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).
[Ted Bigelow]Ted, I don’t understand your logic at all. I don’t think you’re addressing Steve’s point, either. You immediately shift from God’s sovereign (decretive) will to His revealed will.[Steve]You are right. It wasn’t God’s sovereign will, for it did not come to pass. The same is true of voting in church. It isn’t God’s revealed will in Scripture, and we are unwise to do it.
As with the other comments above, I have issues with saying “voting and congregational vote is the problem”. Consider the following questions from the example above:
1. What if the plan the pastoral staff was advocating wasn’t the will of God for the church?
What Steve is saying is that you can’t decide if what congregation did was wrong simply because there was a bad outcome. You could say the same thing about any elder-rule decision. What if the elders decide the church should no longer preach from the Bible but rather from Quran? You wouldn’t say, “See, elder-rule is bad!”
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
The only evidence for votes in the NT is the congregation in the passages I give above.Larry, you are reading voting into these passages. They teach voting as much as they teach the use of lots in decision-making, which is to say, they don’t.
The NT, to my recollection, never speaks of an elder board, or of the interaction between elders.Check out 1 Tim. 4:14, and then read Acts 21:18-25.
As you can see above, Ted makes little attempt to connect his argument to Scripture in this article.Maybe Aaron will let me write some more?
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,Larry, these verses teach that all things whatsoever that relate to the church, whether doctrinally, or practically, rest on the foundation of the NT apostles and prophets. The apostles (and NT prophets) taught churches how to act as churches. There are a lot of letters in the NT written by them to authoritatively teach churches how to act as churches.
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.It doesn’t. And Larry, the Lord is not interested in something you call “the will of the congregation.” He is interested in His will alone, and that we obey it, not compete with it by trying to figure out our own (Luke 17:10).
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?
The NT describes in sufficient and full detail how these are to be done, and I take the time in my book - in the early chapters, to detail it out.
Thanks again, Larry.
Hi Ed, greetings from Africa, my midrashic brother.
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.
Ouch, guilt by association!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.
Why not do this instead of voting – “If anyone in the congregation has a biblical reason for why we shouldn’t go ahead and do XYZ, would you kindly help us see it?
RE: leaders – they were never appointed by voting in the NT. So why is it a matter of freedom when the Scripture details how God does want it done – Titus 1:5-9….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….”Bro, the church needs to look in the Scripture and see what God says about it what it should be. My opinion (or even yours) is worthless. Ownership actually is THE ISSUE. So, when you vote, who owns your church, Christ, or men? Since Christ doesn’t teach us to vote in church, we can only be presumptuous to claim we are doing His will, Or worse, we are acting arrogantly. What happens when they vote in a man into leadership who does not match up to the qualifications? Who owns it then? Not only have we acted presumptuously by voting on a matter God has not given us permission to vote, but we teach our congregation that even though God doesn’t say we should do it this way, we still do anyway. We teach them to look at their leaders as accountable to their voice in voting, not God’s voice in Scripture.
Larry, et. al. -
Thank you for your effort to formulate a Biblical response to this challenging question. I appreciate your desire to correct the errors of those who wish to be lords over God’s heritage (1 Pet 5:3, Matt 23:7-9). You rightly understand that the argument concerns the priesthood of the believer versus the mega-church governance models of Rick Warren and Willow Creek.
For those seeking an anti-dote against “back-door popery”, AH Strong provides some helpful remarks about historic Baptist church governance in volume 3 of his Systematic Theology.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:25-27) .
Thank you for your effort to formulate a Biblical response to this challenging question. I appreciate your desire to correct the errors of those who wish to be lords over God’s heritage (1 Pet 5:3, Matt 23:7-9). You rightly understand that the argument concerns the priesthood of the believer versus the mega-church governance models of Rick Warren and Willow Creek.
For those seeking an anti-dote against “back-door popery”, AH Strong provides some helpful remarks about historic Baptist church governance in volume 3 of his Systematic Theology.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:25-27) .
Hi Mike, thanks for weighing in.
[Mike Harding] There is a basis for voting members into a church, “added to the church,” and voting disorderly brethren out (Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5).Mike, as I briefly explain to Aaron above, those verses don’t teach voting. For more info, it’s in the book. They simply don’t say what you claim, bro.
It is necessary to vote on major financial issues such as church budgets, land purchases, major projects. A handful of people simply does not have the right to spend millions of dollars of other peoples’ money without some kind of approval. How is a church to accept a pastor without voting? Do six men secretly agree to it in a room and then next Sunday the new pastor shows up? The appointment by Paul and Timothy of elders may have been the arrangement of a vote or possibly a direct appointment. Paul, however, was an apostle and Timothy was Paul’s apostolic representative. There are no apostles today!
A thing is “right” or not based on Scripture, for God defines what is right or wrong. Since God doesn’t tell us to vote, but does instead teach us how the church is to be run in Scripture, who are we to claim we should do it another way (i.e., voting)?No accountability to the congregation, however, would be just as dangerous as having the congregation actually managing the church.
I agree. However, the accountability votes provide to a church minimizes the accountability God wants them to have. The accountability God wants every congregation to have of their leaders is the full corpus of the Bible. Voting exchanges the priesthood of the believer for a political right. God wants every member of my church to have total authority over me by the use of Scripture, which is really His authority. I don’t want to minimize them! I want to maximize them for the glory of Christ and the advancement of the church.I don’t recommend teenagers and children having the right to vote.Good point. But God doesn’t recommend anybody vote in church.
[Charlie] I’m curious if anyone practices household voting? Each household gets one vote.Hi Charlie - no doubt, some do. But not with Scriptural directive, or example.
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.Hi Paul,
The practice is based on 1 Cor. 14:34, 35.
Several years I spoke with the then president of WELS. He was very helpful, and very clear on their “male only” voting stance (as well as “closed communion). Women only started voting in churches in the later half of the 20th century, so the practice is quite recent in church history.
[Pastor Harold] 10-2 against going into the Promise Land. Majority rules in a democracy. Who’s idea was that???Indeed, advocates of majority rule need to ask themselves, “how often in Scripture is the majority obeying God?”
[Aaron Blumer] Ok, two random thoughts.Just left 2 weeks in South Africa, and am in Malawi for ministry until next week. Glorious time here :)
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.
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.Bro, the issue isn’t what works, or not, but what God says, right. And He is so abundantly clear and singular on this matter.
[Larry] 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 don’t advocate voting for elders since we have the word of God, but if there were a criteria for voting, it would be the elder qualifications, since they are God’s “stewards” - Titus 1:7. But a steward is not a representative.
Men who meet people’s qualifications and are elected are their representatives. But men who meet God’s requirements are His stewards. And the two are not the same thing. Not by a mile. One is accountable to those who elect, the other is accountable to Him who qualifies.
[KevinM] 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.The only way to argue rightly is to patiently and carefully exegete all relevant Scripture. When that is done, Scripture provides a homogeneous form of church government. It takes about 3 minutes to see. Go ahead and download the first chapter of my book at www.thetitusmandate.org.
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.Have you heard mine? Just kidding.
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).Hey, what did I say? Voting is a bad idea ;)
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.You left out biblical eldership, my brother, which is none of those three.
[Dan Miller] Ted,Thanks, Dan. You will find a very lengthened discussion in the book.
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.
Well, I wasn’t advocating for the building project. Indeed, the church had major problems, which I trace back to an unscriptural polity that brings division. Elders “who push through” anything are likely “self-willed,” and therefore unqualified to be called elders (Titus 1:7). Pity that congregation that doesn’t follow Scripture, but wrongly elects such men into leadership.
[Jeff Brown] Say Ed, maybe you could establish this point somehow. Could you give your exegetical basis for the statement that he ekklesia in Matt 18:17 means hoi presbyteroi?It might be more accurate to say that most commentaries do not touch this issue. Here is Barnes:
I also am not convinced that most commentators say this. Perhaps you could back that up.
Verse 17. Tell it unto the Church. See Barnes “Matthew 16:18”. The church may here mean the whole assembly of believers; or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases—the representatives of the church, or those who act for them. In the Jewish synagogue there was a bench of elders, before whom trials of this kind were brought. It was to be brought to the church, in order that he might be admonished, entreated, and, if possible, reformed. This was, and is always to be, the first business in disciplining an offending brother.Here is a quick quotation from Jay Adam’s book, Handbook of Church Discipline
The idea of I Timothy 5:19-21 seems to me to imply that since the elders are in charge of discipline in the church, they must be held to a high standard. Additionally, it is the job of the elders (or church leaders) to watch over the souls of church folks (Hebrews 13:17); since they will give account for those souls, it seems strange the decisions should be made by people who are not accountable. It is logical that leaders should lead.
Frequently in the Old Testament when God wished to speak to Israel as a whole, He summoned and addressed the elders who then conveyed His message to the people… This is probably the meaning of “tell it to the church”: tell it to the church by telling it to the elders…” p. 69
I would argue that going THROUGH the elders and the elders leading is how this is brought to the church. Leaders are also deciders. That is implicit in the office. Asking one group to lead and another to decide is contradictory.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ted Bigelow] @MshepRight. I am a bit jealous. We are still waiting for the rainy season here in Liberia and the highs have been in the 90’s all week - and the forecast is the same for the coming days: Fri - 93°, Sat - 93°, Sunday - 92°, Mon - 92°, Tues - 91° (wait! - do I see a cooling trend??!!). We were in a missions conference some years ago with some missionaries from the mountains of Cameroon. We thought, “Now why can’t we live someplace like that?”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.
[Ted Bigelow]I agree that the statement “In the N.T.” may not have been the best choice of words (although I have read there are some scholars who believe that we should look at these inscriptions as canonical). This is why I referred to them as “postscripts” meaning, not part of the quoted verse.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.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.
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”)
[Ted Bigelow] 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.I have read your article (above), your responses to others’ arguments, and the first chapter of your book. While you make a good case for plural eldership, you seem to read a little too much between the lines in talking about merging churches, etc. I do not discount that interpretation as invalid, but if you are building your whole case on not voting in the church on this evidence, your case is weak.
Blessings - Ted
All that being said, I do agree there are many problems with the “voting” model. I would be glad to hear your alternative. Please state simply how you believe elders should be chosen and how can they have accountability without input from the local body.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Ted,
Would you say that John MacArthur’s church is wrong to practice voting?
Cordially,
Greg
Would you say that John MacArthur’s church is wrong to practice voting?
Cordially,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
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.”Actually Larry it doesn’t say that at all.
Shepherds don’t let sheep vote to know what to do. They are in that position precisely to lead. Failure to lead is a failure of the position.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Plurality and authority of Elders
Acts 11:30
And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.
(greek word for elder here is presbyteros – a ruling council)
Acts 14:23
When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23 and 16:4
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue…When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them…The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter…Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, …and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings…Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.
Acts 20:17
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.
Acts 20:28
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Acts 21:18
And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons
I Thess 5:12-13
But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
I Timothy 5:17
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
Titus 1:5
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you
James 5:14
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord
1 Peter 5:1-2
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness
Hebrews 13:7
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
All of this demonstrates beyond question that the church is to have plural elders. Acts 14:23 is explicit in this regard.
Further, believers are told to do the following to the elders:
1. Appreciate
2. Highly esteem
3. Give double honor
4. Go to them when sick
5. Obey
6. Submit
Elders in turn are told to:
1. Be active in doctrinal disputes
2. Oversee
3. Shepherd
4. Labor
5. Give instruction
6. Rule well
7. Exercise oversight
The absence of any kind of vote is noted. Other rhetorical questions would be asked:
What sheep get to vote out the shepherd? What employees get to overthrown the manager?
No, elders are called to rule well. Passing it off to others is a failure to fulfill their task.
Acts 11:30
And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.
(greek word for elder here is presbyteros – a ruling council)
Acts 14:23
When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23 and 16:4
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue…When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them…The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter…Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, …and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings…Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.
Acts 20:17
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.
Acts 20:28
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Acts 21:18
And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons
I Thess 5:12-13
But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
I Timothy 5:17
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
Titus 1:5
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you
James 5:14
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord
1 Peter 5:1-2
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness
Hebrews 13:7
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
All of this demonstrates beyond question that the church is to have plural elders. Acts 14:23 is explicit in this regard.
Further, believers are told to do the following to the elders:
1. Appreciate
2. Highly esteem
3. Give double honor
4. Go to them when sick
5. Obey
6. Submit
Elders in turn are told to:
1. Be active in doctrinal disputes
2. Oversee
3. Shepherd
4. Labor
5. Give instruction
6. Rule well
7. Exercise oversight
The absence of any kind of vote is noted. Other rhetorical questions would be asked:
What sheep get to vote out the shepherd? What employees get to overthrown the manager?
No, elders are called to rule well. Passing it off to others is a failure to fulfill their task.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
It should be further noted that neither Matt 18 nor 1 Cor 5 say anything about voting.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Hi Jim!
I now know what you feel about the issue of voting. But since the church is God’s creation, I want to know what Christ “feels” about it. I hope you don’t want to build “Jim’s church.” I am sure you want to submit to Christ who is building His church, right? So our opinion on the matter has no value, right? Let’s study His gift of communication to us on the matter of decision making in the church, and then obey it. For when we do, we obey Him and live as those who belong to Him (Luke 17:10).
Sorry, my brother. I got to cut it off at that point.
It would be nice to vote “less”
Examples:
o 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:
o Church discipline (other than inactivity)
o Budget
o Call of pastors
o Election of officers (elders / deacons)
o Purchase and sale of property
Others … not so much
I agree with this except for Church discipline. I feel….
I now know what you feel about the issue of voting. But since the church is God’s creation, I want to know what Christ “feels” about it. I hope you don’t want to build “Jim’s church.” I am sure you want to submit to Christ who is building His church, right? So our opinion on the matter has no value, right? Let’s study His gift of communication to us on the matter of decision making in the church, and then obey it. For when we do, we obey Him and live as those who belong to Him (Luke 17:10).
From Jim Peet:
Hey Ted,We vote as often as Jesus and His apostles taught us to vote. Which is as often as they taught us to hit ourselves in the head with a hammer.
It would be helpful to see a chart in a grid expressing what folk in your church vote on
Thanks
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.Thanks to all of you who are weighing in. I am your brother, if you love the word of God, and obey it (Mark 3:35). It is 6 AM in Malawi. The birds are outside, chirping away. I preach this morning and teach later on preaching. Ahh, what a blessed life my Lord has given me, and I am so unworthy.
Anyway, the book does sound interesting. Dan Miller… maybe you’d be interested in writing a review for us?I would be honored.
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).Absolutely true, so here’s another reason to read the book. The Titus Mandate (Titus 1:5) doesn’t say to appoint elders in every church, but “in every town.” There is a reason for that difference, but I can’t get into here. I explain it in the first chapter of the book, which is available for free at the www.thetitusmandate.org site.
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.Thanks Jeff, hope you are doing well, brother.
Titus 1:5-9 teaches how Christ wants elders appointed, and is the scriptural pattern churches should use today. It dovetails in perfectly with 1 Tim. 5:21-25, and 1 Tim. 3:1-7.
I explain it in detail in the 4th chapter, bro. It’s quite simple, but also, quite humbling. You might also read chapter 8, on elder testing.
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.Ed, I’d like to disagree with you here, bro. Larry feels passages like Acts 6, 1 Cor. 5, 2 Cor 2:6 teach voting. I say they don’t, but that the NT does teach us how to make decisions as congregations in unity.
As I’m writing this, the rains just started here in Malawi. And I have Toto in my head, “I blessed the rains down in Africa.” As I write this the rains are deafening! Quite awesome.
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?Ed, my bro, we don’t need to balance off God’s sufficient (complete) revelation. We just need to know it, and do it. Titus 1:5-9 teaches us, in compact language, the whole biblical process of appointing only qualified men in local church leadership.
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.Right, so God calls us to unify around Scripture – all of us.
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.So true. And God even gives you instruction on how to deal with it in such a way that the whole church is sanctified – 1 Tim. 5:19-20. The language is compact, but sufficient for every such situation in God’s church. But that process in 1 Tim. 5:19-20 can only be obeyed in biblical eldership, without voting. No other form of church governance can obey it exactly as it is written because it is built on a foundation other than Scripture.
Larry, my brother, allow me to snipe in here….
Deacons are also explicitly given to the congregation to choose (which implies some sort of voting).Where? If its explicit, let’s see it. And since its explicit, please don’t use Acts 6. There is no mention of deacons there, by which I mean to say, that God in infinite wisdom and as an act of His wisdom did not reveal deacons in Acts 6.
[Ted Bigelow] Thanks, Dan. You will find a very lengthened discussion in the book.It’s in the mail.
[Ted Bigelow] Well, I wasn’t advocating for the building project. Indeed, the church had major problems, which I trace back to an unscriptural polity that brings division. Elders “who push through” anything are likely “self-willed,” and therefore unqualified to be called elders (Titus 1:7). Pity that congregation that doesn’t follow Scripture, but wrongly elects such men into leadership.What I meant by “push through” was that the decision of the elders would happen even though the majority of the congregation was opposed to it.
Your objection to “push-through” as “self-willed” is confusing. Are you saying it is always wrong for the elders to decide and do something against the will of majority of the congregation?
So what I’ve gained from Ted’s post and his responses is…read his book. ;)
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Ted Bigelow]I’m sorry, gentlemen, but I missed the part where a vote was taken in Exodus.[Pastor Harold] 10-2 against going into the Promise Land. Majority rules in a democracy. Who’s idea was that???Indeed, advocates of majority rule need to ask themselves, “how often in Scripture is the majority obeying God?”
Perhaps we should use wicked King Ahab as an example of what can happen when power drunken men seek to lord over God’s heritage.
[Ted Bigelow] Bro, the issue isn’t what works, or not, but what God says, right. And He is so abundantly clear and singular on this matter.You claim that Scripture never alludes to voting and then turn around and say that what God says is “so abundantly clear and singular on this matter.” By “this matter,” I believe you refer to church polity in general. I find it difficult to take that type of a comment seriously after reading pages of back and forth here…
My biggest concern with your approach is the hermeneutic that runs throughout your article and comments. You seem to believe that Scriptural silence on a matter is equivelent to a positive statement on a matter. But it is not.
Is it not possible that God intended the church to apply the principles which are indeed “abundantly clear and singular” in culturally appropriate ways in areas in which Scripture is silent (that is not to concede that Scripture is silent on voting)? Is it not possible that it is not a black and white issue? That there is room for varying methods of decision making within the biblical framework of church polity and body life? Do we have a right to demand an “abundantly clear and singular” answer to every question we may choose to raise?
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
[Ted Bigelow]Ted, I want to challenge you that it might not be helpful to state things in this way.Deacons are also explicitly given to the congregation to choose (which implies some sort of voting).Where? If its explicit, let’s see it. And since its explicit, please don’t use Acts 6. There is no mention of deacons there, by which I mean to say, that God in infinite wisdom and as an act of His wisdom did not reveal deacons in Acts 6.
Were those men in Acts 6 Deacons? Most people seem to think so. The Text doesn’t use the word. But the description… And does it matter? They were certainly officers in the church of some sort.
Often the Text doesn’t say something that we might wish it either said or denied. To attribute every omission to “God in infinite wisdom and as an act of His wisdom” is dangerous. Certainly God is infinitely wise. Certainly He inspired the authors of Scripture. But when you phrase it this way, it tends to remove the unknown from the unknown. So you’ll tend to read “NO!” into a “No comment.” Sometimes He, in His infinite wisdom wished to keep it unknown.
Also, your reference to God’s wisdom tends to suggest that anyone who honestly thinks that Acts 6 refers to deacons (which I would think you realize is the majority (we could vote!) of scholars) - anyway, your appeal to God’s wisdom suggests that these scholars somehow deny God’s wisdom by seeing deacons. That’s a little disrespectful to your colleagues and will add more heat than light, IMO. Better to warn them that there’s a chance that deacons aren’t intended.
I think I can’t catch up at this point.
Looks like it’s been a stimulating discussion though.
A couple random responses:
Susan’s observations about milk Christians and meat Christians are valid, contra whoever it was that argued the point. Heb.5.14. We really do have varying levels of maturity, surely nobody’s denying that. So if there is a way to increase the participation of the mature and decrease the participation of the immature, that certainly makes sense to me.
Ed’s got a solid point—and Ted also to a degree—that voting can cause disunity.
If you take a simple decision and hand it to a committee, it’ll take six months to reach the decision and half the members will be mad at the other half by the end. (Aaron’s highly-unoriginal insights #13: Never give a job to a committee if an individual can do it!).
So churches have sometimes suffered needless disunity as a result of discussion of what could have been a simple decision—and isn’t really an important one.
The question on that, to me, is how exactly is the disunity created in these cases? I’ve seen it happen. People get interested in a question, get all passionate about it and invested in it when—without discussion and voting—they would have hardly given it a moment’s thought. So what’s the real problem there?
Perhaps it’s a problem of prior commitment to a process. That is, if the body as a whole has participated in deciding that matters of carpet color will be decided by the trustees or by committee X, then the chosen people make the decision and that’s that. You’ll have some immature types who will still resent it but you can tell them: the body decided the decision would be made this way.
If you have all this stuff decided all at once and spelled out in policies, then it’s kind of a done deal forever thereafter.
In general, it seems prudent to me for congregationally governed churches to adopt policies/procedures that assign relatively minor decisions to leaders or small groups so disunity is not created by dumping trivial matters on the entire body to bounce around and vote on.
(Again, this is not really much of a factor in churches with less than 20 people showing up for business meetings!)
KevinM… about Dever and elder rule. Thanks. I stand corrected. His model is indeed not “elder ruled,” but “elder led.”
NEXT WEEK:
Looks like we’ll have something on this from Dr. Jeff Brown who did his PhD work on congregational polity.
Looks like it’s been a stimulating discussion though.
A couple random responses:
Susan’s observations about milk Christians and meat Christians are valid, contra whoever it was that argued the point. Heb.5.14. We really do have varying levels of maturity, surely nobody’s denying that. So if there is a way to increase the participation of the mature and decrease the participation of the immature, that certainly makes sense to me.
[Ted] Back it up with Scripture, Aaron. Back up that voting is “a way of discerning the Lord’s leading.”I mentioned two situations in Scripture where a consensus was measured in some way. In both of them the implication that this is the Lord’s leading in the body. So we’re talking about finding a mechanism. If it’s not voting, how do you propose that this be done?
Ed’s got a solid point—and Ted also to a degree—that voting can cause disunity.
If you take a simple decision and hand it to a committee, it’ll take six months to reach the decision and half the members will be mad at the other half by the end. (Aaron’s highly-unoriginal insights #13: Never give a job to a committee if an individual can do it!).
So churches have sometimes suffered needless disunity as a result of discussion of what could have been a simple decision—and isn’t really an important one.
The question on that, to me, is how exactly is the disunity created in these cases? I’ve seen it happen. People get interested in a question, get all passionate about it and invested in it when—without discussion and voting—they would have hardly given it a moment’s thought. So what’s the real problem there?
Perhaps it’s a problem of prior commitment to a process. That is, if the body as a whole has participated in deciding that matters of carpet color will be decided by the trustees or by committee X, then the chosen people make the decision and that’s that. You’ll have some immature types who will still resent it but you can tell them: the body decided the decision would be made this way.
If you have all this stuff decided all at once and spelled out in policies, then it’s kind of a done deal forever thereafter.
In general, it seems prudent to me for congregationally governed churches to adopt policies/procedures that assign relatively minor decisions to leaders or small groups so disunity is not created by dumping trivial matters on the entire body to bounce around and vote on.
(Again, this is not really much of a factor in churches with less than 20 people showing up for business meetings!)
KevinM… about Dever and elder rule. Thanks. I stand corrected. His model is indeed not “elder ruled,” but “elder led.”
NEXT WEEK:
Looks like we’ll have something on this from Dr. Jeff Brown who did his PhD work on congregational polity.
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.
Good discussion. I would add, that using Ted’s reasoning, the folks who forbid the use of musical instruments in the New Testament church must be correct. They are certainly correct that there is no specific precpet to use them, nor clear example of their being used. Am I correct to assume that Ted’s church allows no instrumental accompanyment?
Cordially,
Greg
Cordially,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
If you look at what the elders are supposed to do in the role, and then note how no one ever voted in anything related to church practice in the NT, you can see that it isn’t an argument from silence as GN Barkman and others say.
The problem is that the practice is so rooted in American democracy that it is just offensive to even think about getting rid of it.
Elders must rule, not as lords, but they still must rule.
The problem is that the practice is so rooted in American democracy that it is just offensive to even think about getting rid of it.
Elders must rule, not as lords, but they still must rule.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
@James
I think bringing in plurality is a bit of a red herring. We are not talking about plurality vs. singularity, and really not even talking about leadership. We are talking about foundational authority. Voting is not an act of leadership or an act of ruling. So that contrast is, IMO, misguided.
What do you do when one elder disagrees with another? One of them or both of them get overruled. So you have an elder who is supposed to lead/rule/etc, but cannot do so. So I don’t think you solve the problem by your method. You just confine to a smaller group of supposedly more spiritual men.
And of course we know that elders are always really spiritual and never sin, teach false doctrine, make wrong choices, lead to do wrong things, abuse children, and the like.
Of course I speak in jest, but the reality is that you don’t solve the problem
Congregational authority is not rooted in American democracy. It existed prior to American democracy and outside of American democracy.
I think bringing in plurality is a bit of a red herring. We are not talking about plurality vs. singularity, and really not even talking about leadership. We are talking about foundational authority. Voting is not an act of leadership or an act of ruling. So that contrast is, IMO, misguided.
The absence of any kind of vote is noted.I would suggest that the absence of some key passages on your part is also noted. You say that no one ever voted on anything in the NT, but the only way you can maintain that is by ignoring that by some means the church in Matt 18 and 1 Cor5 and Acts 6 came to a consensus (or should have come to a consensus).
Other rhetorical questions would be asked:These aren’t questions the Bible asks though, and they do not seem to be questions based on anything in the Bible. The apostles, in Acts 6, specifically gave the responsibility to choose servants to diakon- to the congregation.
What sheep get to vote out the shepherd? What employees get to overthrown the manager?
No, elders are called to rule well. Passing it off to others is a failure to fulfill their task.I agree, and I think most would. But I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that an elder not rule well, or that he pass it off to others. I certainly am not.
It should be further noted that neither Matt 18 nor 1 Cor 5 say anything about voting.So how would the church do something apart from some sort of vote? Anytime you have a group of people you have to have some mechanism of expressing consensus, even among the elders. How do you achieve that consensus?
What do you do when one elder disagrees with another? One of them or both of them get overruled. So you have an elder who is supposed to lead/rule/etc, but cannot do so. So I don’t think you solve the problem by your method. You just confine to a smaller group of supposedly more spiritual men.
And of course we know that elders are always really spiritual and never sin, teach false doctrine, make wrong choices, lead to do wrong things, abuse children, and the like.
Of course I speak in jest, but the reality is that you don’t solve the problem
Congregational authority is not rooted in American democracy. It existed prior to American democracy and outside of American democracy.
[James K] If you look at what the elders are supposed to do in the role, and then note how no one ever voted in anything related to church practice in the NT, you can see that it isn’t an argument from silence as GN Barkman and others say.You’ll note, of course, that Congregationalism precedes American democracy. In fact, I’ve read that the harmony produced by congregation-ally ruled churches were an encouragement to American democracy, rather than a result of it.
The problem is that the practice is so rooted in American democracy that it is just offensive to even think about getting rid of it.
Elders must rule, not as lords, but they still must rule.
Obviously there are teachings in the Bible that are crystal clear and unquestionable (though people will always try to twist them). There are also concepts in the Bible that are a bit more vague or even ambiguous (these stimulate a lot of great discussion on SI). I’m convinced that even the ambiguity in scripture is inspired. The difference in clarity helps us understand the difference in application of Biblical teachings.
No, I’m not saying that some scriptures are “more inspired” than others. I’m simply suggesting that in some areas the scripture intentionally allows for more flexibility in interpretation.
For example, while the qualifications of church leadership is made very clear, the exact structure of leadership is a little more vague. That doesn’t mean that anything goes — we should work at systematically studying all the relevant biblical data and staying as close to it as possible. However, I believe that some details of church polity, like how much of a role the congregation plays, are flexible, and can be adapted to different cultures. The way Cambodians view leadership is very different from an American approach to government.
While I certainly agree with the overall sentiment here that too much congregational authority can be a bad thing, I’m unwilling to be very dogmatic about church voting.
No, I’m not saying that some scriptures are “more inspired” than others. I’m simply suggesting that in some areas the scripture intentionally allows for more flexibility in interpretation.
For example, while the qualifications of church leadership is made very clear, the exact structure of leadership is a little more vague. That doesn’t mean that anything goes — we should work at systematically studying all the relevant biblical data and staying as close to it as possible. However, I believe that some details of church polity, like how much of a role the congregation plays, are flexible, and can be adapted to different cultures. The way Cambodians view leadership is very different from an American approach to government.
While I certainly agree with the overall sentiment here that too much congregational authority can be a bad thing, I’m unwilling to be very dogmatic about church voting.
Without congregational rule, how does the church receive an accusation against an elder by two or three witnesses?
1 Tim 5:19-20 - “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”
What are we to do in the event the elders bring heresy or gross immorality into our church? Nothing?
Also, how would a group of believers start a church? It would be effectively impossible to begin a church unless we had an apostle appoint the first elder, so that there would be someone to appoint other members and elders.
1 Tim 5:19-20 - “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”
What are we to do in the event the elders bring heresy or gross immorality into our church? Nothing?
Also, how would a group of believers start a church? It would be effectively impossible to begin a church unless we had an apostle appoint the first elder, so that there would be someone to appoint other members and elders.
Ted, Thanks for the gracious response. Here’s a quick one. I don’t want to get tied up in a back and forth here on specific statements for the sake of time, so I won’t address everything, just a few key points.
Perhaps you are hung up on the word “vote.” By “vote” I think we only mean come to a consensus on the matter in front of us. You comment on Acts 6 that Luke says they “chose,” not voted. A choice can be done many ways. But at the end of the day a vote by any other name is still a vote. It is a “choice” made by a group of people. The congregation as a whole by some means set apart seven men. I don’t see any way you do that apart from some sort of congregational action.
I do not know how a group of people (either elders or the church) come to any consensus without some sort of vote of some type. Even if you go around the room and ask, “Do we agree on this?” it is a vote. It happens in elder’s meetings all the time. In 1 Cor 5 and Matt 18, there is a command for a group of people to do something. There has to be someway for that group to express it’s will. That is a vote, no matter what you call it. The only way you avoid this is with a solo pastor who has complete control.
Why should I, as a pastor, presume that God gives me special insight into his Word and Will? Pastoral gifting and calling does not deal with, IMO.
Someone has to choose them right? Presumably every qualified man is not an elder, so you select from among the qualified men. If more than one person is involved, it amounts to a vote.
James asks if the shepherd lets the sheep vote. The answer is yes, if we follow the pattern of Matt 18/1 Cor 5/Acts 6. But the mistake is thinking that a vote equals leading. It doesn’t. As I point out, our own form of government is based on voting and no one thinks that the voters are leading. We choose leaders.
Ted, you talk about voting for deacons and Acts 6 and say there is no mention of deacons there. And that’s true, unless you include vv. 1-2 in Acts 6. In vv. 1-2, diakon- is used twice to describe the function of these men in the body. Furthermore, the qualifications given for the men who who would “diakon-ing” in v. 3 would fit very well with the extended list in 1 Tim 3. While I know it is disputed (and perhaps because of the ramifications of congregational authority), it would be most strange if that was not a reference the first deacons, chosen by the congregation, at the behest of the teachers of the word, to serve the congregation in material things so that the teachers of the word can serve in spiritual things.
In other words, you have function of deacons (serving not leading) and the qualifications of deacons (Spirit filled, wise). It would be a most torturous case, IMO, for that to be something other than a deacon. And if those are not deacons, what are they? And where do we find any NT information about what a deacon is to do?
The word “representative” was used by Ted as an argument, that someone voted in was a representative while an elder was a steward. I disagree. I don’t think elders are representatives of anyone but God. But I think the pattern of Scripture is congregational in authority.
Here’s what I see (not having read Ted’s book). There is an abundance of argument based on words (voting, representative, leading) and based on logic (sheep leading shepherd, voting equaling authority, spiritually immature people leading and having same vote as spiritually mature people), etc. But IMO, it doesn’t really address the Scripture sufficiently.
Again, IMO, the case for congregational authority is clear in Scripture and nothing here has (again IMO) come close to a case against it.
Thanks again for the gracious exchange.
In our churches, it expresses presumptuousness. God never tells us to do it, no apostle tells us to do it… and yet we do it. And then we find Bible references to support the act. And as I argue, we take them out of context to make them say something they don’t.I don’t think voting expresses presumptuousness at all. I think God told us that the congregation is to have authority. I think on certain issues it expresses submission to God’s word and affirms the work of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ.
Perhaps you are hung up on the word “vote.” By “vote” I think we only mean come to a consensus on the matter in front of us. You comment on Acts 6 that Luke says they “chose,” not voted. A choice can be done many ways. But at the end of the day a vote by any other name is still a vote. It is a “choice” made by a group of people. The congregation as a whole by some means set apart seven men. I don’t see any way you do that apart from some sort of congregational action.
I do not know how a group of people (either elders or the church) come to any consensus without some sort of vote of some type. Even if you go around the room and ask, “Do we agree on this?” it is a vote. It happens in elder’s meetings all the time. In 1 Cor 5 and Matt 18, there is a command for a group of people to do something. There has to be someway for that group to express it’s will. That is a vote, no matter what you call it. The only way you avoid this is with a solo pastor who has complete control.
Larry: The apostles specifically did not appoint them. Ted: Bro, see Acts 6:6.And? Acts 6:6 does say anything about appointing or choosing. It says they laid hands on them. “They” (the congregation) brought them (the seven they had chosen; vv. 3, 5) to the apostles.
A biblical church wants only God’s voice in Scripture, not men’s voices, whether the elders, or the congregation, right?Or The Titus Mandate? :) We all recognize that God has not spoken comprehensively about every single matter a church might face. And the church therefore must find some other way of seeking God’s face for his will. I believe that the Holy Spirit equips every single believer for this task. And appoints elders to lead them through this task.
Why should I, as a pastor, presume that God gives me special insight into his Word and Will? Pastoral gifting and calling does not deal with, IMO.
And Larry, the Lord is not interested in something you call “the will of the congregation.” He is interested in His will alone, and that we obey it, not compete with it by trying to figure out our own (Luke 17:10).The Bible uses phrases like “seemed good to them,” and similar phrases that express my point in “the will of the church.” I do not set that against the will of God.
The NT describes in sufficient and full detail how these are to be done, and I take the time in my book - in the early chapters, to detail it out.I would love to see a quick description of how you choose elders and deacons here.
Someone has to choose them right? Presumably every qualified man is not an elder, so you select from among the qualified men. If more than one person is involved, it amounts to a vote.
James asks if the shepherd lets the sheep vote. The answer is yes, if we follow the pattern of Matt 18/1 Cor 5/Acts 6. But the mistake is thinking that a vote equals leading. It doesn’t. As I point out, our own form of government is based on voting and no one thinks that the voters are leading. We choose leaders.
Ted, you talk about voting for deacons and Acts 6 and say there is no mention of deacons there. And that’s true, unless you include vv. 1-2 in Acts 6. In vv. 1-2, diakon- is used twice to describe the function of these men in the body. Furthermore, the qualifications given for the men who who would “diakon-ing” in v. 3 would fit very well with the extended list in 1 Tim 3. While I know it is disputed (and perhaps because of the ramifications of congregational authority), it would be most strange if that was not a reference the first deacons, chosen by the congregation, at the behest of the teachers of the word, to serve the congregation in material things so that the teachers of the word can serve in spiritual things.
In other words, you have function of deacons (serving not leading) and the qualifications of deacons (Spirit filled, wise). It would be a most torturous case, IMO, for that to be something other than a deacon. And if those are not deacons, what are they? And where do we find any NT information about what a deacon is to do?
The word “representative” was used by Ted as an argument, that someone voted in was a representative while an elder was a steward. I disagree. I don’t think elders are representatives of anyone but God. But I think the pattern of Scripture is congregational in authority.
Here’s what I see (not having read Ted’s book). There is an abundance of argument based on words (voting, representative, leading) and based on logic (sheep leading shepherd, voting equaling authority, spiritually immature people leading and having same vote as spiritually mature people), etc. But IMO, it doesn’t really address the Scripture sufficiently.
Again, IMO, the case for congregational authority is clear in Scripture and nothing here has (again IMO) come close to a case against it.
Thanks again for the gracious exchange.
Thanks for answering, Ed. I do not have access to a theological library in English. I will simply note from my own library: Alford, H.A.W. Meyer, JFB, A.B. Bruce (Expositors GNT), Lenski, Hendricksen, Carson (EBC), all interpret Matt. 18:17 as describing an action by the whole church. It is hard to find this passage in Calvin’s Commentaries. Glasscock interprets ekklesia as any group of Christians. That, of course is a limited number of commentaries, but I would guess a larger sample would result in the same pattern, which would be that the overwhelming view among commentators is that the whole church (obviously in a locale) takes the action on the sinning brother. No doubt, a survey is recorded in a dissertation somewhere.
Thank you for explaining your reasoning for your interpretation by pointing to the responsibility of elders. I will not contradict the importance of their role in the church (and likely role in the process of discipline). My response is twofold: first, Jesus had not yet said a word to his disciples about elders when he gave the pattern for disciplining an erring brother. And no apostle later says a word about disciplining all erring brothers through the elders. Second, making ekklesia = presbyteroi does not work linguistically.
Both Emil Schürer History of the Jewish People 2:431 and Strack and Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 1:787 point out that the practice of discipline carried out by the whole congregation is unique in ancient Judaism to Jesus and His followers and the Qumran community.
Only a strained exegesis will interpret Matthew 18:17 as anything other than action by the whole congregation. Of course, actually doing it is another matter. But I would recommend the simple obedience of this passage when the serious case takes place in your congregation. I say from experience that it works, works positively on the whole congregation, and though it is never easy, no elder ever has to give up one atom of his leadership to bring it to pass. In fact, I have always led the whole process. I know as well that many, many pastors can give the same testimony.
Thank you for explaining your reasoning for your interpretation by pointing to the responsibility of elders. I will not contradict the importance of their role in the church (and likely role in the process of discipline). My response is twofold: first, Jesus had not yet said a word to his disciples about elders when he gave the pattern for disciplining an erring brother. And no apostle later says a word about disciplining all erring brothers through the elders. Second, making ekklesia = presbyteroi does not work linguistically.
Both Emil Schürer History of the Jewish People 2:431 and Strack and Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 1:787 point out that the practice of discipline carried out by the whole congregation is unique in ancient Judaism to Jesus and His followers and the Qumran community.
Only a strained exegesis will interpret Matthew 18:17 as anything other than action by the whole congregation. Of course, actually doing it is another matter. But I would recommend the simple obedience of this passage when the serious case takes place in your congregation. I say from experience that it works, works positively on the whole congregation, and though it is never easy, no elder ever has to give up one atom of his leadership to bring it to pass. In fact, I have always led the whole process. I know as well that many, many pastors can give the same testimony.
Jeff Brown
Ted (a truly amazing brother) wrote:
Do we have any verses that suggest we are to imitate the practices of the early church as a whole? I only see specific prescriptions for things like communion, preaching, etc., and qualifications for officers. But if y you compare what is commanded in Scripture with our constitutions and bylaws, a lot of that is culturally based or a result of the school of hard knocks.
Even if we learned from church history how the early church did things (what time they met, etc.), how can we defend the assumption that we are to imitate their practices, apart from those commanded?
Ed, my bro, we don’t need to balance off God’s sufficient (complete) revelation. We just need to know it, and do it. Titus 1:5-9 teaches us, in compact language, the whole biblical process of appointing only qualified men in local church leadership.I do not see it that way at all. We need to distinguish between DESCRIPTION and PRESCRIPTION. If we had a clear prescription “bring it to a vote,” we would not be having this discussion. The point is that we are trying to develop a way to govern, etc., based upon what was described in Acts, which is quite partial and nowhere stated as description.
Do we have any verses that suggest we are to imitate the practices of the early church as a whole? I only see specific prescriptions for things like communion, preaching, etc., and qualifications for officers. But if y you compare what is commanded in Scripture with our constitutions and bylaws, a lot of that is culturally based or a result of the school of hard knocks.
Even if we learned from church history how the early church did things (what time they met, etc.), how can we defend the assumption that we are to imitate their practices, apart from those commanded?
"The Midrash Detective"
Jean Calvin’s Commentary on ActsThanks for the fine quote by John Calvin, the great theologian of the Holy Spirit. But on this matter he is wrong. The text of God plainly states that the elders in those churches were appointed only by Barnabas and Saul, not by “free election.” He read that into the text, and his reasons for doing so were historically conditioned – they were coming out of the RCC and the priests who controlled everything. However, I think he is right in understanding the word “cheirotoneo” as referring to, either metaphorically, or literally, the laying on of hands – not voting.
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.
Hi Ed, I think you are right - some do infer elders into the Mat. 18 text. But they should only do it if other Scripture so allows, not because Mat. 18:15-20 discusses elders. It doesn’t.
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.
For me, I would would see 1 Peter 5:1-4 as calling elders to shepherd the flock. And 1 Thess. 5:12-13 tells the church to support those “who have charge over them in the Lord.” Hebrews 13:17 tells us to obey our leaders. So it seems to me that subsequent revelation places upon qualified elders the responsibility to shepherd the church. To have the church ignore their role in matters of restoring lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14) is to refuse to recognize the role of progressive revelation concerning the church.
[Greg Long]Hi Greg, I had hoped to hear from you, brother.
Ted, I don’t understand your logic at all. I don’t think you’re addressing Steve’s point, either. You immediately shift from God’s sovereign (decretive) will to His revealed will.
What Steve is saying is that you can’t decide if what congregation did was wrong simply because there was a bad outcome. You could say the same thing about any elder-rule decision. What if the elders decide the church should no longer preach from the Bible but rather from Quran? You wouldn’t say, “See, elder-rule is bad!”
I am sorry where my logic is not clear. Allow me to try again.
Steve’s point was in the form of a question: “What if the plan the pastoral staff was advocating wasn’t the will of God for the church?”
My answer was to explain that his question wasn’t referring to God’s will in biblical terms. There are only two categories of God’s will – decretive, and revealed.
So, A), we know it wasn’t God’s decretive will for the building to go ahead, for it didn’t happen.
B) God’s word does not reveal whether it should build, but provides a massive amount of informing principles that come to play in every decision.
So Steve’s question was outside the bounds of a solid discussion of God’s will.
Steve, if you are reading this, no offense intended at all. Check out a good systematic theology on God’s will. It is a glorious topic.
[AndrewSuttles] Larry, et. al. -Andrew, i assure your fears are misplaced. Godly men, the kind of men Titus placed into authority in the churches on Crete, were not the kind of men you describe above. These men HAD TO BE “above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching.” (Titus 1:7-9).
Thank you for your effort to formulate a Biblical response to this challenging question. I appreciate your desire to correct the errors of those who wish to be lords over God’s heritage (1 Pet 5:3, Matt 23:7-9). You rightly understand that the argument concerns the priesthood of the believer versus the mega-church governance models of Rick Warren and Willow Creek.
For those seeking an anti-dote against “back-door popery”, AH Strong provides some helpful remarks about historic Baptist church governance in volume 3 of his Systematic Theology.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:25-27) .
The men you describe are not those men. And if Titus had placed those men you describe in leadership, he would have greatly sinned by disobeying Paul, disobeying Christ, and violating Scripture. The same is true when we vote men into leadership. We do not follow Scripture when we do that, and we get the kind of men our votes deserve.
Right. I am a bit jealous. We are still waiting for the rainy season here in Liberia and the highs have been in the 90’s all week - and the forecast is the same for the coming days: Fri - 93°, Sat - 93°, Sunday - 92°, Mon - 92°, Tues - 91° (wait! - do I see a cooling trend??!!). We were in a missions conference some years ago with some missionaries from the mountains of Cameroon. We thought, “Now why can’t we live someplace like that?”Its coming, bro. Hang in there! Besides, you’ll probably get front seats in the kingdom. BTW, I’m at African Bible College (Lilongwe) right now. Know the place?
I have read your article (above), your responses to others’ arguments, and the first chapter of your book. While you make a good case for plural eldership, you seem to read a little too much between the lines in talking about merging churches, etc. I do not discount that interpretation as invalid, but if you are building your whole case on not voting in the church on this evidence, your case is weak.Fair enough. So the book has a whole chapter on merging. I just wanted to introduce it in chapter 1.
All that being said, I do agree there are many problems with the “voting” model. I would be glad to hear your alternative. Please state simply how you believe elders should be chosen and how can they have accountability without input from the local body.The biblical model is Titus 1:5-9, which was perpetuated by the churches on Crete, and was employed by all NT churches under apostolic teaching (i.e., 1 Tim. 5:22, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:28).
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,Hi brother!
Would you say that John MacArthur’s church is wrong to practice voting?
Cordially,
Greg
In answer to your question, I would.
However, I’ve never seen them do it, and I was a member there 5 years. And if they had done it, everybody would have justly asked, “where in the Bible does Jesus or the apostles teach us to vote in church?”
[James K] It should be further noted that neither Matt 18 nor 1 Cor 5 say anything about voting.May your tribe increase, James! And also note that the NT says nothing about electing elders of any kind.
Your objection to “push-through” as “self-willed” is confusing. Are you saying it is always wrong for the elders to decide and do something against the will of majority of the congregation?Hi Dan,
No, not at all. But the illustration under discussion at that time was about a “push through.” Sometimes godly leaders need to do something a majority of the congregation doesn’t want because God’s word commands something. For example, if Corinth had qualified elders, they would have been going up against a majority, perhaps, in the discipline case of 1 Cor. 5.
[Greg Long] So what I’ve gained from Ted’s post and his responses is…read his book. ;)Well, yes and no. Don’t just read it. Meditate on it too.
[Jason]That’s a valid observation. Thanks. But you see, the NT is not silent on the how a church is to make decisions. It is by the Word of God, not the policies of men. For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time. And violating 1 Cor. 1:10 is high handed sin. So the Bible isn’t silent on it.
My biggest concern with your approach is the hermeneutic that runs throughout your article and comments. You seem to believe that Scriptural silence on a matter is equivelent to a positive statement on a matter. But it is not.
Is it not possible that God intended the church to apply the principles which are indeed “abundantly clear and singular” in culturally appropriate ways in areas in which Scripture is silent (that is not to concede that Scripture is silent on voting)? Is it not possible that it is not a black and white issue? That there is room for varying methods of decision making within the biblical framework of church polity and body life? Do we have a right to demand an “abundantly clear and singular” answer to every question we may choose to raise?Hmmm, unlikely. When we go the cultural route, we invariably lose Scriptural authority in place of man’s wisdom.
When a church selects leaders in a culturally sensitive way it is not acceptable to God. Consider an African tribe that chooses leaders by examining animal entrails. Or by observing which person(s) in the room an animal walks to first. Or votes, Or double-slate votes. Or lots. Or archbishops.
These methods of selecting leaders for Christ’s church do not rely on Christ who has told us how to do it. Of course His way is averse to every cultural form. His way is holy and sanctifies both the prospective leader, and the church. Men’s ways are formed upon their stance against God and His holy ways.
I asked the question a while back:
Where a consensus acted, as in Acts 6 and 2Cor2 (probably related to 1Cor5) as a way of discerning the Lord’s leading together, how were they do identify the consensus if not by voting?
If we assuming it’s at least OK to do what Acts 6 and 2Cor2 imply, how would we do it without some kind of vote?
If that’s been answered here somewhere, I seem to have missed it.
Where a consensus acted, as in Acts 6 and 2Cor2 (probably related to 1Cor5) as a way of discerning the Lord’s leading together, how were they do identify the consensus if not by voting?
If we assuming it’s at least OK to do what Acts 6 and 2Cor2 imply, how would we do it without some kind of vote?
If that’s been answered here somewhere, I seem to have missed it.
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.
Featured Resource
Discussion