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
Hi Ed, I think you are right - some do infer elders into the Mat. 18 text. But they should only do it if other Scripture so allows, not because Mat. 18:15-20 discusses elders. It doesn’t.
Most commentators understand the Matt. 18 passage as referring to the elders. Otherwise, we would expect to see this: “confront the brother, bring 2 or 3 with you, if that doesn’t work, then the elders, and if that doesn’t work then the whole church.” We would expect the elders to at least be an intermediary stage, would we not? But this is not what we see.
For me, I would would see 1 Peter 5:1-4 as calling elders to shepherd the flock. And 1 Thess. 5:12-13 tells the church to support those “who have charge over them in the Lord.” Hebrews 13:17 tells us to obey our leaders. So it seems to me that subsequent revelation places upon qualified elders the responsibility to shepherd the church. To have the church ignore their role in matters of restoring lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14) is to refuse to recognize the role of progressive revelation concerning the church.
[Greg Long]Hi Greg, I had hoped to hear from you, brother.
Ted, I don’t understand your logic at all. I don’t think you’re addressing Steve’s point, either. You immediately shift from God’s sovereign (decretive) will to His revealed will.
What Steve is saying is that you can’t decide if what congregation did was wrong simply because there was a bad outcome. You could say the same thing about any elder-rule decision. What if the elders decide the church should no longer preach from the Bible but rather from Quran? You wouldn’t say, “See, elder-rule is bad!”
I am sorry where my logic is not clear. Allow me to try again.
Steve’s point was in the form of a question: “What if the plan the pastoral staff was advocating wasn’t the will of God for the church?”
My answer was to explain that his question wasn’t referring to God’s will in biblical terms. There are only two categories of God’s will – decretive, and revealed.
So, A), we know it wasn’t God’s decretive will for the building to go ahead, for it didn’t happen.
B) God’s word does not reveal whether it should build, but provides a massive amount of informing principles that come to play in every decision.
So Steve’s question was outside the bounds of a solid discussion of God’s will.
Steve, if you are reading this, no offense intended at all. Check out a good systematic theology on God’s will. It is a glorious topic.
[AndrewSuttles] Larry, et. al. -Andrew, i assure 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).
Thank you for your effort to formulate a Biblical response to this challenging question. I appreciate your desire to correct the errors of those who wish to be lords over God’s heritage (1 Pet 5:3, Matt 23:7-9). You rightly understand that the argument concerns the priesthood of the believer versus the mega-church governance models of Rick Warren and Willow Creek.
For those seeking an anti-dote against “back-door popery”, AH Strong provides some helpful remarks about historic Baptist church governance in volume 3 of his Systematic Theology.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:25-27) .
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.
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?
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).
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,Hi brother!
Would you say that John MacArthur’s church is wrong to practice voting?
Cordially,
Greg
In answer to your question, I would.
However, I’ve never seen them do it, and I was a member there 5 years. And if they had done it, everybody would have justly asked, “where in the Bible does Jesus or the apostles teach us to vote in church?”
[James K] It should be further noted that neither Matt 18 nor 1 Cor 5 say anything about voting.May your tribe increase, James! And also note that the NT says nothing about electing elders of any kind.
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?Hi Dan,
No, not at all. But the illustration under discussion at that time was about a “push through.” Sometimes godly leaders need to do something a majority of the congregation doesn’t want because God’s word commands something. For example, if Corinth had qualified elders, they would have been going up against a majority, perhaps, in the discipline case of 1 Cor. 5.
[Greg Long] So what I’ve gained from Ted’s post and his responses is…read his book. ;)Well, yes and no. Don’t just read it. Meditate on it too.
[Jason]That’s a valid observation. Thanks. But you see, the NT is not silent on the how a church is to make decisions. It is by the Word of God, not the policies of men. For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time. And violating 1 Cor. 1:10 is high handed sin. So the Bible isn’t silent on it.
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?Hmmm, unlikely. When we go the cultural route, we invariably lose Scriptural authority in place of man’s wisdom.
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.
These methods of selecting leaders for Christ’s church do not rely on Christ who has told us how to do it. Of course His way is averse to every cultural form. His way is holy and sanctifies both the prospective leader, and the church. Men’s ways are formed upon their stance against God and His holy ways.
Where a consensus acted, as in Acts 6 and 2Cor2 (probably related to 1Cor5) as a way of discerning the Lord’s leading together, how were they do identify the consensus if not by voting?
If we assuming it’s at least OK to do what Acts 6 and 2Cor2 imply, how would we do it without some kind of vote?
If that’s been answered here somewhere, I seem to have missed it.
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.
Oh yes, it definitely matters, for the deacon is a biblically defined office (1 Timothy 3:8-13, Phil. 1:1). To then read another passage where deacons are not mentioned, and to claim it explicitly teaches deacons, is a hermeneutic problem of the first order. As a result, we start believing things the text doesn’t say. We read into the text what we want it to say. Jesus Christ never did that, and rebuked it where it happened. It is so dangerous, it leads people astray from God, and it dishonors His word.
Ted, I want to challenge you that it might not be helpful to state things in this way.
Were those men in Acts 6 Deacons? Most people seem to think so. The Text doesn’t use the word. But the description… And does it matter? They were certainly officers in the church of some sort.
Often the Text doesn’t say something that we might wish it either said or denied. To attribute every omission to “God in infinite wisdom and as an act of His wisdom” is dangerous. Certainly God is infinitely wise. Certainly He inspired the authors of Scripture. But when you phrase it this way, it tends to remove the unknown from the unknown. So you’ll tend to read “NO!” into a “No comment.” Sometimes He, in His infinite wisdom wished to keep it unknown.Who attributes “every omission” to God? Not me. I believe Deut. 29:29. But the matters of this article, and the related issue of deacons in Acts 6, is part of what is revealed for us.
Also, your reference to God’s wisdom tends to suggest that anyone who honestly thinks that Acts 6 refers to deacons (which I would think you realize is the majority (we could vote!) of scholars) - anyway, your appeal to God’s wisdom suggests that these scholars somehow deny God’s wisdom by seeing deacons. That’s a little disrespectful to your colleagues and will add more heat than light, IMO. Better to warn them that there’s a chance that deacons aren’t intended.No it isn’t. I’m simply saying that Acts 6 doesn’t discuss deacons, and that God, who is infinite in wisdom (and therefore chose the precise words of Scripture using infinite wisdom) chose not to use the word “deacon” in that passage. An overly sensitive person could feel disrespected, but will do so because he she wants to, not because he or she has actually been disrespected.
[Aaron Blumer] I do believe voting is over-used in many congregations, and probably more often not properly framed. That is, we forget that it’s not about expressing the will of the people but rather a way of discerning the Lord’s leading together.I responded,
[Ted] Back it up with Scripture, Aaron. Back up that voting is “a way of discerning the Lord’s leading.”But instead of taking ownership for your statement, and defending it as a faithful testimony to Scriptural teaching, you instead say,
I mentioned two situations in Scripture where a consensus was measured in some way. In both of them the implication that this is the Lord’s leading in the body. So we’re talking about finding a mechanism. If it’s not voting, how do you propose that this be done?Aaron, Scripture teaches the mechanism. I don’t have to suggest something to you. My words, inasmuch as they A) obscure Scripture, or B) make worthless assertions, or C) refuse to faithfully represent Scripture, or D) are Scripturally not attested, are dangerous to use in church decision making.
You need to be accountable for your original statement, and then we let’s move on from there. For what is the use of claiming Scripture is our authority when we aren’t accountable to it for our statements?
[G. N. Barkman] Good discussion. I would add, that using Ted’s reasoning, the folks who forbid the use of musical instruments in the New Testament church must be correct. They are certainly correct that there is no specific precpet to use them, nor clear example of their being used. Am I correct to assume that Ted’s church allows no instrumental accompanyment?Bro, really?
The NT is so full of information on church polity. More than almost any other topic in the epistles. C’mon.
Furthermore, the NT bears witness that the early Christians worshipped in the temple (Acts 2:46), where instrumentation was used with great effect.
Now, if you asked if my church refuses to let me sing solos, you would indeed be correct.
[Ted Bigelow]Ted,
That’s a valid observation. Thanks. But you see, the NT is not silent on the how a church is to make decisions. It is by the Word of God, not the policies of men. For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time. And violating 1 Cor. 1:10 is high handed sin. So the Bible isn’t silent on it.
Thanks for taking the time and effort it to write on this topic and to discuss it.
I don’t understand what you wrote above, and it may just be me. Do you think 1 Corinthians 1 is discussing decision-making in a local church? Exegetically, if we were to walk through 1 Corinthians 1, would we end up with, “This is where God’s Word directs us on decision-making in a local church”? Is decision-making the issue in 1 Cor 1 at all?
Perhaps you’re reading church polity into 1 Cor? Might it be a weak proof text for your case? Might 1 Cor be dealing not with church-decision-making, but with church division? Does Paul say that the root cause of this division is voting? Or does he say that the cause of this division is pride?
One follow up question: You wrote
[Ted Bigelow] For example, voting directly violates 1 Cor. 1:10 almost every time.”. Can you give us an example of when voting would not violate 1 Cor 1:10?
I think bringing in plurality is a bit of a red herring. We are not talking about plurality vs. singularity, and really not even talking about leadership. We are talking about foundational authority. Voting is not an act of leadership or an act of ruling. So that contrast is, IMO, misguided.Hi Larry,
When your church votes, does that not settle the decision being made?
You say that no one ever voted on anything in the NT, but the only way you can maintain that is by ignoring that by some means the church in Matt 18 and 1 Cor5 and Acts 6 came to a consensus (or should have come to a consensus).
Larry, as I wrote before to Aaron, in Mat, 18 and 1 Cor. 5 the church does not come to consensus on anything. It obeys. Acts 6 is the congregation reaching consensus based on previously given biblical qualifications (see v. 3). Therefore they didn’t have to use inappropriate means to make these decisions, such as voting, lots, dice, roulette, the reading of animal entrails, astrology, ouija boards etc.Godly decision making prefers others before self (Phil 2:3-4). This is commanded by Paul and comes from the Holy Spirit. To disobey it is sin. This is how mature, elder-qualified men have to live, because they “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching” (Titus 1:9). Elders qualified by Scripture don’t overrule each other. They seek the mind of Christ in Scripture, and furthermore, God entrusts them into leadership (see Titus 1:5-9). If God entrusts them, why won’t you?
What do you do when one elder disagrees with another? One of them or both of them get overruled. So you have an elder who is supposed to lead/rule/etc, but cannot do so. So I don’t think you solve the problem by your method. You just confine to a smaller group of supposedly more spiritual men.Congregational authority is not rooted in American democracy. It existed prior to American democracy and outside of American democracy.True enough. But not by much. Congregational voting is unattested in church history until a few attempts in the 1500s, and it didn’t catch on until the 1700s.
Discussion