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).
- 5598 views
[Shaynus]…...
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.No, both answers are not correct. This is one point that has not been discussed in this thread. Here is what I see: A pastor and his fellow elders were “ready to lead the congregation into a building project.” However, either through their own lack of attention to the seriousness of problems in the body or because the problems had been hidden from them, the “building project” discussion turned into a discussion about budget issues (could the church afford this?) and people who had left because they had problems with the leadership. IOW they wanted to push forward a building project (many times stressful even for a healthy church) despite these signs of disunity in the body. When they saw the direction the meeting was going, they should have tabled the discussion until the other issues could be dealt with.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this……
Shepherds are supposed to lead their sheep, not drive them. By using an extra-biblical parliamentary “trick” (“you are out of order”) or declaring “we are the leaders; we should just go ahead without consulting the body” the leaders of this church would be attempting to force the church to follow them - even if the body had serious problems or questions that needed to be discussed. A building program is not more important than the body-life of the church.
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church. OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
Shaynus, I know there are times when there are one or two troublemakers in the church that always want to bring up their pet subject or “problem” every time there is a business meeting. While these situations can pop up - and it may be appropriate in those times to rule them “out of order” - in general this indicates that church discipline is not being practiced. Instead, those who are divisive should be rebuked by the leadership and if they continue, put under corrective discipline (Tit. 3:10).
However if it is a major part of the body that have problems that are not being faced or are against a project you will win the battle but lose the war by ignoring them, ruling them “out of order” or winning with 51% of the vote. Sometimes these votes are necessary but they should be saved for the times when the two parts of the body can only separate since they cannot walk together without being agreed (Amos 3:3). Extremely disgruntled people (esp. if they are flesh-driven people) are not going to calmly follow the leadership because they have been voted down or ruled “out of order.”
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
(For some reason, the text of my post keeps disappearing.)
[Shaynus]…..
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.No, both answers are not correct. This is one point that has not been discussed in this thread. Here is what I see: A pastor and his fellow elders were “ready to lead the congregation into a building project.” However, either through their own lack of attention to the seriousness of problems in the body or because the problems had been hidden from them, the “building project” discussion turned into a discussion about budget issues (could the church afford this?) and people who had left because they had problems with the leadership. IOW they wanted to push forward a building project (many times stressful even for a healthy church) despite these signs of disunity in the body. When they saw the direction the meeting was going, they should have tabled the discussion until the other issues could be dealt with.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this……
Shepherds are supposed to lead their sheep, not drive them. By using an extra-biblical parliamentary “trick” (“you are out of order”) or declaring “we are the leaders; we should just go ahead without consulting the body” the leaders of this church would be attempting to force the church to follow them - even if the body had serious problems or questions that needed to be discussed. A building program is not more important than the body-life of the church.
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church. OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
Shaynus, I know there are times when there are one or two troublemakers in the church that always want to bring up their pet subject or “problem” every time there is a business meeting. While these situations can pop up - and it may be appropriate in those times to rule them “out of order” - in general this indicates that church discipline is not being practiced. Instead, those who are divisive should be rebuked by the leadership and if they continue, put under corrective discipline (Tit. 3:10).
However if it is a major part of the body that have problems that are not being faced or are against a project you will win the battle but lose the war by ignoring them, ruling them “out of order” or winning with 51% of the vote. Sometimes these votes are necessary but they should be saved for the times when the two parts of the body can only separate since they cannot walk together without being agreed (Amos 3:3). Extremely disgruntled people (esp. if they are flesh-driven people) are not going to calmly follow the leadership because they have been voted down or ruled “out of order.”
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Nice to hear back, Joe.
Votes among men who are genuinely elder qualified is not really a problem, but it’s sort of like using a hammer to put in a wood screw. There are better ways that bring harmony.
Are you saying that congregations can’t vote, but that elders can?I am familiar with elder boards that use modified versions of parliamentary procedure just because each month brings so much to the agenda. The real question is not votes, per se, but what they do with differing opinions and principles. I am flying back from Africa where I counseled an elder board in a large church who was split. They have men who are qualified on the board, and a number of unqualified men on the board. They are involved in a messy church discipline case, and as you might suspect, those who are qualified are committed to Christ’s pattern of dealing with sin, while those who aren’t are not. They cannot work in unanimity, as Scripture teaches, because in the past they disobeyed Christ and put men into leadership who violate His standards, and now they are paying a steep price.
Votes among men who are genuinely elder qualified is not really a problem, but it’s sort of like using a hammer to put in a wood screw. There are better ways that bring harmony.
I’m trying to understand (haven’t read your book). Is the issue, in your understanding, voting itself, by its very definition, is wrong because it displays disagreements in the body of Christ? So the congregation doesn’t vote and the elders do not vote either?Voting per se is not the problem. It is the surface representation of a deeper problem – of an unwillingness and distrust to govern the church according to Christ’s pure, holy, sanctifying, and edifying standards (hence 1 Cor. 1:10, for example).
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church.Hey brother – as you no doubt know, there are often people matters which must be kept private.
In biblical eldership, the elders are accountable to the congregation to the full extent of Scripture. There couldn’t be any higher accountability than to perfectly obey everything God says.
OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
[Seth Johnson] I have looked up “vote” in every dictionary in my house and multiple websites, I have read completely the Titus Mandate(prior to this discussion) and I know too much the trauma of church division from both elder and congregationally structured churches.Seth, I appreciate the comments. Could you give me more specifics of unkind words? (I’m still in Africa, will be back soon).
That said there are obvious disagreements that Godly men who love the Word have over this issue, disagreements which shall not be settled by these posts.
Letting each one be convinced in his own mind, let then those who have not become convinced not be marked as unthinking or unlearned men. The high goal, not highest, but high goal of communication here is understanding which falls not fully on the learner but in greater part upon the teacher. Bear patiently then with those who disagree. Cast them not as those pursuing the world, but growing in grace. Welcome them not to the conversation if it is only to chide them like children.
Brother Ted, you are well loved, respected and to be thanked for your passion in this area. But please consider a little more grace to those, like me, who are the ‘weak’ not yet having come to agreement. If someone says “i don’t understand” then it behooves you choose different, perhaps better words.
if you are not yet back in the states - God bless you as you travel. If so - welcome home to CT. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
But I disagree with the application of Rom 14:5 to this matter, That passage speaks of weak in faith vs. strong in faith in which both walk with equal integrity before the Lord. The matter I am writing about is a matter of righteousness and submission to Scripture.
Ted,
I find it unkind to have read your instructions to men, myself included to ‘go read’ and ‘go look up in the dictionary’ as if they had not thought of doing so, be it dictionary, Scripture passage or your book. Real men are wrestling with these issues and it is unkind to speak as if they have not done any study or cannot apply Scripture well.
Many questions apply to the practicality of decision making or the receptivity of decision making. Perhaps your next book will shed better light.
I find it unkind to have read your instructions to men, myself included to ‘go read’ and ‘go look up in the dictionary’ as if they had not thought of doing so, be it dictionary, Scripture passage or your book. Real men are wrestling with these issues and it is unkind to speak as if they have not done any study or cannot apply Scripture well.
Many questions apply to the practicality of decision making or the receptivity of decision making. Perhaps your next book will shed better light.
[Ted Bigelow] Voting per se is not the problem. It is the surface representation of a deeper problem – of an unwillingness and distrust to govern the church according to Christ’s pure, holy, sanctifying, and edifying standards (hence 1 Cor. 1:10, for example).Thanks for the input, Ted. Frankly, I’m still puzzled.
If I understand your above paragraph, then the title of this thread might rather be “Is Congregational Disunity Biblical?” I say that because, if I understand what you wrote here, voting is not the problem; disunity is the problem. So you are not against ‘voting’ as a means of making decisions… you are against the disunity you think voting reveals. Is that correct?
And the reference to 1 Cor 1 is puzzling, because earlier you said that Scripture is not developing church polity in 1 Cor 1.
Do you think elders vote as a board to make decisions for the church as a body?
Joe
If I understand your above paragraph, then the title of this thread might rather be “Is Congregational Disunity Biblical?” I say that because, if I understand what you wrote here, voting is not the problem; disunity is the problem. So you are not against ‘voting’ as a means of making decisions… you are against the disunity you think voting reveals. Is that correct?Well, I wrote the article to get people thinking through the reasons the Lord does not reveal voting as a means for how He wants biblical congregations to come to God-glorifying, scripturally obedient, decisions. If we believe the Scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, and the Bible doesn’t teach voting, then why do it? A corollary to that is this assertion: no one ever read the Bible and was encouraged to go vote in church.
And the reference to 1 Cor 1 is puzzling, because earlier you said that Scripture is not developing church polity in 1 Cor 1.Many Scriptures provide direct principles that apply to church polity, but yet are not teaching polity as directly as Titus 1:5 does. For example, Eph. 4:3, while not discussing church polity, provides the Christian with authoritative commands that govern polity: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” It’s a verse that teaches the same principle as 1 Cor. 1:10, and as it applies to the matter of voting, we who must ask how motions, debate, and divisions of matters fulfill Christ’s word to us to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?” Parliamentary procedure does not have as its goal how to obey the voice of God in Scripture, but how to ascertain the will of the majority while providing room for the voice of the minority. But our unity as Christians does not come about as we match up our majority and minority positions, but as we embrace Scripture.
Do you think elders vote as a board to make decisions for the church as a body?Jesus Christ has never asked an Christian to vote in a church meeting so as to arrive at a decision, so it fails Mat. 22:37 and Mat. 4:4. Voting carries the same potential weaknesses among elders as it does among the congregation to the extent parliamentary leads them away from Eph. 4:3.
God uses words to describe elders that are indicative of what He wants them to do. Titus 1:7 calls qualified elders (i.e., men with advanced spiritual maturity as measured by objective standards) - “God’s stewards” – as opposed to “church member representatives.” In 1 Thess. 5:12 they are “those who have charge over you.” In Heb. 13:17 they are “leaders” - the word there meant governmental leader. In 1 Tim. 3:4-5, and 5:17 they are those who “rule.” In Titus 1:6 they are called “overseers.” In Acts 15 they, along with the apostles, make ruling decisions over the churches. They are never called “representatives,” councilmen, selectmen, or assemblymen, which are words consonant with leadership in a voting framework.
[Ted Bigelow]They would have sinned - by choosing not to obey God in their church discipline.[dan miller] Look at 1 Cor 5. The church is rebuked for having not disassociated themselves with him. You don’t have to take a vote to not associate with a brother in sin.Yes, I understand. But since the congregation is not told to vote in 1 Corinthians 5, but to obey by putting the man out, it’s worth trying. Have you considered what would have happened if the Corinthian church voted… and voted to keep the impenitent man in?
I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote.
Practically ANY human choice involves an opportunity to sin. That doesn’t mean that the form of the choice is invalid. I’ll come back to this.
[Ted Bigelow]Sorry, I missed that post.[dan miller] Especially when you add 2 Cor 2:6, where the punishment of an excommunicated member is said to have been “by the majority.” This verse was initially brought up by Aaron and has received no attention.2 Cor. 2:6 was answered in post 43.
[Ted Bigelow, post #43] This verbal reproof of the majority comes to an impenitent church member in submission to Jesus’ command to the church in Mat. 18:17Ted, you addressed 2 Cor 2:6 in two ways: (Response on pg. 278, The Titus Mandate)
1. You address the nature of the “punishment.” You minimize this from the traditional understanding of exile to a group verbal reprimand. You say that this word appears many times in the NT, “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.”
My response to your response:
The Greek word: 1) This is actually the only time that this word appears in the NT. Here it is a noun. The verb form is used many times. It is likely that the noun refers to the same concept as the verb, but this is not always so.
2) Some uses of the verb would certainly not be a “brotherly correction” as you assert:
Context:
In this case, the context says that whatever it was, there was an ongoing consideration of guilt and lack of reception of this man. Paul’s concern that the church judge him had turned into concern that the man will be swallowed up with guilt. This seems totally consistent with a man to whom the church has said, “You are not one of us.” He was expelled.
Is 2 Cor 2 “Episode 2” of 1 Corinthians 5?
A lot of people think so. (JF&B, M.Henry, ) Paul attributes the way the Corinthians punished this man to his own previous writing.
2. You respond to the fact that this was done by the “majority” (or the “most”). “It would be just as fair to claim that a majority of the church closed a door in his face, issued a restraining order, or stayed away from his meat business. It’s all conjecture. The claim that a vote was taken only reads into the text what one hopes to find.”
John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible: “from whence we learn, that in case of gross enormities, there ought to be a public excommunication; and that this is to be done by the vote, and with the consent of the whole church, or the major part of it.”
A.T.Robertson’s Word Pictures: “they had taken his advice and expelled the offender.”
Barnes’ Notes: “Which was inflicted of many - By the church in its collective capacity; see the note on 1 Corinthians 5:4. Paul had required the church to administer this act of discipline, and they had promptly done it. It is evident that the whole church was concerned in the administration of the act of discipline; as the words ‘of many’ (ἀπὸ τῶν πλείονων apo tōn pleionōn are not applicable either to a single” bishop, or a single minister, or a presbytery, or a bench of elders: nor can they be so regarded, except by a forced and unnatural construction. Paul had directed it to be done by the assembled church 1 Corinthians 5:4, and this phrase shows that they had followed his instructions. Locke supposes that the phrase means, ‘by the majority;’ Macknight renders it, “by the greater number;” Bloomfield supposes that it means that the ‘punishment was carried into effect by all.’ Doddridge paraphrases it, ‘by the whole body of your society.’ The expression proves beyond a doubt that the whole body of the society was concerned in the act of the excommunication, and that is a proper way of administering discipline. Whether it proves, however, that that is the mode which is to be observed in all instances, may admit of a doubt, as the example of the early churches, in a particular case, does not prove that that mode has the force of a binding rule on all.”
Ted, if you want to discard the obvious reading of this text, you’ll need to provide a plausible alternative reading.
Is it really reasonable to think they issued a restraining order? I’m not a 1st century historian, but that seems anachronistic.
Your first alternate conjecture, that the majority closed a door in his face, sounds like James K’s response:
[James K] Regarding the sinful man at Corinth, Paul said in 1 Cor 5:3 that he had already decided what to do. He expected them to follow through with what he already decided. Paul did not decide to let them vote. Paul decided to cast the man out. The majority then in being obedient to Paul had to cast him out. I don’t think that situation requires a vote of any kind. In fact, I would think their vote at that point would have been sinful.Did the body at Corinth vote and then act in unity to punish? Or did they not vote, but acted in disunity with the majority punishing and a minority not punishing?
If they didn’t vote and instead acted individually, that would have been very divisive. Much more divisive than a vote, which in my experience is not divisive when led by reasonable Biblical leadership. Those who didn’t expel would have still received him. How can you have part of a church expelling and part of it receiving? I don’t see how the church could even stay together as one church for very long like that. And that’s our model for step 4 church discipline?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I’m only on ch. 4 in your book, but I read ahead to the 2 Cor 2 section.
[Ted Bigelow] A corollary to that is this assertion: no one ever read the Bible and was encouraged to go vote in church.Have you not read anyone on these passages? Lots of people read Acts 6, Acts 14, 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 2, etc. and are encouraged to vote in church. You may not read it that way, but to assert that no one does is weird.
[Dan Miller]But my brother, those verses don’t talk about voting. Even if I adopt the view that these texts teach the congregation makes an authoritative choice (which I don’t), those texts wouldn’t tell me that the choice of the congregation was made by voting any more than they would tell me the congregation made their choice by lots, or any other means.[Ted Bigelow] A corollary to that is this assertion: no one ever read the Bible and was encouraged to go vote in church.Have you not read anyone on these passages? Lots of people read Acts 6, Acts 14, 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 2, etc. and are encouraged to vote in church. You may not read it that way, but to assert that no one does is weird.
Dan, thanks for taking your valuable time to study these issues. I really enjoy this interaction, and you are making me think. Thank you. Obviously I can’t respond point by point, so I’ll just try to hit what I see are your central points. But if I fail to capture something central to you, please let me know.
Re 2 Cor. 2:6
I do not believe in the “group verbal reprimand,” as you write it above. I believe the church members are to do the same confrontation with the impenitent member as the individual and witnesses do in Mat. 18:15-16 - personal. This is based on Jesus’ use of “listen” with all three groups (individual, witness, church). Also note the use of the ascensive “kai” in 18:17b, which shows Jesus is commanding ever increasing levels of personal rebuke.
And I’m always a little leery of “traditional understandings,” aren’t you? When you consider that voting in churches didn’t begin until the late 1500s, and didn’t become widespread until the latter 1700s, it sort of pulls the rug out from a “traditional understanding,” no?
Here’s why I don’t think we should think the man was expelled, but rather only reprooved: (p. 301, The Titus Mandate):
Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. To me anyway, that’s hardly a place I would want to rest my argument upon. After that, you quote several sources that agree with your opinion, but that is hardly determinative, for there are others who disagree. It does not appear you have taken into account the instances where epitimao is used in contexts similar to 2 Cor. 2:6 such as Luke 17:3 and 2 Tim. 4:2. Perhaps when time allows you can look up the word in respected Bible dictionaries, such as TDNT and NIDNTT?
Ted: Look at 1 Cor 5. The church is rebuked for having not disassociated themselves with him. You don’t have to take a vote to not associate with a brother in sin. Dan: I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. Ted:Perhaps you did come back to this, and I missed it. My question for you is simple. If the Corinthian church voted not to put the man out, what should Paul’s response have been to them based on Christ’s teachings?
Yes, I understand. But since the congregation is not told to vote in 1 Corinthians 5, but to obey by putting the man out, it’s worth trying. Have you considered what would have happened if the Corinthian church voted… and voted to keep the impenitent man in? Dan:They would have sinned - by choosing not to obey God in their church discipline.
Practically ANY human choice involves an opportunity to sin. That doesn’t mean that the form of the choice is invalid. I’ll come back to this.
Re 2 Cor. 2:6
You minimize this from the traditional understanding of exile to a group verbal reprimand. You say that this word appears many times in the NT, “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.”Again, thanks for reading the book. The quote from my book that you have cited has a footnote reference to both TDNT, 2:625, and NIDNTT, 1:572. There you will find scholarly support contrary to the congregational interpretation of epitimao in 2 Cor. 2:6. Obviously, the context is the use of epitimao in person to person rebuke, not Christ’s rebukes to demons. I don’t think you want to go down the road of using Jesus’ rebukes and expulsions of demons as your basis for seeing a congregational vote to expel a member, do you?
I do not believe in the “group verbal reprimand,” as you write it above. I believe the church members are to do the same confrontation with the impenitent member as the individual and witnesses do in Mat. 18:15-16 - personal. This is based on Jesus’ use of “listen” with all three groups (individual, witness, church). Also note the use of the ascensive “kai” in 18:17b, which shows Jesus is commanding ever increasing levels of personal rebuke.
And I’m always a little leery of “traditional understandings,” aren’t you? When you consider that voting in churches didn’t begin until the late 1500s, and didn’t become widespread until the latter 1700s, it sort of pulls the rug out from a “traditional understanding,” no?
Actually, the man’s guilt doesn’t tell us whether the man had merely been verbally reproved (Mat. 18:17a), or expelled (Mat. 18:17b). We have to make that determination from other factors in the text. The vital factor is, “what does epitimao in 2 Cor. 2:6 mean?”
In this case, the context says that whatever it was, there was an ongoing consideration of guilt and lack of reception of this man. Paul’s concern that the church judge him had turned into concern that the man will be swallowed up with guilt. This seems totally consistent with a man to whom the church has said, “You are not one of us.” He was expelled.
Here’s why I don’t think we should think the man was expelled, but rather only reprooved: (p. 301, The Titus Mandate):
This immediate restoration that Paul commands is without a requirement of repentance from the sorrowing man. This shows that this man was never put out of the church. Anyone rejoining a church after the fourth step requires repentance. Rather, Paul tells the church twice to forgive him without the man needing to confess sin or perform any appropriate deeds of repentance (2 Corinthians 2:7, 10). In other words, this was a sorrowing and hurting man who had no unconfessed sin related to this incident to repent of and forsake. For this reason, it does not make sense to regard this individual as the immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5. Before being allowed back into the Corinthian church, the immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5 had to leave his father’s wife. He also had the responsibility to ask forgiveness of the church for his sin of hard-heartedness against them all. Sorrow alone would not have been enough for him to be restored into the church (2 Corinthians 7:10b).
Ted, if you want to discard the obvious reading of this text, you’ll need to provide a plausible alternative reading.I do at length in the book, and it is more obvious than claiming a church vote in 2 Cor. 2:6.
Is it really reasonable to think they issued a restraining order? I’m not a 1st century historian, but that seems anachronistic.That’s my point, exactly! I write,
“It would be just as fair to claim that a majority of the church closed a door in his face, issued a restraining order, or stayed away from his meat business. It’s all conjecture. The claim that a vote was taken only reads into the text what one hopes to find.”When you dismiss my alternatives as anachronistic and unrealistic, you have provided the reason for why the idea of a church vote in the verse is to be roundly dismissed. It reads into the text something completely foreign to it.
Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. To me anyway, that’s hardly a place I would want to rest my argument upon. After that, you quote several sources that agree with your opinion, but that is hardly determinative, for there are others who disagree. It does not appear you have taken into account the instances where epitimao is used in contexts similar to 2 Cor. 2:6 such as Luke 17:3 and 2 Tim. 4:2. Perhaps when time allows you can look up the word in respected Bible dictionaries, such as TDNT and NIDNTT?
[Ted Bigelow] Perhaps you did come back to this, and I missed it. My question for you is simple. If the Corinthian church voted not to put the man out, what should Paul’s response have been to them based on Christ’s teachings?
[Ted Bigelow, #99] For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time. And violating 1 Cor. 1:10 is high handed sin.I think that this is pretty argumentative on your part. And you argue two things:
1) Voting reduces unity.
2) Voting allows the possibility of sin.
-=-=-=-= Begin Assumption =-=-=-
Ok, lets assume (though it wasn’t true) that 60% of the members at Corinth did NOT believe that The Man should be expelled.
If they voted, “not expel” would have won, and that choice would have been sinful. It would have bothered Paul, who would have prayed for grace for them and further rebuked them for their sin.
It would have been frustrating for the ones who wanted to obey. For them, there would be a serious question:Is my church really a church when she can disobey God’s commands? Then they would have wondered, Should I leave this body? Believers must ask this question whenever they are in a body that accepts sin. Stay and work for reform? or Come out? This depends on whether one sees signs that progress is likely and on God’s leading, I think. If the people who voted not to expel say they felt unsure and didn’t want to take such a drastic (and mean) step without a better understanding, then the door is open for teaching within the body. If the elders want to patiently teach the people what they need to know to be obedient here, then progress is likely and staying, working, and praying for reform is right.
Certainly, this is an uncomfortable situation. But many a shepherd has found himself leading a flock that doesn’t know yet how to obey some command. They can’t obey until they understand. Teach. Ask for obedience. Teach.
In your scenario, they don’t vote. Paul gives the command and asks for obedience. But remember, we’re assuming that 60% do not believe that he should be expelled. So they would respond by maintaining their reception of The Man. The minority would attempt to expel him, but with the majority welcoming him, he may feel free to still come.
This ALSO would be frustrating for the minority who wanted to obey. Again, Is my church really a church? And again, Should I leave this body? Stay and work for reform? or Come out?
Trying to make step 4 a individual matter is much more a recipe for disunity than voting and acting together.
Or, perhaps, 60% want to receive The Man, but the elders pronounce him “expelled.” 60% continue to receive him in disobedience to God, Paul, and their elders. Again, Is my church really a church?, etc.
This also seems less unified than the church that voted.
-=-=-=-= End of Assumption =-=-=-
I believe that a church with a Biblical notion of unified action based on congregational polity must humbly submit to the majority. So, after hearing 1 Corinthians, they voted, a majority acted to expel, and the church as a whole acted together to obey. That’s unity.
So Corinth votes: 70% for expelling. The church together as one expels.
Your unity seems like that of a husband and wife who never fight.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Your second objection is that there is the possibility of sin. You can’t let people vote; they might vote wrongly and thereby sin.
Before you is life and death: choose life. We don’t respond, “Oh, well God could not have meant to really give people that choice. That leaves the door open to sin.”
Besides, they didn’t.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The majority did punish. So if voting is what happened, then it worked for the obedience of all. That is way better than leaving the minority to act in their own private disobedience and having the church send The Man such mixed messages.
[Ted Bigelow] And I’m always a little leery of “traditional understandings,” aren’t you? When you consider that voting in churches didn’t begin until the late 1500s, and didn’t become widespread until the latter 1700s, it sort of pulls the rug out from a “traditional understanding,” no?No. I don’t see that voting didn’t begin until the late 1500s. The promoters of the magisterium may have refused the people this right for a long time. And there may have been a return to it in the 1500s. But I don’t believe that it was new.
Didache 15:
Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, V. 1,660-661, Edward Gibbon:
1 Clement 44:1-2
There’s more…
I’m in debt to Jeff Brown here. See http://www.amazon.com/Form-Freedom-Jeff-Brown/dp/3937965068] Form and Freedom .
[Ted Bigelow] Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. To me anyway, that’s hardly a place I would want to rest my argument upon. After that, you quote several sources that agree with your opinion, but that is hardly determinative, for there are others who disagree. It does not appear you have taken into account the instances where epitimao is used in contexts similar to 2 Cor. 2:6 such as Luke 17:3 and 2 Tim. 4:2. Perhaps when time allows you can look up the word in respected Bible dictionaries, such as TDNT and NIDNTT?I have a set of TDNT at home - will check tonight.
Can we be sure that ἐπιτιμία was a sentence of expulsion because ἐπετίμησεν was sometimes a act of expulsion? No. But expulsion is within the set of meanings indicated by this word. You seemed to want to say that ἐπιτιμάω was always a verbal rebuke. Here were your words: “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.” My only point was that such a limit on the meaning of ἐπιτιμάω is not consistent with NT usage.
That doesn’t certainly mean that the 2 Corinthians 2 usage was expulsion. But it could be and you should say it can’t.
Is that my only exegetical contribution? huh. Embarrassing.
Discussion