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).
Oh yes, it definitely matters, for the deacon is a biblically defined office (1 Timothy 3:8-13, Phil. 1:1). To then read another passage where deacons are not mentioned, and to claim it explicitly teaches deacons, is a hermeneutic problem of the first order. As a result, we start believing things the text doesn’t say. We read into the text what we want it to say. Jesus Christ never did that, and rebuked it where it happened. It is so dangerous, it leads people astray from God, and it dishonors His word.
Ted, I want to challenge you that it might not be helpful to state things in this way.
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.Who attributes “every omission” to God? Not me. I believe Deut. 29:29. But the matters of this article, and the related issue of deacons in Acts 6, is part of what is revealed for us.
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.No it isn’t. I’m simply saying that Acts 6 doesn’t discuss deacons, and that God, who is infinite in wisdom (and therefore chose the precise words of Scripture using infinite wisdom) chose not to use the word “deacon” in that passage. An overly sensitive person could feel disrespected, but will do so because he she wants to, not because he or she has actually been disrespected.
Hey Aaron, let me try to sort it out here.
You need to be accountable for your original statement, and then we let’s move on from there. For what is the use of claiming Scripture is our authority when we aren’t accountable to it for our statements?
[Aaron Blumer] I do believe voting is over-used in many congregations, and probably more often not properly framed. That is, we forget that it’s not about expressing the will of the people but rather a way of discerning the Lord’s leading together.I responded,
[Ted] Back it up with Scripture, Aaron. Back up that voting is “a way of discerning the Lord’s leading.”But instead of taking ownership for your statement, and defending it as a faithful testimony to Scriptural teaching, you instead say,
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?Aaron, Scripture teaches the mechanism. I don’t have to suggest something to you. My words, inasmuch as they A) obscure Scripture, or B) make worthless assertions, or C) refuse to faithfully represent Scripture, or D) are Scripturally not attested, are dangerous to use in church decision making.
You need to be accountable for your original statement, and then we let’s move on from there. For what is the use of claiming Scripture is our authority when we aren’t accountable to it for our statements?
Thanks for your participation, brother.
The NT is so full of information on church polity. More than almost any other topic in the epistles. C’mon.
Furthermore, the NT bears witness that the early Christians worshipped in the temple (Acts 2:46), where instrumentation was used with great effect.
Now, if you asked if my church refuses to let me sing solos, you would indeed be correct.
[G. N. Barkman] 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?Bro, really?
The NT is so full of information on church polity. More than almost any other topic in the epistles. C’mon.
Furthermore, the NT bears witness that the early Christians worshipped in the temple (Acts 2:46), where instrumentation was used with great effect.
Now, if you asked if my church refuses to let me sing solos, you would indeed be correct.
[Ted Bigelow]Ted,
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.
Thanks for taking the time and effort it to write on this topic and to discuss it.
I don’t understand what you wrote above, and it may just be me. Do you think 1 Corinthians 1 is discussing decision-making in a local church? Exegetically, if we were to walk through 1 Corinthians 1, would we end up with, “This is where God’s Word directs us on decision-making in a local church”? Is decision-making the issue in 1 Cor 1 at all?
Perhaps you’re reading church polity into 1 Cor? Might it be a weak proof text for your case? Might 1 Cor be dealing not with church-decision-making, but with church division? Does Paul say that the root cause of this division is voting? Or does he say that the cause of this division is pride?
One follow up question: You wrote
[Ted Bigelow] For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time.”. Can you give us an example of when voting would not violate 1 Cor 1:10?
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.Hi Larry,
When your church votes, does that not settle the decision being made?
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).
Larry, as I wrote before to Aaron, in Mat, 18 and 1 Cor. 5 the church does not come to consensus on anything. It obeys. Acts 6 is the congregation reaching consensus based on previously given biblical qualifications (see v. 3). Therefore they didn’t have to use inappropriate means to make these decisions, such as voting, lots, dice, roulette, the reading of animal entrails, astrology, ouija boards etc.Godly decision making prefers others before self (Phil 2:3-4). This is commanded by Paul and comes from the Holy Spirit. To disobey it is sin. This is how mature, elder-qualified men have to live, because they “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching” (Titus 1:9). Elders qualified by Scripture don’t overrule each other. They seek the mind of Christ in Scripture, and furthermore, God entrusts them into leadership (see Titus 1:5-9). If God entrusts them, why won’t you?
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.Congregational authority is not rooted in American democracy. It existed prior to American democracy and outside of American democracy.True enough. But not by much. Congregational voting is unattested in church history until a few attempts in the 1500s, and it didn’t catch on until the 1700s.
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.Hi J.D., welcome to the discussion, brother.
J.D., this isn’t ambiguous. This is incredibly clear. God gives us so much information on church governance in the NT – more than on communion, baptism, marriage, child-raising, and work – combined. And none of it includes voting, and includes much that excludes voting – such as elder qualifications and verses that demand from your lord Jesus Christ for complete, 100% unity – see 1 Cor. 1:10 as an example of just one. Has your church ever had a vote that produced less than 100% unanimity? It broke faith with Christ. I mean, how many verses do we need on unity?
It isn’t ambiguous, and it isn’t hard to understand. Its just that we really are culturally conditioned and we need to go back to the Word of God and obey it.
For example, while the qualifications of church leadership is made very clear, the exact structure of leadership is a little more vague.Can you prove that it is vague? I claim it is exceedingly clear.
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.Well thanks. It’s nice to know that Jesus has been unclear on such an important topic and that because you say He is ambiguous every culture can rearrange church leadership to what it likes.
But know this. That when the Bible is opened to Titus 1:5, we learn that every church on Crete was dismantled and reformed to a single type of church structure by apostolic mandate. Its called eldership, and it is very clear.
Without congregational rule, how does the church receive an accusation against an elder by two or three witnesses?What do you think, Andrew? Is the verb “receive” masculine singular, or feminine singular. Does it refer to Timothy, or to the church?
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.”
When your church votes, does that not settle the decision being made?I would say it affirms a decision that has already been made.
Larry, as I wrote before to Aaron, in Mat, 18 and 1 Cor. 5 the church does not come to consensus on anything. It obeys. Acts 6 is the congregation reaching consensus based on previously given biblical qualifications (see v. 3).This makes no sense to me at all. The congregation obeys God when it speaks to the offending party, correct? How does the congregation do that as the congregation? It seems to me to require some sort of corporate voice. I can’t see any other mechanism for it. That cannot practically be an individual command. The point of invoking the church is because individual’s have not been successful. Furthermore, the “let him be as tax collector and sinner” is to say they are outside the line of the corporate church.
As for Acts 6, I agree. But how was that consensus expressed? It seems it has to be through some sort of corporate voice.
That is, by my definition, a vote. Even if it is only two people, they have to decide something. That requires some sort of a vote.
Godly decision making prefers others before self (Phil 2:3-4).As long as those others aren’t in the congregation? Or more spiritually immature? ;) That’s what were coming down to, isn’t it?
But even in if you don’t have a congregational vote/voice, an elder board has to have some practical mechanism by which something is either done or tabled for a later discussion or dispensed with altogether. What is that mechanism?
And the fact is that if everyone “prefers others before self,” as you seem to use it, nothing ever gets done because everyone just switches positions. Those against it prefer those for it. Those for it prefer those against it.
But I don’t think passage isn’t about decision making, and really has no relevance other than the grace we display in disagreement.
Elders qualified by Scripture don’t overrule each other.So an elder who wants to, for instance build a new building is not overruled by an elder who doesn’t want to build a new building? How does that work? Wherever there is disagreement, someone’s position is going to prevail, and there has to be some mechanism for determining that there is disagreement.
So the first elder says, “I have been praying about this and I think we need to build a building.” The second elder says, “I have been praying about this and I think we should not build a building.”
No matter what, one elder (or a group of elders) is going to overrule one of these two guys.
If God entrusts them, why won’t you?I don’t think that’s really the issue. But how does that apply in an elder board where elders disagree? The guy who wants to build the building say, “God entrusts me, why don’t you?” And the guy who doesn’t want to build the building say, “God entrusts me, why do you?”
And no progress is made, and someone overrules another.
I really struggle to see how this works apart from a solo pastor with absolute control. You have to have some mechanism by which you know what the other parties (whether congregation or elders) think, and what they want to do. That requires some sort of vote, however formal or informal it might be.
Thanks again for your grace.
Hi Larry, I appreciate your seriousness and sincerity in using the Scripture. It means a lot.
I can only deal with a few things:
Congregations don’t have wills in the NT. They are not to have their own will, because it will compete with Christ. Christians are to hear Scripture and obey the only One who is to have His will done in the church.
I can only deal with a few things:
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.OK, show us a verse that teaches voting. How do you know they didn’t make their decisions by lot, animal entrails, or smoke rings?
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.The setting apart of the seven men was a proper response to Christians submitting to apostolic qualifications, not a vote.
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.Really? I mean, we (in my church) don’t do it that we, and we’ve never taken a vote. And I personally know 100s of churches that don’t vote. I just left South Africa. They have many denominations, but no one votes in church in South Africa. The same is true in many places around the world. In reality, only recent church history reflects congregational voting.
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.Larry, the “laying on of hands” fulfills their words, “whom we will appoint to this duty” (6:3).
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.You are so right! He does this through their full authority to use Scripture to rule the church through it.
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.You are citing Acts 15:23. They were apostles, and their decision is in Scripture. Unless you wan to claim the same for your church, I suggest you drop the “will of the congregation” thing. To make the point ultra clear, the letter explains who made it “seem good to them:” the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).
Congregations don’t have wills in the NT. They are not to have their own will, because it will compete with Christ. Christians are to hear Scripture and obey the only One who is to have His will done in the church.
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.Actually, it would be quite strange if it were a reference to the first deacons. Verse 1 speaks of diakonia taking place before the men are chosen, not after. If you base deaconhood on that word, then there were deacons prior to the selection of the 7: as a result, the 7 are not the first deacons. Verse 2 refers to the apostles who used the word in its typical NT sense of food service. You missed verse 4, which shows the apostles using the word in reference to themselves: “the ministry of the word.” So if the use of the word means the establishment of the office, then the apostles were the first deacons, not the 7. For you see, the passage calls the 12 apostles deacons, not the 7.
And if those are not deacons, what are they? And where do we find any NT information about what a deacon is to do?Men with high qualifications who can do a specialized ministry and keep the church from imploding. The deacons serve the body under biblically qualified elders (1 Tim. 3:8-13).
[Ed Vasicek] Ted (a truly amazing brother) wrote:Ed, my bro - every church in every city on Crete was forcefully reformed according to the pattern taught all over the NT letters, and Acts. They didn’t have a choice to continue to practice congregationalism, episcopalianism, Romanism, etc. They were all reformed by apostolic mandate (and there were a lot of them) to biblical eldership. It isn’t description. Its prescription. Look up the word “command” in Titus 1:5 to check out its authority for yourself.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?
Ted, I must say following this is a bit frustrating. You tend to make more assertions than arguments. I’m sorry that I don’t have time to read your book right now. Would you please answer Aaron’s questions as well as explain how decisions are made by elders in your elders’ meetings. What Larry seems to be saying is this: anytime someone expresses their will, it is a “vote.”
I think this might be helpful. The first two dictionary definitions of “vote” are:
I think this might be helpful. The first two dictionary definitions of “vote” are:
1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.You seem to be referring to #2 when you talk about a congregational “vote”, as in raising hands or marking a ballot. Larry is using “vote” in the sense of #1, simply expressing an opinion. And so you cannot get away from voting in the church in that sense, because anytime anyone makes a choice in an elders’ meeting between one of two options, they are making a “vote.”
2. the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Jeff Brown] 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.Dear Jeff,
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.
I am never short of opinions. Some good, some bad, and a bunch in between. But in my perusal of the few commentaries I have in Matthew, most of them do not really address the process of HOW the church dis-fellowships an erring brother. In the words of Richard Nixon, “Let me make one thing perfectly clear”: All agree that excommunication involves the whole church, otherwise it loses its impact. But the church voting, the church deciding — that is the issue at hand. Do the elders make the decision and relay that decision to the church for team play, or do the players themselves decide what is to be done? Most commentaries never address the nuts and bolts process, just the end result. Do the commentaries to which you refer actually say that the elders are not to make the decision, but the church is to vote? Or do they just say that excommunicated members are to be excommunicated by the entire church (a point we all agree with?).
My hermeneutical assumption is that most of Christianity — beliefs and practices — are based upon Judaism. In Matthew 18, I therefore believe that Jesus ASSUMES eldership, since elders go back in time before the Law of Moses. As a Progressive Dispensationalist and Jewish Roots advocate, I do not embrace the clear-cut walls of distinction to the degree that traditional Dispensationalists do (not that I deny some difference). Since I view Christianity as Messianic Transcultural Judaism, I do not lop off the Jewish assumptions a priori. So this is not an issue for me.
Schurer and others are right about discipline being carried out by the entire community. But, even in the synagogue, the elders and leaders led the way. I know of no mention of voting. That is the entire issue. I am saying that the church is to follow the excommunication process akin to Jewish practice. All must embrace it, but all do not decide who will be disciplined for what. That is what leaders are for.
"The Midrash Detective"
Ted,
At one of the several Shepherd’s Conferences I have attended, John MacArthur said that the elders are submitted to a yes or no vote of the church anually, including MacAfthur. If any elder does not receive majorit approval, he is removed. That seems a bit strange to me, but actually gives the congregation enormous authority. I would be tempted to say that this practice renders the concept of “Elder rule” more semantics than actual.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
At one of the several Shepherd’s Conferences I have attended, John MacArthur said that the elders are submitted to a yes or no vote of the church anually, including MacAfthur. If any elder does not receive majorit approval, he is removed. That seems a bit strange to me, but actually gives the congregation enormous authority. I would be tempted to say that this practice renders the concept of “Elder rule” more semantics than actual.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Congregational authority is not rooted in American democracy. It existed prior to American democracy and outside of American democracy.
[Ted Bigelow] True enough. But not by much. Congregational voting is unattested in church history until a few attempts in the 1500s, and it didn’t catch on until the 1700s.Ha…ha…
Yeah, there wasn’t much congregational voting before the Reformation, that is true. The Protestant State churches were not big fans, either. Good point.
Is congregationalism the result of the American democracy?
In his Systematic Theology, AH Strong quotes from a work called Belcher’s
Religious Denominations of the U. S., pg. 184, as follows:
“Jefferson said that he considered Baptist church government the only form of pure democracy, which then existed in the world and had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the American Colonies. This was eight or ten years before the American Revolution.”
Whether this is a legitimate quote or not is debatable, I guess, but Strong, as a student of church history, rightly understood American Congregationalism to have its roots in English Separatism, not in politics!
In his Systematic Theology, AH Strong quotes from a work called Belcher’s
Religious Denominations of the U. S., pg. 184, as follows:
“Jefferson said that he considered Baptist church government the only form of pure democracy, which then existed in the world and had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the American Colonies. This was eight or ten years before the American Revolution.”
Whether this is a legitimate quote or not is debatable, I guess, but Strong, as a student of church history, rightly understood American Congregationalism to have its roots in English Separatism, not in politics!
Hi Joe, it’s so nice to have you in on the discussion.
It says,
Let’s flip it around. Who gives you permission to not come to the same judgment with your fellow church members? Is it Jesus Christ? No, b/c we know what 1 Cor. 1:10 teaches, and that is just the beginning of many verses He has given to teach you unity in the body. Is it your past seminary or college professors, or your old pastor, or somebody else? Who gave you permission, bro?
Do you think 1 Corinthians 1 is discussing decision-making in a local church? Exegetically, if we were to walk through 1 Corinthians 1, would we end up with, “This is where God’s Word directs us on decision-making in a local church”? Is decision-making the issue in 1 Cor 1 at all?No, 1 Cor. 1 is discussing, in parts, disunity in the church. But it does provide a direct (not indirect) application to decision making in the church.
It says,
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.So for me, as a Christian man, to say voting is OK, even though it mostly results in people expressing some level of disagreement with other, is to violate 1 Cor. 1:10. The verse speaks of having the “same judgment.” The act of voting on something is coming to a judgment. As well, it is not merely Paul, the apostle saying, “I tell you to have the same judgment” (though that would be good enough for me). No, it is our risen “Lord Jesus Christ.” It is His express command.
Let’s flip it around. Who gives you permission to not come to the same judgment with your fellow church members? Is it Jesus Christ? No, b/c we know what 1 Cor. 1:10 teaches, and that is just the beginning of many verses He has given to teach you unity in the body. Is it your past seminary or college professors, or your old pastor, or somebody else? Who gave you permission, bro?
Perhaps you’re reading church polity into 1 Cor? Might it be a weak proof text for your case? Might 1 Cor be dealing not with church-decision-making, but with church division? Does Paul say that the root cause of this division is voting? Or does he say that the cause of this division is pride?I agree with you! 1 Corinthians does not teach any church polity, for they did not have elders there. The church was too immature, and no men could be found who met all the 26 qualifications for eldership yet. For example, even the godliest among them could not be made an elder since Paul told Timothy “and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6). It’s why Paul kept trying to get good men to go there and shepherd them until the time the church could take care of itself – men like Apollos (16:12) and Timothy. Until they had qualified elders, they were not allowed to develop their own polity. They did finally have elders, as 1 Timothy shows, but they were still young and couldn’t handle 2 false teachers among them (1 Tim. 1:20, cf. Acts 20:29).
Can you give us an example of when voting would not violate 1 Cor 1:10?Sure. Let’s vote on this: Does 2 Timothy 3:16 teach that the word of God is inspired and infallible, and able to make the man of God complete for every good work? As long as all vote with a full assurance that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that, that vote would meet Christ’s threshold.
Ted: When your church votes, does that not settle the decision being made? Larry: I would say it affirms a decision that has already been made.Then if the decision is already made, why vote?
Larry, as I wrote before to Aaron, in Mat, 18 and 1 Cor. 5 the church does not come to consensus on anything. It obeys. Acts 6 is the congregation reaching consensus based on previously given biblical qualifications (see v. 3). This makes no sense to me at all. The congregation obeys God when it speaks to the offending party, correct? How does the congregation do that as the congregation? It seems to me to require some sort of corporate voice. I can’t see any other mechanism for it.Jesus instructs the church to go to the offender and call him to repentance (Mat. 18:17). If he does not listen, he is put out of the church. The congregation decides nothing new, but acts on the evidence of impenitence as established by the witnesses. If the man will not repent after the church goes and calls him to repentance then it no longer regards him as a believer. In this it decides nothing new, but only agrees with Christ’s prior judgment (Mat. 18:18)
That is, by my definition, a vote. Even if it is only two people, they have to decide something. That requires some sort of a vote.You might want to look up “vote” in a dictionary. As Enigo Montoya famously says, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” ;)
Ted: Godly decision making prefers others before self (Phil 2:3-4). Larry: As long as those others aren’t in the congregation? Or more spiritually immature? ;) That’s what were coming down to, isn’t it?Oh no, not at all. The most immature of Christians can present to me something in Scripture – and if it’s correct, I must implement it in the church. He or she holds all the authority in our church when they hold an open Bible.
But even in if you don’t have a congregational vote/voice, an elder board has to have some practical mechanism by which something is either done or tabled for a later discussion or dispensed with altogether. What is that mechanism?There is mutual submission to each other in an environment of trust, for all the men meet God’s 26 qualifications for leadership in the church. Based on His work in their lives, they are worthy of trust and submitting to. They have their areas of ministry, I have mine. But we are always open to a scriptural principle that might better inform us on a decision. That’s why Paul requires Titus to only appoint men who “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching” (Titus 1:9). The same goes with us.
Ted: Elders qualified by Scripture don’t overrule each other. Larry: So an elder who wants to, for instance build a new building is not overruled by an elder who doesn’t want to build a new building? How does that work? Wherever there is disagreement, someone’s position is going to prevail, and there has to be some mechanism for determining that there is disagreement.You speak of self-willed men. Those men are not fit to lead in God’s church (Titus 1:7).
[Greg Long] Ted, I must say following this is a bit frustrating. You tend to make more assertions than arguments. I’m sorry that I don’t have time to read your book right now. Would you please answer Aaron’s questions as well as explain how decisions are made by elders in your elders’ meetings.Sure. We make decisions based on mutual trust in submission to Scripture. Where any of us see a scriptural principle at stake, we must abide by that and are able to forestall any decision until there is unity on the issue. On matters of preference, we submit, one to another.
What Larry seems to be saying is this: anytime someone expresses their will, it is a “vote.” I think this might be helpful. The first two dictionary definitions of “vote” are: 1) a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals. 2. the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc. You seem to be referring to #2 when you talk about a congregational “vote”, as in raising hands or marking a ballot. Larry is using “vote” in the sense of #1, simply expressing an opinion.Your dictionary definition states “formal agreement.” Larry is speaking of even any kind of agreement. I am speaking of ‘formal agreement.”
And so you cannot get away from voting in the church in that sense, because anytime anyone makes a choice in an elders’ meeting between one of two options, they are making a “vote.”Yes, if you would like to define voting as any kind of agreement, then you are correct. But then, why not just call it agreement? The last time you ordered pizza for you and your wife, did you vote on it?
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,Ha! That’s not accurate at all!!! I’m think you misheard John.
At one of the several Shepherd’s Conferences I have attended, John MacArthur said that the elders are submitted to a yes or no vote of the church anually, including MacAfthur. If any elder does not receive majorit approval, he is removed. That seems a bit strange to me, but actually gives the congregation enormous authority. I would be tempted to say that this practice renders the concept of “Elder rule” more semantics than actual.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
Last week I was in South Africa, and an elder says to me, “why does John MacAarthur do everything in his church, and won’t let anybody else do anything?” I laughed. It was a fairly typical scenario where John gets credited (if you view it that way) with something untrue. Actually, John typically speaks very little at elder meetings.
Larry, the issue of elders and how they rule is very specific to this point about voting. If elders ruled correctly, then voting would not be used. There is zero biblical support for it.
Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.
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.
Voting in churches has become like social security. It is so entrenched into our churches that you can’t even talk about getting rid of it. It has become an entitlement. Every person regardless of maturity level feels entitled to have a say in how the church is run. The sheep are telling shepherds what to do. That is such a failure on the part of everyone involved.
Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.
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.
Voting in churches has become like social security. It is so entrenched into our churches that you can’t even talk about getting rid of it. It has become an entitlement. Every person regardless of maturity level feels entitled to have a say in how the church is run. The sheep are telling shepherds what to do. That is such a failure on the part of everyone involved.
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.
Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.Nicely put. In fact, for the church in Corinth to have voted on whether to remove the man from the assembly or not would have been sin. They weren’t to vote on whether to obey 1 Cor. 5:13 or not - which reflects Jesus words in Mat. 18:17. What if they had voted NOT to put him out? They would have proved yet again their arrogance and disobedience. Paul doesn’t want them voting, but obeying.
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.
The issue of the church is off center until we recognize there are no “churches” at all in the NT. The Greek word “ekklesia” appears exactly 117 times. It was a word of the civic and political world of the NT. It was used by the Greeks for the idea of calling people together or calling to assembly. It meant an assembly of people called together for a purpose. To start out on the right foot in a discussion of the “ekklesia” we need to set aside the made up word of the Bishops Bible and the KJV and translate it into meaningful English. Translated it is “assembly.” The Lord Jesus Christ is building an “assembly” (Matt. :16-20) It will assault the very gates of hell and prevail. Just two chapters later Matthew informs us of the Lord’s instructions in dealing with a sinning brother. The end of the process is this assembly. The assembly of people gathered in name of Jesus Christ , the son of the living God, are the highest and final authority on the matter. Their authority is such that it invokes the very authority of Heaven (Matt. 18:15-20).
We should expect the assembly to have such authority. Paul will later inform us that the Lord has a very sacrificial personal relationship to His assembly (Eph.5:22-33). He is the head and the assembly is to submit to Him. No person, principle, or entity, can stand above or between this relationship. Christ is the direct head over those gathered in assembly.
We also see in scripture that those viewed as being in the assembly are the saved through simple faith in Christ. They have been Justified, Regenerated, Adopted, and placed into a royal Priesthood and made part of a living temple. The scriptures reveal many other blessings bestowed on these. They have all been placed into union with Christ and are a part of His Spiritual body (Rom. 6; 1Cor.12:12-14). They are repeatedly called saints by the Apostles because of their being set apart to Christ. Paul makes a very important point of telling each believer that no one stands between them and their Lord (1Tim. 2:5-6). The assembly of the saints is composed of those saved who gain their blessings directly from God. They each have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Therefore, their individual relationships give them authority when they meet and act together. After giving the qualifications for Elders and servant ministers of varying tasks, (Deacons?), Paul then gives the assembly of the living God, and God’s household, as the pillar and ground of the truth. The assembly, not the Elders are the highest authority entrusted with the truth of God.
In Acts we see the Apostles, who possessed special Authority directly from God, acknowledging the authority of the assembly. At chapter 6 the Apostles bring the assembly of saints into the selection process to select ministering servants for assistance in ministry. They ask the assembly to select and “the whole multitude” is involved in the process. The point is the assembly selected. Did they vote? Possibly, or probably, as it is a simple process that was practiced by the Jews in selecting city leaders and by the Romans for various things. They most likely did not throw darts. They most likely did vote. Those who claim they did not vote often focus on the Greek word “episkeptomai.” After out Greeking the Greeks by giving undue credence to word etymology, they often fail to handle the immediate context which clearly indicates the multitude was involved in the process. This passage is more likely indicating voting than not.
It should also be noted that Acts indicates that the assemblies as a whole were involved in sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22: 13:1-3). At Acts 14:23 Apostolic authority allows Paul with Barnabus to appoint Elders in every city church. The Greek word allows for selection by hand raising. Perhaps the Acts 6 process was used.
The very word assembly, used to denote the entity of assembled saints makes these saints together the highest earthly authority for God on earth in this age. The assembly gets its authority from the individual saints who each have a personal priestly relationship to God. It is the believers Priesthood.
Believer Priests assembled together become the final authority. They must recognize the Elders. They must read the scriptures for themselves and determine truth. The Apostles recognized this authority. If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.
We should expect the assembly to have such authority. Paul will later inform us that the Lord has a very sacrificial personal relationship to His assembly (Eph.5:22-33). He is the head and the assembly is to submit to Him. No person, principle, or entity, can stand above or between this relationship. Christ is the direct head over those gathered in assembly.
We also see in scripture that those viewed as being in the assembly are the saved through simple faith in Christ. They have been Justified, Regenerated, Adopted, and placed into a royal Priesthood and made part of a living temple. The scriptures reveal many other blessings bestowed on these. They have all been placed into union with Christ and are a part of His Spiritual body (Rom. 6; 1Cor.12:12-14). They are repeatedly called saints by the Apostles because of their being set apart to Christ. Paul makes a very important point of telling each believer that no one stands between them and their Lord (1Tim. 2:5-6). The assembly of the saints is composed of those saved who gain their blessings directly from God. They each have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Therefore, their individual relationships give them authority when they meet and act together. After giving the qualifications for Elders and servant ministers of varying tasks, (Deacons?), Paul then gives the assembly of the living God, and God’s household, as the pillar and ground of the truth. The assembly, not the Elders are the highest authority entrusted with the truth of God.
In Acts we see the Apostles, who possessed special Authority directly from God, acknowledging the authority of the assembly. At chapter 6 the Apostles bring the assembly of saints into the selection process to select ministering servants for assistance in ministry. They ask the assembly to select and “the whole multitude” is involved in the process. The point is the assembly selected. Did they vote? Possibly, or probably, as it is a simple process that was practiced by the Jews in selecting city leaders and by the Romans for various things. They most likely did not throw darts. They most likely did vote. Those who claim they did not vote often focus on the Greek word “episkeptomai.” After out Greeking the Greeks by giving undue credence to word etymology, they often fail to handle the immediate context which clearly indicates the multitude was involved in the process. This passage is more likely indicating voting than not.
It should also be noted that Acts indicates that the assemblies as a whole were involved in sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22: 13:1-3). At Acts 14:23 Apostolic authority allows Paul with Barnabus to appoint Elders in every city church. The Greek word allows for selection by hand raising. Perhaps the Acts 6 process was used.
The very word assembly, used to denote the entity of assembled saints makes these saints together the highest earthly authority for God on earth in this age. The assembly gets its authority from the individual saints who each have a personal priestly relationship to God. It is the believers Priesthood.
Believer Priests assembled together become the final authority. They must recognize the Elders. They must read the scriptures for themselves and determine truth. The Apostles recognized this authority. If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.
@ Bob T., #122
Bob, thank you so much for your interaction here.
I think here is where you and I have a basic disagreement:
Bob, thank you so much for your interaction here.
I think here is where you and I have a basic disagreement:
If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.For you, divine authority is in the congregation. For me, it is in the Scriptures. I don’t want to limit every believer’s authority in my church to a single vote. I want to their maximize their authority by having them use Scripture to rule the church.
It should also be noted that Acts indicates that the assemblies as a whole were involved in sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22: 13:1-3). At Acts 14:23 Apostolic authority allows Paul with Barnabus to appoint Elders in every city church. The Greek word allows for selection by hand raising.You seem somewhat facile with the Greek. So let’s look at the 3 Scriptures you cited a little closer.
Acts 11:22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.Bob, the word “they” in Acts 11;22 - is it feminine singular, referring to the ecclesia, or masculine plural? IOW, who sent Barnabas, a group of males, or the church? Hint – look up the participle.
Acts 13:1-3 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.The word “they” is used 4 times (once translated “their”). Again Bob, feminine singular, pointing back to the ecclesia in v. 1, or masculine plural, pointing to the men listed in verse 1? Hint – again, look up the participles – “ministering,” “fasting,” “praying,” “laid hands on,” “sent them away.” Are any of them feminine singular, or are they all masculine plural? So who fasted, who prayed, and who sent?
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.Again, Bob, is the word “they” feminine singular, referring to the ecclesia, or masculine plural, referring to Barnabas and Saul only?
@Ted,
As others have pointed out, Scripture does not address the specifics of how decisions are to be made in the church (perhaps someone has brought up a point that I’ve missed, but nothing comes to mind). It seems to me that any such claim must be staked on inferrences from words such as “rule.” But this inferrence doesn’t follow unless you change “rule” to “absolute rule.” A king/prime minister/president rules, but rarely does he have absolute rule. Congregational church government in no way contradicts the role of elders in leading and ruling the church.
Perhaps I’m mistaken in suggesting that you interpret 1 Cor 1:10 to refer to any voiced disagreement, but it seems to be a repeated theme in your writing. For instance…
[Greg Long] Ted, I must say following this is a bit frustrating. You tend to make more assertions than arguments.I have to say that I share this sentiment.
[Ted Bigelow] 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.This statement seems simplistic. Yes, of course when Scripture clearly states something, we are obligated to simply obey. But church governance does not address such situations primarily. Rather, it addresses the elements of the day-to-day governance of an organisation (which of course is also an organism). Scripture does not tell us how to take offerings, how to order our services, how much to pay our elders, etc. These things are matters of wisdom and application. In such questions, it is indeed the “policies of men” that must be considered. These are matters of cultural application of biblical principles. Every church does a lot of it whether or not they admit it.
As others have pointed out, Scripture does not address the specifics of how decisions are to be made in the church (perhaps someone has brought up a point that I’ve missed, but nothing comes to mind). It seems to me that any such claim must be staked on inferrences from words such as “rule.” But this inferrence doesn’t follow unless you change “rule” to “absolute rule.” A king/prime minister/president rules, but rarely does he have absolute rule. Congregational church government in no way contradicts the role of elders in leading and ruling the church.
[Ted Bigelow] 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.I say this with no disrespect in motive, but this statement, again, seems very simplistic. To suggest that disagreement, whether expressed or not, is a violation of biblical unity is illogical at best, dangerous at worst. It is illogical because no two people agree on everything, nor should they. It is dangerous because cultures that supress the expression of healthy diversity and disagreement become cults.
Perhaps I’m mistaken in suggesting that you interpret 1 Cor 1:10 to refer to any voiced disagreement, but it seems to be a repeated theme in your writing. For instance…
[Ted Bigelow] So for me, as a Christian man, to say voting is OK, even though it mostly results in people expressing some level of disagreement with other–, is to violate 1 Cor. 1:10.
[Ted Bigelow] Hmmm, unlikely. When we go the cultural route, we invariably lose Scriptural authority in place of man’s wisdom.Again, this seems simplistic. The “cultural route” is not an option to consider. It is just reality for every single church. Choirs are not “biblical.” Platforms are not “biblical.” Pulpits, pianos, electricity, chairs, church buildings, public offerings, nurseries, hymns of human composure, instruments, etc. all fall into the same category. They are not taught in Scripture. Rather, they are cultural applications of biblical principles. In different countries, these applications vary widely. And appropriately so.
[Ted Bigelow] 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.This comparison, which you also made in your comment to Larry, seems to be a non sequitur. Except for the one example of voting, the others are methods of deciding something, but they are not methods of ascertaining the consensus of a body of people on a matter. Comparing voting to reading entrails is simply not valid.
[Ted Bigelow] Andrew, i assure [you] 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).The level of confidence you place in men seems to me to be inconsistent with Scripture’s teaching about the depravity of the human heart and the heart’s capacity for self-deception. There is no shortage of evidence of the horror and destruction wrought by pastors who were unchecked and unaccountable. Of course the stock response is that as long as someone can give Scripture, the pastor will back down. But such an approach does not work when the pastor is himself the judge of what will be considered “biblical,” which he invariably is.
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.
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
Jason, thank you for your comments. It is my privilege to be able to interact with you on these important matters.
As I write this, Jason, the rain here in Malawi is coming down in huge sheets, and is running of the roofs so fast it lands about 3 feet out from the roof line. The rain also comes down here in huge drops, not like our rain in the States. Ahh, the handiwork of our glorious God.
Scripture does not tell us how to take offerings, how to order our services, how much to pay our elders, etc. These things are matters of wisdom and application. In such questions, it is indeed the “policies of men” that must be considered. These are matters of cultural application of biblical principles. Every church does a lot of it whether or not they admit it.Excellent point Jason. There is even a name for such practices – “adiaphora.”
To suggest that disagreement, whether expressed or not, is a violation of biblical unity is illogical at best, dangerous at worst.Again, excellent point. For example, if I disagree with a practice because it violates Scripture, I should be commended (as should you). So disagreement is not the problem. Disagreement with Scripture is. The Holy Spirit only has one will on every matter, and that is what I want to know and do. Thankfully, His infallible word teaches the church on how we are to discern that in faith and practice, and it doesn’t include voting.
Ted: When we go the cultural route, we invariably lose Scriptural authority in place of man’s wisdom. Jason: Again, this seems simplistic. The “cultural route” is not an option to consider. It is just reality for every single church.The context of my comment was limited to the issue of how a church should choose its leaders. I think you left off the context, and made my statement apply to all things, even adiaphora, such as:
Choirs are not “biblical.” Platforms are not “biblical.” Pulpits, pianos, electricity, chairs, church buildings, public offerings, nurseries, hymns of human composure, instruments, etc. all fall into the same category. They are not taught in Scripture. Rather, they are cultural applications of biblical principles. In different countries, these applications vary widely. And appropriately so.Let’s pick up another point.
Ted: 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. Jason:/ This comparison, which you also made in your comment to Larry, seems to be a non sequitur. Except for the one example of voting, the others are methods of deciding something, but they are not methods of ascertaining the consensus of a body of people on a matter. Comparing voting to reading entrails is simply not valid.You assume the right goal in church is “ascertaining the consensus of a body of people.” You are wrong. It is to ascertain and do the will of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.
The level of confidence you place in men seems to me to be inconsistent with Scripture’s teaching about the depravity of the human heart and the heart’s capacity for self-deception. There is no shortage of evidence of the horror and destruction wrought by pastors who were unchecked and unaccountable. Of course the stock response is that as long as someone can give Scripture, the pastor will back down. But such an approach does not work when the pastor is himself the judge of what will be considered “biblical,” which he invariably is.Your problem isn’t with me, but with Paul, who commanded that only men who meet Scriptural qualification be placed in full charge leadership over every church on Crete. God’s revealed will is not for pastors to be unchecked and unaccountable. You’ll notice that Titus 1:5 specifically says “elders” (plural). You may be referring to a form of church governance foreign to the NT (single pastor congregationalism).
As I write this, Jason, the rain here in Malawi is coming down in huge sheets, and is running of the roofs so fast it lands about 3 feet out from the roof line. The rain also comes down here in huge drops, not like our rain in the States. Ahh, the handiwork of our glorious God.
Then if the decision is already made, why vote?As an act of accountability to the body of Christ and an expression of unity.
Jesus instructs the church to go to the offender and call him to repentance (Mat. 18:17). If he does not listen, he is put out of the church. The congregation decides nothing new, but acts on the evidence of impenitence as established by the witnesses. If the man will not repent after the church goes and calls him to repentance then it no longer regards him as a believer. In this it decides nothing new, but only agrees with Christ’s prior judgment (Mat. 18:18)Who said anything about deciding something new? I am not sure where that comes from. The point of Matthew 18 is that the church has to speak as the church. This is an often overlooked step in church discipline. The offender hears from the one, from the two or three, from the elders, but never hears from the church.
You say that if a man does not repent after the church goes and calls him …, but where or how does the church do this? You have individuals do this, not the church, right?
You might want to look up “vote” in a dictionary. As Enigo Montoya famously says, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” WinkAs I said, I think you are hung up on the word “vote.” The point of a “vote” is to gather a view or opinion for action. You can raise a hand, write it down, check a box, voice, or a number of different ways. Whether it’s elder’s meetings or congregations, you have to have some way of determining consensus.
You speak of self-willed men. Those men are not fit to lead in God’s church (Titus 1:7).I didn’t say anything about self-willed men. I was speaking of two godly men, both prayerful, who differ on the proper course of action.
Larry, the issue of elders and how they rule is very specific to this point about voting. If elders ruled correctly, then voting would not be used.So when elders disagree in an elders meeting, how is that resolved?
There is zero biblical support for it.Let’s get past this. Declaring something to be true is not the same as showing it to be true. I think that a good case has been made that there is biblical support for it. And millions of believers in history and now agree with me. You think that there is no support for it, and millions agree with you.
But let’s talk about actual decision making.
Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.Of course they aren’t voting that he is in sin (though there may be some dispute about it). They are voting to speak as a church. There has to be some mechanism for “the church”—the assembly—to speak so that the man hears the church. Already in Matthew 18, we see that individual confrontation and small group confrontation has not worked. Now it is time for a singular voice to speak. there has to be some mechanism by which that voice speaks. If that’s not a vote, then what is it?
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.The vote is to put him out. You, the church not the elders, should have “put him out.”
Voting in churches has become like social security. It is so entrenched into our churches that you can’t even talk about getting rid of it.Not really, but if the Bible teaches congregational government, then it is sinful not to have it.
Every person regardless of maturity level feels entitled to have a say in how the church is run.Again, I would point out that the Bible never invokes spiritual maturity as a qualifier to participate in congregational decisions.
The sheep are telling shepherds what to do.I don’t think this is true at all.
Tell me this:
How are elder’s chosen in your congregation? How are deacons chosen?
Ted,
I don’t think I could have heard incorrectly on such an important issue. I had my ears tuned especially for matters relating to elder rule and church government, as I have been wrestling with that issue for years. Is it possible that practice has changed over the past few years?
Cordially,
Greg B
I don’t think I could have heard incorrectly on such an important issue. I had my ears tuned especially for matters relating to elder rule and church government, as I have been wrestling with that issue for years. Is it possible that practice has changed over the past few years?
Cordially,
Greg B
G. N. Barkman
[Ted Bigelow]Yes, ABC was originally in Liberia but Chin-chin and the staff moved to Malawi during the war. Recently they have returned and reopened their campus in Yekepa (northern Liberia) with the help of Samaritan’s Purse. While I have not seen it, I understand that the campus is “just like America.” Franklin Graham was here for a “Festival” from March 22-27 and flew up there to dedicate the reconstruction himself.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?
[Ted Bigelow]I think there are two important concepts being discussed here: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).
1. How should the church be ruled? Congregationally or by a ruling board of elders? Books and books have been written on this subject. I don’t think we will add to much to this discussion here on SI.
2. How should these be chosen and how are they held accountable? You keep saying, follow Titus 1:5-9 - thus we must find an apostle who will give authority to a godly man who will go around appointing elders in the churches. Fine, but I think we are short on Apostles (real ones) and apostolic representatives. The best I can come up with in my situation would be to use my authority as a missionary to go around to our various Baptist Churches (for identification from the other Baptists, most refer to themselves as “Mid-Baptist”) cancel whatever their church structure is and find godly men to appoint to be the elders who will then rule their churches. NOT! You have made some good arguments about elder leadership (“rule”?) in the local church but you have not really explained biblically how this will happen. Without apostolic authority and direction, the “choosing” part of Titus 1:5-9 becomes impossible biblically.
Also, you keep saying that the Bible must be the authority in the church. No one here disagrees with that. But there are some very important decisions churches must make that creates obligations and requirements for the whole body. Example (true story): A church had made arrangements with a local bank to build a new auditorium building. However, the amount of money the bank approved for the loan was not sufficient to do all of the work. So, some of the leadership signed personal notes to get additional money to do the finishing touches. While they had the best intentions at heart, and one could argue that what they did was not unbiblical, without consulting the assembly they obligated the body to pay back the money.
I believe that wide latitude should be given to those who are in authority over the local church. They should not have their decisions micromanaged so that even a ream of paper used in the office must be voted upon. However, there must also be accountability of the leadership and the body must have the authority to remove an elder or elders who have moved from biblical orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Ted Stated:
@
Ted IMO one reason you are off with regard to Elder rule because you are advocating it within the error of there being Clergy. Churches who call and have Pastors who are within the bounds of being any type of professional clergy almost never have genuine Elder interaction. The so called Pastor is the Super Elder and given time he almost always has his men of agreement in place. They are yes men who respect and almost never go against the so called Pastor. In larger churches the Pastor need not say much at Elders meetings for his mouthpieces are there speaking for him. Many such churches have taken the authority from the people of the assembly and turned the people into various level consumers of a religious institution run by the corporate board. In many cases the staff, also loyalists of the so called “Senior” Pastor have their meetings where the real decisions are made and then the Elders meet and are informed and persuaded to support the staff opinion. The result is that there are people involved at various levels volunteering, teaching, and giving but without any real voice in the institution. They are treated as the second class believers who need to submit and agree or they are bringing disunity. Unity is the rallying cry of church staff. They even come to the place that taking the assembly away from those who assemble is viewed as necessary for such unity. Voting becomes evil.
Ted, you are not endeavoring to follow scripture more than most others who disagree with you. Also, some of your reasoning appears to have major flaws because of faulty exegesis. Your reply to me regarding Acts 11:22 and 13:3 are a perfect example. You are talking about a “they” that is masculine and not feminine in Greek and therefore cannot refer to the assembly. In both cases the English “they” is part of the translation of plural verbs where such gender matching is not applicable. We live in a modern atmosphere of careless use of Greek and Hebrew. I have become very leery of those seeking to use the original languages to explain away the obvious. This has been one of my main warnings to my students.
IMO the scriptures are difficult to handle when applying to assembly (church) procedures and governance for today. There are centuries of prejudice and wrong practice to overcome. There are no Apostles on the scene. No one person or persons exist to appoint Elders. Ecclesiastical feldergarb often gets fabricated by many who cannot overthrow the Clergy concept. The clearest principle that stands out in this Ecclesiastical jungle is the principle of the authority of the assembly -congregation. This is first stated by Christ in the Gospels, is carried on in the midst of Apostolic authority in Acts, is taught by the doctrine of Soteriology regarding the believer and their relation to Christ, and then expressly and clearly stated by Paul at 1 Timothy 3:14-16. The assembly, not the Elders, are the pillar and ground of the truth. Paul had just written about the Elders and ministering servants but moves on to the final authority of the assembly as a whole. Once we understand that Divine authority today comes from Christ through the scriptures to individual believers, then we can see that the true assembly becomes authoritative because it is an assembly of believer Priests. These believer Priests then choose their leaders and conditionally submit to them. The congregation has the right to use the vote as one of its procedures. Such may be what was done at Acts 6. Voting is not evil. It is a sin nuetral process. It can be used for evil but may accomplish good. Voting can bring disunity and it can bring unity. Scriptural concepts of unity do not occur apart from struggle and conflict. It is not a step toward unity to tell people to shut up. It is not a step toward unity to deny people the vote.
since his name has come up, I remember a discussion that some had with John MacArthur about this at about 1981 during lunch at a IFCA meeting. He expressed strong feelings against congregational binding authority in voting at that time. The Shepherds conferences influenced some regarding plural Eldership rule and taking the vote from the congregation. However, now some have noticed, and complained, about Masters Seminary graduates being called to congregational churches and then seeking to change long standing church government. Instead of ending up with wise benevolent plural elder rule they sometimes have ended up with Militant Calvinism being pushed and insisted upon and the Pastor and new Elders forcing some to stop teaching who do not embrace a Reformed soteriology. Some have left churches and there has been little unity in many cases. Unity comes from Spirit led lives and decisions not denying people a voice and the right to express differences on some things.
Congregational churches can have unity while voting on many things.
@
Bob T., #122The scriptures are exactly what I was appealing to as indicating that ultimate authority lies with the assembly - the congregation. That is of course human authority. Each believer reads and interprets the scriptures for themselves. Teachers are given to the church but themselves must be submissive to the scriptures. The elders do not stand between the individual believer Priest and Christ. The believers are to submit to Christ and also to the Elders. The submission to Christ is absolute. The submission to the Elders is conditional on their being in accord with the scriptures. The individual believer has a submission duty but if the assembly agrees that an Elder or the Elders are wrong the whole assembly may act against them.
Bob, thank you so much for your interaction here.
I think here is where you and I have a basic disagreement:
Quote:
If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.
For you, divine authority is in the congregation. For me, it is in the Scriptures. I don’t want to limit every believer’s authority in my church to a single vote. I want to their maximize their authority by having them use Scripture to rule the church.
Ted IMO one reason you are off with regard to Elder rule because you are advocating it within the error of there being Clergy. Churches who call and have Pastors who are within the bounds of being any type of professional clergy almost never have genuine Elder interaction. The so called Pastor is the Super Elder and given time he almost always has his men of agreement in place. They are yes men who respect and almost never go against the so called Pastor. In larger churches the Pastor need not say much at Elders meetings for his mouthpieces are there speaking for him. Many such churches have taken the authority from the people of the assembly and turned the people into various level consumers of a religious institution run by the corporate board. In many cases the staff, also loyalists of the so called “Senior” Pastor have their meetings where the real decisions are made and then the Elders meet and are informed and persuaded to support the staff opinion. The result is that there are people involved at various levels volunteering, teaching, and giving but without any real voice in the institution. They are treated as the second class believers who need to submit and agree or they are bringing disunity. Unity is the rallying cry of church staff. They even come to the place that taking the assembly away from those who assemble is viewed as necessary for such unity. Voting becomes evil.
Ted, you are not endeavoring to follow scripture more than most others who disagree with you. Also, some of your reasoning appears to have major flaws because of faulty exegesis. Your reply to me regarding Acts 11:22 and 13:3 are a perfect example. You are talking about a “they” that is masculine and not feminine in Greek and therefore cannot refer to the assembly. In both cases the English “they” is part of the translation of plural verbs where such gender matching is not applicable. We live in a modern atmosphere of careless use of Greek and Hebrew. I have become very leery of those seeking to use the original languages to explain away the obvious. This has been one of my main warnings to my students.
IMO the scriptures are difficult to handle when applying to assembly (church) procedures and governance for today. There are centuries of prejudice and wrong practice to overcome. There are no Apostles on the scene. No one person or persons exist to appoint Elders. Ecclesiastical feldergarb often gets fabricated by many who cannot overthrow the Clergy concept. The clearest principle that stands out in this Ecclesiastical jungle is the principle of the authority of the assembly -congregation. This is first stated by Christ in the Gospels, is carried on in the midst of Apostolic authority in Acts, is taught by the doctrine of Soteriology regarding the believer and their relation to Christ, and then expressly and clearly stated by Paul at 1 Timothy 3:14-16. The assembly, not the Elders, are the pillar and ground of the truth. Paul had just written about the Elders and ministering servants but moves on to the final authority of the assembly as a whole. Once we understand that Divine authority today comes from Christ through the scriptures to individual believers, then we can see that the true assembly becomes authoritative because it is an assembly of believer Priests. These believer Priests then choose their leaders and conditionally submit to them. The congregation has the right to use the vote as one of its procedures. Such may be what was done at Acts 6. Voting is not evil. It is a sin nuetral process. It can be used for evil but may accomplish good. Voting can bring disunity and it can bring unity. Scriptural concepts of unity do not occur apart from struggle and conflict. It is not a step toward unity to tell people to shut up. It is not a step toward unity to deny people the vote.
since his name has come up, I remember a discussion that some had with John MacArthur about this at about 1981 during lunch at a IFCA meeting. He expressed strong feelings against congregational binding authority in voting at that time. The Shepherds conferences influenced some regarding plural Eldership rule and taking the vote from the congregation. However, now some have noticed, and complained, about Masters Seminary graduates being called to congregational churches and then seeking to change long standing church government. Instead of ending up with wise benevolent plural elder rule they sometimes have ended up with Militant Calvinism being pushed and insisted upon and the Pastor and new Elders forcing some to stop teaching who do not embrace a Reformed soteriology. Some have left churches and there has been little unity in many cases. Unity comes from Spirit led lives and decisions not denying people a voice and the right to express differences on some things.
Congregational churches can have unity while voting on many things.
This thread is perplexing.
In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.
So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…
[James K] Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. 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.
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.
In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.
So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…
[Ted Bigelow] 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 read the first chapter of your book,and it was interesting, but perhaps you could give just a few bullet points of what your fourth chapter entails. Your first chapter talks about Titus appointing elders in every town, but who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? You do not believe that the congregation should vote on elders, but I have read through this whole thread, and I am not sure how you believe that my own congregation is supposed to have a “correctly appointed” elder.
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.
Edit: I just realized after I posted that there is a second page to the thread I didn’t read, so it may be that my question has already been answered on this page. Oops.
[Larry][Voting is] an act of accountability to the body of Christ and an expression of unity.Jesus Christ does not call us to be accountable to the church, but to what Scripture teaches, and to those Scripture says are in authority over us. And besides, unless a vote goes 100%, it isn’t an expression of unity, but of disunity.Ted:Jesus instructs the church to go to the offender and call him to repentance (Mat. 18:17). If he does not listen, he is put out of the church. The congregation decides nothing new, but acts on the evidence of impenitence as established by the witnesses. If the man will not repent after the church goes and calls him to repentance then it no longer regards him as a believer. In this it decides nothing new, but only agrees with Christ’s prior judgment (Mat. 18:18). Larry:Who said anything about deciding something new? I am not sure where that comes from. The point of Matthew 18 is that the church has to speak as the church. This is an often overlooked step in church discipline. The offender hears from the one, from the two or three, from the elders, but never hears from the church.Hey bro. First of all it’s incredibly rare for a congregational church to ever practice church discipline. Rarely does it follow step 1 or 2, much less 3 and 4. And those rare ones that do pay a steep price for doing it. See the following link for the hesitancy at John Piper’s congregational church to “tell it to the church” because they are committed to congregationalism (see footnote 11 on the linked pdf), and with a little hard work you can find why the elders hesitate to bring mattersto the church anymore: http://www.hopeingod.org/document/relational-commitments. Congregational churches require all the members to become judges (i.e., witnesses) of not only the offender, but the 2 or 3 as well. This is because they are asked to vote on the matter – so they are required to judge the merits of the discipline case. This violates Christ’s words in Mat. 18, which requires the church to act upon the established evidence of the 2 or 3 witnesses, not to judge it as to its merit.
Now for the assertion you made about the church not deciding something new. Perhaps the following illustration will help you. Several weeks ago a pastor from a neighboring state called me for counsel. He had recently resigned his pastorate from a Southern Baptist church. This is because the congregation” decided something new.” He and others had performed step 1 and 2 discipline on a man in the congregation. The facts of the matter were established in accord with Christ’s words in Mat. 18:15-16. But when they brought the matter for a church vote (they believed they were doing step 3 “tell it to the church”) the church voted against the pastor and in favor of the rebellious man who had a long list of offenses. That is they voted NOT to proceed on with the discipline. As a result this man resigned his pastorate, for the church was not only wrong to vote that way, but had voted to side with sin. So you see, in congregationalism, the congregation is given the right to “decide something new.” But actually, what they are given is the power to disobey Christ, as in that case.You say that if a man does not repent after the church goes and calls him …, but where or how does the church do this? You have individuals do this, not the church, right?Individuals in the church, and the whole church, is to confront the man. Will every person in the church do it? Each person has to respond to Christ’s command to tell the impenitent member to repent, but I can’t be certain all will. They key to seeing this is to see the word “listen” in Mat. 18:17. It is the same word “listen” in verses 15 and 16, where personal confrontation is enjoined upon the individual and the witnesses for sin and impenitence.Ted:You speak of self-willed men. Those men are not fit to lead in God’s church (Titus 1:7). Larry:I didn’t say anything about self-willed men. I was speaking of two godly men, both prayerful, who differ on the proper course of action.Context is key here, bro. Here’s the context from post 117:Ted: Elders qualified by Scripture don’t overrule each other. Larry: So an elder who wants to, for instance build a new building is not overruled by an elder who doesn’t want to build a new building? How does that work? Wherever there is disagreement, someone’s position is going to prevail, and there has to be some mechanism for determining that there is disagreement.Larry, an elder who wants to build a new building but doesn’t want to see every elder who is biblically qualified come to embrace it as well with a clear conscience… that elder is a self-willed man and must be confronted. If he will not repent he is to be removed from eldership by the process of 1 Tim. 5:20.
If another qualified elder who doesn’t want to build isn’t comfortable with the plan, and has biblical reason for not being comfortable, then no, the plan must not go forward. The Holy Spirit only has one will on the matter, and until all the elders are in unanimity (assuming they are all biblically qualified), then they must not introduce disunity by arm-twisting or any manipulation (Mat. 7:12).
if the Bible teaches congregational government, then it is sinful not to have it.I totally agree with your conditional statement, Larry.
There is zero biblical support for it.Larry:Let’s get past this. Declaring something to be true is not the same as showing it to be true. I think that a good case has been made that there is biblical support for it. And millions of believers in history and now agree with me. You think that there is no support for it, and millions agree with you.I know where you are coming from, but this matter shouldn’t be framed this way. By analogy, your argument is the same as paedo vs. creedal baptism. A paedo Baptist has not text for either command or example for the practice, but clings tenaciously to it because he sees it through covenantal eyes. But is he right to say, “hey, millions believe in paedo, and millions believe in credo. So get off it”? I don’t think so. I think hermeneutically the credo-baptist has the higher ground, for he can point to Scripture after Scripture that directly teaches both command and example of believer baptism.
This is the same with church governance. When we say the NT never teaches a voting polity by example or command, we are right. To claim Acts 6, or 1 Cor. 5, or Mat. 18 teaches voting carries the same hermeneutic weight as the “household” texts in Acts do for paedo baptism. It is only inference, and is easily refuted.
So imagine a paedo Baptist saying to you, “enough already about telling me that no text in the Bible commands or exemplifies infant baptism. I believe it anyway.” What would you say?
What if a person says to you, “we make congregational decisions by giving everybody a roll of the dice.” Would that be acceptable to you? If not, why not?
What you are asking us to do is to move off of the Bible and use another foundation for our arguments.
Again, I would point out that the Bible never invokes spiritual maturity as a qualifier to participate in congregational decisions.Titus 1:7 calls qualified elders – men with advanced spiritual maturity as measured by objective standards - “God’s stewards.” 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.
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,Its possible - you know - as in “all things are possible.” But its not the case. Call the church and ask for the “pastor of the day” - (818) 782-5920.
I don’t think I could have heard incorrectly on such an important issue. I had my ears tuned especially for matters relating to elder rule and church government, as I have been wrestling with that issue for years. Is it possible that practice has changed over the past few years?
Cordially,
Greg B
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.Sure. It’s called eldership as strictly and voluminously defined in the NT. In the NT (such as Titus 1:5-9), qualified elders are given full charge authority over the local church as God’s stewards (1:7). Such men work together in unanimity and mutual trust as they are equally qualified and none has more authority than any else. I go into depth in the book, which is, ummm, hard to get over here to Africa. Sorry. It turns out my publisher isn’t that friendly to Africa.
How should the church be ruled? Congregationally or by a ruling board of elders? Books and books have been written on this subject. I don’t think we will add to much to this discussion here on SI.Actually, the topic is rarely discussed and there isn’t that much on it. Hey, I’ve done my research ;).
How should these be chosen and how are they held accountable? You keep saying, follow Titus 1:5-9 - thus we must find an apostle who will give authority to a godly man who will go around appointing elders in the churches.Titus comes to Crete as an elder-qualified man – the highest mark of masculine spirituality in the Bible (apart from our beloved, sinless Lord, of course). Therefore, all elders from now on are to use the same criteria in appointment of all future elders as he – and none else (including 1 Tim. 3:1-7).
NOT! You have made some good arguments about elder leadership (“rule”?) in the local church but you have not really explained biblically how this will happen. Without apostolic authority and direction, the “choosing” part of Titus 1:5-9 becomes impossible biblically.Bro, you ask a lot of me. It took me a book to explain the issues and implications of The Titus Mandate. And you want me to recreate it all in the give and take format of a blog?
I believe that wide latitude should be given to those who are in authority over the local church. They should not have their decisions micromanaged so that even a ream of paper used in the office must be voted upon. However, there must also be accountability of the leadership and the body must have the authority to remove an elder or elders who have moved from biblical orthodoxy or orthopraxy.Yes, God gives the congregation the means to confront elders in 1 Timothy 5:19. But He doesn’t give them the right to vote them out. That is handled by the means of submission to the word of God according to 1 Timothy 5:20-25. I’m sorry if that doesn’t match up with your thinking, but it is what God teaches.
I knew about the re-entrance of ABC in Liberia. I hope it can serve your ministry there.
Dan, thank you for your continued interaction. It means a lot. Thanks.
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.I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. 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?
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.
In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.Good question, brother. The answer to it comes in verse 17 through the verb, “listen,” and to notice its prior usage in vss. 15 and 16. Since both vss. 15 and 16 require verbal confrontation for the sin and resultant impenitence, so too does v. 17. The church goes, as people, to personally and verbally confront the impenitent and plead with him to come back to the Lord.
So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…Have you considered doing a concordance search on the words ‘voting,” “votes,” and “vote?”
Hi Kevin, thanks for joining the discussion. You have done quite a bit of reading already.
Now, when the time came for new elders on Crete, what process do you supposed all the churches and their elders used – one that incorporated votes, or one that mirrored the exact process Titus used in appointing the first elders in every town? Ask yourself, which is scriptural?
I read the first chapter of your book,and it was interesting, but perhaps you could give just a few bullet points of what your fourth chapter entails. Your first chapter talks about Titus appointing elders in every town, but who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? You do not believe that the congregation should vote on elders, but I have read through this whole thread, and I am not sure how you believe that my own congregation is supposed to have a “correctly appointed” elder.Put yourself in the place of Crete’s elders who were appointed by Titus. They went though a rigorous testing process to ensure they met all the 17 qualifications of Titus 1:6-9. For if even a single man among all the churches failed even one of those qualifications and yet became an elder, then Titus was disobeying Paul, and even God (Titus 1:4).
Now, when the time came for new elders on Crete, what process do you supposed all the churches and their elders used – one that incorporated votes, or one that mirrored the exact process Titus used in appointing the first elders in every town? Ask yourself, which is scriptural?
Ted, anytime anyone brings up a real or hypothetical example of elders abusing their authority, you dismiss it as elders acting unbiblically. So could you please stop bringing up examples of congregations abusing their authority as proof that congregationalism is unbiblical?
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Hi Greg,
[Greg Long] Ted, anytime anyone brings up a real or hypothetical example of elders abusing their authority, you dismiss it as elders acting unbiblically. So could you please stop bringing up examples of congregations abusing their authority as proof that congregationalism is unbiblical?The two are not equal, my brother in Christ. The Bible teaches eldership, and gives a huge amount of detail on how it is to work, and how to handle problems within it (1 Timothy 5:19-25, 3 John). On the other hand the Bible gives no information on Congregationalism, and hence no direct teaching on how to handle its problems.
[Ted Bigelow] Hi Kevin, thanks for joining the discussion. You have done quite a bit of reading already.Well, now I need to ask you what this “rigorous testing process” might entail. We have the qualifications, but would Titus have personally known every aspect of these individuals lives to be able to tell which ones met the qualifications and which ones didn’t? I’m sure Titus would have talked to each person personally, but if they were a false teacher, they would certainly lie about their own lives, so how would Titus know for sure? Wouldn’t he have to ask other individuals in the church about the potential elders in order to gain a full picture? Wouldn’t the input from other individuals technically qualify as a “vote of confidence,” so to speak? If there were none of these “votes of confidence,” then the person would fail the testing process. If this isn’t the most like way Titus did it, then what would actually be the way? Do you think Titus gained direct revelation from God in order to make his appointments? He certainly could have, but if he did, then does that mean we need to seek some sort of direct revelation given to an already appointed elder to determine if a potental elder actually meets the Biblical qualifications?I read the first chapter of your book,and it was interesting, but perhaps you could give just a few bullet points of what your fourth chapter entails. Your first chapter talks about Titus appointing elders in every town, but who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? You do not believe that the congregation should vote on elders, but I have read through this whole thread, and I am not sure how you believe that my own congregation is supposed to have a “correctly appointed” elder.Put yourself in the place of Crete’s elders who were appointed by Titus. They went though a rigorous testing process to ensure they met all the 17 qualifications of Titus 1:6-9. For if even a single man among all the churches failed even one of those qualifications and yet became an elder, then Titus was disobeying Paul, and even God (Titus 1:4).
Now, when the time came for new elders on Crete, what process do you supposed all the churches and their elders used – one that incorporated votes, or one that mirrored the exact process Titus used in appointing the first elders in every town? Ask yourself, which is scriptural?
If I truly want to mirror the process Titus used to ordain elders, then don’t I have to find an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by Titus or one of the apostles? This sounds like you wish to establish something similar to the Catholic process of ordaining ministers.
Ted,
I jotted down the phone number, but before I call, did I mistake congregation for elders? In other words, do the elders vote on retaining or removing the other elders annually?
Cordially,
Greg B
I jotted down the phone number, but before I call, did I mistake congregation for elders? In other words, do the elders vote on retaining or removing the other elders annually?
Cordially,
Greg B
G. N. Barkman
From Larry
Matt 18:17 - “If he pays no attention to them, tell the church.”
There is no credible alternative here. The church is to be informed (epo). The church doesn’t have to speak as one. If the brother won’t hear from 2 or 3, then the church is told of the matter. In fact, after Jesus spoke of telling the church, He referred back to the 2 or 3, bypassing the whole church.
Regarding 1 Cor 5, you said
Every form of authority spoken of in the NT is top down.
God/Scripture over the believer.
Jesus over the church.
Husband over the wife.
Parent over the child.
Master over the slave.
Government over the people.
Sheep over the shepherd.
The last one is out of place and inconsistent with God’s establishment of authority by revelation and pattern. While the one in charge has the innate right to rule, of course the manner of the rule must not be tyrannical.
If we just take a step back and let the word speak, it is so clear.
Let’s get past this. Declaring something to be true is not the same as showing it to be true. I think that a good case has been made that there is biblical support for it. And millions of believers in history and now agree with me. You think that there is no support for it, and millions agree with you.I think we both agree truth is not determined by consensus. You seem to think this line of argument keeps your position within the realm of what should happen. I hope you are consistent then and never appeal to the lack of scriptural support for infant baptism against the paedos.
But let’s talk about actual decision making.
They are voting to speak as a church.Larry, they aren’t voting for anything. Let the text speak and stop imposing your practice upon the text.
Matt 18:17 - “If he pays no attention to them, tell the church.”
There is no credible alternative here. The church is to be informed (epo). The church doesn’t have to speak as one. If the brother won’t hear from 2 or 3, then the church is told of the matter. In fact, after Jesus spoke of telling the church, He referred back to the 2 or 3, bypassing the whole church.
Regarding 1 Cor 5, you said
The vote is to put him out. You, the church not the elders, should have “put him out.”But again, you are simply imposing either your practice or how you think they resolved the problem. In verse 3, Paul said, “I have already decided about the one who has done this thing as though I were present.” The decision was already made by one in authority. Paul didn’t say to vote him out. At their next assembly they were to cast him out. Their vote would have been entirely pointless and a slap to what Paul said.
I don’t think this is true at all.You said this regarding the sheep telling the shepherds what to do. It is unmistakable though. When you the shepherd (not sure if you are single pastor or multiple) tell the sheep that you think it would be best to do ________, and they say no, who is actually ruling? The answer is obvious. The mature and immature sheep are ruling the shepherd(s).
Every form of authority spoken of in the NT is top down.
God/Scripture over the believer.
Jesus over the church.
Husband over the wife.
Parent over the child.
Master over the slave.
Government over the people.
Sheep over the shepherd.
The last one is out of place and inconsistent with God’s establishment of authority by revelation and pattern. While the one in charge has the innate right to rule, of course the manner of the rule must not be tyrannical.
If we just take a step back and let the word speak, it is so clear.
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.
@Dan Miller
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.
I think you have the same situation in Matt 18. The church is informed of a brother in sin and collectively obey God by not treating him as a brother.
I think some people simply insert their beliefs about how they would have resolved it and think that is how they must have done it.
I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. 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.Hi Dan, I don’t think we have interacted before.
In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.
So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…
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.
I think you have the same situation in Matt 18. The church is informed of a brother in sin and collectively obey God by not treating him as a brother.
I think some people simply insert their beliefs about how they would have resolved it and think that is how they must have done it.
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.
@Larry
Sorry about missing that last question. The elders in our church choose the other elders/deacons. There is no vote in our church.
Sorry about missing that last question. The elders in our church choose the other elders/deacons. There is no vote in our church.
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 Kevin,
Essentially, and in brief, the elder qualifications put every believer with a Bible in charge of the testing process. We who read His word are to use Scripture alone to evaluate any and every potential elder candidate up for the office of elder. If even one believer has even one valid reason as to why a particular man is unfit for eldership, he cannot be put into eldership. To do so is disobedience to Christ, who gave 26 qualifications for eldership. He did this so we would not be teased away from them by men’s ways of choosing leaders according to cultural norms, such as voting.
This, in part, is why the letter to Titus is really written to the churches of Crete, not Titus (c.f. Titus 3:15). Titus already knew The Titus Mandate before he got the letter from Paul, for Paul writes, “as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5). Titus already knew what Paul wanted him to do in every town on Crete. The Titus Mandate removes the insignificance of a single vote for each Christian and equips him/her to use Scriptural alone in the testing process. Since Scripture is where God’s authority in the church lies, each Christian who uses his/her Bible to test the potential (and existing) elders is using God’s authority in Scripture, not man’s authority in a vote.
Well, now I need to ask you what this “rigorous testing process” might entail. We have the qualifications, but would Titus have personally known every aspect of these individuals lives to be able to tell which ones met the qualifications and which ones didn’t? I’m sure Titus would have talked to each person personally, but if they were a false teacher, they would certainly lie about their own lives, so how would Titus know for sure? Wouldn’t he have to ask other individuals in the church about the potential elders in order to gain a full picture? Wouldn’t the input from other individuals technically qualify as a “vote of confidence,” so to speak? If there were none of these “votes of confidence,” then the person would fail the testing process. If this isn’t the most like way Titus did it, then what would actually be the way? Do you think Titus gained direct revelation from God in order to make his appointments? He certainly could have, but if he did, then does that mean we need to seek some sort of direct revelation given to an already appointed elder to determine if a potental elder actually meets the Biblical qualifications?I can’t offer you a full enough explanation here, but I do take 2 chapters in my book to deal with this vital topic precisely because some folks have a hard time slowing down and seeing how sufficient Titus 1:5-9 is.
Essentially, and in brief, the elder qualifications put every believer with a Bible in charge of the testing process. We who read His word are to use Scripture alone to evaluate any and every potential elder candidate up for the office of elder. If even one believer has even one valid reason as to why a particular man is unfit for eldership, he cannot be put into eldership. To do so is disobedience to Christ, who gave 26 qualifications for eldership. He did this so we would not be teased away from them by men’s ways of choosing leaders according to cultural norms, such as voting.
This, in part, is why the letter to Titus is really written to the churches of Crete, not Titus (c.f. Titus 3:15). Titus already knew The Titus Mandate before he got the letter from Paul, for Paul writes, “as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5). Titus already knew what Paul wanted him to do in every town on Crete. The Titus Mandate removes the insignificance of a single vote for each Christian and equips him/her to use Scriptural alone in the testing process. Since Scripture is where God’s authority in the church lies, each Christian who uses his/her Bible to test the potential (and existing) elders is using God’s authority in Scripture, not man’s authority in a vote.
If I truly want to mirror the process Titus used to ordain elders, then don’t I have to find an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by Titus or one of the apostles? This sounds like you wish to establish something similar to the Catholic process of ordaining ministers.Your words do make it sound that way. However, the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men (2 Tim. 3:17). Furthermore, the elder qualifications in Titus and 1 Timothy reveal to all who believe them who is an elder, and who is not.
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,That would be just as bad as the congregation doing it.
I jotted down the phone number, but before I call, did I mistake congregation for elders? In other words, do the elders vote on retaining or removing the other elders annually?
Cordially,
Greg B
Well then, either I’m comletely crazy, or somethings amiss. I was not the only one present to hear that statement. In fact, I remember discussing it with others in attendance who heard it as well. We were all surprised that John MacArthur, not to mention the other elders, would be submitted annually to a “vote of confidence,” for lack of better term. I remember thinking, “I wouldn’t want to do that at my church. What an opportunity for someone to get a burr under their saddle, and try to organize to get rid of the pastor at the annual vote.” I think it would tend to cause pastors to be less than fearless in preaching truth, especially if they thought it might offend a number of church members, and especially if it was near the time for the annual vote. I now wonder if calling to talk to the pastor of the day will help, as you obviously have no knowledge of this, and yet it must have been the practice at one time.
G. N. Barkman
Please pardon the length. Suppose the following Case Study…
Suppose a church in love and harmony was asked to consider serving as a mother church to a new church plant in an area too far for believers to participate generously in the mother church. Suppose the new church plant had a few men identified to serve as elders and a piece of empty property available for purchase. Suppose the new church plant would have sufficient members to sustain itself and the ministry in its town. Suppose the timing allowed for the building of a modest structure but the resources were not available beyond the purchase of the land. Suppose the mother church did not have the finances to gift such a building and the elders were not adept at the building trades but thought that with the tradesmen in the mother church they could build the building.
How could the elders of the mother church discern if the idea to build the structure were feasible(permits, design, build etc) and reasonable (no gold inlay time for the foyer) for the mother church? If there were unanimity among the elders that the plan seemed both feasible and reasonable, a blessing to the cause of Christ in the town where no there is no church fellowship, how would they discern the availability of the mother church people to undertake such a task? Would they ask the electrician, carpenters, concrete, HVAC, plumbers in the mother church if they could give themselves to such a task?
None would dare say that elders have the authority to command the business men of the church to give their laborers to this task by compulsion but may freely ask.
Given the above scenario as well with the boundaries of God’s Word how might the elders work out such a case? I submit that their internal conversations would have some kind of a vote (should we consider this more yes/no). If unanimity were achieved an informal vote would be taken “Can you Mr. Electrician participate in such a project? Yes/No, Can you Mr. Plumber particpate in such a project? Yes/No Would you others be able/willing to help with other non-skilled aspects? yes/no
Each man loving the Lord, using wisdom and their experience would have to make decisions with different criteria than just God’s Word. Mr. Plumber has a young family and could not take time away which would forfeit a paycheck. Mr. HVAC has ongoing projects from which he cannot be separated. Mr. Concrete has ample time and would gift his finances to underwrite the total cost of the foundation work. Mr. Painter is struggling for work but would gladly help on any free day.
While no official vote is take in a formal gathering in one location at one particular time, I suggest to you that each conversation would constitute a “vote,” an indication of choice between two courses of action. Those actions being to participate in the project or not.
By way of consideration what if the building were not a daughter church but the building of a facility for the mother church herself in a rented location with a time constraint for the public worship services.
Thoughts?
Suppose a church in love and harmony was asked to consider serving as a mother church to a new church plant in an area too far for believers to participate generously in the mother church. Suppose the new church plant had a few men identified to serve as elders and a piece of empty property available for purchase. Suppose the new church plant would have sufficient members to sustain itself and the ministry in its town. Suppose the timing allowed for the building of a modest structure but the resources were not available beyond the purchase of the land. Suppose the mother church did not have the finances to gift such a building and the elders were not adept at the building trades but thought that with the tradesmen in the mother church they could build the building.
How could the elders of the mother church discern if the idea to build the structure were feasible(permits, design, build etc) and reasonable (no gold inlay time for the foyer) for the mother church? If there were unanimity among the elders that the plan seemed both feasible and reasonable, a blessing to the cause of Christ in the town where no there is no church fellowship, how would they discern the availability of the mother church people to undertake such a task? Would they ask the electrician, carpenters, concrete, HVAC, plumbers in the mother church if they could give themselves to such a task?
None would dare say that elders have the authority to command the business men of the church to give their laborers to this task by compulsion but may freely ask.
Given the above scenario as well with the boundaries of God’s Word how might the elders work out such a case? I submit that their internal conversations would have some kind of a vote (should we consider this more yes/no). If unanimity were achieved an informal vote would be taken “Can you Mr. Electrician participate in such a project? Yes/No, Can you Mr. Plumber particpate in such a project? Yes/No Would you others be able/willing to help with other non-skilled aspects? yes/no
Each man loving the Lord, using wisdom and their experience would have to make decisions with different criteria than just God’s Word. Mr. Plumber has a young family and could not take time away which would forfeit a paycheck. Mr. HVAC has ongoing projects from which he cannot be separated. Mr. Concrete has ample time and would gift his finances to underwrite the total cost of the foundation work. Mr. Painter is struggling for work but would gladly help on any free day.
While no official vote is take in a formal gathering in one location at one particular time, I suggest to you that each conversation would constitute a “vote,” an indication of choice between two courses of action. Those actions being to participate in the project or not.
By way of consideration what if the building were not a daughter church but the building of a facility for the mother church herself in a rented location with a time constraint for the public worship services.
Thoughts?
[Ted Bigelow] Hi Kevin,I’m sorry, Ted, but this makes no sense. So you do, in fact, have all members of the congregation “in charge of the testing process…to evaluate any and every potential elder candidate up for the office of elder.” It seems that the final authority rests in the congregation then after all! (And please don’t say, “No, the final authority is Scripture.” Of course we all agree that the final authority is Scripture. What we’re debating is what indication Scripture gives for how a church should be led.)Well, now I need to ask you what this “rigorous testing process” might entail. We have the qualifications, but would Titus have personally known every aspect of these individuals lives to be able to tell which ones met the qualifications and which ones didn’t? I’m sure Titus would have talked to each person personally, but if they were a false teacher, they would certainly lie about their own lives, so how would Titus know for sure? Wouldn’t he have to ask other individuals in the church about the potential elders in order to gain a full picture? Wouldn’t the input from other individuals technically qualify as a “vote of confidence,” so to speak? If there were none of these “votes of confidence,” then the person would fail the testing process. If this isn’t the most like way Titus did it, then what would actually be the way? Do you think Titus gained direct revelation from God in order to make his appointments? He certainly could have, but if he did, then does that mean we need to seek some sort of direct revelation given to an already appointed elder to determine if a potental elder actually meets the Biblical qualifications?I can’t offer you a full enough explanation here, but I do take 2 chapters in my book to deal with this vital topic precisely because some folks have a hard time slowing down and seeing how sufficient Titus 1:5-9 is.
Essentially, and in brief, the elder qualifications put every believer with a Bible in charge of the testing process. We who read His word are to use Scripture alone to evaluate any and every potential elder candidate up for the office of elder. If even one believer has even one valid reason as to why a particular man is unfit for eldership, he cannot be put into eldership. To do so is disobedience to Christ, who gave 26 qualifications for eldership. He did this so we would not be teased away from them by men’s ways of choosing leaders according to cultural norms, such as voting.
This, in part, is why the letter to Titus is really written to the churches of Crete, not Titus (c.f. Titus 3:15). Titus already knew The Titus Mandate before he got the letter from Paul, for Paul writes, “as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5). Titus already knew what Paul wanted him to do in every town on Crete. The Titus Mandate removes the insignificance of a single vote for each Christian and equips him/her to use Scriptural alone in the testing process. Since Scripture is where God’s authority in the church lies, each Christian who uses his/her Bible to test the potential (and existing) elders is using God’s authority in Scripture, not man’s authority in a vote.If I truly want to mirror the process Titus used to ordain elders, then don’t I have to find an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by Titus or one of the apostles? This sounds like you wish to establish something similar to the Catholic process of ordaining ministers.Your words do make it sound that way. However, the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men (2 Tim. 3:17). Furthermore, the elder qualifications in Titus and 1 Timothy reveal to all who believe them who is an elder, and who is not.
So each member has the responsibility to evaluate the potential elder in light of Scripture and make his choice known by either expressing his belief that the elder is unqualified or expressing his belief that the elder is qualified (or, I suppose, not saying anything, which would be taken as implicit affirmation). So if a member uses Scripture to evaluate an elder and verbally expresses his opinion to the elders, he is biblical, but if a member uses Scripture to evaluate an elder and raises his hand or marks a ballot to express his opinion to the elders, he is unbiblical???
Either way he is evaluating and expressing an opinion. You continue to be hung up on the process of expressing the opinion, but either way the opinion is expressed.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Discussion