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).
- 5612 views
[KevinM] I’m guessing that Ted will give a more in-depth study of the NT texts, in subsequent posts? And those who affirm congregational voting could do the same, given the opportunity.The only way to argue rightly is to patiently and carefully exegete all relevant Scripture. When that is done, Scripture provides a homogeneous form of church government. It takes about 3 minutes to see. Go ahead and download the first chapter of my book at www.thetitusmandate.org.
I’m more interested in how the elder rule idea is argued.
No matter who is teaching it, they tend to start out with a personal narrative about the excesses of congregationalism…sad stories about unhealthy churches.Have you heard mine? Just kidding.
But there are more than enough parallel stories from the world of elder rule to remind us that carnality is not limited to congregational votes. [Insert personal narrative here!] In a city where I used to minister, the elders of a certain church voted out their senior pastor because of “conflicting agendas” for the church. And my buddy, the youth pastor (and an elder), cast his vote against the senior pastor. Then the elders mailed a letter to all of the other evangelical churches in the city, explaining in detail why they had voted out their pastor (but not allowing the pastor any equal time to explain his side of the story).Hey, what did I say? Voting is a bad idea ;)
Pick your system: congregational, episcopal, prebyterian…each can be disrupted by carnality. So I think the introductory arguments will eventually give way to a more substantive exploration of the text.You left out biblical eldership, my brother, which is none of those three.
[Dan Miller] Ted,Thanks, Dan. You will find a very lengthened discussion in the book.
I put your book in my shopping cart. I’m interested to see if you have a more extended argument.
Your anecdote would seem to argue against your position, though. That church was had pretty significant problems. The congregation did not trust the leadership. In that situation, it is hard to imagine how things would have been better if a group of “ruling” elders would have pushed through their building project.
Well, I wasn’t advocating for the building project. Indeed, the church had major problems, which I trace back to an unscriptural polity that brings division. Elders “who push through” anything are likely “self-willed,” and therefore unqualified to be called elders (Titus 1:7). Pity that congregation that doesn’t follow Scripture, but wrongly elects such men into leadership.
[Jeff Brown] Say Ed, maybe you could establish this point somehow. Could you give your exegetical basis for the statement that he ekklesia in Matt 18:17 means hoi presbyteroi?It might be more accurate to say that most commentaries do not touch this issue. Here is Barnes:
I also am not convinced that most commentators say this. Perhaps you could back that up.
Verse 17. Tell it unto the Church. See Barnes “Matthew 16:18”. The church may here mean the whole assembly of believers; or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases—the representatives of the church, or those who act for them. In the Jewish synagogue there was a bench of elders, before whom trials of this kind were brought. It was to be brought to the church, in order that he might be admonished, entreated, and, if possible, reformed. This was, and is always to be, the first business in disciplining an offending brother.Here is a quick quotation from Jay Adam’s book, Handbook of Church Discipline
The idea of I Timothy 5:19-21 seems to me to imply that since the elders are in charge of discipline in the church, they must be held to a high standard. Additionally, it is the job of the elders (or church leaders) to watch over the souls of church folks (Hebrews 13:17); since they will give account for those souls, it seems strange the decisions should be made by people who are not accountable. It is logical that leaders should lead.
Frequently in the Old Testament when God wished to speak to Israel as a whole, He summoned and addressed the elders who then conveyed His message to the people… This is probably the meaning of “tell it to the church”: tell it to the church by telling it to the elders…” p. 69
I would argue that going THROUGH the elders and the elders leading is how this is brought to the church. Leaders are also deciders. That is implicit in the office. Asking one group to lead and another to decide is contradictory.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ted Bigelow] @MshepRight. I am a bit jealous. We are still waiting for the rainy season here in Liberia and the highs have been in the 90’s all week - and the forecast is the same for the coming days: Fri - 93°, Sat - 93°, Sunday - 92°, Mon - 92°, Tues - 91° (wait! - do I see a cooling trend??!!). We were in a missions conference some years ago with some missionaries from the mountains of Cameroon. We thought, “Now why can’t we live someplace like that?”While I agree with much of the sentiment of this article, I think it is going too far to conclude that voting is wrong in a church.Hi Mshep. Thanks for your response. You need to feel sorry for me brother. As I write this I am in Malawi, Africa and the breezes are coming in off the plain – its about 80 here and gorgeous…. Huge billowing clouds in the distance rise up to 30,000 feet, and the air smells sweet. Birds are singing. OK, enough trying to make you jealous ;)
I do see how you agree with the spirit of my article, but not the content. But my content agrees with your statement, “Rather than make decisions based on God’s Word and what is best and correct for the ministry, the “majority” rules.” That’s all I’m arguing for, Mshep.
[Ted Bigelow]I agree that the statement “In the N.T.” may not have been the best choice of words (although I have read there are some scholars who believe that we should look at these inscriptions as canonical). This is why I referred to them as “postscripts” meaning, not part of the quoted verse.But, there also is a problem in many churches with unqualified leaders or dictatorial pastors who make unbiblical decisions and then demand to be followed since they are the “annointed by God” to carry the leadership of the church. While I know this is a short article, I would like to ask Ted how leaders are to be chosen in the first place? And, what is the church supposed to do with unqualified leaders (e.g.”deacon for life”) or those who fall into sin and refuse to step down?As you know, there were dictatorial eldersi n the 1st Century, and Scripture teaches how to deal with them – and its not by instituting church voting! See 1 Timothy 1:20, 1 Timothy 5:19-20, and the book of 3 John. Also you might read my book, The Titus Mandate, chapter 8 (you can actually get much of on Amazon search).Finally, I believe it is also wrong to say that there is no Scriptural support or precedent for voting. While I am not a Greek scholar, I do know that Greek word cheirotoneo, defined as “1) to vote by stretching out the hand 2) to create or appoint by vote: one to have charge of some office or duty 3) to elect, create, appoint” is found at least four times in New Testament in regards to decisions made by local churches.Oops – only 2x in the NT, brother – #3 and 4 were added later onto some NT manuscripts by somebody. The emandation you cite in Titus 3:15 actually contradicts Titus 3:12, where Titus is told to leave Crete when either Artemas or Tychicus replaces him. If Titus was to leave soon for Greece (Nicopolis), in what sense could he have been replaced quickly by other men and have been an archbishop(a position unattested in the NT, btw)? As for the 1st two instances you cite above. Each of these passages are fully treated in my book, chapter 12 and 13. For instance, look up Acts 14:23 – you don’t really suppose Barnabas and Saul raised hands just between the two of them? Awkward and silly.
1. In Acts 14:23, “appointed” (“So when they had appointed elders in every church”).
2. In 2 Cor 8:19, “chosen” (“And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches”) - in deciding who will carry the monetary gift to the church in Jerusalem.
3. In the postscript to 2 Tim. 4:22, “ordained” (“The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians”)
4. In the postscript to Titus 3:15, “ordained” (“It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians”)
[Ted Bigelow] My book addresses the biblical appointment methodology of elders, chapter 4. It is completely based on Titus 1:5-9, in which Titus is given all the instruction he needed on how to do it according to apostolic pattern. It id a pattern that endure to today. And of course, it has nothing to do with votes.I have read your article (above), your responses to others’ arguments, and the first chapter of your book. While you make a good case for plural eldership, you seem to read a little too much between the lines in talking about merging churches, etc. I do not discount that interpretation as invalid, but if you are building your whole case on not voting in the church on this evidence, your case is weak.
Blessings - Ted
All that being said, I do agree there are many problems with the “voting” model. I would be glad to hear your alternative. Please state simply how you believe elders should be chosen and how can they have accountability without input from the local body.
MS--------------------------------Luke 17:10
Would you say that John MacArthur’s church is wrong to practice voting?
Cordially,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
This view essentially (or explicitly at times) says, “There are spiritual people among us who are equipped by the Spirit for decision making, and there are the rest of you (most of you) who just need to sit back and accept that we speak for God in this congregation.”Actually Larry it doesn’t say that at all.
Shepherds don’t let sheep vote to know what to do. They are in that position precisely to lead. Failure to lead is a failure of the position.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Acts 11:30
And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.
(greek word for elder here is presbyteros – a ruling council)
Acts 14:23
When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23 and 16:4
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue…When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them…The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter…Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, …and they sent this letter by them, “The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings…Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.
Acts 20:17
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.
Acts 20:28
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Acts 21:18
And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons
I Thess 5:12-13
But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work.
I Timothy 5:17
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
Titus 1:5
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you
James 5:14
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord
1 Peter 5:1-2
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness
Hebrews 13:7
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
All of this demonstrates beyond question that the church is to have plural elders. Acts 14:23 is explicit in this regard.
Further, believers are told to do the following to the elders:
1. Appreciate
2. Highly esteem
3. Give double honor
4. Go to them when sick
5. Obey
6. Submit
Elders in turn are told to:
1. Be active in doctrinal disputes
2. Oversee
3. Shepherd
4. Labor
5. Give instruction
6. Rule well
7. Exercise oversight
The absence of any kind of vote is noted. Other rhetorical questions would be asked:
What sheep get to vote out the shepherd? What employees get to overthrown the manager?
No, elders are called to rule well. Passing it off to others is a failure to fulfill their task.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
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.
Sorry, my brother. I got to cut it off at that point.
It would be nice to vote “less”
Examples:
o Inactive members. After X months of inactivity, let the leadership team (elders / deacons) remove from membership and simply inform the body (say at an annual meeting)
Big things vote on:
o Church discipline (other than inactivity)
o Budget
o Call of pastors
o Election of officers (elders / deacons)
o Purchase and sale of property
Others … not so much
I agree with this except for Church discipline. I feel….
I now know what you feel about the issue of voting. But since the church is God’s creation, I want to know what Christ “feels” about it. I hope you don’t want to build “Jim’s church.” I am sure you want to submit to Christ who is building His church, right? So our opinion on the matter has no value, right? Let’s study His gift of communication to us on the matter of decision making in the church, and then obey it. For when we do, we obey Him and live as those who belong to Him (Luke 17:10).
Hey Ted,We vote as often as Jesus and His apostles taught us to vote. Which is as often as they taught us to hit ourselves in the head with a hammer.
It would be helpful to see a chart in a grid expressing what folk in your church vote on
Thanks
In case anybody was wondering, I really didn’t plan to post this when Ted would be out of the country so we’d be able to gang up on him.Thanks to all of you who are weighing in. I am your brother, if you love the word of God, and obey it (Mark 3:35). It is 6 AM in Malawi. The birds are outside, chirping away. I preach this morning and teach later on preaching. Ahh, what a blessed life my Lord has given me, and I am so unworthy.
Anyway, the book does sound interesting. Dan Miller… maybe you’d be interested in writing a review for us?I would be honored.
I’m quite sympathetic to the general concept of “elder rule,” since the term is almost always plural in the NT (and the OT concept is obviously plural). But, as Dever recently noted at ATC, small churches in rural settings can have a pretty hard time finding more than one qualified elder (one of the main qualifications being “desire,” 1 Tim.3:1 - yes, I take “bishop” and “elder” to be the same thing).Absolutely true, so here’s another reason to read the book. The Titus Mandate (Titus 1:5) doesn’t say to appoint elders in every church, but “in every town.” There is a reason for that difference, but I can’t get into here. I explain it in the first chapter of the book, which is available for free at the www.thetitusmandate.org site.
I agree with Ted very thoroughly in many areas. I this one I do not, and of course good brothers are bound to differ. Ted, can you cite a verse in the Bible which tells how existing churches are to choose their elders? Acts 14:23 does not work. It explains tersely how two missionaries (who were moving on, and are never themselves called “elders”) got elders established in new churches. So if there is no Bible verse which says that elders are to choose elders, how is this process any more biblical than a congregation voting for elders? But perhaps you can show passages that directly state that elders are to choose elders.Thanks Jeff, hope you are doing well, brother.
Titus 1:5-9 teaches how Christ wants elders appointed, and is the scriptural pattern churches should use today. It dovetails in perfectly with 1 Tim. 5:21-25, and 1 Tim. 3:1-7.
I explain it in detail in the 4th chapter, bro. It’s quite simple, but also, quite humbling. You might also read chapter 8, on elder testing.
We are in the realm of the extra- biblical. That is the entire point. That is not necessarily bad: much of what our churches do is neither condemned nor commanded in Scripture, and that was true in the early church as well.Ed, I’d like to disagree with you here, bro. Larry feels passages like Acts 6, 1 Cor. 5, 2 Cor 2:6 teach voting. I say they don’t, but that the NT does teach us how to make decisions as congregations in unity.
As I’m writing this, the rains just started here in Malawi. And I have Toto in my head, “I blessed the rains down in Africa.” As I write this the rains are deafening! Quite awesome.
What we try to do is to draw Biblical principles. The Biblical principle of I Timothy 3 is that the church is to be led by spiritually mature godly men. Yet the western world is pretty much run by representative governments and voting on issues. Thus voting is a western adaption. So how do we balance it?Ed, my bro, we don’t need to balance off God’s sufficient (complete) revelation. We just need to know it, and do it. Titus 1:5-9 teaches us, in compact language, the whole biblical process of appointing only qualified men in local church leadership.
No system works if it is filled with ungodly, narrow, unscriptural, or grouchy leaders. Just about any system works if godliness prevails over a congregation. The issue is not what works, but what does God demand. And, as we can see, when it comes to the issue of voting, we cannot even come close to agreeing.Right, so God calls us to unify around Scripture – all of us.
All it takes is one nasty, narrow, or outspoken person – as a member or on a board – to make church life miserable. That nasty person may want attention, may live in fear of change, or may be bitter about past changes. Wherever that person or group of persons collect — on boards or congregations — they can make government issues unpleasant.So true. And God even gives you instruction on how to deal with it in such a way that the whole church is sanctified – 1 Tim. 5:19-20. The language is compact, but sufficient for every such situation in God’s church. But that process in 1 Tim. 5:19-20 can only be obeyed in biblical eldership, without voting. No other form of church governance can obey it exactly as it is written because it is built on a foundation other than Scripture.
Deacons are also explicitly given to the congregation to choose (which implies some sort of voting).Where? If its explicit, let’s see it. And since its explicit, please don’t use Acts 6. There is no mention of deacons there, by which I mean to say, that God in infinite wisdom and as an act of His wisdom did not reveal deacons in Acts 6.
[Ted Bigelow] Thanks, Dan. You will find a very lengthened discussion in the book.It’s in the mail.
[Ted Bigelow] Well, I wasn’t advocating for the building project. Indeed, the church had major problems, which I trace back to an unscriptural polity that brings division. Elders “who push through” anything are likely “self-willed,” and therefore unqualified to be called elders (Titus 1:7). Pity that congregation that doesn’t follow Scripture, but wrongly elects such men into leadership.What I meant by “push through” was that the decision of the elders would happen even though the majority of the congregation was opposed to it.
Your objection to “push-through” as “self-willed” is confusing. Are you saying it is always wrong for the elders to decide and do something against the will of majority of the congregation?
Discussion