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).
[James K] Regarding the sinful man at Corinth, Paul said in 1 Cor 5:3 that he had already decided what to do. He expected them to follow through with what he already decided. Paul did not decide to let them vote. Paul decided to cast the man out. The majority then in being obedient to Paul had to cast him out. I don’t think that situation requires a vote of any kind. In fact, I would think their vote at that point would have been sinful.hmmm. Ok, so the way you see it, they read the letter and the majority obeyed Paul’s command to expel this guy. Do you then also hold that the minority continued to welcome him?
Dan, I was just saying the majority because you brought it up in 2 Cor. I don’t know if that means that some who had expelled him were no longer there themselves or if there was a group opposed to what Paul said.
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.
[Greg Long] 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.If I was writing this sentence, I would change the phrase “expressing an opinion” to “expressing his discernment of Scripture and knowledge of the potential elder.” The word “opinion” could potentially be misunderstood as man-oriented, whereas “discernment” would be coming from God. Somehow, this discernment would have to be expressed by each individual.
Suppose the following Case Study…Got it, Seth. Thanks for participating in the discussion, brother.
There are general principles in Scripture that govern life. Our Lord affirmed Moses’ words and appropriated them for Himself when He said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” For Christians, that is a non-negotiable in all of life’s dealings, including the scenario you describe. Further, our Lord taught us that we are “to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.” Therefore, He would enjoin upon us to think through every situation in life as a worshipper under Him, loving Him with all our mind – and therefore using His holy Word as a guide in all matters. We therefore look to His holy word for all principles that inform us about we should make a decision in faith – 1st, direct principles that directly relate to the situation, then the many indirect principles that relate to it.
Mat. 7:12 governs the scenario you write about as well: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” This principle governs several elements in your scenario that involve expectations placed upon others. (“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?”)
Since elders are entrusted with the care of members as ‘stewards of God” (Titus 1:7), they must be careful not to demand from anyone anything other than what the word of God requires. Peter addresses this in 1 Peter 5:2: “not lording it over those allotted to you.” On the other hand, the church facility in the other town presents an opportunity to serve Christ with one’s trade. So there should be encouragement to those with trades to help as well, perhaps in Nehemiah’s spirit (Neh. 2:18, c.f. 2 Cor. 8:5). But there may be reasons not to ask a trades person to help – his wife is sick and he ought to care for her instead of build a building, for Christ tells him the extent to which he should love his wife as a worshipper of Christ (Eph. 5:25).
You might want to look up “vote” in a dictionary. It always carries an element of a formal group expression of each one’s desires, one’s choice (if they meet the requirements of a voting member. If you want to make it less formal, something akin to mere expression of each person’s desire, or decision, without the group element, that’s fine – its only language. But others will likely be confused and you’ll have to provide them your own personal definition of “vote.”
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.
Yes, that’s the point of the whole matter here, isn’t it? We all agree the final authority is Scripture – just like the Lutheran denomination that voted to ordain homosexuals to the office of elder. So the statement that we all agree that “the final authority is Scripture” is never the final word. Instead, we must be tested by what Scripture teaches and conform ourselves to Scripture, lest we be hypocrites (of whom I am chief sinner, sadly).
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.)
You have given a very helpful illustration for me to show the difference to you. When a Christian, or a congregation, relies on the words of Scripture alone (Titus 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-7) to evaluate and determine potential church leadership, he/she displays their submission to the word of God, and is acting with God’s authority in Scripture. In this scenario, the word of God is the ultimate authority. But when a Christian, or a congregation, relies upon anything else (more or different qualifications than Scripture) then the Christian or the congregation is the ultimate authority, for they have replaced God’s wisdom in Scripture (and His authority in Scripture) with their own wisdom and authority.
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???If a man truly possesses all of the qualifications for eldership, what does a vote add to him, or the congregation? Does it make him more qualified? Haven’t votes been used to put evil men in leadership before, something that can never be said of Scripture?
[Ted Bigelow]Okay, so the Word of God is the ultimate authority for determining an elder, but HOW does the Word of God express it’s decision in regards to any particular individual? Does it start glowing when the proper individual is nearby? I’m not trying to be flippant here, but you seem to keep dancing around any specific answer as to the question of the means by which godly people express their God-given discernment. You keep saying that it can’t be a vote, but it must be Scripture, so what is the means Scripture uses? Telling us that it is not the vote is only half the answer. In fact, it’s not even half the answer, since there are a multitude of ways NOT to decide on an elder. It is not looking for glowing Bibles. It is not waiting for fire from heaven. It is not flipping a coin. The means has to be some expression that people make when they use the Scriptures properly. I realize you spend two chapters of your book explaining this, but there has to be some concise way you can explain to us what the means of expressing Scriptural discernment actually looks like.
When a Christian, or a congregation, relies on the words of Scripture alone (Titus 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-7) to evaluate and determine potential church leadership, he/she displays their submission to the word of God, and is acting with God’s authority in Scripture. In this scenario, the word of God is the ultimate authority. But when a Christian, or a congregation, relies upon anything else (more or different qualifications than Scripture) then the Christian or the congregation is the ultimate authority, for they have replaced God’s wisdom in Scripture (and His authority in Scripture) with their own wisdom and authority.
HOW does the Word of God express it’s decision in regards to any particular individual? Does it start glowing when the proper individual is nearby? I’m not trying to be flippant here, but you seem to keep dancing around any specific answer as to the question of the means by which godly people express their God-given discernment. You keep saying that it can’t be a vote, but it must be Scripture, so what is the means Scripture uses?Kevin, it’s all right there in Titus 1:5-9, my brother in Christ. Have you gone back to read those verses?
Not only do those verses tell us that elders were to be appointed in every city, but on what basis they were appointed, and who appoints them. It is a pattern to be followed by all churches. Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.
[Ted Bigelow] [Kevin, it’s all right there in Titus 1:5-9, my brother in Christ. Have you gone back to read those verses?Why yes, I have.
Not only do those verses tell us that elders were to be appointed in every city, but on what basis they were appointed, and who appoints them. It is a pattern to be followed by all churches. Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.Now we are back to me asking you the exact same question I asked you earlier in post 132: Who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? Who is to go from town to town appointing elders with the assistance of the “testers” in each congregation? Your answer in post 138 was that Titus appointed elders, and that those elders would then appoint future elders mirroring the same process Titus used with them. But that is didn’t answer my question of who is to be our “Titus.” Do we have someone today who was properly appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person? I’ve asked you that question previously in post 141, and your answer in post 146 makes me think are just dancing around the question. You said, “the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men.” I wasn’t asking about how a man becomes adequate for the ministry. I asked if each person who appoints others has to have been previously appointed by someone that goes all the way back to the first century. That’s the part of my question that I would still like an answer to, because that is what it seems your viewpoint requires.
In a sense this article really isn’t about voting, but rather how congregations should arrive at decisions. Before voting comes discussion, debate, amendment ect. I’m a committed congregationalist in the Mark Dever mold because I’ve seen it work when led well by the Spirit. I think it’s inferred in the Bible, and the idea that people should make decisions together makes sense.
I recommend to any church that the leaders take time to understand parliamentary procedure. I took two classes on Parliamentary Procedure at BJU, and it has been immensely helpful. I now moderate our members meetings at my church by procedural rules. Normally, it’s totally more relaxed than it sounds. Over the past 1,000 years, Western culture has developed a system of widely received principles of how to arrive at decisions. I think many of these rules take into account biblical wisdom such as the fallen nature of man, respect for laws, and even the need for covenants with each other. Today, books such as The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th Edition offer concise, reasoned rules that pastors should follow. They have stood the test of time as a good way to arrive at decisions fairly. They work in differently in small groups like deacons and elders meetings.
I recommend to any church that the leaders take time to understand parliamentary procedure. I took two classes on Parliamentary Procedure at BJU, and it has been immensely helpful. I now moderate our members meetings at my church by procedural rules. Normally, it’s totally more relaxed than it sounds. Over the past 1,000 years, Western culture has developed a system of widely received principles of how to arrive at decisions. I think many of these rules take into account biblical wisdom such as the fallen nature of man, respect for laws, and even the need for covenants with each other. Today, books such as The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th Edition offer concise, reasoned rules that pastors should follow. They have stood the test of time as a good way to arrive at decisions fairly. They work in differently in small groups like deacons and elders meetings.
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.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this.
Finally, those of you who think Robert’s Rules of Order is all there is, please know that there are better and more simplified rules out there that meet church needs better. I mentioned “The Standard Code.” You can buy it here.
http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Code-Parliamentary-Procedure-4th/dp/0071…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Standard_Code_of_Parliamentary_Procedu…
Shaymus, On one hand, I’m glad you joined the discussion here. You articulated much better than what I am warning against – using the world’s procedures and policies in the church of Jesus Christ instead of God’s policies and procedures in Scripture. On the other hand, it grieves me, because you encourage people to look to outside the Scripture, which really is sufficient for the faith and practice of followers of Jesus Christ, including whole churches (Mat. 4:4). Therefore it is sufficient for how to make church decisions. A biblical perspective on this matter does not look for authority outside of Scripture, and furthermore, I claim it is a lack of loyalty to God to encourage people to do so (Mark 7:9).
In a sense this article really isn’t about voting, but rather how congregations should arrive at decisions. Before voting comes discussion, debate, amendment ect. I’m a committed congregationalist in the Mark Dever mold because I’ve seen it work when led well by the Spirit. I think it’s inferred in the Bible, and the idea that people should make decisions together makes sense.
I recommend to any church that the leaders take time to understand parliamentary procedure. I took two classes on Parliamentary Procedure at BJU, and it has been immensely helpful. I now moderate our members meetings at my church by procedural rules. Normally, it’s totally more relaxed than it sounds. Over the past 1,000 years, Western culture has developed a system of widely received principles of how to arrive at decisions. I think many of these rules take into account biblical wisdom such as the fallen nature of man, respect for laws, and even the need for covenants with each other. Today, books such as The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th Edition offer concise, reasoned rules that pastors should follow. They have stood the test of time as a good way to arrive at decisions fairly. They work in differently in small groups like deacons and elders meetings.
Ted: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.
Shaymus
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this.
Finally, those of you who think Robert’s Rules of Order is all there is, please know that there are better and more simplified rules out there that meet church needs better. I mentioned “The Standard Code.” You can buy it here.
If the church above used your counsel (rule the discussion “out of order”) you would have tempted your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to frustration and anger – even as it happened in the original context. Your wisdom is not that “from above” (James 3:15), but is earthly and natural, yet fits perfectly with proper parliamentary procedure. The Christians in that context were tempted to anger and division with their fellow believers precisely because they followed the wisdom of the world in their congregational decision making, and so earned the reward from it – frustration, anger, and sinful division.
You don’t take indwelling sin seriously enough, brother. You really think parliamentary procedure brings the church to greater sanctification while building godly consensus? That’s like fighting a forest fire with a flame thrower. Do you really think Alice Sturgis, long time professor at Stanford University and the original author of “The Standard Code,” is a safer resource for the maturing of the body of Christ than the Apostles?
Ted:Kevin, it’s all right there in Titus 1:5-9, my brother in Christ. Have you gone back to read those verses? Kevin:Why yes, I have.Then you have all the information I have. For every Christian, God expects us to, a) understand Scripture, and then, b) apply Scripture appropriately.
I just answered that question, brother . “Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.” That’s the scriptural pattern (1 Timothy 5:22).
TedNot only do those verses tell us that elders were to be appointed in every city, but on what basis they were appointed, and who appoints them. It is a pattern to be followed by all churches. Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.Kevin
Now we are back to me asking you the exact same question I asked you earlier in post 132: Who is to be our “Titus” in the world today?
Who is to go from town to town appointing elders with the assistance of the “testers” in each congregation? Your answer in post 138 was that Titus appointed elders, and that those elders would then appoint future elders mirroring the same process Titus used with them. But that is didn’t answer my question of who is to be our “Titus.” Do we have someone today who was properly appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person? I’ve asked you that question previously in post 141, and your answer in post 146 makes me think are just dancing around the question.Without an apostle, there can be no one with authority to go town to town dismantling and rebuilding churches. Apostles all died in the 1st Century. Like I said above, God expects us to apply Scripture appropriately, i.e., with godly wisdom. That’s why I wrote the book.
Men are not made qualified for ministry by other men (hence no need for a lineage), but by the God-given standards in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. See Acts 20:28. Only God can make a qualified elder since the moral requirements are simply too high for any of to attain on our own.
You said, “the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men.” I wasn’t asking about how a man becomes adequate for the ministry. I asked if each person who appoints others has to have been previously appointed by someone that goes all the way back to the first century. That’s the part of my question that I would still like an answer to, because that is what it seems your viewpoint requires.
Ted,
Thanks again for the interaction.
Are you saying that congregations can’t vote, but that elders can?
I’m trying to understand (haven’t read your book). Is the issue, in your understanding, voting itself, by its very definition, is wrong because it displays disagreements in the body of Christ? So the congregation doesn’t vote and the elders do not vote either?
Or is the issue, in your understanding, the group of people who are doing the voting? So that voting is not wrong as long as the elders are the ones voting amongst themselves, but voting is wrong for the congregation as a whole?
Joe
Thanks again for the interaction.
Are you saying that congregations can’t vote, but that elders can?
I’m trying to understand (haven’t read your book). Is the issue, in your understanding, voting itself, by its very definition, is wrong because it displays disagreements in the body of Christ? So the congregation doesn’t vote and the elders do not vote either?
Or is the issue, in your understanding, the group of people who are doing the voting? So that voting is not wrong as long as the elders are the ones voting amongst themselves, but voting is wrong for the congregation as a whole?
Joe
Hmm. I keep hearing from Ted
[Ted]….so here’s another reason to read the book. The Titus MandateReminds me of those six-page emails that tell how you can lose weight, make thousands of dollars by working two hours a day, ALWAYS make the right stock pick, etc. if you will just buy the book or sign up for the newsletter. ;) :bigsmile:
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
I have looked up “vote” in every dictionary in my house and multiple websites, I have read completely the Titus Mandate(prior to this discussion) and I know too much the trauma of church division from both elder and congregationally structured churches.
That said there are obvious disagreements that Godly men who love the Word have over this issue, disagreements which shall not be settled by these posts.
Letting each one be convinced in his own mind, let then those who have not become convinced not be marked as unthinking or unlearned men. The high goal, not highest, but high goal of communication here is understanding which falls not fully on the learner but in greater part upon the teacher. Bear patiently then with those who disagree. Cast them not as those pursuing the world, but growing in grace. Welcome them not to the conversation if it is only to chide them like children.
Brother Ted, you are well loved, respected and to be thanked for your passion in this area. But please consider a little more grace to those, like me, who are the ‘weak’ not yet having come to agreement. If someone says “i don’t understand” then it behooves you choose different, perhaps better words.
if you are not yet back in the states - God bless you as you travel. If so - welcome home to CT. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
That said there are obvious disagreements that Godly men who love the Word have over this issue, disagreements which shall not be settled by these posts.
Letting each one be convinced in his own mind, let then those who have not become convinced not be marked as unthinking or unlearned men. The high goal, not highest, but high goal of communication here is understanding which falls not fully on the learner but in greater part upon the teacher. Bear patiently then with those who disagree. Cast them not as those pursuing the world, but growing in grace. Welcome them not to the conversation if it is only to chide them like children.
Brother Ted, you are well loved, respected and to be thanked for your passion in this area. But please consider a little more grace to those, like me, who are the ‘weak’ not yet having come to agreement. If someone says “i don’t understand” then it behooves you choose different, perhaps better words.
if you are not yet back in the states - God bless you as you travel. If so - welcome home to CT. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
(Not sure why the last one has no text????)
[Shaynus]…..
He went on to explain that he and his fellow elders thought they had prepared themselves for a small amount of conflict at the meeting. They had their talking points down and believed they were ready to lead the congregation into a building project. However, the church meeting turned sour when budget issues and the building project were raised. Some members were upset about friends who had recently left the church with unresolved complaints about the leadership. My pastor friend had been chosen as the elder to address that issue, and he tried to explain the situation to everybody’s satisfaction. But instead his answers only led to more questions.
He was confronted with a Catch-22 situation: either give detailed answers to the church about private matters, or explain his unwillingness to share details and leave the voting members dissatisfied and possibly upset enough to vote down the budget. To his own regret, he admitted that he went too far trying to satisfy the people in the hopes of getting the vote passed. He felt he shared too much in explaining the problems of the people who had left and how the elders viewed it. His indiscretion also hurt the subsequent vote. The meeting ended with a series of votes defeating the proposals laid before the congregation by the elders. The pastor told me that people were now distancing themselves from the elders, that distrust was increasing, and folks were leaving.No, both answers are not correct. This is one point that has not been discussed in this thread. Here is what I see: A pastor and his fellow elders were “ready to lead the congregation into a building project.” However, either through their own lack of attention to the seriousness of problems in the body or because the problems had been hidden from them, the “building project” discussion turned into a discussion about budget issues (could the church afford this?) and people who had left because they had problems with the leadership. IOW they wanted to push forward a building project (many times stressful even for a healthy church) despite these signs of disunity in the body. When they saw the direction the meeting was going, they should have tabled the discussion until the other issues could be dealt with.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this……
Shepherds are supposed to lead their sheep, not drive them. By using an extra-biblical parliamentary “trick” (“you are out of order”) or declaring “we are the leaders; we should just go ahead without consulting the body” the leaders of this church would be attempting to force the church to follow them - even if the body had serious problems or questions that needed to be discussed. A building program is not more important than the body-life of the church.
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church. OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
Shaynus, I know there are times when there are one or two troublemakers in the church that always want to bring up their pet subject or “problem” every time there is a business meeting. While these situations can pop up - and it may be appropriate in those times to rule them “out of order” - in general this indicates that church discipline is not being practiced. Instead, those who are divisive should be rebuked by the leadership and if they continue, put under corrective discipline (Tit. 3:10).
However if it is a major part of the body that have problems that are not being faced or are against a project you will win the battle but lose the war by ignoring them, ruling them “out of order” or winning with 51% of the vote. Sometimes these votes are necessary but they should be saved for the times when the two parts of the body can only separate since they cannot walk together without being agreed (Amos 3:3). Extremely disgruntled people (esp. if they are flesh-driven people) are not going to calmly follow the leadership because they have been voted down or ruled “out of order.”
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[Shaynus]…...
He went on to explain that he and his fellow elders thought they had prepared themselves for a small amount of conflict at the meeting. They had their talking points down and believed they were ready to lead the congregation into a building project. However, the church meeting turned sour when budget issues and the building project were raised. Some members were upset about friends who had recently left the church with unresolved complaints about the leadership. My pastor friend had been chosen as the elder to address that issue, and he tried to explain the situation to everybody’s satisfaction. But instead his answers only led to more questions.
He was confronted with a Catch-22 situation: either give detailed answers to the church about private matters, or explain his unwillingness to share details and leave the voting members dissatisfied and possibly upset enough to vote down the budget. To his own regret, he admitted that he went too far trying to satisfy the people in the hopes of getting the vote passed. He felt he shared too much in explaining the problems of the people who had left and how the elders viewed it. His indiscretion also hurt the subsequent vote. The meeting ended with a series of votes defeating the proposals laid before the congregation by the elders. The pastor told me that people were now distancing themselves from the elders, that distrust was increasing, and folks were leaving.No, both answers are not correct. This is one point that has not been discussed in this thread. Here is what I see: A pastor and his fellow elders were “ready to lead the congregation into a building project.” However, either through their own lack of attention to the seriousness of problems in the body or because the problems had been hidden from them, the “building project” discussion turned into a discussion about budget issues (could the church afford this?) and people who had left because they had problems with the leadership. IOW they wanted to push forward a building project (many times stressful even for a healthy church) despite these signs of disunity in the body. When they saw the direction the meeting was going, they should have tabled the discussion until the other issues could be dealt with.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this……
Shepherds are supposed to lead their sheep, not drive them. By using an extra-biblical parliamentary “trick” (“you are out of order”) or declaring “we are the leaders; we should just go ahead without consulting the body” the leaders of this church would be attempting to force the church to follow them - even if the body had serious problems or questions that needed to be discussed. A building program is not more important than the body-life of the church.
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church. OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
Shaynus, I know there are times when there are one or two troublemakers in the church that always want to bring up their pet subject or “problem” every time there is a business meeting. While these situations can pop up - and it may be appropriate in those times to rule them “out of order” - in general this indicates that church discipline is not being practiced. Instead, those who are divisive should be rebuked by the leadership and if they continue, put under corrective discipline (Tit. 3:10).
However if it is a major part of the body that have problems that are not being faced or are against a project you will win the battle but lose the war by ignoring them, ruling them “out of order” or winning with 51% of the vote. Sometimes these votes are necessary but they should be saved for the times when the two parts of the body can only separate since they cannot walk together without being agreed (Amos 3:3). Extremely disgruntled people (esp. if they are flesh-driven people) are not going to calmly follow the leadership because they have been voted down or ruled “out of order.”
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
(For some reason, the text of my post keeps disappearing.)
[Shaynus]…..
He went on to explain that he and his fellow elders thought they had prepared themselves for a small amount of conflict at the meeting. They had their talking points down and believed they were ready to lead the congregation into a building project. However, the church meeting turned sour when budget issues and the building project were raised. Some members were upset about friends who had recently left the church with unresolved complaints about the leadership. My pastor friend had been chosen as the elder to address that issue, and he tried to explain the situation to everybody’s satisfaction. But instead his answers only led to more questions.
He was confronted with a Catch-22 situation: either give detailed answers to the church about private matters, or explain his unwillingness to share details and leave the voting members dissatisfied and possibly upset enough to vote down the budget. To his own regret, he admitted that he went too far trying to satisfy the people in the hopes of getting the vote passed. He felt he shared too much in explaining the problems of the people who had left and how the elders viewed it. His indiscretion also hurt the subsequent vote. The meeting ended with a series of votes defeating the proposals laid before the congregation by the elders. The pastor told me that people were now distancing themselves from the elders, that distrust was increasing, and folks were leaving.No, both answers are not correct. This is one point that has not been discussed in this thread. Here is what I see: A pastor and his fellow elders were “ready to lead the congregation into a building project.” However, either through their own lack of attention to the seriousness of problems in the body or because the problems had been hidden from them, the “building project” discussion turned into a discussion about budget issues (could the church afford this?) and people who had left because they had problems with the leadership. IOW they wanted to push forward a building project (many times stressful even for a healthy church) despite these signs of disunity in the body. When they saw the direction the meeting was going, they should have tabled the discussion until the other issues could be dealt with.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this……
Shepherds are supposed to lead their sheep, not drive them. By using an extra-biblical parliamentary “trick” (“you are out of order”) or declaring “we are the leaders; we should just go ahead without consulting the body” the leaders of this church would be attempting to force the church to follow them - even if the body had serious problems or questions that needed to be discussed. A building program is not more important than the body-life of the church.
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church. OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
Shaynus, I know there are times when there are one or two troublemakers in the church that always want to bring up their pet subject or “problem” every time there is a business meeting. While these situations can pop up - and it may be appropriate in those times to rule them “out of order” - in general this indicates that church discipline is not being practiced. Instead, those who are divisive should be rebuked by the leadership and if they continue, put under corrective discipline (Tit. 3:10).
However if it is a major part of the body that have problems that are not being faced or are against a project you will win the battle but lose the war by ignoring them, ruling them “out of order” or winning with 51% of the vote. Sometimes these votes are necessary but they should be saved for the times when the two parts of the body can only separate since they cannot walk together without being agreed (Amos 3:3). Extremely disgruntled people (esp. if they are flesh-driven people) are not going to calmly follow the leadership because they have been voted down or ruled “out of order.”
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Nice to hear back, Joe.
Votes among men who are genuinely elder qualified is not really a problem, but it’s sort of like using a hammer to put in a wood screw. There are better ways that bring harmony.
Are you saying that congregations can’t vote, but that elders can?I am familiar with elder boards that use modified versions of parliamentary procedure just because each month brings so much to the agenda. The real question is not votes, per se, but what they do with differing opinions and principles. I am flying back from Africa where I counseled an elder board in a large church who was split. They have men who are qualified on the board, and a number of unqualified men on the board. They are involved in a messy church discipline case, and as you might suspect, those who are qualified are committed to Christ’s pattern of dealing with sin, while those who aren’t are not. They cannot work in unanimity, as Scripture teaches, because in the past they disobeyed Christ and put men into leadership who violate His standards, and now they are paying a steep price.
Votes among men who are genuinely elder qualified is not really a problem, but it’s sort of like using a hammer to put in a wood screw. There are better ways that bring harmony.
I’m trying to understand (haven’t read your book). Is the issue, in your understanding, voting itself, by its very definition, is wrong because it displays disagreements in the body of Christ? So the congregation doesn’t vote and the elders do not vote either?Voting per se is not the problem. It is the surface representation of a deeper problem – of an unwillingness and distrust to govern the church according to Christ’s pure, holy, sanctifying, and edifying standards (hence 1 Cor. 1:10, for example).
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church.Hey brother – as you no doubt know, there are often people matters which must be kept private.
In biblical eldership, the elders are accountable to the congregation to the full extent of Scripture. There couldn’t be any higher accountability than to perfectly obey everything God says.
OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
[Seth Johnson] I have looked up “vote” in every dictionary in my house and multiple websites, I have read completely the Titus Mandate(prior to this discussion) and I know too much the trauma of church division from both elder and congregationally structured churches.Seth, I appreciate the comments. Could you give me more specifics of unkind words? (I’m still in Africa, will be back soon).
That said there are obvious disagreements that Godly men who love the Word have over this issue, disagreements which shall not be settled by these posts.
Letting each one be convinced in his own mind, let then those who have not become convinced not be marked as unthinking or unlearned men. The high goal, not highest, but high goal of communication here is understanding which falls not fully on the learner but in greater part upon the teacher. Bear patiently then with those who disagree. Cast them not as those pursuing the world, but growing in grace. Welcome them not to the conversation if it is only to chide them like children.
Brother Ted, you are well loved, respected and to be thanked for your passion in this area. But please consider a little more grace to those, like me, who are the ‘weak’ not yet having come to agreement. If someone says “i don’t understand” then it behooves you choose different, perhaps better words.
if you are not yet back in the states - God bless you as you travel. If so - welcome home to CT. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
But I disagree with the application of Rom 14:5 to this matter, That passage speaks of weak in faith vs. strong in faith in which both walk with equal integrity before the Lord. The matter I am writing about is a matter of righteousness and submission to Scripture.
Ted,
I find it unkind to have read your instructions to men, myself included to ‘go read’ and ‘go look up in the dictionary’ as if they had not thought of doing so, be it dictionary, Scripture passage or your book. Real men are wrestling with these issues and it is unkind to speak as if they have not done any study or cannot apply Scripture well.
Many questions apply to the practicality of decision making or the receptivity of decision making. Perhaps your next book will shed better light.
I find it unkind to have read your instructions to men, myself included to ‘go read’ and ‘go look up in the dictionary’ as if they had not thought of doing so, be it dictionary, Scripture passage or your book. Real men are wrestling with these issues and it is unkind to speak as if they have not done any study or cannot apply Scripture well.
Many questions apply to the practicality of decision making or the receptivity of decision making. Perhaps your next book will shed better light.
[Ted Bigelow] Voting per se is not the problem. It is the surface representation of a deeper problem – of an unwillingness and distrust to govern the church according to Christ’s pure, holy, sanctifying, and edifying standards (hence 1 Cor. 1:10, for example).Thanks for the input, Ted. Frankly, I’m still puzzled.
If I understand your above paragraph, then the title of this thread might rather be “Is Congregational Disunity Biblical?” I say that because, if I understand what you wrote here, voting is not the problem; disunity is the problem. So you are not against ‘voting’ as a means of making decisions… you are against the disunity you think voting reveals. Is that correct?
And the reference to 1 Cor 1 is puzzling, because earlier you said that Scripture is not developing church polity in 1 Cor 1.
Do you think elders vote as a board to make decisions for the church as a body?
Joe
If I understand your above paragraph, then the title of this thread might rather be “Is Congregational Disunity Biblical?” I say that because, if I understand what you wrote here, voting is not the problem; disunity is the problem. So you are not against ‘voting’ as a means of making decisions… you are against the disunity you think voting reveals. Is that correct?Well, I wrote the article to get people thinking through the reasons the Lord does not reveal voting as a means for how He wants biblical congregations to come to God-glorifying, scripturally obedient, decisions. If we believe the Scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, and the Bible doesn’t teach voting, then why do it? A corollary to that is this assertion: no one ever read the Bible and was encouraged to go vote in church.
And the reference to 1 Cor 1 is puzzling, because earlier you said that Scripture is not developing church polity in 1 Cor 1.Many Scriptures provide direct principles that apply to church polity, but yet are not teaching polity as directly as Titus 1:5 does. For example, Eph. 4:3, while not discussing church polity, provides the Christian with authoritative commands that govern polity: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” It’s a verse that teaches the same principle as 1 Cor. 1:10, and as it applies to the matter of voting, we who must ask how motions, debate, and divisions of matters fulfill Christ’s word to us to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?” Parliamentary procedure does not have as its goal how to obey the voice of God in Scripture, but how to ascertain the will of the majority while providing room for the voice of the minority. But our unity as Christians does not come about as we match up our majority and minority positions, but as we embrace Scripture.
Do you think elders vote as a board to make decisions for the church as a body?Jesus Christ has never asked an Christian to vote in a church meeting so as to arrive at a decision, so it fails Mat. 22:37 and Mat. 4:4. Voting carries the same potential weaknesses among elders as it does among the congregation to the extent parliamentary leads them away from Eph. 4:3.
God uses words to describe elders that are indicative of what He wants them to do. Titus 1:7 calls qualified elders (i.e., men with advanced spiritual maturity as measured by objective standards) - “God’s stewards” – as opposed to “church member representatives.” In 1 Thess. 5:12 they are “those who have charge over you.” In Heb. 13:17 they are “leaders” - the word there meant governmental leader. In 1 Tim. 3:4-5, and 5:17 they are those who “rule.” In Titus 1:6 they are called “overseers.” In Acts 15 they, along with the apostles, make ruling decisions over the churches. They are never called “representatives,” councilmen, selectmen, or assemblymen, which are words consonant with leadership in a voting framework.
[Ted Bigelow]They would have sinned - by choosing not to obey God in their church discipline.[dan miller] Look at 1 Cor 5. The church is rebuked for having not disassociated themselves with him. You don’t have to take a vote to not associate with a brother in sin.Yes, I understand. But since the congregation is not told to vote in 1 Corinthians 5, but to obey by putting the man out, it’s worth trying. Have you considered what would have happened if the Corinthian church voted… and voted to keep the impenitent man in?
I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote.
Practically ANY human choice involves an opportunity to sin. That doesn’t mean that the form of the choice is invalid. I’ll come back to this.
[Ted Bigelow]Sorry, I missed that post.[dan miller] Especially when you add 2 Cor 2:6, where the punishment of an excommunicated member is said to have been “by the majority.” This verse was initially brought up by Aaron and has received no attention.2 Cor. 2:6 was answered in post 43.
[Ted Bigelow, post #43] This verbal reproof of the majority comes to an impenitent church member in submission to Jesus’ command to the church in Mat. 18:17Ted, you addressed 2 Cor 2:6 in two ways: (Response on pg. 278, The Titus Mandate)
1. You address the nature of the “punishment.” You minimize this from the traditional understanding of exile to a group verbal reprimand. You say that this word appears many times in the NT, “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.”
My response to your response:
The Greek word: 1) This is actually the only time that this word appears in the NT. Here it is a noun. The verb form is used many times. It is likely that the noun refers to the same concept as the verb, but this is not always so.
2) Some uses of the verb would certainly not be a “brotherly correction” as you assert:
Context:
In this case, the context says that whatever it was, there was an ongoing consideration of guilt and lack of reception of this man. Paul’s concern that the church judge him had turned into concern that the man will be swallowed up with guilt. This seems totally consistent with a man to whom the church has said, “You are not one of us.” He was expelled.
Is 2 Cor 2 “Episode 2” of 1 Corinthians 5?
A lot of people think so. (JF&B, M.Henry, ) Paul attributes the way the Corinthians punished this man to his own previous writing.
2. You respond to the fact that this was done by the “majority” (or the “most”). “It would be just as fair to claim that a majority of the church closed a door in his face, issued a restraining order, or stayed away from his meat business. It’s all conjecture. The claim that a vote was taken only reads into the text what one hopes to find.”
John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible: “from whence we learn, that in case of gross enormities, there ought to be a public excommunication; and that this is to be done by the vote, and with the consent of the whole church, or the major part of it.”
A.T.Robertson’s Word Pictures: “they had taken his advice and expelled the offender.”
Barnes’ Notes: “Which was inflicted of many - By the church in its collective capacity; see the note on 1 Corinthians 5:4. Paul had required the church to administer this act of discipline, and they had promptly done it. It is evident that the whole church was concerned in the administration of the act of discipline; as the words ‘of many’ (ἀπὸ τῶν πλείονων apo tōn pleionōn are not applicable either to a single” bishop, or a single minister, or a presbytery, or a bench of elders: nor can they be so regarded, except by a forced and unnatural construction. Paul had directed it to be done by the assembled church 1 Corinthians 5:4, and this phrase shows that they had followed his instructions. Locke supposes that the phrase means, ‘by the majority;’ Macknight renders it, “by the greater number;” Bloomfield supposes that it means that the ‘punishment was carried into effect by all.’ Doddridge paraphrases it, ‘by the whole body of your society.’ The expression proves beyond a doubt that the whole body of the society was concerned in the act of the excommunication, and that is a proper way of administering discipline. Whether it proves, however, that that is the mode which is to be observed in all instances, may admit of a doubt, as the example of the early churches, in a particular case, does not prove that that mode has the force of a binding rule on all.”
Ted, if you want to discard the obvious reading of this text, you’ll need to provide a plausible alternative reading.
Is it really reasonable to think they issued a restraining order? I’m not a 1st century historian, but that seems anachronistic.
Your first alternate conjecture, that the majority closed a door in his face, sounds like James K’s response:
[James K] Regarding the sinful man at Corinth, Paul said in 1 Cor 5:3 that he had already decided what to do. He expected them to follow through with what he already decided. Paul did not decide to let them vote. Paul decided to cast the man out. The majority then in being obedient to Paul had to cast him out. I don’t think that situation requires a vote of any kind. In fact, I would think their vote at that point would have been sinful.Did the body at Corinth vote and then act in unity to punish? Or did they not vote, but acted in disunity with the majority punishing and a minority not punishing?
If they didn’t vote and instead acted individually, that would have been very divisive. Much more divisive than a vote, which in my experience is not divisive when led by reasonable Biblical leadership. Those who didn’t expel would have still received him. How can you have part of a church expelling and part of it receiving? I don’t see how the church could even stay together as one church for very long like that. And that’s our model for step 4 church discipline?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I’m only on ch. 4 in your book, but I read ahead to the 2 Cor 2 section.
[Ted Bigelow] A corollary to that is this assertion: no one ever read the Bible and was encouraged to go vote in church.Have you not read anyone on these passages? Lots of people read Acts 6, Acts 14, 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 2, etc. and are encouraged to vote in church. You may not read it that way, but to assert that no one does is weird.
[Dan Miller]But my brother, those verses don’t talk about voting. Even if I adopt the view that these texts teach the congregation makes an authoritative choice (which I don’t), those texts wouldn’t tell me that the choice of the congregation was made by voting any more than they would tell me the congregation made their choice by lots, or any other means.[Ted Bigelow] A corollary to that is this assertion: no one ever read the Bible and was encouraged to go vote in church.Have you not read anyone on these passages? Lots of people read Acts 6, Acts 14, 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 2, etc. and are encouraged to vote in church. You may not read it that way, but to assert that no one does is weird.
Dan, thanks for taking your valuable time to study these issues. I really enjoy this interaction, and you are making me think. Thank you. Obviously I can’t respond point by point, so I’ll just try to hit what I see are your central points. But if I fail to capture something central to you, please let me know.
Re 2 Cor. 2:6
I do not believe in the “group verbal reprimand,” as you write it above. I believe the church members are to do the same confrontation with the impenitent member as the individual and witnesses do in Mat. 18:15-16 - personal. This is based on Jesus’ use of “listen” with all three groups (individual, witness, church). Also note the use of the ascensive “kai” in 18:17b, which shows Jesus is commanding ever increasing levels of personal rebuke.
And I’m always a little leery of “traditional understandings,” aren’t you? When you consider that voting in churches didn’t begin until the late 1500s, and didn’t become widespread until the latter 1700s, it sort of pulls the rug out from a “traditional understanding,” no?
Here’s why I don’t think we should think the man was expelled, but rather only reprooved: (p. 301, The Titus Mandate):
Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. To me anyway, that’s hardly a place I would want to rest my argument upon. After that, you quote several sources that agree with your opinion, but that is hardly determinative, for there are others who disagree. It does not appear you have taken into account the instances where epitimao is used in contexts similar to 2 Cor. 2:6 such as Luke 17:3 and 2 Tim. 4:2. Perhaps when time allows you can look up the word in respected Bible dictionaries, such as TDNT and NIDNTT?
Ted: Look at 1 Cor 5. The church is rebuked for having not disassociated themselves with him. You don’t have to take a vote to not associate with a brother in sin. Dan: I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. Ted:Perhaps you did come back to this, and I missed it. My question for you is simple. If the Corinthian church voted not to put the man out, what should Paul’s response have been to them based on Christ’s teachings?
Yes, I understand. But since the congregation is not told to vote in 1 Corinthians 5, but to obey by putting the man out, it’s worth trying. Have you considered what would have happened if the Corinthian church voted… and voted to keep the impenitent man in? Dan:They would have sinned - by choosing not to obey God in their church discipline.
Practically ANY human choice involves an opportunity to sin. That doesn’t mean that the form of the choice is invalid. I’ll come back to this.
Re 2 Cor. 2:6
You minimize this from the traditional understanding of exile to a group verbal reprimand. You say that this word appears many times in the NT, “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.”Again, thanks for reading the book. The quote from my book that you have cited has a footnote reference to both TDNT, 2:625, and NIDNTT, 1:572. There you will find scholarly support contrary to the congregational interpretation of epitimao in 2 Cor. 2:6. Obviously, the context is the use of epitimao in person to person rebuke, not Christ’s rebukes to demons. I don’t think you want to go down the road of using Jesus’ rebukes and expulsions of demons as your basis for seeing a congregational vote to expel a member, do you?
I do not believe in the “group verbal reprimand,” as you write it above. I believe the church members are to do the same confrontation with the impenitent member as the individual and witnesses do in Mat. 18:15-16 - personal. This is based on Jesus’ use of “listen” with all three groups (individual, witness, church). Also note the use of the ascensive “kai” in 18:17b, which shows Jesus is commanding ever increasing levels of personal rebuke.
And I’m always a little leery of “traditional understandings,” aren’t you? When you consider that voting in churches didn’t begin until the late 1500s, and didn’t become widespread until the latter 1700s, it sort of pulls the rug out from a “traditional understanding,” no?
Actually, the man’s guilt doesn’t tell us whether the man had merely been verbally reproved (Mat. 18:17a), or expelled (Mat. 18:17b). We have to make that determination from other factors in the text. The vital factor is, “what does epitimao in 2 Cor. 2:6 mean?”
In this case, the context says that whatever it was, there was an ongoing consideration of guilt and lack of reception of this man. Paul’s concern that the church judge him had turned into concern that the man will be swallowed up with guilt. This seems totally consistent with a man to whom the church has said, “You are not one of us.” He was expelled.
Here’s why I don’t think we should think the man was expelled, but rather only reprooved: (p. 301, The Titus Mandate):
This immediate restoration that Paul commands is without a requirement of repentance from the sorrowing man. This shows that this man was never put out of the church. Anyone rejoining a church after the fourth step requires repentance. Rather, Paul tells the church twice to forgive him without the man needing to confess sin or perform any appropriate deeds of repentance (2 Corinthians 2:7, 10). In other words, this was a sorrowing and hurting man who had no unconfessed sin related to this incident to repent of and forsake. For this reason, it does not make sense to regard this individual as the immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5. Before being allowed back into the Corinthian church, the immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5 had to leave his father’s wife. He also had the responsibility to ask forgiveness of the church for his sin of hard-heartedness against them all. Sorrow alone would not have been enough for him to be restored into the church (2 Corinthians 7:10b).
Ted, if you want to discard the obvious reading of this text, you’ll need to provide a plausible alternative reading.I do at length in the book, and it is more obvious than claiming a church vote in 2 Cor. 2:6.
Is it really reasonable to think they issued a restraining order? I’m not a 1st century historian, but that seems anachronistic.That’s my point, exactly! I write,
“It would be just as fair to claim that a majority of the church closed a door in his face, issued a restraining order, or stayed away from his meat business. It’s all conjecture. The claim that a vote was taken only reads into the text what one hopes to find.”When you dismiss my alternatives as anachronistic and unrealistic, you have provided the reason for why the idea of a church vote in the verse is to be roundly dismissed. It reads into the text something completely foreign to it.
Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. To me anyway, that’s hardly a place I would want to rest my argument upon. After that, you quote several sources that agree with your opinion, but that is hardly determinative, for there are others who disagree. It does not appear you have taken into account the instances where epitimao is used in contexts similar to 2 Cor. 2:6 such as Luke 17:3 and 2 Tim. 4:2. Perhaps when time allows you can look up the word in respected Bible dictionaries, such as TDNT and NIDNTT?
[Ted Bigelow] Perhaps you did come back to this, and I missed it. My question for you is simple. If the Corinthian church voted not to put the man out, what should Paul’s response have been to them based on Christ’s teachings?
[Ted Bigelow, #99] For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time. And violating 1 Cor. 1:10 is high handed sin.I think that this is pretty argumentative on your part. And you argue two things:
1) Voting reduces unity.
2) Voting allows the possibility of sin.
-=-=-=-= Begin Assumption =-=-=-
Ok, lets assume (though it wasn’t true) that 60% of the members at Corinth did NOT believe that The Man should be expelled.
If they voted, “not expel” would have won, and that choice would have been sinful. It would have bothered Paul, who would have prayed for grace for them and further rebuked them for their sin.
It would have been frustrating for the ones who wanted to obey. For them, there would be a serious question:Is my church really a church when she can disobey God’s commands? Then they would have wondered, Should I leave this body? Believers must ask this question whenever they are in a body that accepts sin. Stay and work for reform? or Come out? This depends on whether one sees signs that progress is likely and on God’s leading, I think. If the people who voted not to expel say they felt unsure and didn’t want to take such a drastic (and mean) step without a better understanding, then the door is open for teaching within the body. If the elders want to patiently teach the people what they need to know to be obedient here, then progress is likely and staying, working, and praying for reform is right.
Certainly, this is an uncomfortable situation. But many a shepherd has found himself leading a flock that doesn’t know yet how to obey some command. They can’t obey until they understand. Teach. Ask for obedience. Teach.
In your scenario, they don’t vote. Paul gives the command and asks for obedience. But remember, we’re assuming that 60% do not believe that he should be expelled. So they would respond by maintaining their reception of The Man. The minority would attempt to expel him, but with the majority welcoming him, he may feel free to still come.
This ALSO would be frustrating for the minority who wanted to obey. Again, Is my church really a church? And again, Should I leave this body? Stay and work for reform? or Come out?
Trying to make step 4 a individual matter is much more a recipe for disunity than voting and acting together.
Or, perhaps, 60% want to receive The Man, but the elders pronounce him “expelled.” 60% continue to receive him in disobedience to God, Paul, and their elders. Again, Is my church really a church?, etc.
This also seems less unified than the church that voted.
-=-=-=-= End of Assumption =-=-=-
I believe that a church with a Biblical notion of unified action based on congregational polity must humbly submit to the majority. So, after hearing 1 Corinthians, they voted, a majority acted to expel, and the church as a whole acted together to obey. That’s unity.
So Corinth votes: 70% for expelling. The church together as one expels.
Your unity seems like that of a husband and wife who never fight.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Your second objection is that there is the possibility of sin. You can’t let people vote; they might vote wrongly and thereby sin.
Before you is life and death: choose life. We don’t respond, “Oh, well God could not have meant to really give people that choice. That leaves the door open to sin.”
Besides, they didn’t.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The majority did punish. So if voting is what happened, then it worked for the obedience of all. That is way better than leaving the minority to act in their own private disobedience and having the church send The Man such mixed messages.
[Ted Bigelow] And I’m always a little leery of “traditional understandings,” aren’t you? When you consider that voting in churches didn’t begin until the late 1500s, and didn’t become widespread until the latter 1700s, it sort of pulls the rug out from a “traditional understanding,” no?No. I don’t see that voting didn’t begin until the late 1500s. The promoters of the magisterium may have refused the people this right for a long time. And there may have been a return to it in the 1500s. But I don’t believe that it was new.
Didache 15:
Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, V. 1,660-661, Edward Gibbon:
1 Clement 44:1-2
There’s more…
I’m in debt to Jeff Brown here. See http://www.amazon.com/Form-Freedom-Jeff-Brown/dp/3937965068] Form and Freedom .
[Ted Bigelow] Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. To me anyway, that’s hardly a place I would want to rest my argument upon. After that, you quote several sources that agree with your opinion, but that is hardly determinative, for there are others who disagree. It does not appear you have taken into account the instances where epitimao is used in contexts similar to 2 Cor. 2:6 such as Luke 17:3 and 2 Tim. 4:2. Perhaps when time allows you can look up the word in respected Bible dictionaries, such as TDNT and NIDNTT?I have a set of TDNT at home - will check tonight.
Can we be sure that ἐπιτιμία was a sentence of expulsion because ἐπετίμησεν was sometimes a act of expulsion? No. But expulsion is within the set of meanings indicated by this word. You seemed to want to say that ἐπιτιμάω was always a verbal rebuke. Here were your words: “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.” My only point was that such a limit on the meaning of ἐπιτιμάω is not consistent with NT usage.
That doesn’t certainly mean that the 2 Corinthians 2 usage was expulsion. But it could be and you should say it can’t.
Is that my only exegetical contribution? huh. Embarrassing.
Hi Dan,
Didache 15:You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you.
I assume you are looking at the word “elect” in Didache 15:1 as proof of early voting in church history. However, the Greek word in Didache 15:1 is from “cheirotoneiv” and is never translated in the NT as “vote” (see Acts 14:23, and 2 Cor. 8:19). It doesn’t make sense to use the meaning of vote in either of those verses, as I point out in my book, and have discussed in this thread. It was however used of voting among ancient pagans.
Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, V. 1,660-661, Edward Gibbon:I can’t respond to Gibbon. I’m way beyond my small area of expertise in trying to exegete him! However, I’ve never seen him cited before as an authoritative source on ecclesiastical polity either. Instead, see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8:140, (Eerdmans, reprint 1995).The submission, or the resistance, of the clergy and people, on various occasions, afforded different precedents, which were insensibly converted into positive laws, and provincial customs: but it was everywhere admitted, as a fundamental maxim of religious policy, that no bishop could be imposed on an orthodox church, without the consent of its members. The emperors as the guardians of the public peace, and as the first citizens of Home and Constantinople, might effectually declare their wishes in the choice of a primate: but those absolute monarchs respected the freedom of ecclesiastical elections; and while they distributed and resumed the honours of the state and army, they allowed eighteen hundred perpetual magistrates to receive their important offices from the free suffrages of the people.
1 Clement 44:1-2And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.Ahh, I feel better here. I discuss this passage (the earliest of all Christian writings outside the canon) at length in Chapter 11. It displays the NT appointment pattern of elders entirely. And here is why it dismisses the congregational claim that authority lies in the congregation. Go back and read the Clement quote and notice that the church consents but does not appoint. “Appointment” is with those in authority, “consent” is with those in agreement. Only “other approved” men do the appointing.
I’m in debt to Jeff Brown here. See http://www.amazon.com/Form-Freedom-Jeff-Brown/dp/3937965068] Form and Freedom .I’m not familiar with Jeff’s work.
Thanks again, Dan. I enjoy the discussion.
@Dan
Regarding the majority/minority issue, I don’t know what Paul meant. He could have meant that when he wrote 2 Cor, the church had grown larger but that a majority of the present church was part of the 1 Cor 5 situation. We simply do not have enough facts as to what Paul meant. I think it is pure speculation.
Some of my best friends believe the congregational vote is to be part of the assembly. I don’t have any ill will toward people of that belief other than I wish they weren’t so headstrong in being wrong. :oP
Did the body at Corinth vote and then act in unity to punish? Or did they not vote, but acted in disunity with the majority punishing and a minority not punishing?I still fail to see why they had to vote and what they would be voting to do. No decision had to be made. The decision had already been made. I suppose they could have voted on whether or not to obey what Paul said. If that is the case, then I think that would have been rebellion and a bad argument for congregational voting.
If they didn’t vote and instead acted individually, that would have been very divisive. Much more divisive than a vote, which in my experience is not divisive when led by reasonable Biblical leadership. Those who didn’t expel would have still received him. How can you have part of a church expelling and part of it receiving? I don’t see how the church could even stay together as one church for very long like that. And that’s our model for step 4 church discipline?
Regarding the majority/minority issue, I don’t know what Paul meant. He could have meant that when he wrote 2 Cor, the church had grown larger but that a majority of the present church was part of the 1 Cor 5 situation. We simply do not have enough facts as to what Paul meant. I think it is pure speculation.
Some of my best friends believe the congregational vote is to be part of the assembly. I don’t have any ill will toward people of that belief other than I wish they weren’t so headstrong in being wrong. :oP
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.
Ted, thanks for the tone and quality of this discussion.
TDNT says, “Raising the hand to express agreement in a vote is called χειροτονέω.” Thayer’s agrees. Calvin agrees - which I already posted about a hundred posts back.
Calvin: “…the whole body, as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus, it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but because they received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election… . We must interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church.” - John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, vol. 2, regarding Acts 14:23.
Similar to how one might say that Speaker Boehner “passed a bill” even though he only led in its passing.
See also the early English Bibles [spelling is archaic]:
Acts 14:23 (Tyndale Bible 1534) “And when they had ordened them elders by election…”
Acts 14:23 (Cramner Bible 1539) “And when they had ordened them elders by election…”
Acts 14:23 (Geneva Bible 1557) “And when they had ordeined them Elders by election…”
A.T.Robertson: “χειροτονέω (from ceirotono, extending the hand, ceir, hand, and teinw, to stretch) is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in 2 Corinthians 8:19 , and then to appoint without regard to choice as in Josephus (Ant. XIII. 2, 2) of the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by Alexander. So in Acts 10:41 the compound proceiratonew is used of witnesses appointed by God. But the seven (deacons) were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed (katasthsomen) by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus ( Titus 1:5 ) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas “ordained” them as we say, though the word χειροτονέω does not mean that.
I see the preponderance of Greek expert people saying that this word evokes a vote or at least approval by the body. And they seem to indicate a progression from “facilitating a vote of a body” to “appointing with the selection of the body” and chronologically Acts is right in the middle of that progression. So it could go either way. Except in other ways, I see a pretty fast progression to man-centered church in the first couple generations of the church, so I think some guys decided to wrest the Text a little. In other words, some of the latter part of that meaning, I think, comes from the man-centered problems that occur in the early church. And they might have held on to asking the people to rubber stamp with their consent might for a while.
I was a member of a church in Columbia, SC for a while. It was baptist and constitutionally we were supposed to vote. The only major “vote” I ever saw went like this: Pastor: “I really think we should build this extension. All in favor - say aye, all opposed, be quiet! haha. Motion passed. Let’s have some cookies and punch.” No pauses in that quote. That pastor was getting things done. And I believe that the same sort of trend happened in the early church. Teaching your people and bringing them to a point where they will make the right decision is hard.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ted, I really don’t think that I’ve proven that a vote is required. But I definitely lean toward thinking that Scripture asks for it and examples it at least on some occasions. I actually agree that Titus 1 puts more of a mandate on Titus because it doesn’t use χειροτονέω. Titus is more of a missionary type of guy assisting the start of some very immature churches.
Instead of saying that a vote is required, I would say that a church that can vote for their elders and do church membership business in a spirit of unity (and thus follow the mature-church Biblical model) should be the goal of the pastors / elders.
But I also don’t think that a vote is sinful or dis-unifying per se, though, done poorly, it can be. Just as elder-ruled churches done poorly can be horrible places which are unsafe and frustrating for God’s people.
[Ted Bigelow] I assume you are looking at the word “elect” in Didache 15:1 as proof of early voting in church history. However, the Greek word in Didache 15:1 is from “cheirotoneiv” and is never translated in the NT as “vote” (see Acts 14:23, and 2 Cor. 8:19). It doesn’t make sense to use the meaning of vote in either of those verses, as I point out in my book, and have discussed in this thread. It was however used of voting among ancient pagans.Well, this one will be next to discuss, though it has been brought up.
TDNT says, “Raising the hand to express agreement in a vote is called χειροτονέω.” Thayer’s agrees. Calvin agrees - which I already posted about a hundred posts back.
Calvin: “…the whole body, as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus, it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but because they received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election… . We must interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church.” - John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, vol. 2, regarding Acts 14:23.
Similar to how one might say that Speaker Boehner “passed a bill” even though he only led in its passing.
See also the early English Bibles [spelling is archaic]:
Acts 14:23 (Tyndale Bible 1534) “And when they had ordened them elders by election…”
Acts 14:23 (Cramner Bible 1539) “And when they had ordened them elders by election…”
Acts 14:23 (Geneva Bible 1557) “And when they had ordeined them Elders by election…”
A.T.Robertson: “χειροτονέω (from ceirotono, extending the hand, ceir, hand, and teinw, to stretch) is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in 2 Corinthians 8:19 , and then to appoint without regard to choice as in Josephus (Ant. XIII. 2, 2) of the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by Alexander. So in Acts 10:41 the compound proceiratonew is used of witnesses appointed by God. But the seven (deacons) were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed (katasthsomen) by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus ( Titus 1:5 ) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas “ordained” them as we say, though the word χειροτονέω does not mean that.
I see the preponderance of Greek expert people saying that this word evokes a vote or at least approval by the body. And they seem to indicate a progression from “facilitating a vote of a body” to “appointing with the selection of the body” and chronologically Acts is right in the middle of that progression. So it could go either way. Except in other ways, I see a pretty fast progression to man-centered church in the first couple generations of the church, so I think some guys decided to wrest the Text a little. In other words, some of the latter part of that meaning, I think, comes from the man-centered problems that occur in the early church. And they might have held on to asking the people to rubber stamp with their consent might for a while.
I was a member of a church in Columbia, SC for a while. It was baptist and constitutionally we were supposed to vote. The only major “vote” I ever saw went like this: Pastor: “I really think we should build this extension. All in favor - say aye, all opposed, be quiet! haha. Motion passed. Let’s have some cookies and punch.” No pauses in that quote. That pastor was getting things done. And I believe that the same sort of trend happened in the early church. Teaching your people and bringing them to a point where they will make the right decision is hard.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ted, I really don’t think that I’ve proven that a vote is required. But I definitely lean toward thinking that Scripture asks for it and examples it at least on some occasions. I actually agree that Titus 1 puts more of a mandate on Titus because it doesn’t use χειροτονέω. Titus is more of a missionary type of guy assisting the start of some very immature churches.
Instead of saying that a vote is required, I would say that a church that can vote for their elders and do church membership business in a spirit of unity (and thus follow the mature-church Biblical model) should be the goal of the pastors / elders.
But I also don’t think that a vote is sinful or dis-unifying per se, though, done poorly, it can be. Just as elder-ruled churches done poorly can be horrible places which are unsafe and frustrating for God’s people.
I’d like to ask Ted about a potential decision a church might face, and find out from him how that situation is resolved without a “vote” of some sort.
Suppose I move to a town 500 miles from my former residence. There is no Bible believing church in the town, so I start witnessing to my neighbors and co-workers and start having Bible studies in my home. Soon we have 10 families represented in these Bible studies, and we do not want our church-like activities to continue indefinitely without the Scripturely mandated office of elder to be present. How do we go about making that happen?
I can understand the concern about having a “vote” be the final arbiter of who gets put into place. I thought of an analogy, Ted, and I’d appreciate you letting me know if this analogy fits in any way. A father and mother and five kids are going out to eat. They have a standard for their family that they will only eat at healthy restaurants that are relatively inexpensive. If the final decision of where they are going to eat is based on a vote from all seven, then the kids could very well choose a place that doesn’t meet the standards, and the vote would mean they would have to go there anyway. So the vote shouldn’t be the final decision. The father can definitely get input from the kids, even using a raising of hands or a marking of ballots, but the father has the authority to actually make the final decision. In a church situation, the congregation has input (technically a “vote”) in regards to whether a particular person meets the qualifications of being an elder, but the final decision regarding eldership would come from someone with authority to make that decision rather than having a vote be the authority.
So in my new-church situation, with no elders to begin with, how does the first elder get put into position? I know they shouldn’t do it by a vote, but what other options are there? I want to follow Scripture, but all I can see is that Scripture is saying elders should be appointed by other elders, but there are no other elders in this situation.
Suppose I move to a town 500 miles from my former residence. There is no Bible believing church in the town, so I start witnessing to my neighbors and co-workers and start having Bible studies in my home. Soon we have 10 families represented in these Bible studies, and we do not want our church-like activities to continue indefinitely without the Scripturely mandated office of elder to be present. How do we go about making that happen?
I can understand the concern about having a “vote” be the final arbiter of who gets put into place. I thought of an analogy, Ted, and I’d appreciate you letting me know if this analogy fits in any way. A father and mother and five kids are going out to eat. They have a standard for their family that they will only eat at healthy restaurants that are relatively inexpensive. If the final decision of where they are going to eat is based on a vote from all seven, then the kids could very well choose a place that doesn’t meet the standards, and the vote would mean they would have to go there anyway. So the vote shouldn’t be the final decision. The father can definitely get input from the kids, even using a raising of hands or a marking of ballots, but the father has the authority to actually make the final decision. In a church situation, the congregation has input (technically a “vote”) in regards to whether a particular person meets the qualifications of being an elder, but the final decision regarding eldership would come from someone with authority to make that decision rather than having a vote be the authority.
So in my new-church situation, with no elders to begin with, how does the first elder get put into position? I know they shouldn’t do it by a vote, but what other options are there? I want to follow Scripture, but all I can see is that Scripture is saying elders should be appointed by other elders, but there are no other elders in this situation.
Ted: Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. Dan: Can we be sure that ἐπιτιμία was a sentence of expulsion because ἐπετίμησεν was sometimes a act of expulsion? No. But expulsion is within the set of meanings indicated by this word.Really? Is it really your desire to attach the meaning of expulsion to epitimao? If so, kindly reference a Greek reference work for support. It still looks like you are comparing Jesus’ casting out of demons to church discipline – a long stretch. Its like claiming prayer contains the meaning of food creation since sometimes Jesus prayed and thereby created food, or that epitimao contains the meaning of “stillness” since Jesus sometimes rebuked the wind and waves and creating great stillness (Mat. 8:26). Could you reference anyone who agrees with you that an expulsion is within the set of meanings indicated by epitimao?
Yours is a claim that twists Mat. 18:17a. In the first part of v. 17 the church is to only reprove an impenitent brother, but not expel him (c.f., 2 Thess 3:14-15). He only gets expelled if he refuses “to listen even to the church” (18:17b). You mistakenly have the rebuke expelling him when the Lord teaches it does not expel him but is the next in a series of calls to repentance. When and if the expulsion comes, it is not accompanied by a rebuke, because the impenitent is no longer considered a Christian since he is hard to repentance.
You seemed to want to say that ἐπιτιμάω was always a verbal rebuke. Here were your words: “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.” My only point was that such a limit on the meaning of ἐπιτιμάω is not consistent with NT usage.I stand by the assertion that epitimao is always a verbal reproof, and never a vote, or a censure. Therefore, 2 Cor. 2:6 does not mean the church voted, but gave a verbal repoof to the man in keeping with Christ’s words in Mat. 18:17a. And as I explained before, he couldn’t have been the man expelled from the church in 1 Cor. 5, for the man in 2 Cor. 2:6 has no steps of repentance to perform. But the man in 1 Cor. 5 did – he had to leave his father’s wife’ bed.
That doesn’t certainly mean that the 2 Corinthians 2 usage was expulsion. But it could be and you should say it can’t.
So in my new-church situation, with no elders to begin with, how does the first elder get put into position? I know they shouldn’t do it by a vote, but what other options are there? I want to follow Scripture, but all I can see is that Scripture is saying elders should be appointed by other elders, but there are no other elders in this situation.Thanks for the great question – and analogy.
Paul holds it as an imperative that a man be tested before entering eldership (1 Tim. 3:10). That rules out a vote right there since a vote tests nothing scriptural.
I think your situation is like that in 2 John, a small church without qualified elders. However, it submits itself to John, who does not identify himself to them as an apostle, but “the elder” (2 John 1). That’s not a self-appellation meant to showcase John’s eminence and dignity, but a scripturally defined office in the church of Jesus Christ, and John is writing a letter to a church.
Moving to our own time, when you have a church without elders it would be wise to ask for help from an elder(s) in another church on the appointment process. The outside elder, who has himself been tested by the standards of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 is biblically qualified to assist the church by helping test those up for eldership. He would rely heavily upon the information he learns from the church members concerning each candidate’s character, and the outside elder, like Titus, can render an valid judgment with the consent of the church after testing the candidates (1 Tim. 3:10). I explain how this process of testing works in chapters 3, 4, and 8 in my book. This does not violate autonomy since the outside elder is not exercising control over the church.
You’ll notice I used plurals in the last paragraph, since eldership is a team ministry, always done by at least two. Titus was not allowed to appoint only one elder in any town on Crete. It always had to be elders (pl).
[Ted Bigelow] Really? Is it really your desire to attach the meaning of expulsion to epitimao? If so, kindly reference a Greek reference work for support. It still looks like you are comparing Jesus’ casting out of demons to church discipline – a long stretch.AT Robertson: to adjudge penalty
Vines: Originally it signified the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of citizenship; then it became used of the estimate (time) fixed by a judge on the infringement of such rights, and hence, in general, a “penalty.”
Here’s the point I was making: You claim, and you need to claim to support your unusual position, that epitimao MUST NOT be a penalty, but MUST be a verbal rebuke.
I point out that at times it was more than that and even represented an expulsion of another sort.
[Ted Bigelow] Yours is a claim that twists Mat. 18:17a. In the first part of v. 17 the church is to only reprove an impenitent brother, but not expel him (c.f., 2 Thess 3:14-15). He only gets expelled if he refuses “to listen even to the church” (18:17b). You mistakenly have the rebuke expelling him when the Lord teaches it does not expel him but is the next in a series of calls to repentance. When and if the expulsion comes, it is not accompanied by a rebuke, because the impenitent is no longer considered a Christian since he is hard to repentance.This should be obvious, but I certainly do not think that Matt 18:17a is to expel.
I’m not sure why you’re saying that because I never said it.
[Ted Bigelow] Thanks for the great question – and analogy.But the congregation does have imput into such testing, and it seems to me that a generic style vote is appropriate in this testing stage, as long as the final appointment is not by vote. After all, doesn’t the imput have to be exercised by some tangible means? If someone asks me if person A meeets qualification B, I have to express my knowledge of the man by some means, even if it is only nodding my head up and down. That head nod can only be thought of as a type of “vote” for the man. Not an authoritative vote to be sure, and my nod would never be MAKING the man qualified, but it’s impossible for me to actually have input in the discussion of qualifications without making that judgment known in some way.
Paul holds it as an imperative that a man be tested before entering eldership (1 Tim. 3:10). That rules out a vote right there since a vote tests nothing scriptural.
I think your situation is like that in 2 John, a small church without qualified elders. However, it submits itself to John, who does not identify himself to them as an apostle, but “the elder” (2 John 1). That’s not a self-appellation meant to showcase John’s eminence and dignity, but a scripturally defined office in the church of Jesus Christ, and John is writing a letter to a church.Suppose we get help with the testing process, and six men from the ten families meet all the qualifications for elder and are willing to serve. Do all six of them automatically become elders since they have all met all of the qualifications? Does a church with only ten families need 6 elders, or does it not matter how many or how few we may think we need? If we haved six qualified men, then all six would be in the office, right?
Moving to our own time, when you have a church without elders it would be wise to ask for help from an elder(s) in another church on the appointment process. The outside elder, who has himself been tested by the standards of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 is biblically qualified to assist the church by helping test those up for eldership. He would rely heavily upon the information he learns from the church members concerning each candidate’s character, and the outside elder, like Titus, can render an valid judgment with the consent of the church after testing the candidates (1 Tim. 3:10). I explain how this process of testing works in chapters 3, 4, and 8 in my book. This does not violate autonomy since the outside elder is not exercising control over the church.
You’ll notice I used plurals in the last paragraph, since eldership is a team ministry, always done by at least two. Titus was not allowed to appoint only one elder in any town on Crete. It always had to be elders (pl).
[Kevin Miller] I thought of an analogy…I realise your post was not directed at me, but I wanted to offer another analogy that highlights the room for a continuum of both authority and decision making within the various structures discussed. In your scenario the authority rests with the dad, but the decision rests with the kids (with veto power residing in the dad).
Another analogy would be the election of a US President. The decision rests with the voting citizens. But the authority does not rest with them. The authority rests with whatever the US version of the Electoral Commission (which calls the winner) is and the judicial branch of the government which has the power to swear in the President-elect as President. All of this is done under the final authority Constitution.
That the people have the right to make the decision does not in any way diminish or challenge the authority of the Supreme Court Justice on Inauguration Day. Nor does it challenge the ultimate authority of the Constitution.
Of course this is not a perfect analogy because the elders are to have more of a leadership/ruling role than a Supreme Court Justice does. But in combination with your analogy, I think it points out the fact that congregational involvement in decision making in no way necessarily diminishes, challenges, or makes irrelevant the authority and leadership of the elders.
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
[b:] Ted: Really? Is it really your desire to attach the meaning of expulsion to epitimao? If so, kindly reference a Greek reference work for support. It still looks like you are comparing Jesus’ casting out of demons to church discipline – a long stretch. Dan: AT Robertson: to adjudge penaltyDan, could I get the citations for those quotes? My Vines says the following (under “Rebuke”): “epitimao signifies imply a rebuke…” 3:253.
Vines: Originally it signified the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of citizenship; then it became used of the estimate (time) fixed by a judge on the infringement of such rights, and hence, in general, a “penalty.”
Here’s the point I was making: You claim, and you need to claim to support your unusual position, that epitimao MUST NOT be a penalty, but MUST be a verbal rebuke.Kindly consider the following:
NIDNTT: 1:572
CL: “The verb is found in secular Greek from Herodotus to the 3rd cent. A.D., meaning to honour, censure, penalize, and raise in price. The noun, also found until the 3rd cent. A.D. can mean penalty, value, honour, and respect.”
NT: “The verb is found frequently in all three synoptic gospels, implying disapproval, but not exaction of a concrete penalty.” (emphasis mine)
“CL” refers to the use of the word in the secular world, while “NT” refers to its usage in the New Testament. What you are doing is taking one meaning of the verb epitimao – penalize – and stretching it to “expulsion,” and then inserting your stretch into the NT. But as NIDNTT specifically states, the word is “not exaction of a concrete penalty.” IOW, you are mistaken in both the Classical and NT use of the word.
TDNT: 2:625
“The NT maintains the same tradition [as LXX] by 1. forbidding rebuke except as brotherly correction and 2. treating effective threatening and reproof as the prerogative of God and His Christ alone.” Please note that TDNT does not go anywhere near the idea of expulsion when it comes to person to person rebuke.
This contradicts your assertion:
I point out that at times it [epitimao] was more than that and even represented an expulsion of another sort.The next item:
I certainly do not think that Matt 18:17a is to expel.But you are painting yourself into that corner since you are claiming the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was expulsion by rebuke. Yet, Jesus only taught the church to rebuke in the 3rd stage of discipline, while the impenitent member is still among us. The expulsion comes only when a person is impenitent after the church has completed “epitimao-ing” him.
Kevin: But the congregation does have imput into such testing, and it seems to me that a generic style vote is appropriate in this testing stage, as long as the final appointment is not by vote. After all, doesn’t the imput have to be exercised by some tangible means? If someone asks me if person A meeets qualification B, I have to express my knowledge of the man by some means, even if it is only nodding my head up and down. That head nod can only be thought of as a type of “vote” for the man. Not an authoritative vote to be sure, and my nod would never be MAKING the man qualified, but it’s impossible for me to actually have input in the discussion of qualifications without making that judgment known in some way.Well, I like where are you going, but consider a stronger involvement than a vote for each member. The 3rd chapter of my book deals with this extensively. But briefly, the congregation has total control over the testing process, not a mere single vote. This is because each member of the church is to hold up each elder candidate to the light of Scripture (Titus 1, 1 Tim. 3). If any one person knows of any one thing that might disqualify a potential elder, he or she is responsible to bring that either to the candidate in private, or to those overseeing the testing (other elders). Since God commands that no man be placed into eldership unless all 26 qualifications are met, each concern/accusation/charge against a potential elder must be taken with all seriousness and followed up. If the concern is accurate, the man is not allowed to be an elder. Period. So the congregation holds the authority as they hold open the word of God and use it. This is a much higher authority than a single vote.
Consider the following scenario in voting. A church is voting on elder candidate A and elder candidate B, and the constitution stipulates that elder candidates must receive a super-majority vote to serve on the board. Candidate A receives 100% affirmative vote, but candidate B only receives 80%. Therefore, both are approved.
What do we do now? Obviously there are concerns among 20% of the voters that “B” is not qualified. How do we pursue those concerns? In a congregational polity church, we don’t. But in a biblical setting, we must, for God requires 100% unanimity, and requires that an elder must be truly qualified by His qualifications, not a church vote.. Do we ask for the 20% of the people who voted “no” to see us after the meeting? Would they not feel hesitant to do so? Might they not know something but yet be too embarrassed to go against the 80%? Or do we just go ahead and ignore the 20%, assuming that a man is qualified because he wins a popular vote?
That’s why voting never tests a man. Even the 100% vote doesn’t prove Candidate A is elder qualified. It just means everybody voted for him. Big whoop.
That would be quite the exceptional situation, no?
Suppose we get help with the testing process, and six men from the ten families meet all the qualifications for elder and are willing to serve. Do all six of them automatically become elders since they have all met all of the qualifications? Does a church with only ten families need 6 elders, or does it not matter how many or how few we may think we need? If we haved six qualified men, then all six would be in the office, right?
But let’s assume it to be true, what does the Scripture say: “These men must also first be tested; then let them serve…” The verb “let them serve” is an imperative. Yes, they must all serve.
An article by Jeff Brown was posted here at SI today that fairly well dismantles some of the arguments made on this thread by Ted Bigelow and some others. Jeff is an able scholar and as his series on church procedure unfolds we may all learn a great deal.
This has been a most interesting thread. Jason, I like your additional analogy. Do I dare point out that actually, voters in America do not elect a president. The Electoral College votes to appoint a president. Voters indicate their preference, and the members of the Electoral College do the official voting. Technically, the Electoral College could appoint a president who did not receive the majority vote of their particular State. Some states now split their Electoral vote proportionately to the popular vote, while most continue the practice of casting all their votes for the majority candidate.
If the Electoral College ever exercised their Constitutionally authorized independence, and voted to appoint a candidate different from the majority of American voters, all “hell” would surely break out, as we have been told for decades that American is a democrary, which it is not.
All of which serves your main point well. Voting can be legimate without being binding. In truth, the American presidential election is really nothing more than a huge opinion poll. But appointing a President who did not receive a majority vote would be foolish, as such a candidate would find it difficult, if not impossible, to govern.
Perhaps all this explains some of the NT language about churches making decisions, giving consent, etc. Wise elders will seldom move in a direction that the congregation does not support. Time must be given to bring the church along. At some point, however, a decision must be made. I think it is both Scriptural and wise to poll the congregation by voting to see if patient teaching has accomplished its intended effect. If a vote demonstrates that it has, by all means move ahead. If a vote indicates it has not, slow down and keep teaching.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
If the Electoral College ever exercised their Constitutionally authorized independence, and voted to appoint a candidate different from the majority of American voters, all “hell” would surely break out, as we have been told for decades that American is a democrary, which it is not.
All of which serves your main point well. Voting can be legimate without being binding. In truth, the American presidential election is really nothing more than a huge opinion poll. But appointing a President who did not receive a majority vote would be foolish, as such a candidate would find it difficult, if not impossible, to govern.
Perhaps all this explains some of the NT language about churches making decisions, giving consent, etc. Wise elders will seldom move in a direction that the congregation does not support. Time must be given to bring the church along. At some point, however, a decision must be made. I think it is both Scriptural and wise to poll the congregation by voting to see if patient teaching has accomplished its intended effect. If a vote demonstrates that it has, by all means move ahead. If a vote indicates it has not, slow down and keep teaching.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Ted Bigelow] Dan, could I get the citations for those quotes? My Vines says the following (under “Rebuke”): “epitimao signifies imply a rebuke…” 3:253.In 2 Cor 2, it is the noun epitimia, not the verb. Look at sources discussing the noun. There is not always equivalence in meaning.
Kindly consider the following:
NIDNTT: 1:572
CL: “The verb…
NT: “The verb…
[Ted Bigelow]Ted, I’m sort of behind in this discussion. Your assumptions and innuendo into what I’m proposing are completely out of line. No of course I don’t think Alice Sturgis is a greater authority than the apostles. The kind of accusations you’re making don’t belong in intelligent and level-headed conversation.
Shaymus, On one hand, I’m glad you joined the discussion here. You articulated much better than what I am warning against – using the world’s procedures and policies in the church of Jesus Christ instead of God’s policies and procedures in Scripture. On the other hand, it grieves me, because you encourage people to look to outside the Scripture, which really is sufficient for the faith and practice of followers of Jesus Christ, including whole churches (Mat. 4:4). Therefore it is sufficient for how to make church decisions. A biblical perspective on this matter does not look for authority outside of Scripture, and furthermore, I claim it is a lack of loyalty to God to encourage people to do so (Mark 7:9).
If the church above used your counsel (rule the discussion “out of order”) you would have tempted your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to frustration and anger – even as it happened in the original context. Your wisdom is not that “from above” (James 3:15), but is earthly and natural, yet fits perfectly with proper parliamentary procedure. The Christians in that context were tempted to anger and division with their fellow believers precisely because they followed the wisdom of the world in their congregational decision making, and so earned the reward from it – frustration, anger, and sinful division.
You don’t take indwelling sin seriously enough, brother. You really think parliamentary procedure brings the church to greater sanctification while building godly consensus? That’s like fighting a forest fire with a flame thrower. Do you really think Alice Sturgis, long time professor at Stanford University and the original author of “The Standard Code,” is a safer resource for the maturing of the body of Christ than the Apostles?
Since you mentioned Alice Sturgis, a word of history here, the current edition was edited partly by the late Joyce Parks of the BJU communications faculty. This was a woman who applied scriptural principles to procedure for most of her adult life.) Here we have a fundamentalist professor who in her time was one of the world’s leading authorities on parliamentary procedure. She advised countless churches over the years in how not to be divisive. She helped many churches defend themselves from lawsuits of divisive members. I studied under Miss Parks in her final class. She died a month after school got out. We spend much of our class going back to the Bible to see how these rules we were studying really did stem from scriptural principles when properly enforced. Frankly, you don’t understand enough procedure to even know how to be critical of it. You may have had many bad experiences with overbearing moderators, or people who used proceadural tricks to get what they want. That is what is earthly and sensual. Where selfish ambition exists, there you will have every evil thing, including disorder. I’m really glad you mentioned James 3 in your rebuke of me because I think it’s one of the best verses FOR using procedural rules.
James 3:13-17
“Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”
So here in this verse we see that where there is disorder, we should assume there is bitter jealousy and selfish ambition. If a congregation is in disorder, such disorder is a symptom. It is wise to think that those rules that conversely are orderly mirror Gods own sense of order.
Parliamentary procedure acknowledges layered authority. For example, my church’s constitution lists our authorities in turn. So here they are from highest to lowest authority.
1. Christ the Head of the Church
2. Scripture, His Infallible Word
3. The Laws of the United States of America
a. The US Constitution
b. Federal Law
c. The Constitution of the State in which we reside (Virginia)
d. The Laws of Virginia
4. The Charter of our Church
5. The Constitution and Bylaws of our Church which govern how our elders and congregation have various authorities.
6. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Proceadure, Most current edition.
You see Ted, I see the Standard Code as one of many authorities. I have various authorities in my life, and each is under delegated authority from God. So to accuse me of setting another authority above Christ and the Apostles’ teaching is totally ridiculous. Scripture is sufficient to guide is in how we make decisions. But it is just that, a guide. We should not do things in opposition to Scripture, but there is latitude to use wisdom to discern the exact mechanics of how decisions are made. I find that a good understanding of procedure is a safe and wise way of going about doing this since in the abundance of counselors there is wisdom. Those counselors yes, do include people like Alice Sturgis and Joyce Parks.
In the case of division in the church your article mentioned, I stated that I would call the gentleman out of order for bringing up a topic that was not germane. You assume that this would cause further division, and that’s not necessarily the case. Let me pick up with how I would have handled the situation using procedure as chair of the meeting. If he persisted in wanting to discuss various leadership decisions in the past. I would tell him “look if you would like to propose that we suspend talking about this subject of the building, and start talking about something else. I’m fine with that, as long as the majority is with you.” You see at that moment one man hijacked a discussion. In that instance, he had placed himself in authority rather than agreed upon rules for discussion. If the majority wanted to talk about something else, they could have, but they needed to do it decently and in order.
Also if you’re going to call into question anyone’s trust in Scripture’s authority as our only and final rule of faith and practice, at least ask a few questions first instead of shooting first and asking questions later.
[MShep2] (In many ways I agree with you. There can be those with an overly technical view of the rules of procedure without understanding the heart and attitude behind them. To correct that, please read the book I linked to above. A really good, spirit filled leader of a meeting would be able to discern the crowd. He would know when someone is being merely divisive, and handle him one way, while a concern of a wider portion of the members should be dealt with totally differently. In fact the rules of procedure let us do exactly that via written, pre-determined, agreed upon rules.
Shaynus, I know there are times when there are one or two troublemakers in the church that always want to bring up their pet subject or “problem” every time there is a business meeting. While these situations can pop up - and it may be appropriate in those times to rule them “out of order” - in general this indicates that church discipline is not being practiced. Instead, those who are divisive should be rebuked by the leadership and if they continue, put under corrective discipline (Tit. 3:10).
However if it is a major part of the body that have problems that are not being faced or are against a project you will win the battle but lose the war by ignoring them, ruling them “out of order” or winning with 51% of the vote. Sometimes these votes are necessary but they should be saved for the times when the two parts of the body can only separate since they cannot walk together without being agreed (Amos 3:3). Extremely disgruntled people (esp. if they are flesh-driven people) are not going to calmly follow the leadership because they have been voted down or ruled “out of order.”
Frankly I think those who are opposed to congregational voting see it outside the context of the rules for voting via procedure. That’s my main point. In the article above, voting is discussed in a vacuum as a dangerous thing, without discussing the safety and protection of wise rules for voting, well applied. The root question is not whether “voting” is biblically allowed. The larger question is how would God have us treat each other in arriving at group decisions.
Ted, I’m sort of behind in this discussion. Your assumptions and innuendo into what I’m proposing are completely out of line. No of course I don’t think Alice Sturgis is a greater authority than the apostles. The kind of accusations you’re making don’t belong in intelligent and level-headed conversation. .And yet you recommend parliamentary policies and procedures for church government – the ones that she taught, and I believe you are ignoring the policies and procedures of church governance taught by Jesus and the apostles in Scripture.
Frankly, you don’t understand enough procedure to even know how to be critical of it.Actually, parliamentary procedure has been kind to me. When I pastored churches that used it, it almost always went in my favor.
So here in this verse [James 3:13-17] we see that where there is disorder, we should assume there is bitter jealousy and selfish ambition. If a congregation is in disorder, such disorder is a symptom. It is wise to think that those rules that conversely are orderly mirror Gods own sense of order.PP does not make a disorderly heart orderly. It is merely external and cannot produce godliness or reverence for Christ. It is the invention of man and can provide a shallow hiding place for men who avoid God’s most piercing commands of humility and love for others. I’ve seen it used that way in many contexts.
Parliamentary procedure is based upon several presuppositions are not only unbiblical, but dangerous to the church. I’ll give you just six.
1) PP assumes that the will of the majority can be known, and that it is the safest for a church to follow. However, the true church is to listen to Christ and obey Him only (Mat. 4:4). PP tempts believers to think that the will of the congregation, as determined by PP, is the will of Christ for that church. Therefore it sets up itself as a competitor to Christ, an alternative source of authority.
2) PP assumes that the voice of the minority needs to be expressed and protects that right. But in matters of truth, doctrine, and their application to life the voice of a minority and the voice of the majority are inconsequential. We need to know what God says, not what we say.
3) PP exists in a scenario of mutual distrust – where people in power are inherently to be distrusted, and dissent, for dissent from the majority is considered valuable. In the church it reveals a betrayal to vital principles, including 1 Cor. 13:4-8, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:17, while in the latter it militates directly against 1 Cor. 1:10, Phil 2:1-5, and Eph. 4:1-6, among many others.
4) Because PP depends upon a “point-counterpoint” discussion scenario, it is almost entirely framed on a Hegelian dialectical world view of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is a fundamentally contrary worldview to Christ who has given us Himself in His word (Heb. 1:1-3).
5) PP claims to provide decision making in an orderly manner that reveals the will of the majority. But this is naïve for two reasons. First, it is an untested assumption that people vote and create a collective will. The psychological reasons involved in voting are complex and transient. If the meeting were held but a days letter, the vote could be different, depending on all kinds of factors. Therefore PP depends on the fickle will of the majority and not upon the established rock of Christ’s unchanging truth. Second, PP has to rely on the practice of a quorum to be effective. This in itself is telling since it is never countenanced in the Scripture, and is entirely arbitrary. All quorum thresholds are a small subset of the entire voting body. Yet, the vast majority of decisions in church bodies decided by the use of PP are decided by a small group within the body. For example, if a church constitution requires a 30% quorum (that’s larger than most), then all it will take is 16 – 24% of the membership to be called the “will of the majority.” But it isn’t. The concept of majority rule is almost always false and provides false safety to people.
6) PP has a Gnosticism to it that provides those with greater knowledge of its nuances greater power in church decision making. In order for the average Xtn to get equipped to use PP, he must learn at the very least the basic procedures of motions, divisions, and debates. Yet God never tells a Christian he or she needs to know any of this, but instead points him to the cross. Furthermore, and most telling: nobody has to grow in godliness to become skillful in PP, and most professional parliamentarians are not lovers of Christ’s cross. Look at our own government. In distinction, God places ruling authority in the church only to those who meet his demanding spiritual standards in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. He calls them shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4), not parliamentarians.
Why, PP is so worldly, the US House of Reps and Senate use it. What more need be said?
Parliamentary procedure acknowledges layered authority. For example, my church’s constitution lists our authorities in turn. So here they are from highest to lowest authority.The Bible recognizes layered authority (Mat. 22:21) but does so in a way that avoids the pitfalls of a humanly designed system, like the one above. #1 and #2 are a false dichotomy, for Christ rules through His word. This means that people who claim Christ speaks to them apart from Scripture are not to be regarded as authoritative. Your system above also ignores the authoritative role those God Himself places in authority in the church – elders – when they are qualified by the 26 qualifications in Scripture (1 Timothy 5:17). They should be above the government, no? Why does your layered system do this? So right away it is mistaken on two vital areas to the life of a church that submits to Christ. I could go on. In reality, #5 overrules #2 since Scripture and Scripture alone govern how elders and congregation have various authorities, but in your church their sphere of duty is defined by a man-made document.
1. Christ the Head of the Church
2. Scripture, His Infallible Word
3. The Laws of the United States of America
a. The US Constitution
b. Federal Law
c. The Constitution of the State in which we reside (Virginia)
d. The Laws of Virginia
4. The Charter of our Church
5. The Constitution and Bylaws of our Church which govern how our elders and congregation have various authorities.
6. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Proceadure, Most current edition.
You see Ted, I see the Standard Code as one of many authorities. I have various authorities in my life, and each is under delegated authority from God. So to accuse me of setting another authority above Christ and the Apostles’ teaching is totally ridiculous. Scripture is sufficient to guide is in how we make decisions. But it is just that, a guide. We should not do things in opposition to Scripture, but there is latitude to use wisdom to discern the exact mechanics of how decisions are made. I find that a good understanding of procedure is a safe and wise way of going about doing this since in the abundance of counselors there is wisdom. Those counselors yes, do include people like Alice Sturgis and Joyce Parks.In the Bible a counselor was a highly trained man in the Scripture, and in many areas related to helping the king rule. Such areas included military strategy, international affairs, economics, agronomy, and taxation (i.e., Proverbs 24:6). The NT equivalent of a counselor is not a parliamentarian, but a scripturally qualified elder (3 John 1).
In the case of division in the church your article mentioned, I stated that I would call the gentleman out of order for bringing up a topic that was not germane. You assume that this would cause further division, and that’s not necessarily the case. Let me pick up with how I would have handled the situation using procedure as chair of the meeting. If he persisted in wanting to discuss various leadership decisions in the past. I would tell him “look if you would like to propose that we suspend talking about this subject of the building, and start talking about something else. I’m fine with that, as long as the majority is with you.” You see at that moment one man hijacked a discussion. In that instance, he had placed himself in authority rather than agreed upon rules for discussion. If the majority wanted to talk about something else, they could have, but they needed to do it decently and in order.In the original scenario it wasn’t one man – it was many people, and your solution here proves my point on the danger of PP. It is not spiritually profitable to talk about shepherding matters publicly, yet you would allow for it if a majority (of the quorum, of course) wants to discuss it. That would directly disobey numerous biblical principles on discretion and wisdom and it would also allow the majority to overrule the elders, thus violating 1 Tim. 5:17, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, and 1 Peter 5:5.
Ted,
I would ask you to have a little more charitable reading than what you have. Obviously we both care about this subject. I think you haven’t made an effort to really understand me, and it’s extraordinarily frustrating. For example:
if you want to nitpick about the list, go for it. For numbers 1 and 2, a “false dichotomy” is where two things are set in conflict that aren’t. I didn’t set Christ in conflict with his word at all. Come on. You can be a better reader and thinker than that.
Also, when you said I “completely ignored” elders. I didn’t. See #5 where I explicitly mention elders. Maybe I didn’t mention them in the way you would have, but I didn’t completely ignore them.
A Constitution is a human document to be sure, but as it organizes and explains and references Scripture, it conforms a church to Scripture. Also, I said Scripture is over our Constitution, yet you claim it isn’t for me without giving a reason why you think it. You make assertions without proving them REPEATEDlY. Here’s another one.
The elders are not above government, unless government and Scripture are in conflict. In that case elders would teach on how they might be (as ironically I will do next Wednesday at my church). If we set elders over government in every case (of course on things the government has power in) we’d have total chaos.
When Paul wrote Romans 13 he meant for all of the church to obey government, and not just elders. I love elders. I think they are an authority in my life, but if my elder tells me not to pay taxes to whom taxes are due, he’s in violation of both scripture and government. He can’t overrule either.
I think you’re mixed up on what I mean by a parliamentary authority, and how it get’s that way. My parliamentary authority for my church is there through delegation. My elders let my church to form, and write a constitution. They also led by including in that constitution our parliamentary authority. Therefore I don’t view Sturgis’s rules as authoritative of themselves, much in the same way I don’t view government to be authoritative of it’s own making. Both are delegated authorities (and for Sturgis sub sub sub sub delegated).
Now, if Sturgis told me to do something that really was against Scripture, I wouldn’t do it. That’s why your example at the very end falls flat. If there really was sinful bickering going on, an elder should step in and deal with it. Procedure is flexible enough for that. Again, in my hierarchical delegated authority structure mentioned above, the Scripture would win in cases of sin. (hey that rhymes) I really have the sense that you’re like someone who’s been abused enough with procedure or bickering, that you see it in places that it doesn’t exist. When you get your new hammer, everything’s a nail.
I would ask you to have a little more charitable reading than what you have. Obviously we both care about this subject. I think you haven’t made an effort to really understand me, and it’s extraordinarily frustrating. For example:
if you want to nitpick about the list, go for it. For numbers 1 and 2, a “false dichotomy” is where two things are set in conflict that aren’t. I didn’t set Christ in conflict with his word at all. Come on. You can be a better reader and thinker than that.
Also, when you said I “completely ignored” elders. I didn’t. See #5 where I explicitly mention elders. Maybe I didn’t mention them in the way you would have, but I didn’t completely ignore them.
A Constitution is a human document to be sure, but as it organizes and explains and references Scripture, it conforms a church to Scripture. Also, I said Scripture is over our Constitution, yet you claim it isn’t for me without giving a reason why you think it. You make assertions without proving them REPEATEDlY. Here’s another one.
The elders are not above government, unless government and Scripture are in conflict. In that case elders would teach on how they might be (as ironically I will do next Wednesday at my church). If we set elders over government in every case (of course on things the government has power in) we’d have total chaos.
When Paul wrote Romans 13 he meant for all of the church to obey government, and not just elders. I love elders. I think they are an authority in my life, but if my elder tells me not to pay taxes to whom taxes are due, he’s in violation of both scripture and government. He can’t overrule either.
I think you’re mixed up on what I mean by a parliamentary authority, and how it get’s that way. My parliamentary authority for my church is there through delegation. My elders let my church to form, and write a constitution. They also led by including in that constitution our parliamentary authority. Therefore I don’t view Sturgis’s rules as authoritative of themselves, much in the same way I don’t view government to be authoritative of it’s own making. Both are delegated authorities (and for Sturgis sub sub sub sub delegated).
Now, if Sturgis told me to do something that really was against Scripture, I wouldn’t do it. That’s why your example at the very end falls flat. If there really was sinful bickering going on, an elder should step in and deal with it. Procedure is flexible enough for that. Again, in my hierarchical delegated authority structure mentioned above, the Scripture would win in cases of sin. (hey that rhymes) I really have the sense that you’re like someone who’s been abused enough with procedure or bickering, that you see it in places that it doesn’t exist. When you get your new hammer, everything’s a nail.
I would ask you to have a little more charitable reading than what you have. Obviously we both care about this subject. I think you haven’t made an effort to really understand me, and it’s extraordinarily frustrating.Shaynus, as wonderful a believer as I’m sure you are, you have yet to deal with the philosophical underpinnings of PP in contrast to biblical principles. I encourage you to meditate on every small clause in 1 Cor. 1:10 and contrast it with PP. Really chew it over it in your mind.
The point of blog interaction is simply to interact with what someone else writes, and hopefully inform, educate, and edify. For that reason, it doesn’t make sense to write “Frankly, you don’t understand enough procedure to even know how to be critical of it,” as you did in post 195. I give you more credit than that, and I trust by now that you see I do know enough to be critical of it. As you wrote that statement, you fell into one of the pitfalls of PP – see post 197, point 6.
Furthermore, your recent post calls me “nitpicky.” I really don’t care about that, but I disagree with it. I am concerned for the faith and obedience of Christ’s blood bought church, and therefore am consumed with her purity. I must be nitpicky when it comes to Christ’s bride. I gladly take the shame on that one. But I will not belittle you. I rather respect you, your education, and your commitment to PP. If you were merely casual about it, I wouldn’t take my time to argue strenuously. I do this not to shame you, but to honestly interact with you, hoping that if you are a regenerate man you will esteem the things that actually are “from above.” I hope that one day you will see that PP is a system developed by fallen man and rooted in the fallen principles of a fallen world, and not in Christ (Col. 2:8). I know I’m touching on matters close to your heart, but I do this to show you where your faith in Christ is compromised with the philosophies of this world.
Several centuries ago true believers were under canon law of the RCC. For believers anyway, those days are gone, and we now see it for what it was – the intrusion of man’s thinking upon the governance of the church. After that many were under state-ruled churches. Same thing – they are mostly gone, or the believers are mostly gone from them. We now see those for what they are. Likewise, someday PP will pass away from the church if Jesus tarries. Things change. The Word stays.
if you want to nitpick about the list, go for it. For numbers 1 and 2, a “false dichotomy” is where two things are set in conflict that aren’t. I didn’t set Christ in conflict with his word at all. Come on. You can be a better reader and thinker than that.I think it is because I am a careful reader I made the points I did. Separating points 1 and 2 on a scale of authority belies a theological position, and it’s a position that has problems, which I point out. I can always learn to be a better reader and thinker, but I’m just trying to take what you wrote and analyze it, for you posited it in the post as a matter of wisdom.
Discussion