the pastor is doing the job of teaching and making disciples, they will be able to handle it.

e) In every congregation, there are milk-drinkers and meat-eaters- do spiritual babes also get a vote?
I think you’re breaking the body into categories that are not part of God’s presentation of the body. God speaks very differently of the body. He speaks of members. He talks about lovely members and not so lovely members. And he couldn’t be more emphatic in stating that every member is part of the body and none should say to the other “I have no need of you.”

[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.
This is a dangerous proposition… very dangerous.

[Pastor Harold] 10-2 against going into the Promise Land. Majority rules in a democracy. Who’s idea was that???
This is not parallel in the least. This argument would suggest that America should not be a democracy.

I agree with Ted very thoroughly in many areas. I this one I do not, and of course good brothers are bound to differ. Ted, can you cite a verse in the Bible which tells how existing churches are to choose their elders? Acts 14:23 does not work. It explains tersely how two missionaries (who were moving on, and are never themselves called “elders”) got elders established in new churches. So if there is no Bible verse which says that elders are to choose elders, how is this process any more biblical than a congregation voting for elders? But perhaps you can show passages that directly state that elders are to choose elders.

Jeff Brown

Larry said:
Ed, I notice a lack of Bible here. Isn’t that a significant omission on your part? I think it is.
We are in the realm of the extra- biblical. That is the entire point. That is not necessarily bad: much of what our churches do is neither condemned nor commanded in Scripture, and that was true in the early church as well.

What we try to do is to draw Biblical principles. The Biblical principle of I Timothy 3 is that the church is to be led by spiritually mature godly men. Yet the western world is pretty much run by representative governments and voting on issues. Thus voting is a western adaption. So how do we balance it?

No system works if it is filled with ungodly, narrow, unscriptural, or grouchy leaders. Just about any system works if godliness prevails over a congregation. The issue is not what works, but what does God demand. And, as we can see, when it comes to the issue of voting, we cannot even come close to agreeing.

All it takes is one nasty, narrow, or outspoken person – as a member or on a board – to make church life miserable. That nasty person may want attention, may live in fear of change, or may be bitter about past changes. Wherever that person or group of persons collect — on boards or congregations — they can make government issues unpleasant.

"The Midrash Detective"

@Mshep
While I agree with much of the sentiment of this article, I think it is going too far to conclude that voting is wrong in a church.
Hi Mshep. Thanks for your response. You need to feel sorry for me brother. As I write this I am in Malawi, Africa and the breezes are coming in off the plain – its about 80 here and gorgeous…. Huge billowing clouds in the distance rise up to 30,000 feet, and the air smells sweet. Birds are singing. OK, enough trying to make you jealous ;)

I do see how you agree with the spirit of my article, but not the content. But my content agrees with your statement, “Rather than make decisions based on God’s Word and what is best and correct for the ministry, the “majority” rules.” That’s all I’m arguing for, Mshep.
But, there also is a problem in many churches with unqualified leaders or dictatorial pastors who make unbiblical decisions and then demand to be followed since they are the “annointed by God” to carry the leadership of the church. While I know this is a short article, I would like to ask Ted how leaders are to be chosen in the first place? And, what is the church supposed to do with unqualified leaders (e.g.”deacon for life”) or those who fall into sin and refuse to step down?
As you know, there were dictatorial eldersi n the 1st Century, and Scripture teaches how to deal with them – and its not by instituting church voting! See 1 Timothy 1:20, 1 Timothy 5:19-20, and the book of 3 John. Also you might read my book, The Titus Mandate, chapter 8 (you can actually get much of on Amazon search).
Finally, I believe it is also wrong to say that there is no Scriptural support or precedent for voting. While I am not a Greek scholar, I do know that Greek word cheirotoneo, defined as “1) to vote by stretching out the hand 2) to create or appoint by vote: one to have charge of some office or duty 3) to elect, create, appoint” is found at least four times in New Testament in regards to decisions made by local churches.

1. In Acts 14:23, “appointed” (“So when they had appointed elders in every church”).

2. In 2 Cor 8:19, “chosen” (“And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches”) - in deciding who will carry the monetary gift to the church in Jerusalem.

3. In the postscript to 2 Tim. 4:22, “ordained” (“The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians”)

4. In the postscript to Titus 3:15, “ordained” (“It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians”)
Oops – only 2x in the NT, brother – #3 and 4 were added later onto some NT manuscripts by somebody. The emandation you cite in Titus 3:15 actually contradicts Titus 3:12, where Titus is told to leave Crete when either Artemas or Tychicus replaces him. If Titus was to leave soon for Greece (Nicopolis), in what sense could he have been replaced quickly by other men and have been an archbishop(a position unattested in the NT, btw)? As for the 1st two instances you cite above. Each of these passages are fully treated in my book, chapter 12 and 13. For instance, look up Acts 14:23 – you don’t really suppose Barnabas and Saul raised hands just between the two of them? Awkward and silly.

My book addresses the biblical appointment methodology of elders, chapter 4. It is completely based on Titus 1:5-9, in which Titus is given all the instruction he needed on how to do it according to apostolic pattern. It id a pattern that endure to today. And of course, it has nothing to do with votes.

Blessings - Ted

Thanks, Ed. May I respond here?
We are in the realm of the extra- biblical.
But are we?

Consider one of the points you made: Elders handle all discipline.

The Bible places discipline is the realm of “the church” (Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5). So when you place it in the realm of “the elders,” I don’t see how you are not contradicting directly what the Bible says? I don’t mean that accusatorily. I just don’t understand how ekklesia gets turned into presbuteroi. Jesus could have used presbuteros, but he didn’t. Paul could have directed his comments to the presbuteroi; he certainly had no problem doing that in other places. But here, in the issue of discipline, he did not.

Deacons are also explicitly given to the congregation to choose (which implies some sort of voting). Now we can debate what else that authority might apply to, but these two are specific.

I do agree that much of it is wisdom, as I expressed earlier. As a wisdom matter, I wouldn’t vote on church colors, my office hours, or who’s going to be the janitor, or the like. But I don’t think we are completely in the realm of “extra-biblical.”
What we try to do is to draw Biblical principles. The Biblical principle of I Timothy 3 is that the church is to be led by spiritually mature godly men. Yet the western world is pretty much run by representative governments and voting on issues. Thus voting is a western adaption. So how do we balance it?
If some sort of voting was in the NT (as Acts 6 seems to make clear, and other passages suggest), then is it really a western adaptation? I don’t think so.

I don’t think we should confuse congregational authority with leadership. We don’t even do that in our western contexts. No one thinks that they are leading the country because they cast a vote for president. So that analogy breaks down. The vote is for someone else to lead, and the Bible gives qualifications for who that should be.
The issue is not what works, but what does God demand.
I agree with this.
All it takes is one nasty, narrow, or outspoken person – as a member or on a board – to make church life miserable.
So which is better: If that one person is on a board of four or a congregation of 100? Isn’t it obvious that it would be better to have that one person be 1% instead of 25%?

To me, and perhaps only to me, the issue of congregational authority is clear in the NT. The exact mechanism of the voting or consensus is not clear, but whatever the case was, it was not elder rule as conceived of today.

Hi Aaron, thanks so much for your in depth and thoughtful interaction here, brother. In my response I hope to give you a decent explanation that contrasts with your thoughts which are so well expressed here.
I do believe voting is over-used in many congregations, and probably more often not properly framed. That is, we forget that it’s not about expressing the will of the people but rather a way of discerning the Lord’s leading together.
Back it up with Scripture, Aaron. Back up that voting is “a way of discerning the Lord’s leading.”
there are some problems with Ted’s case (so far).

1. Ted says voting cannot be adiophora because “it allows for disunity in the body and can lead to apostasy.”

This misunderstands both the nature of adiophora and the nature of unity. Disunity occurs whenever people have varying opinions. Though they may choose not to fight for their opinions, points of disagreement are points where they are not “of the same mind” (to use Paul’s phrase). That being the case, absolutely everything “allows for disunity in the body,” especially adiophora. This is what Romans 14 is all about. Learning to respect one another when strong differences of opinion exist.
Bro, - voting has to cause disunity among Christians because it is not the revealed will of God - which is to govern all our decision making (Mat. 4:4) - and its function is to give formal recognition to one or more perspectives that must of necessity not be the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit. Such arrogance offends the sovereign Lord. Who are we to give our opinion and vote on that which He wishes to do?”


2. Much is argued from silence here.

The idea that no record of voting exists doesn’t prove it did not happen. But…
Whether it happened or not is moot, bro. What is relevant is did Jesus Christ, or His chosen apostles, teach us to do it? The answer is “no,” and so it is you who argue from silence, not me.
3. Vote-like methods of measuring consensus do have precedent in the NT

Though Ted claims neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught voting, we do have situations where the will of the congregation had to be expressed: Acts 6, and 1 Cor. 5 come to mind. (Acts 6:5 “the saying pleased the whole multitude”, 2Cor.2:6 “punishment…inflicted by the majority”). In situations where a majority must speak, there needs to be some mechanism to determine what the majority believes.
Those passages are discussed extensively in my book, chapters 12 and 13. Acts 6 shows a congregation selecting men with a pre-set number, gender, and qualification list. The apostles words define the selection process. In 1 Cor 5 the church is putting a man out in response to Scripture, not in response to vote. Their choice was not whetehr to dismiss the immoral man or not – they had to or else they were disobeying Christ (v. 13). Their only choice was obey or disobey, so in effect, they determined nothing. Regarding 2 Cor. 2:6, the majority inflicts a “punishment” – a verbal reproof. The word is epitimao, and its noun and verbal forms are used 30 times in Scripture, always describing a verbal reproof. This verbal reproof of the majority comes to an impenitent church member in submission to Jesus’ command to the church in Mat. 18:17.
4. The article misidentifies the problem in the disunity case study.

The church conflict here was not the result of voting. Rather, we’re closer to the real problem here:

…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.

And continues here:

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.

The case can be made that a pending vote created some pressure here. But what if the meeting had been about some other kind of business? Unless they were going to use a “just do as we say” approach to governing the church, the “members upset about friends who had recently left” would continue to be upset and find some venue to talk about it.
You are quite right – the vote did not cause the disunity. But it exacerbated it.
Trying to silence the congregation does not create unity. Voting at least allows the body to express itself in an orderly fashion. I’d suggest that in this scenario, the vote on the building project should have been tabled since it was pretty clear that a deep disunity problem already existed.
Jesus doesn’t want congregations to be silenced. He wants them extra vocal – so long as they express His mind and will as revealed in Scripture. For apart from that, what have any of us to contribute? And Aaron, in the NT, “the body” does not express itself. The Head does.

[Ted B] As for the 1st two instances you cite above. Each of these passages are fully treated in my book, chapter 12 and 13. For instance, look up Acts 14:23 – you don’t really suppose Barnabas and Saul raised hands just between the two of them? Awkward and silly.
Jean Calvin’s Commentary on Acts

Had ordained by election. The Greek word χειροτονειν doth signify to decree, or ordain a thing, by lifting up the hands, as they used to do in the assemblies of the people. Notwithstanding, the ecclesiastical writers do often use the word χειροτονεια, in another sense; to wit, for their [the] solemn rite of ordaining, which is called in Scripture laying on of hands. Furthermore, by this manner of speech is very excellently expressed the right way to ordain pastors. Paul and Barnabas are said to choose elders. Do they this alone by their private office? Nay, rather they suffer the matter to be decided by the consent of them all. Therefore, in ordaining pastors the people had their free election, but lest there should any tumult arise, Paul and Barnabas sit as chief moderators. Thus must the decree of the council of Laodicea be understood, which forbiddeth that the people have liberty granted them to elect.


Also, see this thread from the Old SharperIron: http://20.sharperiron.org/showpost.php?p=144487&postcount=13

(Especially this post: http://20.sharperiron.org/showpost.php?p=144487&postcount=13 )

Larry said:
The Bible places discipline is the realm of “the church” (Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5). So when you place it in the realm of “the elders,”
Well, Larry, I see where you are coming from. You are of the belief that the term, “the church” only and always refers to the entire body (congregation), and only the local church.

I believe that the word “church” is not as consistently used as you might. Some times, for example, it refers to the “universal church” made up of all believers. Imagine the havoc of church discipline if it had to be voted on by all the members of the universal church. So (if you believe in the universal church), you must admit that the word “church” does not always refer to a specific congregation.

Many of us would argue that the context can narrow down the definition of the word “church.” When the Bible wants to specify the entire congregation, it is capable of doing so: Acts 5:11, Acts 11:26, Acts 15:22, Romans 16:23, and 1 Corinthians 14:23. If the “church” always meant the “whole church,” as you take it to mean in Matt. 18, the Scriptures would not bother to specify “whole” otherwise. So sometimes the church must mean less than the whole church. That does not eliminate the possibility that Christ meant the whole church when he merely said, “church,” but it allows for the possibility of referring to something other than the whole church. Do you follow me? If so, explain what I said to me — I confused myself. :)

Most commentators understand the Matt. 18 passage as referring to the elders. Otherwise, we would expect to see this: “confront the brother, bring 2 or 3 with you, if that doesn’t work, then the elders, and if that doesn’t work then the whole church.” We would expect the elders to at least be an intermediary stage, would we not? But this is not what we see.

In addition, it is one thing for the church to affirm what the elders have decided, another thing to take a show of hands and a count. Do you have any Scripturally warrant for taking a count or a show of hands? It seems to me that the early believers were more prone to cast lots than do that, Acts 2:21-26.

I do think that the elders have spiritual oversight in matters, including discipline. I think the elders need to present to the members “we have disciplined so and so.” But I do not think they should ask for a vote. They should announce it as a done deal, and the church should then rally around the elders’ decision. If the elders are doing wrong, however, it is time for new elders.

PS— If Baptist churches vote by hand, are they allowed to raise their hands? :)

"The Midrash Detective"