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
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Ted Bigelow]I’m sorry, gentlemen, but I missed the part where a vote was taken in Exodus.[Pastor Harold] 10-2 against going into the Promise Land. Majority rules in a democracy. Who’s idea was that???Indeed, advocates of majority rule need to ask themselves, “how often in Scripture is the majority obeying God?”
Perhaps we should use wicked King Ahab as an example of what can happen when power drunken men seek to lord over God’s heritage.
[Ted Bigelow] Bro, the issue isn’t what works, or not, but what God says, right. And He is so abundantly clear and singular on this matter.You claim that Scripture never alludes to voting and then turn around and say that what God says is “so abundantly clear and singular on this matter.” By “this matter,” I believe you refer to church polity in general. I find it difficult to take that type of a comment seriously after reading pages of back and forth here…
My biggest concern with your approach is the hermeneutic that runs throughout your article and comments. You seem to believe that Scriptural silence on a matter is equivelent to a positive statement on a matter. But it is not.
Is it not possible that God intended the church to apply the principles which are indeed “abundantly clear and singular” in culturally appropriate ways in areas in which Scripture is silent (that is not to concede that Scripture is silent on voting)? Is it not possible that it is not a black and white issue? That there is room for varying methods of decision making within the biblical framework of church polity and body life? Do we have a right to demand an “abundantly clear and singular” answer to every question we may choose to raise?
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
[Ted Bigelow]Ted, I want to challenge you that it might not be helpful to state things in this way.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.
Were those men in Acts 6 Deacons? Most people seem to think so. The Text doesn’t use the word. But the description… And does it matter? They were certainly officers in the church of some sort.
Often the Text doesn’t say something that we might wish it either said or denied. To attribute every omission to “God in infinite wisdom and as an act of His wisdom” is dangerous. Certainly God is infinitely wise. Certainly He inspired the authors of Scripture. But when you phrase it this way, it tends to remove the unknown from the unknown. So you’ll tend to read “NO!” into a “No comment.” Sometimes He, in His infinite wisdom wished to keep it unknown.
Also, your reference to God’s wisdom tends to suggest that anyone who honestly thinks that Acts 6 refers to deacons (which I would think you realize is the majority (we could vote!) of scholars) - anyway, your appeal to God’s wisdom suggests that these scholars somehow deny God’s wisdom by seeing deacons. That’s a little disrespectful to your colleagues and will add more heat than light, IMO. Better to warn them that there’s a chance that deacons aren’t intended.
Looks like it’s been a stimulating discussion though.
A couple random responses:
Susan’s observations about milk Christians and meat Christians are valid, contra whoever it was that argued the point. Heb.5.14. We really do have varying levels of maturity, surely nobody’s denying that. So if there is a way to increase the participation of the mature and decrease the participation of the immature, that certainly makes sense to me.
[Ted] Back it up with Scripture, Aaron. Back up that voting is “a way of discerning the Lord’s leading.”I mentioned two situations in Scripture where a consensus was measured in some way. In both of them the implication that this is the Lord’s leading in the body. So we’re talking about finding a mechanism. If it’s not voting, how do you propose that this be done?
Ed’s got a solid point—and Ted also to a degree—that voting can cause disunity.
If you take a simple decision and hand it to a committee, it’ll take six months to reach the decision and half the members will be mad at the other half by the end. (Aaron’s highly-unoriginal insights #13: Never give a job to a committee if an individual can do it!).
So churches have sometimes suffered needless disunity as a result of discussion of what could have been a simple decision—and isn’t really an important one.
The question on that, to me, is how exactly is the disunity created in these cases? I’ve seen it happen. People get interested in a question, get all passionate about it and invested in it when—without discussion and voting—they would have hardly given it a moment’s thought. So what’s the real problem there?
Perhaps it’s a problem of prior commitment to a process. That is, if the body as a whole has participated in deciding that matters of carpet color will be decided by the trustees or by committee X, then the chosen people make the decision and that’s that. You’ll have some immature types who will still resent it but you can tell them: the body decided the decision would be made this way.
If you have all this stuff decided all at once and spelled out in policies, then it’s kind of a done deal forever thereafter.
In general, it seems prudent to me for congregationally governed churches to adopt policies/procedures that assign relatively minor decisions to leaders or small groups so disunity is not created by dumping trivial matters on the entire body to bounce around and vote on.
(Again, this is not really much of a factor in churches with less than 20 people showing up for business meetings!)
KevinM… about Dever and elder rule. Thanks. I stand corrected. His model is indeed not “elder ruled,” but “elder led.”
NEXT WEEK:
Looks like we’ll have something on this from Dr. Jeff Brown who did his PhD work on congregational polity.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Cordially,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
The problem is that the practice is so rooted in American democracy that it is just offensive to even think about getting rid of it.
Elders must rule, not as lords, but they still must rule.
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.
I think bringing in plurality is a bit of a red herring. We are not talking about plurality vs. singularity, and really not even talking about leadership. We are talking about foundational authority. Voting is not an act of leadership or an act of ruling. So that contrast is, IMO, misguided.
The absence of any kind of vote is noted.I would suggest that the absence of some key passages on your part is also noted. You say that no one ever voted on anything in the NT, but the only way you can maintain that is by ignoring that by some means the church in Matt 18 and 1 Cor5 and Acts 6 came to a consensus (or should have come to a consensus).
Other rhetorical questions would be asked:These aren’t questions the Bible asks though, and they do not seem to be questions based on anything in the Bible. The apostles, in Acts 6, specifically gave the responsibility to choose servants to diakon- to the congregation.
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.I agree, and I think most would. But I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that an elder not rule well, or that he pass it off to others. I certainly am not.
It should be further noted that neither Matt 18 nor 1 Cor 5 say anything about voting.So how would the church do something apart from some sort of vote? Anytime you have a group of people you have to have some mechanism of expressing consensus, even among the elders. How do you achieve that consensus?
What do you do when one elder disagrees with another? One of them or both of them get overruled. So you have an elder who is supposed to lead/rule/etc, but cannot do so. So I don’t think you solve the problem by your method. You just confine to a smaller group of supposedly more spiritual men.
And of course we know that elders are always really spiritual and never sin, teach false doctrine, make wrong choices, lead to do wrong things, abuse children, and the like.
Of course I speak in jest, but the reality is that you don’t solve the problem
Congregational authority is not rooted in American democracy. It existed prior to American democracy and outside of American democracy.
[James K] If you look at what the elders are supposed to do in the role, and then note how no one ever voted in anything related to church practice in the NT, you can see that it isn’t an argument from silence as GN Barkman and others say.You’ll note, of course, that Congregationalism precedes American democracy. In fact, I’ve read that the harmony produced by congregation-ally ruled churches were an encouragement to American democracy, rather than a result of it.
The problem is that the practice is so rooted in American democracy that it is just offensive to even think about getting rid of it.
Elders must rule, not as lords, but they still must rule.
No, I’m not saying that some scriptures are “more inspired” than others. I’m simply suggesting that in some areas the scripture intentionally allows for more flexibility in interpretation.
For example, while the qualifications of church leadership is made very clear, the exact structure of leadership is a little more vague. That doesn’t mean that anything goes — we should work at systematically studying all the relevant biblical data and staying as close to it as possible. However, I believe that some details of church polity, like how much of a role the congregation plays, are flexible, and can be adapted to different cultures. The way Cambodians view leadership is very different from an American approach to government.
While I certainly agree with the overall sentiment here that too much congregational authority can be a bad thing, I’m unwilling to be very dogmatic about church voting.
1 Tim 5:19-20 - “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”
What are we to do in the event the elders bring heresy or gross immorality into our church? Nothing?
Also, how would a group of believers start a church? It would be effectively impossible to begin a church unless we had an apostle appoint the first elder, so that there would be someone to appoint other members and elders.
In our churches, it expresses presumptuousness. God never tells us to do it, no apostle tells us to do it… and yet we do it. And then we find Bible references to support the act. And as I argue, we take them out of context to make them say something they don’t.I don’t think voting expresses presumptuousness at all. I think God told us that the congregation is to have authority. I think on certain issues it expresses submission to God’s word and affirms the work of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ.
Perhaps you are hung up on the word “vote.” By “vote” I think we only mean come to a consensus on the matter in front of us. You comment on Acts 6 that Luke says they “chose,” not voted. A choice can be done many ways. But at the end of the day a vote by any other name is still a vote. It is a “choice” made by a group of people. The congregation as a whole by some means set apart seven men. I don’t see any way you do that apart from some sort of congregational action.
I do not know how a group of people (either elders or the church) come to any consensus without some sort of vote of some type. Even if you go around the room and ask, “Do we agree on this?” it is a vote. It happens in elder’s meetings all the time. In 1 Cor 5 and Matt 18, there is a command for a group of people to do something. There has to be someway for that group to express it’s will. That is a vote, no matter what you call it. The only way you avoid this is with a solo pastor who has complete control.
Larry: The apostles specifically did not appoint them. Ted: Bro, see Acts 6:6.And? Acts 6:6 does say anything about appointing or choosing. It says they laid hands on them. “They” (the congregation) brought them (the seven they had chosen; vv. 3, 5) to the apostles.
A biblical church wants only God’s voice in Scripture, not men’s voices, whether the elders, or the congregation, right?Or The Titus Mandate? :) We all recognize that God has not spoken comprehensively about every single matter a church might face. And the church therefore must find some other way of seeking God’s face for his will. I believe that the Holy Spirit equips every single believer for this task. And appoints elders to lead them through this task.
Why should I, as a pastor, presume that God gives me special insight into his Word and Will? Pastoral gifting and calling does not deal with, IMO.
And Larry, the Lord is not interested in something you call “the will of the congregation.” He is interested in His will alone, and that we obey it, not compete with it by trying to figure out our own (Luke 17:10).The Bible uses phrases like “seemed good to them,” and similar phrases that express my point in “the will of the church.” I do not set that against the will of God.
The NT describes in sufficient and full detail how these are to be done, and I take the time in my book - in the early chapters, to detail it out.I would love to see a quick description of how you choose elders and deacons here.
Someone has to choose them right? Presumably every qualified man is not an elder, so you select from among the qualified men. If more than one person is involved, it amounts to a vote.
James asks if the shepherd lets the sheep vote. The answer is yes, if we follow the pattern of Matt 18/1 Cor 5/Acts 6. But the mistake is thinking that a vote equals leading. It doesn’t. As I point out, our own form of government is based on voting and no one thinks that the voters are leading. We choose leaders.
Ted, you talk about voting for deacons and Acts 6 and say there is no mention of deacons there. And that’s true, unless you include vv. 1-2 in Acts 6. In vv. 1-2, diakon- is used twice to describe the function of these men in the body. Furthermore, the qualifications given for the men who who would “diakon-ing” in v. 3 would fit very well with the extended list in 1 Tim 3. While I know it is disputed (and perhaps because of the ramifications of congregational authority), it would be most strange if that was not a reference the first deacons, chosen by the congregation, at the behest of the teachers of the word, to serve the congregation in material things so that the teachers of the word can serve in spiritual things.
In other words, you have function of deacons (serving not leading) and the qualifications of deacons (Spirit filled, wise). It would be a most torturous case, IMO, for that to be something other than a deacon. And if those are not deacons, what are they? And where do we find any NT information about what a deacon is to do?
The word “representative” was used by Ted as an argument, that someone voted in was a representative while an elder was a steward. I disagree. I don’t think elders are representatives of anyone but God. But I think the pattern of Scripture is congregational in authority.
Here’s what I see (not having read Ted’s book). There is an abundance of argument based on words (voting, representative, leading) and based on logic (sheep leading shepherd, voting equaling authority, spiritually immature people leading and having same vote as spiritually mature people), etc. But IMO, it doesn’t really address the Scripture sufficiently.
Again, IMO, the case for congregational authority is clear in Scripture and nothing here has (again IMO) come close to a case against it.
Thanks again for the gracious exchange.
Thank you for explaining your reasoning for your interpretation by pointing to the responsibility of elders. I will not contradict the importance of their role in the church (and likely role in the process of discipline). My response is twofold: first, Jesus had not yet said a word to his disciples about elders when he gave the pattern for disciplining an erring brother. And no apostle later says a word about disciplining all erring brothers through the elders. Second, making ekklesia = presbyteroi does not work linguistically.
Both Emil Schürer History of the Jewish People 2:431 and Strack and Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 1:787 point out that the practice of discipline carried out by the whole congregation is unique in ancient Judaism to Jesus and His followers and the Qumran community.
Only a strained exegesis will interpret Matthew 18:17 as anything other than action by the whole congregation. Of course, actually doing it is another matter. But I would recommend the simple obedience of this passage when the serious case takes place in your congregation. I say from experience that it works, works positively on the whole congregation, and though it is never easy, no elder ever has to give up one atom of his leadership to bring it to pass. In fact, I have always led the whole process. I know as well that many, many pastors can give the same testimony.
Jeff Brown
Ed, my bro, we don’t need to balance off God’s sufficient (complete) revelation. We just need to know it, and do it. Titus 1:5-9 teaches us, in compact language, the whole biblical process of appointing only qualified men in local church leadership.I do not see it that way at all. We need to distinguish between DESCRIPTION and PRESCRIPTION. If we had a clear prescription “bring it to a vote,” we would not be having this discussion. The point is that we are trying to develop a way to govern, etc., based upon what was described in Acts, which is quite partial and nowhere stated as description.
Do we have any verses that suggest we are to imitate the practices of the early church as a whole? I only see specific prescriptions for things like communion, preaching, etc., and qualifications for officers. But if y you compare what is commanded in Scripture with our constitutions and bylaws, a lot of that is culturally based or a result of the school of hard knocks.
Even if we learned from church history how the early church did things (what time they met, etc.), how can we defend the assumption that we are to imitate their practices, apart from those commanded?
"The Midrash Detective"
Jean Calvin’s Commentary on ActsThanks for the fine quote by John Calvin, the great theologian of the Holy Spirit. But on this matter he is wrong. The text of God plainly states that the elders in those churches were appointed only by Barnabas and Saul, not by “free election.” He read that into the text, and his reasons for doing so were historically conditioned – they were coming out of the RCC and the priests who controlled everything. However, I think he is right in understanding the word “cheirotoneo” as referring to, either metaphorically, or literally, the laying on of hands – not voting.
Had ordained by election. The Greek word χειροτονειν doth signify to decree, or ordain a thing, by lifting up the hands, as they used to do in the assemblies of the people. Notwithstanding, the ecclesiastical writers do often use the word χειροτονεια, in another sense; to wit, for their [the] solemn rite of ordaining, which is called in Scripture laying on of hands. Furthermore, by this manner of speech is very excellently expressed the right way to ordain pastors. Paul and Barnabas are said to choose elders. Do they this alone by their private office? Nay, rather they suffer the matter to be decided by the consent of them all. Therefore, in ordaining pastors the people had their free election, but lest there should any tumult arise, Paul and Barnabas sit as chief moderators. Thus must the decree of the council of Laodicea be understood, which forbiddeth that the people have liberty granted them to elect.
Discussion