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
Obviously there are teachings in the Bible that are crystal clear and unquestionable (though people will always try to twist them). There are also concepts in the Bible that are a bit more vague or even ambiguous (these stimulate a lot of great discussion on SI). I’m convinced that even the ambiguity in scripture is inspired. The difference in clarity helps us understand the difference in application of Biblical teachings.Hi J.D., welcome to the discussion, brother.
J.D., this isn’t ambiguous. This is incredibly clear. God gives us so much information on church governance in the NT – more than on communion, baptism, marriage, child-raising, and work – combined. And none of it includes voting, and includes much that excludes voting – such as elder qualifications and verses that demand from your lord Jesus Christ for complete, 100% unity – see 1 Cor. 1:10 as an example of just one. Has your church ever had a vote that produced less than 100% unanimity? It broke faith with Christ. I mean, how many verses do we need on unity?
It isn’t ambiguous, and it isn’t hard to understand. Its just that we really are culturally conditioned and we need to go back to the Word of God and obey it.
For example, while the qualifications of church leadership is made very clear, the exact structure of leadership is a little more vague.Can you prove that it is vague? I claim it is exceedingly clear.
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.Well thanks. It’s nice to know that Jesus has been unclear on such an important topic and that because you say He is ambiguous every culture can rearrange church leadership to what it likes.
But know this. That when the Bible is opened to Titus 1:5, we learn that every church on Crete was dismantled and reformed to a single type of church structure by apostolic mandate. Its called eldership, and it is very clear.
Without congregational rule, how does the church receive an accusation against an elder by two or three witnesses?What do you think, Andrew? Is the verb “receive” masculine singular, or feminine singular. Does it refer to Timothy, or to the church?
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.”
When your church votes, does that not settle the decision being made?I would say it affirms a decision that has already been made.
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).This makes no sense to me at all. The congregation obeys God when it speaks to the offending party, correct? How does the congregation do that as the congregation? It seems to me to require some sort of corporate voice. I can’t see any other mechanism for it. That cannot practically be an individual command. The point of invoking the church is because individual’s have not been successful. Furthermore, the “let him be as tax collector and sinner” is to say they are outside the line of the corporate church.
As for Acts 6, I agree. But how was that consensus expressed? It seems it has to be through some sort of corporate voice.
That is, by my definition, a vote. Even if it is only two people, they have to decide something. That requires some sort of a vote.
Godly decision making prefers others before self (Phil 2:3-4).As long as those others aren’t in the congregation? Or more spiritually immature? ;) That’s what were coming down to, isn’t it?
But even in if you don’t have a congregational vote/voice, an elder board has to have some practical mechanism by which something is either done or tabled for a later discussion or dispensed with altogether. What is that mechanism?
And the fact is that if everyone “prefers others before self,” as you seem to use it, nothing ever gets done because everyone just switches positions. Those against it prefer those for it. Those for it prefer those against it.
But I don’t think passage isn’t about decision making, and really has no relevance other than the grace we display in disagreement.
Elders qualified by Scripture don’t overrule each other.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.
So the first elder says, “I have been praying about this and I think we need to build a building.” The second elder says, “I have been praying about this and I think we should not build a building.”
No matter what, one elder (or a group of elders) is going to overrule one of these two guys.
If God entrusts them, why won’t you?I don’t think that’s really the issue. But how does that apply in an elder board where elders disagree? The guy who wants to build the building say, “God entrusts me, why don’t you?” And the guy who doesn’t want to build the building say, “God entrusts me, why do you?”
And no progress is made, and someone overrules another.
I really struggle to see how this works apart from a solo pastor with absolute control. You have to have some mechanism by which you know what the other parties (whether congregation or elders) think, and what they want to do. That requires some sort of vote, however formal or informal it might be.
Thanks again for your grace.
I can only deal with a few things:
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.OK, show us a verse that teaches voting. How do you know they didn’t make their decisions by lot, animal entrails, or smoke rings?
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.The setting apart of the seven men was a proper response to Christians submitting to apostolic qualifications, not a vote.
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.Really? I mean, we (in my church) don’t do it that we, and we’ve never taken a vote. And I personally know 100s of churches that don’t vote. I just left South Africa. They have many denominations, but no one votes in church in South Africa. The same is true in many places around the world. In reality, only recent church history reflects congregational voting.
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.Larry, the “laying on of hands” fulfills their words, “whom we will appoint to this duty” (6:3).
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.You are so right! He does this through their full authority to use Scripture to rule the church through it.
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.You are citing Acts 15:23. They were apostles, and their decision is in Scripture. Unless you wan to claim the same for your church, I suggest you drop the “will of the congregation” thing. To make the point ultra clear, the letter explains who made it “seem good to them:” the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).
Congregations don’t have wills in the NT. They are not to have their own will, because it will compete with Christ. Christians are to hear Scripture and obey the only One who is to have His will done in the church.
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.Actually, it would be quite strange if it were a reference to the first deacons. Verse 1 speaks of diakonia taking place before the men are chosen, not after. If you base deaconhood on that word, then there were deacons prior to the selection of the 7: as a result, the 7 are not the first deacons. Verse 2 refers to the apostles who used the word in its typical NT sense of food service. You missed verse 4, which shows the apostles using the word in reference to themselves: “the ministry of the word.” So if the use of the word means the establishment of the office, then the apostles were the first deacons, not the 7. For you see, the passage calls the 12 apostles deacons, not the 7.
And if those are not deacons, what are they? And where do we find any NT information about what a deacon is to do?Men with high qualifications who can do a specialized ministry and keep the church from imploding. The deacons serve the body under biblically qualified elders (1 Tim. 3:8-13).
[Ed Vasicek] Ted (a truly amazing brother) wrote:Ed, my bro - every church in every city on Crete was forcefully reformed according to the pattern taught all over the NT letters, and Acts. They didn’t have a choice to continue to practice congregationalism, episcopalianism, Romanism, etc. They were all reformed by apostolic mandate (and there were a lot of them) to biblical eldership. It isn’t description. Its prescription. Look up the word “command” in Titus 1:5 to check out its authority for yourself.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?
I think this might be helpful. The first two dictionary definitions of “vote” are:
1. a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.You seem to be referring to #2 when you talk about a congregational “vote”, as in raising hands or marking a ballot. Larry is using “vote” in the sense of #1, simply expressing an opinion. And so you cannot get away from voting in the church in that sense, because anytime anyone makes a choice in an elders’ meeting between one of two options, they are making a “vote.”
2. the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Jeff Brown] Thanks for answering, Ed. I do not have access to a theological library in English. I will simply note from my own library: Alford, H.A.W. Meyer, JFB, A.B. Bruce (Expositors GNT), Lenski, Hendricksen, Carson (EBC), all interpret Matt. 18:17 as describing an action by the whole church. It is hard to find this passage in Calvin’s Commentaries. Glasscock interprets ekklesia as any group of Christians. That, of course is a limited number of commentaries, but I would guess a larger sample would result in the same pattern, which would be that the overwhelming view among commentators is that the whole church (obviously in a locale) takes the action on the sinning brother. No doubt, a survey is recorded in a dissertation somewhere.Dear Jeff,
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.
I am never short of opinions. Some good, some bad, and a bunch in between. But in my perusal of the few commentaries I have in Matthew, most of them do not really address the process of HOW the church dis-fellowships an erring brother. In the words of Richard Nixon, “Let me make one thing perfectly clear”: All agree that excommunication involves the whole church, otherwise it loses its impact. But the church voting, the church deciding — that is the issue at hand. Do the elders make the decision and relay that decision to the church for team play, or do the players themselves decide what is to be done? Most commentaries never address the nuts and bolts process, just the end result. Do the commentaries to which you refer actually say that the elders are not to make the decision, but the church is to vote? Or do they just say that excommunicated members are to be excommunicated by the entire church (a point we all agree with?).
My hermeneutical assumption is that most of Christianity — beliefs and practices — are based upon Judaism. In Matthew 18, I therefore believe that Jesus ASSUMES eldership, since elders go back in time before the Law of Moses. As a Progressive Dispensationalist and Jewish Roots advocate, I do not embrace the clear-cut walls of distinction to the degree that traditional Dispensationalists do (not that I deny some difference). Since I view Christianity as Messianic Transcultural Judaism, I do not lop off the Jewish assumptions a priori. So this is not an issue for me.
Schurer and others are right about discipline being carried out by the entire community. But, even in the synagogue, the elders and leaders led the way. I know of no mention of voting. That is the entire issue. I am saying that the church is to follow the excommunication process akin to Jewish practice. All must embrace it, but all do not decide who will be disciplined for what. That is what leaders are for.
"The Midrash Detective"
At one of the several Shepherd’s Conferences I have attended, John MacArthur said that the elders are submitted to a yes or no vote of the church anually, including MacAfthur. If any elder does not receive majorit approval, he is removed. That seems a bit strange to me, but actually gives the congregation enormous authority. I would be tempted to say that this practice renders the concept of “Elder rule” more semantics than actual.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Congregational authority is not rooted in American democracy. It existed prior to American democracy and outside of American democracy.
[Ted Bigelow] 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.Ha…ha…
Yeah, there wasn’t much congregational voting before the Reformation, that is true. The Protestant State churches were not big fans, either. Good point.
In his Systematic Theology, AH Strong quotes from a work called Belcher’s
Religious Denominations of the U. S., pg. 184, as follows:
“Jefferson said that he considered Baptist church government the only form of pure democracy, which then existed in the world and had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the American Colonies. This was eight or ten years before the American Revolution.”
Whether this is a legitimate quote or not is debatable, I guess, but Strong, as a student of church history, rightly understood American Congregationalism to have its roots in English Separatism, not in politics!
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?No, 1 Cor. 1 is discussing, in parts, disunity in the church. But it does provide a direct (not indirect) application to decision making in the church.
It says,
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.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. The verse speaks of having the “same judgment.” The act of voting on something is coming to a judgment. As well, it is not merely Paul, the apostle saying, “I tell you to have the same judgment” (though that would be good enough for me). No, it is our risen “Lord Jesus Christ.” It is His express command.
Let’s flip it around. Who gives you permission to not come to the same judgment with your fellow church members? Is it Jesus Christ? No, b/c we know what 1 Cor. 1:10 teaches, and that is just the beginning of many verses He has given to teach you unity in the body. Is it your past seminary or college professors, or your old pastor, or somebody else? Who gave you permission, bro?
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?I agree with you! 1 Corinthians does not teach any church polity, for they did not have elders there. The church was too immature, and no men could be found who met all the 26 qualifications for eldership yet. For example, even the godliest among them could not be made an elder since Paul told Timothy “and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil” (1 Tim. 3:6). It’s why Paul kept trying to get good men to go there and shepherd them until the time the church could take care of itself – men like Apollos (16:12) and Timothy. Until they had qualified elders, they were not allowed to develop their own polity. They did finally have elders, as 1 Timothy shows, but they were still young and couldn’t handle 2 false teachers among them (1 Tim. 1:20, cf. Acts 20:29).
Can you give us an example of when voting would not violate 1 Cor 1:10?Sure. Let’s vote on this: Does 2 Timothy 3:16 teach that the word of God is inspired and infallible, and able to make the man of God complete for every good work? As long as all vote with a full assurance that 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that, that vote would meet Christ’s threshold.
Ted: When your church votes, does that not settle the decision being made? Larry: I would say it affirms a decision that has already been made.Then if the decision is already made, why vote?
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). This makes no sense to me at all. The congregation obeys God when it speaks to the offending party, correct? How does the congregation do that as the congregation? It seems to me to require some sort of corporate voice. I can’t see any other mechanism for it.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)
That is, by my definition, a vote. Even if it is only two people, they have to decide something. That requires some sort of a vote.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.” ;)
Ted: Godly decision making prefers others before self (Phil 2:3-4). Larry: As long as those others aren’t in the congregation? Or more spiritually immature? ;) That’s what were coming down to, isn’t it?Oh no, not at all. The most immature of Christians can present to me something in Scripture – and if it’s correct, I must implement it in the church. He or she holds all the authority in our church when they hold an open Bible.
But even in if you don’t have a congregational vote/voice, an elder board has to have some practical mechanism by which something is either done or tabled for a later discussion or dispensed with altogether. What is that mechanism?There is mutual submission to each other in an environment of trust, for all the men meet God’s 26 qualifications for leadership in the church. Based on His work in their lives, they are worthy of trust and submitting to. They have their areas of ministry, I have mine. But we are always open to a scriptural principle that might better inform us on a decision. That’s why Paul requires Titus to only appoint men who “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching” (Titus 1:9). The same goes with us.
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.You speak of self-willed men. Those men are not fit to lead in God’s church (Titus 1:7).
[Greg Long] Ted, I must say following this is a bit frustrating. You tend to make more assertions than arguments. I’m sorry that I don’t have time to read your book right now. Would you please answer Aaron’s questions as well as explain how decisions are made by elders in your elders’ meetings.Sure. We make decisions based on mutual trust in submission to Scripture. Where any of us see a scriptural principle at stake, we must abide by that and are able to forestall any decision until there is unity on the issue. On matters of preference, we submit, one to another.
What Larry seems to be saying is this: anytime someone expresses their will, it is a “vote.” I think this might be helpful. The first two dictionary definitions of “vote” are: 1) a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals. 2. the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc. You seem to be referring to #2 when you talk about a congregational “vote”, as in raising hands or marking a ballot. Larry is using “vote” in the sense of #1, simply expressing an opinion.Your dictionary definition states “formal agreement.” Larry is speaking of even any kind of agreement. I am speaking of ‘formal agreement.”
And so you cannot get away from voting in the church in that sense, because anytime anyone makes a choice in an elders’ meeting between one of two options, they are making a “vote.”Yes, if you would like to define voting as any kind of agreement, then you are correct. But then, why not just call it agreement? The last time you ordered pizza for you and your wife, did you vote on it?
[G. N. Barkman] Ted,Ha! That’s not accurate at all!!! I’m think you misheard John.
At one of the several Shepherd’s Conferences I have attended, John MacArthur said that the elders are submitted to a yes or no vote of the church anually, including MacAfthur. If any elder does not receive majorit approval, he is removed. That seems a bit strange to me, but actually gives the congregation enormous authority. I would be tempted to say that this practice renders the concept of “Elder rule” more semantics than actual.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
Last week I was in South Africa, and an elder says to me, “why does John MacAarthur do everything in his church, and won’t let anybody else do anything?” I laughed. It was a fairly typical scenario where John gets credited (if you view it that way) with something untrue. Actually, John typically speaks very little at elder meetings.
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.
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.
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. It has become an entitlement. Every person regardless of maturity level feels entitled to have a say in how the church is run. The sheep are telling shepherds what to do. That is such a failure on the part of everyone involved.
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.
Featured Resource
Discussion