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….
Ted Bigelow Bio
Ted Bigelow earned the MDiv and ThM at The Master’s Seminary and has a doctorate in expository preaching from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He pastors Grace Church in Hartford, CT and has been married to Deena since 1987. They are blessed with 4 children who, by God’s mercy, love the Lord: Katie (20), Karryn (18), Daniel (15) and David (13).
- 5597 views
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), “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.
However……
There are some congregations who practice a form of congregationalism that undermine God’s plan for qualified, male leadership. The Scriptures give us the pattern of a plurality of elders and deacons leading and serving the congregation in at least two sphere’s. The elders lead th congregation in the spiritual sphere. The deacons serve the congregation in the physical or benevolent sphere. Here’s the deal - the Scriptures limit the leadership of those two offices to qualified men. In too many churches, two groups that have no buisness undermining the leadership of these two offices….too often undermine God’s pattern…..and they do that by using a twisted approach to congregationalism that actually misses what God had in mind. Here are the two groups:
1. Women
2. Men who are not qualified
Let me explain. First, the Scriptures are clear that women are not to serve in either a principle-teaching/theological capacity to the church in general or an executive leadership position. Our sisters in Christ are to not lead the home nor are they to lead the church (Notice 1 Corinthians 12-14). Paul explains that there is a headship principle that governs the approach here. For those who take the Scripture’s teaching as is - you can’t argue the point. In many “congregational” churches, a block of influencial women will undermine the leadership of elders or deacons by way of abusing paralamentary procedure (such as Robert’s rules). In some cases these are older women that think that the Scriptures teachings to submit to the leadership and to not engage in gossip doesn’t apply to them. Assemblies need to deal with these kind of disobedient women quicly and clearly. The problem is that too many leaders (pastor or deacons) are spinless and too many congregations have grown to have an unhealthy dependence on the dollars given by these kinds of “women.” Frankly many of these gals need to be confronted with the spirit of Matthew 18 and if they continue to be disruptive or divisive should be dismissed from the church. Oh….by the way, too often some of these gals have spineless husbands who refuse to lead wife and family in the ways of righteousness.
Second, the Scriptures are also clear on the kind of men who are not to serve the congregation in leadership. These are men who are not “blameless.” Some men in a congregation cannot serve in leadership only because they are new in the faith. No problem there. It is what it is….in time, “they’ll grow.” However, other brothers have been in the faith long enough but simply do not meet the Biblical qualifications the Scriptures demand (1 Tim 3). Often times these brothers have been succesful in the “secular leadership world” and so they are under the delusion that they could lead the congregation better that “Pastor Pete” or “Deacon Sam.” They are clueless that they are clueless. So in some twisted “congregational churches” these two voting groups - women and/or unqualified men, will steal decisions God intended for the elders or deacons to decide and through the use of parlamentory procedure will do what they do.
I”m sure I’ll want to say more on this topic - good post Ted!
Polity should be congregational based, elders lead, deacons served.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
His points about women and unqualified men making decisions in a church are also very good. 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?
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.
- In Acts 14:23, “appointed” (“So when they had appointed elders in every church”).
- 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.
- In the postscript to 2 Tim. 4:22, “ordained” (“The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians”)
- In the postscript to Titus 3:15, “ordained” (“It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians”)
MS--------------------------------Luke 17:10
That said, 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.
2. Much is argued from silence here.
The idea that no record of voting exists doesn’t prove it did not happen. But…
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.
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:
And continues here:
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.
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.
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.
1. What if the plan the pastoral staff was advocating wasn’t the will of God for the church?
2. The pastor said he had prepared for “a small amount of conflict” at the meeting. If he knew there was potential for conflict, why didn’t he try and get to those people before the meeting and head off the issues? In my experience as a pastor, waiting until the meeting to address people’s concerns is generally a bad idea. Early conflict, early resolution!
3. How well were the plans communicated to the congregation? Did they have all the info needed beforehand?
4. Why was the timing such as it was? If they knew there was potential for conflict, why wasn’t there more preparation done before to try to have more unity or to allow dissenters to get out their frustrations and leave?
As much as we despise the “don’t mess with God’s anointed” view of the leaders, isn’t what this pastor and deacons were doing very similar? It seems to be another way to circumvent the congregation and what might be the will of God as expressed through them. There are assumptions made without congregational vote that are dangerous. Many times we have found that bringing issues before the congregation provides solutions that would not have otherwise been known. If a leader does not trust his congregation and assumes “they must not be spiritual” (I got that sense from the article), then maybe the pastor and the church are not a good match. I would be bold enough to say that in the case mentioned above that the pastor ought to leave, as they did in this case.
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
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?”Um, because he voted to kill a man. The problem wasn’t the act of voting. It is what the vote was to accomplish that was sinful. In addition, it wasn’t in a church context, but in a political context, probably of the Sanhedrin. So there is really no connection of this event to church polity.
But, that’s not the only reference to voting in the Bible.
Acts 6:1-6 clearly implies voting. In fact, the clarity of that text means that “implies” may be way too weak of a word to describe what happened there. The congregation (You) was to select from among them (3000+) seven men. That means a group of 3000+ were to somehow select only 7. How do you do that without some sort of vote? Some sort of distinguishing act by a large group? The apostles specifically did not appoint them. There were no elders. It was a vote of some sort.
Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 5 both have clear implications of a vote being the act of a congregation (not a person) to put someone out of the church. Anytime a group of people does something, there is a vote of some sort, however implicit or explicit that vote may be. Even elder boards are run by votes, even if they require everyone to vote the same way (unanimity). So you don’t escape the problem there.
And it is necessary to note in 1 Cor 5 and Matt 18 and 2 Cor 2:6-8 that it is the congregation (the church) that puts them out (or reaffirms their love), not the leadership, the elders, or even the apostles.
The case that is sometimes made is that elder boards are safe votes because they are spiritually mature men. In fact, as I already mentioned, many elder run churches requiring unanimity, which means everyone has to vote the same. And this, I think, leads to the heart of the problem which minimizes the biblical mission. This view exacerbates the clergy-laity distinction, a distinction which is not found in Scripture with respect to understanding and applying the Word of God. This view essentially (or explicitly at times) says, “There are spiritual people among us who are equipped by the Spirit for decision making, and there are the rest of you (most of you) who just need to sit back and accept that we speak for God in this congregation.”
IMO, it would be better for elders to take disciple-making seriously so that the body is equipped, growing, spiritually mature, and therefore exercising their God-given responsibilities to be a part of the body of Christ.
[Larry]…..Great point, Larry.
IMO, it would be better for elders to take disciple-making seriously so that the body is equipped, growing, spiritually mature, and therefore exercising their God-given responsibilities to be a part of the body of Christ.
MS--------------------------------Luke 17:10
IOW, why do young people have a church vote at 18 years old, or single/divorced women, or people who attend sporadically, or have the spiritual discernment of a rutabaga…?Not sure why you pick these groups, but an 18 year old can have spiritual maturity as can a single or divorced woman if Christians are making disciples. If they are simply running organizations, they may not be increasing the spiritual maturity of their members.
In our church, people who don’t attend regularly don’t get to vote or speak at a congregational meeting, and people with the “spiritual discernment of a rutabaga” generally don’t show up anyway. Assuming that a church is carrying out its mission of making disciples and is practicing biblical church discipline, there will probably be few of these types that are part of your congregation. Spiritually growing people are generally the result of disciple making.
Did Biblical ‘voting’ involve the entire congregation, or just the elders?The only evidence for votes in the NT is the congregation in the passages I give above. The NT, to my recollection, never speaks of an elder board, or of the interaction between elders. As you can see above, Ted makes little attempt to connect his argument to Scripture in this article.
His biblical references amount to Acts 26:10 which I would argue he misuses, Eph 2:20 and 3:5 which I would argue have to do with the foundation of the church not its operation, and an unexplained reference to Titus 1:5 (it is not clear what he is trying to argue from there).
Ted’s statement that 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 is simply inaccurate as I and others have already shown from Matthew, Acts, and 1 and 2 Corinthians. Somehow, in those passages, the will of the congregation is made known. Assuming Ted’s argument doesn’t hang on a narrow definition of “vote” such as filling out some secret ballot or punching a chad, it is hard to imagine how the will of the congregation would be made known apart from some sort of vote to ascertain consensus.
So I realize in a short article such as Ted has written, it is hard to make much of a case. IMO (and perhaps no one else shares my opinion) we would be better served seeing less experiential arguments (like what happened in a church meeting) and more exegetical interaction with the story of the text. The truth is that we could point to elder run churches that are just as troubled (or more troubled) than congregational run churches. And in the end, the experience in a particular locale depends on leadership quite often.
It would be interesting to know how Ted’s church selects deacons and how they practice church discipline. Those are the two explicit cases of Scripture which seem to require congregational action. How does he accomplish this congregational action in his church?
Ted and I differ on this and that’s certainly fine.
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.What about Rick Warren? I listened to his tapes in the early 90’s repeatedly. Although I never bought his compete philosophy, I still argue that Warren was right about a number of things. I do not know if it made it to print, but Rick Warren clearly states that voting is bad; he says it brings disunity and makes for winners and losers. And he says this repeatedly.
But, since I had his notes from his seminar I attended (and since it was the same as the tapes and the same as the book, Purpose Driven Church), I never did buy the book. Yet my experience with Seeker-Sensitive churches is that they do not vote.
We vote rarely (in my view, as an accommodation to Western culture), but our officers are affirmed (no competition but members approve or disapprove) and if we spend more than an average week’s offering on a given project, the members also have to approve. So we minimize voting, but we still do it. Since the Bible does not forbid it, we are in the realm of wisdom and freedom. Still, I would argue, that wisdom says voting is bad for unity. But it is good for creating a sense of ownership, another big need.
How important do you think a sense of ownership is? Is it important for the church to be “us,” or is it okay for the church to be “them,” as implied in the statement, “the church today needs to do….?” I try to encourage people to look in the mirror and say, “the church needs to do….”
"The Midrash Detective"
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)
- Church discipline (other than inactivity)
- Budget
- Call of pastors
- Election of officers (elders / deacons)
- Purchase and sale of property
[Larry]I picked those groups becauseIOW, why do young people have a church vote at 18 years old, or single/divorced women, or people who attend sporadically, or have the spiritual discernment of a rutabaga…?Not sure why you pick these groups, but an 18 year old can have spiritual maturity as can a single or divorced woman if Christians are making disciples. If they are simply running organizations, they may not be increasing the spiritual maturity of their members.
In our church, people who don’t attend regularly don’t get to vote or speak at a congregational meeting, and people with the “spiritual discernment of a rutabaga” generally don’t show up anyway. Assuming that a church is carrying out its mission of making disciples and is practicing biblical church discipline, there will probably be few of these types that are part of your congregation. Spiritually growing people are generally the result of disciple making.
a) Why wait until they are 18? Because that is the age of a legal adult in America? What if they are mature enough at 15? What if they are still dependents living at home at, say, 24 yo?
b) Women aren’t to hold positions of authority in the church, hence why should they have the power to make decisions and alter the course of the church?
c) How many services must a person attend to be considered a ‘faithful’ member?
d) People with the spiritual discernment of a rutabaga often LOVE to exercise it in church business meetings, and are sometimes well-versed in faking spirituality.
e) In every congregation, there are milk-drinkers and meat-eaters- do spiritual babes also get a vote?
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.
a) Why wait until they are 18? Because that is the age of a legal adult in America? What if they are mature enough at 15? What if they are still dependents living at home at, say, 24 yo?It’s a wisdom issue. Some churches it is less or more.
b) Women aren’t to hold positions of authority in the church, hence why should they have the power to make decisions and alter the course of the church?Most men aren’t to hold positions of authority either; Only elders do. But the Bible clearly pictures the congregation making decisions. Acts 6 doesn’t speak only to men; nor does Matt 18 or Corinthians.
c) How many services must a person attend to be considered a ‘faithful’ member?Here it is 13 out of 39 in a quarter (so basically once a week). Again, it’s a wisdom issue. Allowances here are made for health, work, travel, etc. Allowances are not made for deserting the body. The reality is that the people who show up at congregational meetings are the “regulars.” We have never had to invoke the “active membership” requirement because inactive members do not show up at congregational meetings even though we have an eligibility list.
d) People with the spiritual discernment of a rutabaga often LOVE to exercise it in church business meetings, and are sometimes well-versed in faking spirituality.Don’t know about this, but it is usually fairly easy to expose faulty thinking. And if elders know the congregation, I would imagine it is much easier. I have never lost a vote. We don’t vote on much. But before these issues I do enough thinking and talking with people to know what the objections and responses will be. So I lead carefully. If you refuse to talk to people and listen to them, you can create dissension in the body.
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.
Constantly voting on small things on a monthly basis is silly and unnecessary. A pastor has to be able to manage the church with help from other pastors and deacons. No accountability to the congregation, however, would be just as dangerous as having the congregation actually managing the church. Both are extreme. No matter what the system, if you don’t have a plurlality of godly men in leadership, the system will fail.
I don’t recommend teenagers and children having the right to vote. They are young, immature, untested in life, and are not considered adults culturally and legally. Full membership rights and responsibilities should only belong to adults. Dever, I believe, does not vote children or teens into membership for these reasons.
Pastor Mike Harding
Discussion