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….

Discussion

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.
Sure. It’s called eldership as strictly and voluminously defined in the NT. In the NT (such as Titus 1:5-9), qualified elders are given full charge authority over the local church as God’s stewards (1:7). Such men work together in unanimity and mutual trust as they are equally qualified and none has more authority than any else. I go into depth in the book, which is, ummm, hard to get over here to Africa. Sorry. It turns out my publisher isn’t that friendly to Africa.
How should the church be ruled? Congregationally or by a ruling board of elders? Books and books have been written on this subject. I don’t think we will add to much to this discussion here on SI.
Actually, the topic is rarely discussed and there isn’t that much on it. Hey, I’ve done my research ;).
How should these be chosen and how are they held accountable? You keep saying, follow Titus 1:5-9 - thus we must find an apostle who will give authority to a godly man who will go around appointing elders in the churches.
Titus comes to Crete as an elder-qualified man – the highest mark of masculine spirituality in the Bible (apart from our beloved, sinless Lord, of course). Therefore, all elders from now on are to use the same criteria in appointment of all future elders as he – and none else (including 1 Tim. 3:1-7).
NOT! You have made some good arguments about elder leadership (“rule”?) in the local church but you have not really explained biblically how this will happen. Without apostolic authority and direction, the “choosing” part of Titus 1:5-9 becomes impossible biblically.
Bro, you ask a lot of me. It took me a book to explain the issues and implications of The Titus Mandate. And you want me to recreate it all in the give and take format of a blog?
I believe that wide latitude should be given to those who are in authority over the local church. They should not have their decisions micromanaged so that even a ream of paper used in the office must be voted upon. However, there must also be accountability of the leadership and the body must have the authority to remove an elder or elders who have moved from biblical orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
Yes, God gives the congregation the means to confront elders in 1 Timothy 5:19. But He doesn’t give them the right to vote them out. That is handled by the means of submission to the word of God according to 1 Timothy 5:20-25. I’m sorry if that doesn’t match up with your thinking, but it is what God teaches.

I knew about the re-entrance of ABC in Liberia. I hope it can serve your ministry there.

Dan, thank you for your continued interaction. It means a lot. Thanks.
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.
I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. Yes, I understand. But since the congregation is not told to vote in 1 Corinthians 5, but to obey by putting the man out, it’s worth trying. Have you considered what would have happened if the Corinthian church voted… and voted to keep the impenitent man in?
Especially when you add 2 Cor 2:6, where the punishment of an excommunicated member is said to have been “by the majority.” This verse was initially brought up by Aaron and has received no attention.
2 Cor. 2:6 was answered in post 43.
In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.
Good question, brother. The answer to it comes in verse 17 through the verb, “listen,” and to notice its prior usage in vss. 15 and 16. Since both vss. 15 and 16 require verbal confrontation for the sin and resultant impenitence, so too does v. 17. The church goes, as people, to personally and verbally confront the impenitent and plead with him to come back to the Lord.
So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…
Have you considered doing a concordance search on the words ‘voting,” “votes,” and “vote?”

Hi Kevin, thanks for joining the discussion. You have done quite a bit of reading already.
I read the first chapter of your book,and it was interesting, but perhaps you could give just a few bullet points of what your fourth chapter entails. Your first chapter talks about Titus appointing elders in every town, but who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? You do not believe that the congregation should vote on elders, but I have read through this whole thread, and I am not sure how you believe that my own congregation is supposed to have a “correctly appointed” elder.
Put yourself in the place of Crete’s elders who were appointed by Titus. They went though a rigorous testing process to ensure they met all the 17 qualifications of Titus 1:6-9. For if even a single man among all the churches failed even one of those qualifications and yet became an elder, then Titus was disobeying Paul, and even God (Titus 1:4).

Now, when the time came for new elders on Crete, what process do you supposed all the churches and their elders used – one that incorporated votes, or one that mirrored the exact process Titus used in appointing the first elders in every town? Ask yourself, which is scriptural?

Ted, anytime anyone brings up a real or hypothetical example of elders abusing their authority, you dismiss it as elders acting unbiblically. So could you please stop bringing up examples of congregations abusing their authority as proof that congregationalism is unbiblical?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Hi Greg,
[Greg Long] Ted, anytime anyone brings up a real or hypothetical example of elders abusing their authority, you dismiss it as elders acting unbiblically. So could you please stop bringing up examples of congregations abusing their authority as proof that congregationalism is unbiblical?
The two are not equal, my brother in Christ. The Bible teaches eldership, and gives a huge amount of detail on how it is to work, and how to handle problems within it (1 Timothy 5:19-25, 3 John). On the other hand the Bible gives no information on Congregationalism, and hence no direct teaching on how to handle its problems.

[Ted Bigelow] Hi Kevin, thanks for joining the discussion. You have done quite a bit of reading already.
I read the first chapter of your book,and it was interesting, but perhaps you could give just a few bullet points of what your fourth chapter entails. Your first chapter talks about Titus appointing elders in every town, but who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? You do not believe that the congregation should vote on elders, but I have read through this whole thread, and I am not sure how you believe that my own congregation is supposed to have a “correctly appointed” elder.
Put yourself in the place of Crete’s elders who were appointed by Titus. They went though a rigorous testing process to ensure they met all the 17 qualifications of Titus 1:6-9. For if even a single man among all the churches failed even one of those qualifications and yet became an elder, then Titus was disobeying Paul, and even God (Titus 1:4).

Now, when the time came for new elders on Crete, what process do you supposed all the churches and their elders used – one that incorporated votes, or one that mirrored the exact process Titus used in appointing the first elders in every town? Ask yourself, which is scriptural?
Well, now I need to ask you what this “rigorous testing process” might entail. We have the qualifications, but would Titus have personally known every aspect of these individuals lives to be able to tell which ones met the qualifications and which ones didn’t? I’m sure Titus would have talked to each person personally, but if they were a false teacher, they would certainly lie about their own lives, so how would Titus know for sure? Wouldn’t he have to ask other individuals in the church about the potential elders in order to gain a full picture? Wouldn’t the input from other individuals technically qualify as a “vote of confidence,” so to speak? If there were none of these “votes of confidence,” then the person would fail the testing process. If this isn’t the most like way Titus did it, then what would actually be the way? Do you think Titus gained direct revelation from God in order to make his appointments? He certainly could have, but if he did, then does that mean we need to seek some sort of direct revelation given to an already appointed elder to determine if a potental elder actually meets the Biblical qualifications?

If I truly want to mirror the process Titus used to ordain elders, then don’t I have to find an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by Titus or one of the apostles? This sounds like you wish to establish something similar to the Catholic process of ordaining ministers.

Ted,

I jotted down the phone number, but before I call, did I mistake congregation for elders? In other words, do the elders vote on retaining or removing the other elders annually?

Cordially,

Greg B

G. N. Barkman

From Larry
Let’s get past this. Declaring something to be true is not the same as showing it to be true. I think that a good case has been made that there is biblical support for it. And millions of believers in history and now agree with me. You think that there is no support for it, and millions agree with you.

But let’s talk about actual decision making.
I think we both agree truth is not determined by consensus. You seem to think this line of argument keeps your position within the realm of what should happen. I hope you are consistent then and never appeal to the lack of scriptural support for infant baptism against the paedos.
They are voting to speak as a church.
Larry, they aren’t voting for anything. Let the text speak and stop imposing your practice upon the text.

Matt 18:17 - “If he pays no attention to them, tell the church.”

There is no credible alternative here. The church is to be informed (epo). The church doesn’t have to speak as one. If the brother won’t hear from 2 or 3, then the church is told of the matter. In fact, after Jesus spoke of telling the church, He referred back to the 2 or 3, bypassing the whole church.

Regarding 1 Cor 5, you said
The vote is to put him out. You, the church not the elders, should have “put him out.”
But again, you are simply imposing either your practice or how you think they resolved the problem. In verse 3, Paul said, “I have already decided about the one who has done this thing as though I were present.” The decision was already made by one in authority. Paul didn’t say to vote him out. At their next assembly they were to cast him out. Their vote would have been entirely pointless and a slap to what Paul said.
I don’t think this is true at all.
You said this regarding the sheep telling the shepherds what to do. It is unmistakable though. When you the shepherd (not sure if you are single pastor or multiple) tell the sheep that you think it would be best to do ________, and they say no, who is actually ruling? The answer is obvious. The mature and immature sheep are ruling the shepherd(s).

Every form of authority spoken of in the NT is top down.

God/Scripture over the believer.

Jesus over the church.

Husband over the wife.

Parent over the child.

Master over the slave.

Government over the people.

Sheep over the shepherd.

The last one is out of place and inconsistent with God’s establishment of authority by revelation and pattern. While the one in charge has the innate right to rule, of course the manner of the rule must not be tyrannical.

If we just take a step back and let the word speak, it is so clear.

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.

@Dan Miller
I don’t see how you can read these without seeing a church vote. Especially when you add 2 Cor 2:6, where the punishment of an excommunicated member is said to have been “by the majority.” This verse was initially brought up by Aaron and has received no attention.

In Matthew 18, the unrepentant brother “refuses to listen even to the church.” How does the assembly “speak” to him? Do you see a cacophony of voices? I suppose that you make “assembly” into “representatives of the assembly.” Ok. But you’ve gone past what’s there.

So Ted and a few others keep saying that voting isn’t in the NT and as far as I can see it is clearly there. Weird. I’ll wait for the book…
Hi Dan, I don’t think we have interacted before.

Regarding the sinful man at Corinth, Paul said in 1 Cor 5:3 that he had already decided what to do. He expected them to follow through with what he already decided. Paul did not decide to let them vote. Paul decided to cast the man out. The majority then in being obedient to Paul had to cast him out. I don’t think that situation requires a vote of any kind. In fact, I would think their vote at that point would have been sinful.

I think you have the same situation in Matt 18. The church is informed of a brother in sin and collectively obey God by not treating him as a brother.

I think some people simply insert their beliefs about how they would have resolved it and think that is how they must have done it.

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.

@Larry

Sorry about missing that last question. The elders in our church choose the other elders/deacons. There is no vote in our church.

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.

Hi Kevin,
Well, now I need to ask you what this “rigorous testing process” might entail. We have the qualifications, but would Titus have personally known every aspect of these individuals lives to be able to tell which ones met the qualifications and which ones didn’t? I’m sure Titus would have talked to each person personally, but if they were a false teacher, they would certainly lie about their own lives, so how would Titus know for sure? Wouldn’t he have to ask other individuals in the church about the potential elders in order to gain a full picture? Wouldn’t the input from other individuals technically qualify as a “vote of confidence,” so to speak? If there were none of these “votes of confidence,” then the person would fail the testing process. If this isn’t the most like way Titus did it, then what would actually be the way? Do you think Titus gained direct revelation from God in order to make his appointments? He certainly could have, but if he did, then does that mean we need to seek some sort of direct revelation given to an already appointed elder to determine if a potental elder actually meets the Biblical qualifications?
I can’t offer you a full enough explanation here, but I do take 2 chapters in my book to deal with this vital topic precisely because some folks have a hard time slowing down and seeing how sufficient Titus 1:5-9 is.

Essentially, and in brief, the elder qualifications put every believer with a Bible in charge of the testing process. We who read His word are to use Scripture alone to evaluate any and every potential elder candidate up for the office of elder. If even one believer has even one valid reason as to why a particular man is unfit for eldership, he cannot be put into eldership. To do so is disobedience to Christ, who gave 26 qualifications for eldership. He did this so we would not be teased away from them by men’s ways of choosing leaders according to cultural norms, such as voting.

This, in part, is why the letter to Titus is really written to the churches of Crete, not Titus (c.f. Titus 3:15). Titus already knew The Titus Mandate before he got the letter from Paul, for Paul writes, “as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5). Titus already knew what Paul wanted him to do in every town on Crete. The Titus Mandate removes the insignificance of a single vote for each Christian and equips him/her to use Scriptural alone in the testing process. Since Scripture is where God’s authority in the church lies, each Christian who uses his/her Bible to test the potential (and existing) elders is using God’s authority in Scripture, not man’s authority in a vote.
If I truly want to mirror the process Titus used to ordain elders, then don’t I have to find an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by Titus or one of the apostles? This sounds like you wish to establish something similar to the Catholic process of ordaining ministers.
Your words do make it sound that way. However, the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men (2 Tim. 3:17). Furthermore, the elder qualifications in Titus and 1 Timothy reveal to all who believe them who is an elder, and who is not.

[G. N. Barkman] Ted,

I jotted down the phone number, but before I call, did I mistake congregation for elders? In other words, do the elders vote on retaining or removing the other elders annually?

Cordially,

Greg B
That would be just as bad as the congregation doing it.

Well then, either I’m comletely crazy, or somethings amiss. I was not the only one present to hear that statement. In fact, I remember discussing it with others in attendance who heard it as well. We were all surprised that John MacArthur, not to mention the other elders, would be submitted annually to a “vote of confidence,” for lack of better term. I remember thinking, “I wouldn’t want to do that at my church. What an opportunity for someone to get a burr under their saddle, and try to organize to get rid of the pastor at the annual vote.” I think it would tend to cause pastors to be less than fearless in preaching truth, especially if they thought it might offend a number of church members, and especially if it was near the time for the annual vote. I now wonder if calling to talk to the pastor of the day will help, as you obviously have no knowledge of this, and yet it must have been the practice at one time.

G. N. Barkman

Please pardon the length. Suppose the following Case Study…

Suppose a church in love and harmony was asked to consider serving as a mother church to a new church plant in an area too far for believers to participate generously in the mother church. Suppose the new church plant had a few men identified to serve as elders and a piece of empty property available for purchase. Suppose the new church plant would have sufficient members to sustain itself and the ministry in its town. Suppose the timing allowed for the building of a modest structure but the resources were not available beyond the purchase of the land. Suppose the mother church did not have the finances to gift such a building and the elders were not adept at the building trades but thought that with the tradesmen in the mother church they could build the building.

How could the elders of the mother church discern if the idea to build the structure were feasible(permits, design, build etc) and reasonable (no gold inlay time for the foyer) for the mother church? If there were unanimity among the elders that the plan seemed both feasible and reasonable, a blessing to the cause of Christ in the town where no there is no church fellowship, how would they discern the availability of the mother church people to undertake such a task? Would they ask the electrician, carpenters, concrete, HVAC, plumbers in the mother church if they could give themselves to such a task?

None would dare say that elders have the authority to command the business men of the church to give their laborers to this task by compulsion but may freely ask.

Given the above scenario as well with the boundaries of God’s Word how might the elders work out such a case? I submit that their internal conversations would have some kind of a vote (should we consider this more yes/no). If unanimity were achieved an informal vote would be taken “Can you Mr. Electrician participate in such a project? Yes/No, Can you Mr. Plumber particpate in such a project? Yes/No Would you others be able/willing to help with other non-skilled aspects? yes/no

Each man loving the Lord, using wisdom and their experience would have to make decisions with different criteria than just God’s Word. Mr. Plumber has a young family and could not take time away which would forfeit a paycheck. Mr. HVAC has ongoing projects from which he cannot be separated. Mr. Concrete has ample time and would gift his finances to underwrite the total cost of the foundation work. Mr. Painter is struggling for work but would gladly help on any free day.

While no official vote is take in a formal gathering in one location at one particular time, I suggest to you that each conversation would constitute a “vote,” an indication of choice between two courses of action. Those actions being to participate in the project or not.

By way of consideration what if the building were not a daughter church but the building of a facility for the mother church herself in a rented location with a time constraint for the public worship services.

Thoughts?

[Ted Bigelow] Hi Kevin,
Well, now I need to ask you what this “rigorous testing process” might entail. We have the qualifications, but would Titus have personally known every aspect of these individuals lives to be able to tell which ones met the qualifications and which ones didn’t? I’m sure Titus would have talked to each person personally, but if they were a false teacher, they would certainly lie about their own lives, so how would Titus know for sure? Wouldn’t he have to ask other individuals in the church about the potential elders in order to gain a full picture? Wouldn’t the input from other individuals technically qualify as a “vote of confidence,” so to speak? If there were none of these “votes of confidence,” then the person would fail the testing process. If this isn’t the most like way Titus did it, then what would actually be the way? Do you think Titus gained direct revelation from God in order to make his appointments? He certainly could have, but if he did, then does that mean we need to seek some sort of direct revelation given to an already appointed elder to determine if a potental elder actually meets the Biblical qualifications?
I can’t offer you a full enough explanation here, but I do take 2 chapters in my book to deal with this vital topic precisely because some folks have a hard time slowing down and seeing how sufficient Titus 1:5-9 is.

Essentially, and in brief, the elder qualifications put every believer with a Bible in charge of the testing process. We who read His word are to use Scripture alone to evaluate any and every potential elder candidate up for the office of elder. If even one believer has even one valid reason as to why a particular man is unfit for eldership, he cannot be put into eldership. To do so is disobedience to Christ, who gave 26 qualifications for eldership. He did this so we would not be teased away from them by men’s ways of choosing leaders according to cultural norms, such as voting.

This, in part, is why the letter to Titus is really written to the churches of Crete, not Titus (c.f. Titus 3:15). Titus already knew The Titus Mandate before he got the letter from Paul, for Paul writes, “as I commanded you” (Titus 1:5). Titus already knew what Paul wanted him to do in every town on Crete. The Titus Mandate removes the insignificance of a single vote for each Christian and equips him/her to use Scriptural alone in the testing process. Since Scripture is where God’s authority in the church lies, each Christian who uses his/her Bible to test the potential (and existing) elders is using God’s authority in Scripture, not man’s authority in a vote.
If I truly want to mirror the process Titus used to ordain elders, then don’t I have to find an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by an already ordained elder who was ordained by Titus or one of the apostles? This sounds like you wish to establish something similar to the Catholic process of ordaining ministers.
Your words do make it sound that way. However, the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men (2 Tim. 3:17). Furthermore, the elder qualifications in Titus and 1 Timothy reveal to all who believe them who is an elder, and who is not.
I’m sorry, Ted, but this makes no sense. So you do, in fact, have all members of the congregation “in charge of the testing process…to evaluate any and every potential elder candidate up for the office of elder.” It seems that the final authority rests in the congregation then after all! (And please don’t say, “No, the final authority is Scripture.” Of course we all agree that the final authority is Scripture. What we’re debating is what indication Scripture gives for how a church should be led.)

So each member has the responsibility to evaluate the potential elder in light of Scripture and make his choice known by either expressing his belief that the elder is unqualified or expressing his belief that the elder is qualified (or, I suppose, not saying anything, which would be taken as implicit affirmation). So if a member uses Scripture to evaluate an elder and verbally expresses his opinion to the elders, he is biblical, but if a member uses Scripture to evaluate an elder and raises his hand or marks a ballot to express his opinion to the elders, he is unbiblical???

Either way he is evaluating and expressing an opinion. You continue to be hung up on the process of expressing the opinion, but either way the opinion is expressed.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University