Is Congregational Voting Biblical?
For most of us, voting is a common experience. Many vote for our government representatives and, if we are involved in civic groups, we may vote in them as well. Voting is a means by which we express self-determination. “We the people” have the privilege and duty to help choose our future directions.
Voting is also how most congregations make their most important decisions. In Episcopal-style churches, the congregation votes on large purchases and on who will serve in various leadership positions. In “representational” churches, such as Presbyterian and American Lutheran, the congregation vote on leadership appointments, large purchases, and other membership matters. Independent churches such as Congregational, Baptist, or Bible churches vote on budgets, leadership appointments, large purchases, committee appointments, doctrinal changes, and membership matters. Voting is a common practice in most congregations, granting members a voice in the church’s affairs and decision making.1
It is widely assumed that voting in church is biblical, or if not biblical, a matter of freedom. Many believe it provides safety for the congregation and is a good way to build consensus in the church. In fact, have you ever read anything to the contrary? I struggle to think of anything in print that calls into question a practice so commonplace in our churches. It’s not like anyone is debating the practice voting in our churches, or even our synods, assemblies, presbyteries, conventions, conferences, etc.
Just as we vote in church we also claim to follow the Bible. Our doctrinal statements and constitutions are up front about this. Most churches claim something similar to the following:
This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.2
But we all know it is one thing to claim that our church accepts the Bible as authoritative over “proclamation, faith and life,” and another to live it out. That excellent statement you just read comes from a Lutheran denomination that debated and voted at their 2009 convention to ordain openly homosexual men and women to the office of elder. That was a truly sad event. Claiming the Bible led them, they voted against the Bible.
My recent book, [amazon 1453831274], examines the matter of voting in the light of Scripture, because neither Paul nor his protégé Titus led churches or appointed leaders with votes. The difference is surprising since this is how we who live 2,000 years later would have expected an apostle and his protégé to lead churches. So it’s worth repeating. Paul and Titus didn’t use votes in church. The reason is deftly simple. They were serving God’s redeemed people, not an agenda. Titus was on Crete as a shepherd with a heart of compassion for hassled and distressed sheep. He came to build the church, not coalitions.
So like the Lutheran statement says, we profess Scripture’s authority over our faith and practice. That being the case let’s take the opportunity in this chapter and the next to apply Scripture to the practice of church voting. It’s a major part of church practice and affects everybody, even those who don’t participate. I start with an awkward lunch I had once with an area pastor.
“We vote as often as Jesus and the apostles taught us to.”
Several years ago the pastor of a medium sized Baptist church (GARBC) and I got into a discussion about voting and its role in church. Like many Baptist churches, his holds firmly to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Indeed, the very first declaration in their doctrinal statement is this: “We believe that the Holy Bible is…the only, absolute, infallible rule for all human conduct, creeds, and opinions.” That put us on the same page, theologically speaking.
While talking over coffee he shared they were going through some dark days with congregational infighting and distrust of the leadership. Within the past few weeks, he and the other elders had been out voted by the congregation at the annual meeting, and people were leaving.
He went on to explain that he and his fellow elders thought they had prepared themselves for a small amount of conflict at the meeting. They had their talking points down and believed they were ready to lead the congregation into a building project. However, the church meeting turned sour when budget issues and the building project were raised. Some members were upset about friends who had recently left the church with unresolved complaints about the leadership. My pastor friend had been chosen as the elder to address that issue, and he tried to explain the situation to everybody’s satisfaction. But instead his answers only led to more questions.
He was confronted with a Catch-22 situation: either give detailed answers to the church about private matters, or explain his unwillingness to share details and leave the voting members dissatisfied and possibly upset enough to vote down the budget. To his own regret, he admitted that he went too far trying to satisfy the people in the hopes of getting the vote passed. He felt he shared too much in explaining the problems of the people who had left and how the elders viewed it. His indiscretion also hurt the subsequent vote. The meeting ended with a series of votes defeating the proposals laid before the congregation by the elders. The pastor told me that people were now distancing themselves from the elders, that distrust was increasing, and folks were leaving.
Eventually I asked him how he felt the situation reflected the Bible’s teaching on church practice and voting. He fell silent. I suggested that votes aren’t really necessary in a healthy church, and can even bring disunity. He looked at me quizzically, because he believed they produced unity. It was then that I dropped what was, at least for him, a bomb. I told him that we don’t hold votes in our church. He again looked at me, completely taken back. He pushed back from the table, tilted his head to one side, and squinting his eyes looked at me with something close to disdain. He had never heard of a church that didn’t vote.
His reaction caught me off guard, so I explained our position this way: “We do church votes as often as Jesus and the apostles taught us to.” A wry smile crossed his face as he went through his mental concordance searching for every verse on church voting. He quickly admitted that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever taught Christians to vote, but claimed that voting in the church is a morally neutral practice. “Oh?” Given the agony his ministry was going through, now I was the one who pushed backed—tilting and squinting.
Taking the opportunity, I explained that there is only one reference to voting in the entire Bible, and that one reference is far from neutral. It is Paul’s vote that helped put Stephen, the first martyr, to death (Acts 26:10). His vote was murderous and resulted in the first martyrdom in church history. “If voting were morally neutral,” I asked him, “then why would Paul confess his vote as sinful?”
Of course there are such things as morally neutral practices, such as the time church should start on a Sunday morning, the color of the carpet, and a thousand other matters. Each local church is free to judge that for themselves. There is even a word for such neutral practices: adiaphora. But voting is not adiaphora since it allows for disunity in the body and can lead to apostasy.
I believe the church is built on the teachings of His apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20, 3:5), Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. Yet neither Christ nor a single apostle initiated a church vote, taught a church to vote, or encouraged a church vote. Not once, not ever. What shall we make of this? Were they stupid? Or worse, do we now know 2,000 years later a better way to make church decisions than our Lord and all of His apostles?
They certainly knew how to vote—all it takes is the raising of a hand. But they built every local church with godliness and unity. Under the pure and wise guidance of God they wrote inspired letters to churches that form the content of our faith. These teachings do, indeed, reflect what my friend’s Baptist church’s doctrinal statement says: “the only, absolute, infallible rule for all human conduct, creeds, and opinions.” If we believe that, and Scripture doesn’t teach us to vote, why do it? In fact, when apostles encountered churches that used practices like voting they revamped them so they would obey Scripture. This is the kind of thing that happened to Crete’s churches (Titus 1:5). Apostolic ministry to dysfunctional churches began at the level of polity, radically altering them from the top down in order to makes them healthy, unified, and safe.
My pastor friend didn’t stay much longer at that church. Sadly, things got progressively worse for all. The disunity eventually affected the leaders as well as the rest of the membership, and in sadness and distress, he moved far away to lead another church with the same voting polity.
Notes
1 For further information on church structure, see Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 10th ed., (Nashville: Abingdon Press, revised 1995).
2 “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,” 19. Reference from online edition, current as of August 2009, (accessed November 11, 2009) at http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organiza….
Ted Bigelow Bio
Ted Bigelow earned the MDiv and ThM at The Master’s Seminary and has a doctorate in expository preaching from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He pastors Grace Church in Hartford, CT and has been married to Deena since 1987. They are blessed with 4 children who, by God’s mercy, love the Lord: Katie (20), Karryn (18), Daniel (15) and David (13).
- 5598 views
Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.Nicely put. In fact, for the church in Corinth to have voted on whether to remove the man from the assembly or not would have been sin. They weren’t to vote on whether to obey 1 Cor. 5:13 or not - which reflects Jesus words in Mat. 18:17. What if they had voted NOT to put him out? They would have proved yet again their arrogance and disobedience. Paul doesn’t want them voting, but obeying.
Look at 1 Cor 5. The church is rebuked for having not disassociated themselves with him. You don’t have to take a vote to not associate with a brother in sin.
The issue of the church is off center until we recognize there are no “churches” at all in the NT. The Greek word “ekklesia” appears exactly 117 times. It was a word of the civic and political world of the NT. It was used by the Greeks for the idea of calling people together or calling to assembly. It meant an assembly of people called together for a purpose. To start out on the right foot in a discussion of the “ekklesia” we need to set aside the made up word of the Bishops Bible and the KJV and translate it into meaningful English. Translated it is “assembly.” The Lord Jesus Christ is building an “assembly” (Matt. :16-20) It will assault the very gates of hell and prevail. Just two chapters later Matthew informs us of the Lord’s instructions in dealing with a sinning brother. The end of the process is this assembly. The assembly of people gathered in name of Jesus Christ , the son of the living God, are the highest and final authority on the matter. Their authority is such that it invokes the very authority of Heaven (Matt. 18:15-20).
We should expect the assembly to have such authority. Paul will later inform us that the Lord has a very sacrificial personal relationship to His assembly (Eph.5:22-33). He is the head and the assembly is to submit to Him. No person, principle, or entity, can stand above or between this relationship. Christ is the direct head over those gathered in assembly.
We also see in scripture that those viewed as being in the assembly are the saved through simple faith in Christ. They have been Justified, Regenerated, Adopted, and placed into a royal Priesthood and made part of a living temple. The scriptures reveal many other blessings bestowed on these. They have all been placed into union with Christ and are a part of His Spiritual body (Rom. 6; 1Cor.12:12-14). They are repeatedly called saints by the Apostles because of their being set apart to Christ. Paul makes a very important point of telling each believer that no one stands between them and their Lord (1Tim. 2:5-6). The assembly of the saints is composed of those saved who gain their blessings directly from God. They each have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Therefore, their individual relationships give them authority when they meet and act together. After giving the qualifications for Elders and servant ministers of varying tasks, (Deacons?), Paul then gives the assembly of the living God, and God’s household, as the pillar and ground of the truth. The assembly, not the Elders are the highest authority entrusted with the truth of God.
In Acts we see the Apostles, who possessed special Authority directly from God, acknowledging the authority of the assembly. At chapter 6 the Apostles bring the assembly of saints into the selection process to select ministering servants for assistance in ministry. They ask the assembly to select and “the whole multitude” is involved in the process. The point is the assembly selected. Did they vote? Possibly, or probably, as it is a simple process that was practiced by the Jews in selecting city leaders and by the Romans for various things. They most likely did not throw darts. They most likely did vote. Those who claim they did not vote often focus on the Greek word “episkeptomai.” After out Greeking the Greeks by giving undue credence to word etymology, they often fail to handle the immediate context which clearly indicates the multitude was involved in the process. This passage is more likely indicating voting than not.
It should also be noted that Acts indicates that the assemblies as a whole were involved in sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22: 13:1-3). At Acts 14:23 Apostolic authority allows Paul with Barnabus to appoint Elders in every city church. The Greek word allows for selection by hand raising. Perhaps the Acts 6 process was used.
The very word assembly, used to denote the entity of assembled saints makes these saints together the highest earthly authority for God on earth in this age. The assembly gets its authority from the individual saints who each have a personal priestly relationship to God. It is the believers Priesthood.
Believer Priests assembled together become the final authority. They must recognize the Elders. They must read the scriptures for themselves and determine truth. The Apostles recognized this authority. If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.
We should expect the assembly to have such authority. Paul will later inform us that the Lord has a very sacrificial personal relationship to His assembly (Eph.5:22-33). He is the head and the assembly is to submit to Him. No person, principle, or entity, can stand above or between this relationship. Christ is the direct head over those gathered in assembly.
We also see in scripture that those viewed as being in the assembly are the saved through simple faith in Christ. They have been Justified, Regenerated, Adopted, and placed into a royal Priesthood and made part of a living temple. The scriptures reveal many other blessings bestowed on these. They have all been placed into union with Christ and are a part of His Spiritual body (Rom. 6; 1Cor.12:12-14). They are repeatedly called saints by the Apostles because of their being set apart to Christ. Paul makes a very important point of telling each believer that no one stands between them and their Lord (1Tim. 2:5-6). The assembly of the saints is composed of those saved who gain their blessings directly from God. They each have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Therefore, their individual relationships give them authority when they meet and act together. After giving the qualifications for Elders and servant ministers of varying tasks, (Deacons?), Paul then gives the assembly of the living God, and God’s household, as the pillar and ground of the truth. The assembly, not the Elders are the highest authority entrusted with the truth of God.
In Acts we see the Apostles, who possessed special Authority directly from God, acknowledging the authority of the assembly. At chapter 6 the Apostles bring the assembly of saints into the selection process to select ministering servants for assistance in ministry. They ask the assembly to select and “the whole multitude” is involved in the process. The point is the assembly selected. Did they vote? Possibly, or probably, as it is a simple process that was practiced by the Jews in selecting city leaders and by the Romans for various things. They most likely did not throw darts. They most likely did vote. Those who claim they did not vote often focus on the Greek word “episkeptomai.” After out Greeking the Greeks by giving undue credence to word etymology, they often fail to handle the immediate context which clearly indicates the multitude was involved in the process. This passage is more likely indicating voting than not.
It should also be noted that Acts indicates that the assemblies as a whole were involved in sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22: 13:1-3). At Acts 14:23 Apostolic authority allows Paul with Barnabus to appoint Elders in every city church. The Greek word allows for selection by hand raising. Perhaps the Acts 6 process was used.
The very word assembly, used to denote the entity of assembled saints makes these saints together the highest earthly authority for God on earth in this age. The assembly gets its authority from the individual saints who each have a personal priestly relationship to God. It is the believers Priesthood.
Believer Priests assembled together become the final authority. They must recognize the Elders. They must read the scriptures for themselves and determine truth. The Apostles recognized this authority. If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.
@ Bob T., #122
Bob, thank you so much for your interaction here.
I think here is where you and I have a basic disagreement:
Bob, thank you so much for your interaction here.
I think here is where you and I have a basic disagreement:
If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.For you, divine authority is in the congregation. For me, it is in the Scriptures. I don’t want to limit every believer’s authority in my church to a single vote. I want to their maximize their authority by having them use Scripture to rule the church.
It should also be noted that Acts indicates that the assemblies as a whole were involved in sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22: 13:1-3). At Acts 14:23 Apostolic authority allows Paul with Barnabus to appoint Elders in every city church. The Greek word allows for selection by hand raising.You seem somewhat facile with the Greek. So let’s look at the 3 Scriptures you cited a little closer.
Acts 11:22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.Bob, the word “they” in Acts 11;22 - is it feminine singular, referring to the ecclesia, or masculine plural? IOW, who sent Barnabas, a group of males, or the church? Hint – look up the participle.
Acts 13:1-3 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.The word “they” is used 4 times (once translated “their”). Again Bob, feminine singular, pointing back to the ecclesia in v. 1, or masculine plural, pointing to the men listed in verse 1? Hint – again, look up the participles – “ministering,” “fasting,” “praying,” “laid hands on,” “sent them away.” Are any of them feminine singular, or are they all masculine plural? So who fasted, who prayed, and who sent?
Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.Again, Bob, is the word “they” feminine singular, referring to the ecclesia, or masculine plural, referring to Barnabas and Saul only?
@Ted,
As others have pointed out, Scripture does not address the specifics of how decisions are to be made in the church (perhaps someone has brought up a point that I’ve missed, but nothing comes to mind). It seems to me that any such claim must be staked on inferrences from words such as “rule.” But this inferrence doesn’t follow unless you change “rule” to “absolute rule.” A king/prime minister/president rules, but rarely does he have absolute rule. Congregational church government in no way contradicts the role of elders in leading and ruling the church.
Perhaps I’m mistaken in suggesting that you interpret 1 Cor 1:10 to refer to any voiced disagreement, but it seems to be a repeated theme in your writing. For instance…
[Greg Long] Ted, I must say following this is a bit frustrating. You tend to make more assertions than arguments.I have to say that I share this sentiment.
[Ted Bigelow] The NT is not silent on the how a church is to make decisions. It is by the Word of God, not the policies of men.This statement seems simplistic. Yes, of course when Scripture clearly states something, we are obligated to simply obey. But church governance does not address such situations primarily. Rather, it addresses the elements of the day-to-day governance of an organisation (which of course is also an organism). Scripture does not tell us how to take offerings, how to order our services, how much to pay our elders, etc. These things are matters of wisdom and application. In such questions, it is indeed the “policies of men” that must be considered. These are matters of cultural application of biblical principles. Every church does a lot of it whether or not they admit it.
As others have pointed out, Scripture does not address the specifics of how decisions are to be made in the church (perhaps someone has brought up a point that I’ve missed, but nothing comes to mind). It seems to me that any such claim must be staked on inferrences from words such as “rule.” But this inferrence doesn’t follow unless you change “rule” to “absolute rule.” A king/prime minister/president rules, but rarely does he have absolute rule. Congregational church government in no way contradicts the role of elders in leading and ruling the church.
[Ted Bigelow] For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time. And violating 1 Cor. 1:10 is high handed sin. So the Bible isn’t silent on it.I say this with no disrespect in motive, but this statement, again, seems very simplistic. To suggest that disagreement, whether expressed or not, is a violation of biblical unity is illogical at best, dangerous at worst. It is illogical because no two people agree on everything, nor should they. It is dangerous because cultures that supress the expression of healthy diversity and disagreement become cults.
Perhaps I’m mistaken in suggesting that you interpret 1 Cor 1:10 to refer to any voiced disagreement, but it seems to be a repeated theme in your writing. For instance…
[Ted Bigelow] So for me, as a Christian man, to say voting is OK, even though it mostly results in people expressing some level of disagreement with other–, is to violate 1 Cor. 1:10.
[Ted Bigelow] Hmmm, unlikely. When we go the cultural route, we invariably lose Scriptural authority in place of man’s wisdom.Again, this seems simplistic. The “cultural route” is not an option to consider. It is just reality for every single church. Choirs are not “biblical.” Platforms are not “biblical.” Pulpits, pianos, electricity, chairs, church buildings, public offerings, nurseries, hymns of human composure, instruments, etc. all fall into the same category. They are not taught in Scripture. Rather, they are cultural applications of biblical principles. In different countries, these applications vary widely. And appropriately so.
[Ted Bigelow] When a church selects leaders in a culturally sensitive way it is not acceptable to God. Consider an African tribe that chooses leaders by examining animal entrails. Or by observing which person(s) in the room an animal walks to first. Or votes, Or double-slate votes. Or lots. Or archbishops.This comparison, which you also made in your comment to Larry, seems to be a non sequitur. Except for the one example of voting, the others are methods of deciding something, but they are not methods of ascertaining the consensus of a body of people on a matter. Comparing voting to reading entrails is simply not valid.
[Ted Bigelow] Andrew, i assure [you] your fears are misplaced. Godly men, the kind of men Titus placed into authority in the churches on Crete, were not the kind of men you describe above. These men HAD TO BE “above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching.” (Titus 1:7-9).The level of confidence you place in men seems to me to be inconsistent with Scripture’s teaching about the depravity of the human heart and the heart’s capacity for self-deception. There is no shortage of evidence of the horror and destruction wrought by pastors who were unchecked and unaccountable. Of course the stock response is that as long as someone can give Scripture, the pastor will back down. But such an approach does not work when the pastor is himself the judge of what will be considered “biblical,” which he invariably is.
The men you describe are not those men. And if Titus had placed those men you describe in leadership, he would have greatly sinned by disobeying Paul, disobeying Christ, and violating Scripture. The same is true when we vote men into leadership. We do not follow Scripture when we do that, and we get the kind of men our votes deserve.
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
Jason, thank you for your comments. It is my privilege to be able to interact with you on these important matters.
As I write this, Jason, the rain here in Malawi is coming down in huge sheets, and is running of the roofs so fast it lands about 3 feet out from the roof line. The rain also comes down here in huge drops, not like our rain in the States. Ahh, the handiwork of our glorious God.
Scripture does not tell us how to take offerings, how to order our services, how much to pay our elders, etc. These things are matters of wisdom and application. In such questions, it is indeed the “policies of men” that must be considered. These are matters of cultural application of biblical principles. Every church does a lot of it whether or not they admit it.Excellent point Jason. There is even a name for such practices – “adiaphora.”
To suggest that disagreement, whether expressed or not, is a violation of biblical unity is illogical at best, dangerous at worst.Again, excellent point. For example, if I disagree with a practice because it violates Scripture, I should be commended (as should you). So disagreement is not the problem. Disagreement with Scripture is. The Holy Spirit only has one will on every matter, and that is what I want to know and do. Thankfully, His infallible word teaches the church on how we are to discern that in faith and practice, and it doesn’t include voting.
Ted: When we go the cultural route, we invariably lose Scriptural authority in place of man’s wisdom. Jason: Again, this seems simplistic. The “cultural route” is not an option to consider. It is just reality for every single church.The context of my comment was limited to the issue of how a church should choose its leaders. I think you left off the context, and made my statement apply to all things, even adiaphora, such as:
Choirs are not “biblical.” Platforms are not “biblical.” Pulpits, pianos, electricity, chairs, church buildings, public offerings, nurseries, hymns of human composure, instruments, etc. all fall into the same category. They are not taught in Scripture. Rather, they are cultural applications of biblical principles. In different countries, these applications vary widely. And appropriately so.Let’s pick up another point.
Ted: When a church selects leaders in a culturally sensitive way it is not acceptable to God. Consider an African tribe that chooses leaders by examining animal entrails. Or by observing which person(s) in the room an animal walks to first. Or votes, Or double-slate votes. Or lots. Or archbishops. Jason:/ This comparison, which you also made in your comment to Larry, seems to be a non sequitur. Except for the one example of voting, the others are methods of deciding something, but they are not methods of ascertaining the consensus of a body of people on a matter. Comparing voting to reading entrails is simply not valid.You assume the right goal in church is “ascertaining the consensus of a body of people.” You are wrong. It is to ascertain and do the will of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture.
The level of confidence you place in men seems to me to be inconsistent with Scripture’s teaching about the depravity of the human heart and the heart’s capacity for self-deception. There is no shortage of evidence of the horror and destruction wrought by pastors who were unchecked and unaccountable. Of course the stock response is that as long as someone can give Scripture, the pastor will back down. But such an approach does not work when the pastor is himself the judge of what will be considered “biblical,” which he invariably is.Your problem isn’t with me, but with Paul, who commanded that only men who meet Scriptural qualification be placed in full charge leadership over every church on Crete. God’s revealed will is not for pastors to be unchecked and unaccountable. You’ll notice that Titus 1:5 specifically says “elders” (plural). You may be referring to a form of church governance foreign to the NT (single pastor congregationalism).
As I write this, Jason, the rain here in Malawi is coming down in huge sheets, and is running of the roofs so fast it lands about 3 feet out from the roof line. The rain also comes down here in huge drops, not like our rain in the States. Ahh, the handiwork of our glorious God.
Then if the decision is already made, why vote?As an act of accountability to the body of Christ and an expression of unity.
Jesus instructs the church to go to the offender and call him to repentance (Mat. 18:17). If he does not listen, he is put out of the church. The congregation decides nothing new, but acts on the evidence of impenitence as established by the witnesses. If the man will not repent after the church goes and calls him to repentance then it no longer regards him as a believer. In this it decides nothing new, but only agrees with Christ’s prior judgment (Mat. 18:18)Who said anything about deciding something new? I am not sure where that comes from. The point of Matthew 18 is that the church has to speak as the church. This is an often overlooked step in church discipline. The offender hears from the one, from the two or three, from the elders, but never hears from the church.
You say that if a man does not repent after the church goes and calls him …, but where or how does the church do this? You have individuals do this, not the church, right?
You might want to look up “vote” in a dictionary. As Enigo Montoya famously says, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” WinkAs I said, I think you are hung up on the word “vote.” The point of a “vote” is to gather a view or opinion for action. You can raise a hand, write it down, check a box, voice, or a number of different ways. Whether it’s elder’s meetings or congregations, you have to have some way of determining consensus.
You speak of self-willed men. Those men are not fit to lead in God’s church (Titus 1:7).I didn’t say anything about self-willed men. I was speaking of two godly men, both prayerful, who differ on the proper course of action.
Larry, the issue of elders and how they rule is very specific to this point about voting. If elders ruled correctly, then voting would not be used.So when elders disagree in an elders meeting, how is that resolved?
There is zero biblical support for it.Let’s get past this. Declaring something to be true is not the same as showing it to be true. I think that a good case has been made that there is biblical support for it. And millions of believers in history and now agree with me. You think that there is no support for it, and millions agree with you.
But let’s talk about actual decision making.
Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.Of course they aren’t voting that he is in sin (though there may be some dispute about it). They are voting to speak as a church. There has to be some mechanism for “the church”—the assembly—to speak so that the man hears the church. Already in Matthew 18, we see that individual confrontation and small group confrontation has not worked. Now it is time for a singular voice to speak. there has to be some mechanism by which that voice speaks. If that’s not a vote, then what is it?
Look at 1 Cor 5. The church is rebuked for having not disassociated themselves with him. You don’t have to take a vote to not associate with a brother in sin.The vote is to put him out. You, the church not the elders, should have “put him out.”
Voting in churches has become like social security. It is so entrenched into our churches that you can’t even talk about getting rid of it.Not really, but if the Bible teaches congregational government, then it is sinful not to have it.
Every person regardless of maturity level feels entitled to have a say in how the church is run.Again, I would point out that the Bible never invokes spiritual maturity as a qualifier to participate in congregational decisions.
The sheep are telling shepherds what to do.I don’t think this is true at all.
Tell me this:
How are elder’s chosen in your congregation? How are deacons chosen?
Ted,
I don’t think I could have heard incorrectly on such an important issue. I had my ears tuned especially for matters relating to elder rule and church government, as I have been wrestling with that issue for years. Is it possible that practice has changed over the past few years?
Cordially,
Greg B
I don’t think I could have heard incorrectly on such an important issue. I had my ears tuned especially for matters relating to elder rule and church government, as I have been wrestling with that issue for years. Is it possible that practice has changed over the past few years?
Cordially,
Greg B
G. N. Barkman
[Ted Bigelow]Yes, ABC was originally in Liberia but Chin-chin and the staff moved to Malawi during the war. Recently they have returned and reopened their campus in Yekepa (northern Liberia) with the help of Samaritan’s Purse. While I have not seen it, I understand that the campus is “just like America.” Franklin Graham was here for a “Festival” from March 22-27 and flew up there to dedicate the reconstruction himself.Right. I am a bit jealous. We are still waiting for the rainy season here in Liberia and the highs have been in the 90’s all week - and the forecast is the same for the coming days: Fri - 93°, Sat - 93°, Sunday - 92°, Mon - 92°, Tues - 91° (wait! - do I see a cooling trend??!!). We were in a missions conference some years ago with some missionaries from the mountains of Cameroon. We thought, “Now why can’t we live someplace like that?”Its coming, bro. Hang in there! Besides, you’ll probably get front seats in the kingdom. BTW, I’m at African Bible College (Lilongwe) right now. Know the place?
[Ted Bigelow]I think there are two important concepts being discussed here:I have read your article (above), your responses to others’ arguments, and the first chapter of your book. While you make a good case for plural eldership, you seem to read a little too much between the lines in talking about merging churches, etc. I do not discount that interpretation as invalid, but if you are building your whole case on not voting in the church on this evidence, your case is weak.Fair enough. So the book has a whole chapter on merging. I just wanted to introduce it in chapter 1.All that being said, I do agree there are many problems with the “voting” model. I would be glad to hear your alternative. Please state simply how you believe elders should be chosen and how can they have accountability without input from the local body.The biblical model is Titus 1:5-9, which was perpetuated by the churches on Crete, and was employed by all NT churches under apostolic teaching (i.e., 1 Tim. 5:22, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:28).
1. How should the church be ruled? Congregationally or by a ruling board of elders? Books and books have been written on this subject. I don’t think we will add to much to this discussion here on SI.
2. How should these be chosen and how are they held accountable? You keep saying, follow Titus 1:5-9 - thus we must find an apostle who will give authority to a godly man who will go around appointing elders in the churches. Fine, but I think we are short on Apostles (real ones) and apostolic representatives. The best I can come up with in my situation would be to use my authority as a missionary to go around to our various Baptist Churches (for identification from the other Baptists, most refer to themselves as “Mid-Baptist”) cancel whatever their church structure is and find godly men to appoint to be the elders who will then rule their churches. NOT! You have made some good arguments about elder leadership (“rule”?) in the local church but you have not really explained biblically how this will happen. Without apostolic authority and direction, the “choosing” part of Titus 1:5-9 becomes impossible biblically.
Also, you keep saying that the Bible must be the authority in the church. No one here disagrees with that. But there are some very important decisions churches must make that creates obligations and requirements for the whole body. Example (true story): A church had made arrangements with a local bank to build a new auditorium building. However, the amount of money the bank approved for the loan was not sufficient to do all of the work. So, some of the leadership signed personal notes to get additional money to do the finishing touches. While they had the best intentions at heart, and one could argue that what they did was not unbiblical, without consulting the assembly they obligated the body to pay back the money.
I believe that wide latitude should be given to those who are in authority over the local church. They should not have their decisions micromanaged so that even a ream of paper used in the office must be voted upon. However, there must also be accountability of the leadership and the body must have the authority to remove an elder or elders who have moved from biblical orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Ted Stated:
@
Ted IMO one reason you are off with regard to Elder rule because you are advocating it within the error of there being Clergy. Churches who call and have Pastors who are within the bounds of being any type of professional clergy almost never have genuine Elder interaction. The so called Pastor is the Super Elder and given time he almost always has his men of agreement in place. They are yes men who respect and almost never go against the so called Pastor. In larger churches the Pastor need not say much at Elders meetings for his mouthpieces are there speaking for him. Many such churches have taken the authority from the people of the assembly and turned the people into various level consumers of a religious institution run by the corporate board. In many cases the staff, also loyalists of the so called “Senior” Pastor have their meetings where the real decisions are made and then the Elders meet and are informed and persuaded to support the staff opinion. The result is that there are people involved at various levels volunteering, teaching, and giving but without any real voice in the institution. They are treated as the second class believers who need to submit and agree or they are bringing disunity. Unity is the rallying cry of church staff. They even come to the place that taking the assembly away from those who assemble is viewed as necessary for such unity. Voting becomes evil.
Ted, you are not endeavoring to follow scripture more than most others who disagree with you. Also, some of your reasoning appears to have major flaws because of faulty exegesis. Your reply to me regarding Acts 11:22 and 13:3 are a perfect example. You are talking about a “they” that is masculine and not feminine in Greek and therefore cannot refer to the assembly. In both cases the English “they” is part of the translation of plural verbs where such gender matching is not applicable. We live in a modern atmosphere of careless use of Greek and Hebrew. I have become very leery of those seeking to use the original languages to explain away the obvious. This has been one of my main warnings to my students.
IMO the scriptures are difficult to handle when applying to assembly (church) procedures and governance for today. There are centuries of prejudice and wrong practice to overcome. There are no Apostles on the scene. No one person or persons exist to appoint Elders. Ecclesiastical feldergarb often gets fabricated by many who cannot overthrow the Clergy concept. The clearest principle that stands out in this Ecclesiastical jungle is the principle of the authority of the assembly -congregation. This is first stated by Christ in the Gospels, is carried on in the midst of Apostolic authority in Acts, is taught by the doctrine of Soteriology regarding the believer and their relation to Christ, and then expressly and clearly stated by Paul at 1 Timothy 3:14-16. The assembly, not the Elders, are the pillar and ground of the truth. Paul had just written about the Elders and ministering servants but moves on to the final authority of the assembly as a whole. Once we understand that Divine authority today comes from Christ through the scriptures to individual believers, then we can see that the true assembly becomes authoritative because it is an assembly of believer Priests. These believer Priests then choose their leaders and conditionally submit to them. The congregation has the right to use the vote as one of its procedures. Such may be what was done at Acts 6. Voting is not evil. It is a sin nuetral process. It can be used for evil but may accomplish good. Voting can bring disunity and it can bring unity. Scriptural concepts of unity do not occur apart from struggle and conflict. It is not a step toward unity to tell people to shut up. It is not a step toward unity to deny people the vote.
since his name has come up, I remember a discussion that some had with John MacArthur about this at about 1981 during lunch at a IFCA meeting. He expressed strong feelings against congregational binding authority in voting at that time. The Shepherds conferences influenced some regarding plural Eldership rule and taking the vote from the congregation. However, now some have noticed, and complained, about Masters Seminary graduates being called to congregational churches and then seeking to change long standing church government. Instead of ending up with wise benevolent plural elder rule they sometimes have ended up with Militant Calvinism being pushed and insisted upon and the Pastor and new Elders forcing some to stop teaching who do not embrace a Reformed soteriology. Some have left churches and there has been little unity in many cases. Unity comes from Spirit led lives and decisions not denying people a voice and the right to express differences on some things.
Congregational churches can have unity while voting on many things.
@
Bob T., #122The scriptures are exactly what I was appealing to as indicating that ultimate authority lies with the assembly - the congregation. That is of course human authority. Each believer reads and interprets the scriptures for themselves. Teachers are given to the church but themselves must be submissive to the scriptures. The elders do not stand between the individual believer Priest and Christ. The believers are to submit to Christ and also to the Elders. The submission to Christ is absolute. The submission to the Elders is conditional on their being in accord with the scriptures. The individual believer has a submission duty but if the assembly agrees that an Elder or the Elders are wrong the whole assembly may act against them.
Bob, thank you so much for your interaction here.
I think here is where you and I have a basic disagreement:
Quote:
If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.
For you, divine authority is in the congregation. For me, it is in the Scriptures. I don’t want to limit every believer’s authority in my church to a single vote. I want to their maximize their authority by having them use Scripture to rule the church.
Ted IMO one reason you are off with regard to Elder rule because you are advocating it within the error of there being Clergy. Churches who call and have Pastors who are within the bounds of being any type of professional clergy almost never have genuine Elder interaction. The so called Pastor is the Super Elder and given time he almost always has his men of agreement in place. They are yes men who respect and almost never go against the so called Pastor. In larger churches the Pastor need not say much at Elders meetings for his mouthpieces are there speaking for him. Many such churches have taken the authority from the people of the assembly and turned the people into various level consumers of a religious institution run by the corporate board. In many cases the staff, also loyalists of the so called “Senior” Pastor have their meetings where the real decisions are made and then the Elders meet and are informed and persuaded to support the staff opinion. The result is that there are people involved at various levels volunteering, teaching, and giving but without any real voice in the institution. They are treated as the second class believers who need to submit and agree or they are bringing disunity. Unity is the rallying cry of church staff. They even come to the place that taking the assembly away from those who assemble is viewed as necessary for such unity. Voting becomes evil.
Ted, you are not endeavoring to follow scripture more than most others who disagree with you. Also, some of your reasoning appears to have major flaws because of faulty exegesis. Your reply to me regarding Acts 11:22 and 13:3 are a perfect example. You are talking about a “they” that is masculine and not feminine in Greek and therefore cannot refer to the assembly. In both cases the English “they” is part of the translation of plural verbs where such gender matching is not applicable. We live in a modern atmosphere of careless use of Greek and Hebrew. I have become very leery of those seeking to use the original languages to explain away the obvious. This has been one of my main warnings to my students.
IMO the scriptures are difficult to handle when applying to assembly (church) procedures and governance for today. There are centuries of prejudice and wrong practice to overcome. There are no Apostles on the scene. No one person or persons exist to appoint Elders. Ecclesiastical feldergarb often gets fabricated by many who cannot overthrow the Clergy concept. The clearest principle that stands out in this Ecclesiastical jungle is the principle of the authority of the assembly -congregation. This is first stated by Christ in the Gospels, is carried on in the midst of Apostolic authority in Acts, is taught by the doctrine of Soteriology regarding the believer and their relation to Christ, and then expressly and clearly stated by Paul at 1 Timothy 3:14-16. The assembly, not the Elders, are the pillar and ground of the truth. Paul had just written about the Elders and ministering servants but moves on to the final authority of the assembly as a whole. Once we understand that Divine authority today comes from Christ through the scriptures to individual believers, then we can see that the true assembly becomes authoritative because it is an assembly of believer Priests. These believer Priests then choose their leaders and conditionally submit to them. The congregation has the right to use the vote as one of its procedures. Such may be what was done at Acts 6. Voting is not evil. It is a sin nuetral process. It can be used for evil but may accomplish good. Voting can bring disunity and it can bring unity. Scriptural concepts of unity do not occur apart from struggle and conflict. It is not a step toward unity to tell people to shut up. It is not a step toward unity to deny people the vote.
since his name has come up, I remember a discussion that some had with John MacArthur about this at about 1981 during lunch at a IFCA meeting. He expressed strong feelings against congregational binding authority in voting at that time. The Shepherds conferences influenced some regarding plural Eldership rule and taking the vote from the congregation. However, now some have noticed, and complained, about Masters Seminary graduates being called to congregational churches and then seeking to change long standing church government. Instead of ending up with wise benevolent plural elder rule they sometimes have ended up with Militant Calvinism being pushed and insisted upon and the Pastor and new Elders forcing some to stop teaching who do not embrace a Reformed soteriology. Some have left churches and there has been little unity in many cases. Unity comes from Spirit led lives and decisions not denying people a voice and the right to express differences on some things.
Congregational churches can have unity while voting on many things.
This thread is perplexing.
In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.
So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…
[James K] Look at Matt 18 again. Where does it say to vote? The church is informed of a brother in sin. They aren’t voting that he is in sin.I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. Especially when you add 2 Cor 2:6, where the punishment of an excommunicated member is said to have been “by the majority.” This verse was initially brought up by Aaron and has received no attention.
Look at 1 Cor 5. The church is rebuked for having not disassociated themselves with him. You don’t have to take a vote to not associate with a brother in sin.
In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.
So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…
[Ted Bigelow] Titus 1:5-9 teaches how Christ wants elders appointed, and is the scriptural pattern churches should use today. It dovetails in perfectly with 1 Tim. 5:21-25, and 1 Tim. 3:1-7.I read the first chapter of your book,and it was interesting, but perhaps you could give just a few bullet points of what your fourth chapter entails. Your first chapter talks about Titus appointing elders in every town, but who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? You do not believe that the congregation should vote on elders, but I have read through this whole thread, and I am not sure how you believe that my own congregation is supposed to have a “correctly appointed” elder.
I explain it in detail in the 4th chapter, bro. It’s quite simple, but also, quite humbling. You might also read chapter 8, on elder testing.
Edit: I just realized after I posted that there is a second page to the thread I didn’t read, so it may be that my question has already been answered on this page. Oops.
[Larry][Voting is] an act of accountability to the body of Christ and an expression of unity.Jesus Christ does not call us to be accountable to the church, but to what Scripture teaches, and to those Scripture says are in authority over us. And besides, unless a vote goes 100%, it isn’t an expression of unity, but of disunity.Ted:Jesus instructs the church to go to the offender and call him to repentance (Mat. 18:17). If he does not listen, he is put out of the church. The congregation decides nothing new, but acts on the evidence of impenitence as established by the witnesses. If the man will not repent after the church goes and calls him to repentance then it no longer regards him as a believer. In this it decides nothing new, but only agrees with Christ’s prior judgment (Mat. 18:18). Larry:Who said anything about deciding something new? I am not sure where that comes from. The point of Matthew 18 is that the church has to speak as the church. This is an often overlooked step in church discipline. The offender hears from the one, from the two or three, from the elders, but never hears from the church.Hey bro. First of all it’s incredibly rare for a congregational church to ever practice church discipline. Rarely does it follow step 1 or 2, much less 3 and 4. And those rare ones that do pay a steep price for doing it. See the following link for the hesitancy at John Piper’s congregational church to “tell it to the church” because they are committed to congregationalism (see footnote 11 on the linked pdf), and with a little hard work you can find why the elders hesitate to bring mattersto the church anymore: http://www.hopeingod.org/document/relational-commitments. Congregational churches require all the members to become judges (i.e., witnesses) of not only the offender, but the 2 or 3 as well. This is because they are asked to vote on the matter – so they are required to judge the merits of the discipline case. This violates Christ’s words in Mat. 18, which requires the church to act upon the established evidence of the 2 or 3 witnesses, not to judge it as to its merit.
Now for the assertion you made about the church not deciding something new. Perhaps the following illustration will help you. Several weeks ago a pastor from a neighboring state called me for counsel. He had recently resigned his pastorate from a Southern Baptist church. This is because the congregation” decided something new.” He and others had performed step 1 and 2 discipline on a man in the congregation. The facts of the matter were established in accord with Christ’s words in Mat. 18:15-16. But when they brought the matter for a church vote (they believed they were doing step 3 “tell it to the church”) the church voted against the pastor and in favor of the rebellious man who had a long list of offenses. That is they voted NOT to proceed on with the discipline. As a result this man resigned his pastorate, for the church was not only wrong to vote that way, but had voted to side with sin. So you see, in congregationalism, the congregation is given the right to “decide something new.” But actually, what they are given is the power to disobey Christ, as in that case.You say that if a man does not repent after the church goes and calls him …, but where or how does the church do this? You have individuals do this, not the church, right?Individuals in the church, and the whole church, is to confront the man. Will every person in the church do it? Each person has to respond to Christ’s command to tell the impenitent member to repent, but I can’t be certain all will. They key to seeing this is to see the word “listen” in Mat. 18:17. It is the same word “listen” in verses 15 and 16, where personal confrontation is enjoined upon the individual and the witnesses for sin and impenitence.Ted:You speak of self-willed men. Those men are not fit to lead in God’s church (Titus 1:7). Larry:I didn’t say anything about self-willed men. I was speaking of two godly men, both prayerful, who differ on the proper course of action.Context is key here, bro. Here’s the context from post 117:Ted: Elders qualified by Scripture don’t overrule each other. Larry: So an elder who wants to, for instance build a new building is not overruled by an elder who doesn’t want to build a new building? How does that work? Wherever there is disagreement, someone’s position is going to prevail, and there has to be some mechanism for determining that there is disagreement.Larry, an elder who wants to build a new building but doesn’t want to see every elder who is biblically qualified come to embrace it as well with a clear conscience… that elder is a self-willed man and must be confronted. If he will not repent he is to be removed from eldership by the process of 1 Tim. 5:20.
If another qualified elder who doesn’t want to build isn’t comfortable with the plan, and has biblical reason for not being comfortable, then no, the plan must not go forward. The Holy Spirit only has one will on the matter, and until all the elders are in unanimity (assuming they are all biblically qualified), then they must not introduce disunity by arm-twisting or any manipulation (Mat. 7:12).
if the Bible teaches congregational government, then it is sinful not to have it.I totally agree with your conditional statement, Larry.
There is zero biblical support for it.Larry:Let’s get past this. Declaring something to be true is not the same as showing it to be true. I think that a good case has been made that there is biblical support for it. And millions of believers in history and now agree with me. You think that there is no support for it, and millions agree with you.I know where you are coming from, but this matter shouldn’t be framed this way. By analogy, your argument is the same as paedo vs. creedal baptism. A paedo Baptist has not text for either command or example for the practice, but clings tenaciously to it because he sees it through covenantal eyes. But is he right to say, “hey, millions believe in paedo, and millions believe in credo. So get off it”? I don’t think so. I think hermeneutically the credo-baptist has the higher ground, for he can point to Scripture after Scripture that directly teaches both command and example of believer baptism.
This is the same with church governance. When we say the NT never teaches a voting polity by example or command, we are right. To claim Acts 6, or 1 Cor. 5, or Mat. 18 teaches voting carries the same hermeneutic weight as the “household” texts in Acts do for paedo baptism. It is only inference, and is easily refuted.
So imagine a paedo Baptist saying to you, “enough already about telling me that no text in the Bible commands or exemplifies infant baptism. I believe it anyway.” What would you say?
What if a person says to you, “we make congregational decisions by giving everybody a roll of the dice.” Would that be acceptable to you? If not, why not?
What you are asking us to do is to move off of the Bible and use another foundation for our arguments.
Again, I would point out that the Bible never invokes spiritual maturity as a qualifier to participate in congregational decisions.Titus 1:7 calls qualified elders – men with advanced spiritual maturity as measured by objective standards - “God’s stewards.” In 1 Thess. 5:12 they are “those who have charge over you.” In Heb. 13:17 they are “leaders” - the word there meant governmental leader. In 1 Tim. 3:4-5, and 5:17 they are those who “rule.” In Titus 1:6 they are called “overseers.” In Acts 15 they, along with the apostles, make ruling decisions over the churches.
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,Its possible - you know - as in “all things are possible.” But its not the case. Call the church and ask for the “pastor of the day” - (818) 782-5920.
I don’t think I could have heard incorrectly on such an important issue. I had my ears tuned especially for matters relating to elder rule and church government, as I have been wrestling with that issue for years. Is it possible that practice has changed over the past few years?
Cordially,
Greg B
Featured Resource
Discussion