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
[James K] 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.hmmm. Ok, so the way you see it, they read the letter and the majority obeyed Paul’s command to expel this guy. Do you then also hold that the minority continued to welcome him?
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.
[Greg Long] 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.If I was writing this sentence, I would change the phrase “expressing an opinion” to “expressing his discernment of Scripture and knowledge of the potential elder.” The word “opinion” could potentially be misunderstood as man-oriented, whereas “discernment” would be coming from God. Somehow, this discernment would have to be expressed by each individual.
Suppose the following Case Study…Got it, Seth. Thanks for participating in the discussion, brother.
There are general principles in Scripture that govern life. Our Lord affirmed Moses’ words and appropriated them for Himself when He said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” For Christians, that is a non-negotiable in all of life’s dealings, including the scenario you describe. Further, our Lord taught us that we are “to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.” Therefore, He would enjoin upon us to think through every situation in life as a worshipper under Him, loving Him with all our mind – and therefore using His holy Word as a guide in all matters. We therefore look to His holy word for all principles that inform us about we should make a decision in faith – 1st, direct principles that directly relate to the situation, then the many indirect principles that relate to it.
Mat. 7:12 governs the scenario you write about as well: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” This principle governs several elements in your scenario that involve expectations placed upon others. (“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?”)
Since elders are entrusted with the care of members as ‘stewards of God” (Titus 1:7), they must be careful not to demand from anyone anything other than what the word of God requires. Peter addresses this in 1 Peter 5:2: “not lording it over those allotted to you.” On the other hand, the church facility in the other town presents an opportunity to serve Christ with one’s trade. So there should be encouragement to those with trades to help as well, perhaps in Nehemiah’s spirit (Neh. 2:18, c.f. 2 Cor. 8:5). But there may be reasons not to ask a trades person to help – his wife is sick and he ought to care for her instead of build a building, for Christ tells him the extent to which he should love his wife as a worshipper of Christ (Eph. 5:25).
You might want to look up “vote” in a dictionary. It always carries an element of a formal group expression of each one’s desires, one’s choice (if they meet the requirements of a voting member. If you want to make it less formal, something akin to mere expression of each person’s desire, or decision, without the group element, that’s fine – its only language. But others will likely be confused and you’ll have to provide them your own personal definition of “vote.”
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.
Yes, that’s the point of the whole matter here, isn’t it? We all agree the final authority is Scripture – just like the Lutheran denomination that voted to ordain homosexuals to the office of elder. So the statement that we all agree that “the final authority is Scripture” is never the final word. Instead, we must be tested by what Scripture teaches and conform ourselves to Scripture, lest we be hypocrites (of whom I am chief sinner, sadly).
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.)
You have given a very helpful illustration for me to show the difference to you. When a Christian, or a congregation, relies on the words of Scripture alone (Titus 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-7) to evaluate and determine potential church leadership, he/she displays their submission to the word of God, and is acting with God’s authority in Scripture. In this scenario, the word of God is the ultimate authority. But when a Christian, or a congregation, relies upon anything else (more or different qualifications than Scripture) then the Christian or the congregation is the ultimate authority, for they have replaced God’s wisdom in Scripture (and His authority in Scripture) with their own wisdom and authority.
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???If a man truly possesses all of the qualifications for eldership, what does a vote add to him, or the congregation? Does it make him more qualified? Haven’t votes been used to put evil men in leadership before, something that can never be said of Scripture?
[Ted Bigelow]Okay, so the Word of God is the ultimate authority for determining an elder, but HOW does the Word of God express it’s decision in regards to any particular individual? Does it start glowing when the proper individual is nearby? I’m not trying to be flippant here, but you seem to keep dancing around any specific answer as to the question of the means by which godly people express their God-given discernment. You keep saying that it can’t be a vote, but it must be Scripture, so what is the means Scripture uses? Telling us that it is not the vote is only half the answer. In fact, it’s not even half the answer, since there are a multitude of ways NOT to decide on an elder. It is not looking for glowing Bibles. It is not waiting for fire from heaven. It is not flipping a coin. The means has to be some expression that people make when they use the Scriptures properly. I realize you spend two chapters of your book explaining this, but there has to be some concise way you can explain to us what the means of expressing Scriptural discernment actually looks like.
When a Christian, or a congregation, relies on the words of Scripture alone (Titus 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-7) to evaluate and determine potential church leadership, he/she displays their submission to the word of God, and is acting with God’s authority in Scripture. In this scenario, the word of God is the ultimate authority. But when a Christian, or a congregation, relies upon anything else (more or different qualifications than Scripture) then the Christian or the congregation is the ultimate authority, for they have replaced God’s wisdom in Scripture (and His authority in Scripture) with their own wisdom and authority.
HOW does the Word of God express it’s decision in regards to any particular individual? Does it start glowing when the proper individual is nearby? I’m not trying to be flippant here, but you seem to keep dancing around any specific answer as to the question of the means by which godly people express their God-given discernment. You keep saying that it can’t be a vote, but it must be Scripture, so what is the means Scripture uses?Kevin, it’s all right there in Titus 1:5-9, my brother in Christ. Have you gone back to read those verses?
Not only do those verses tell us that elders were to be appointed in every city, but on what basis they were appointed, and who appoints them. It is a pattern to be followed by all churches. Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.
[Ted Bigelow] [Kevin, it’s all right there in Titus 1:5-9, my brother in Christ. Have you gone back to read those verses?Why yes, I have.
Not only do those verses tell us that elders were to be appointed in every city, but on what basis they were appointed, and who appoints them. It is a pattern to be followed by all churches. Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.Now we are back to me asking you the exact same question I asked you earlier in post 132: Who is to be our “Titus” in the world today? Who is to go from town to town appointing elders with the assistance of the “testers” in each congregation? Your answer in post 138 was that Titus appointed elders, and that those elders would then appoint future elders mirroring the same process Titus used with them. But that is didn’t answer my question of who is to be our “Titus.” Do we have someone today who was properly appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person? I’ve asked you that question previously in post 141, and your answer in post 146 makes me think are just dancing around the question. You said, “the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men.” I wasn’t asking about how a man becomes adequate for the ministry. I asked if each person who appoints others has to have been previously appointed by someone that goes all the way back to the first century. That’s the part of my question that I would still like an answer to, because that is what it seems your viewpoint requires.
I recommend to any church that the leaders take time to understand parliamentary procedure. I took two classes on Parliamentary Procedure at BJU, and it has been immensely helpful. I now moderate our members meetings at my church by procedural rules. Normally, it’s totally more relaxed than it sounds. Over the past 1,000 years, Western culture has developed a system of widely received principles of how to arrive at decisions. I think many of these rules take into account biblical wisdom such as the fallen nature of man, respect for laws, and even the need for covenants with each other. Today, books such as The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th Edition offer concise, reasoned rules that pastors should follow. They have stood the test of time as a good way to arrive at decisions fairly. They work in differently in small groups like deacons and elders meetings.
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.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this.
Finally, those of you who think Robert’s Rules of Order is all there is, please know that there are better and more simplified rules out there that meet church needs better. I mentioned “The Standard Code.” You can buy it here.
http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Code-Parliamentary-Procedure-4th/dp/0071…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Standard_Code_of_Parliamentary_Procedu…
Shaymus, On one hand, I’m glad you joined the discussion here. You articulated much better than what I am warning against – using the world’s procedures and policies in the church of Jesus Christ instead of God’s policies and procedures in Scripture. On the other hand, it grieves me, because you encourage people to look to outside the Scripture, which really is sufficient for the faith and practice of followers of Jesus Christ, including whole churches (Mat. 4:4). Therefore it is sufficient for how to make church decisions. A biblical perspective on this matter does not look for authority outside of Scripture, and furthermore, I claim it is a lack of loyalty to God to encourage people to do so (Mark 7:9).
In a sense this article really isn’t about voting, but rather how congregations should arrive at decisions. Before voting comes discussion, debate, amendment ect. I’m a committed congregationalist in the Mark Dever mold because I’ve seen it work when led well by the Spirit. I think it’s inferred in the Bible, and the idea that people should make decisions together makes sense.
I recommend to any church that the leaders take time to understand parliamentary procedure. I took two classes on Parliamentary Procedure at BJU, and it has been immensely helpful. I now moderate our members meetings at my church by procedural rules. Normally, it’s totally more relaxed than it sounds. Over the past 1,000 years, Western culture has developed a system of widely received principles of how to arrive at decisions. I think many of these rules take into account biblical wisdom such as the fallen nature of man, respect for laws, and even the need for covenants with each other. Today, books such as The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th Edition offer concise, reasoned rules that pastors should follow. They have stood the test of time as a good way to arrive at decisions fairly. They work in differently in small groups like deacons and elders meetings.
Ted: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.
Shaymus
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this.
Finally, those of you who think Robert’s Rules of Order is all there is, please know that there are better and more simplified rules out there that meet church needs better. I mentioned “The Standard Code.” You can buy it here.
If the church above used your counsel (rule the discussion “out of order”) you would have tempted your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to frustration and anger – even as it happened in the original context. Your wisdom is not that “from above” (James 3:15), but is earthly and natural, yet fits perfectly with proper parliamentary procedure. The Christians in that context were tempted to anger and division with their fellow believers precisely because they followed the wisdom of the world in their congregational decision making, and so earned the reward from it – frustration, anger, and sinful division.
You don’t take indwelling sin seriously enough, brother. You really think parliamentary procedure brings the church to greater sanctification while building godly consensus? That’s like fighting a forest fire with a flame thrower. Do you really think Alice Sturgis, long time professor at Stanford University and the original author of “The Standard Code,” is a safer resource for the maturing of the body of Christ than the Apostles?
Ted:Kevin, it’s all right there in Titus 1:5-9, my brother in Christ. Have you gone back to read those verses? Kevin:Why yes, I have.Then you have all the information I have. For every Christian, God expects us to, a) understand Scripture, and then, b) apply Scripture appropriately.
I just answered that question, brother . “Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.” That’s the scriptural pattern (1 Timothy 5:22).
TedNot only do those verses tell us that elders were to be appointed in every city, but on what basis they were appointed, and who appoints them. It is a pattern to be followed by all churches. Titus, a qualified man himself, does the appointing, but all are involved in the testing according to Scriptural standards.Kevin
Now we are back to me asking you the exact same question I asked you earlier in post 132: Who is to be our “Titus” in the world today?
Who is to go from town to town appointing elders with the assistance of the “testers” in each congregation? Your answer in post 138 was that Titus appointed elders, and that those elders would then appoint future elders mirroring the same process Titus used with them. But that is didn’t answer my question of who is to be our “Titus.” Do we have someone today who was properly appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person who was himself appointed by a properly appointed person? I’ve asked you that question previously in post 141, and your answer in post 146 makes me think are just dancing around the question.Without an apostle, there can be no one with authority to go town to town dismantling and rebuilding churches. Apostles all died in the 1st Century. Like I said above, God expects us to apply Scripture appropriately, i.e., with godly wisdom. That’s why I wrote the book.
Men are not made qualified for ministry by other men (hence no need for a lineage), but by the God-given standards in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. See Acts 20:28. Only God can make a qualified elder since the moral requirements are simply too high for any of to attain on our own.
You said, “the Scriptural perspective is that the word of God makes a man adequate for ministry, not other men.” I wasn’t asking about how a man becomes adequate for the ministry. I asked if each person who appoints others has to have been previously appointed by someone that goes all the way back to the first century. That’s the part of my question that I would still like an answer to, because that is what it seems your viewpoint requires.
Thanks again for the interaction.
Are you saying that congregations can’t vote, but that elders can?
I’m trying to understand (haven’t read your book). Is the issue, in your understanding, voting itself, by its very definition, is wrong because it displays disagreements in the body of Christ? So the congregation doesn’t vote and the elders do not vote either?
Or is the issue, in your understanding, the group of people who are doing the voting? So that voting is not wrong as long as the elders are the ones voting amongst themselves, but voting is wrong for the congregation as a whole?
Joe
[Ted]….so here’s another reason to read the book. The Titus MandateReminds me of those six-page emails that tell how you can lose weight, make thousands of dollars by working two hours a day, ALWAYS make the right stock pick, etc. if you will just buy the book or sign up for the newsletter. ;) :bigsmile:
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
That said there are obvious disagreements that Godly men who love the Word have over this issue, disagreements which shall not be settled by these posts.
Letting each one be convinced in his own mind, let then those who have not become convinced not be marked as unthinking or unlearned men. The high goal, not highest, but high goal of communication here is understanding which falls not fully on the learner but in greater part upon the teacher. Bear patiently then with those who disagree. Cast them not as those pursuing the world, but growing in grace. Welcome them not to the conversation if it is only to chide them like children.
Brother Ted, you are well loved, respected and to be thanked for your passion in this area. But please consider a little more grace to those, like me, who are the ‘weak’ not yet having come to agreement. If someone says “i don’t understand” then it behooves you choose different, perhaps better words.
if you are not yet back in the states - God bless you as you travel. If so - welcome home to CT. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
[Shaynus]…..
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.No, both answers are not correct. This is one point that has not been discussed in this thread. Here is what I see: A pastor and his fellow elders were “ready to lead the congregation into a building project.” However, either through their own lack of attention to the seriousness of problems in the body or because the problems had been hidden from them, the “building project” discussion turned into a discussion about budget issues (could the church afford this?) and people who had left because they had problems with the leadership. IOW they wanted to push forward a building project (many times stressful even for a healthy church) despite these signs of disunity in the body. When they saw the direction the meeting was going, they should have tabled the discussion until the other issues could be dealt with.
You see, in this situation, discussion of why people left the church should have been ruled out of order. It wasn’t germane to the question at hand. Now, if the congregation really wanted to talk about this new subject, they could do it. But they shouldn’t discuss a new topic while another subject (the building program) is being discussed. This situation could have been avoided if certain principles of procedure had been applied. I’m not saying procedure cancels out our fallen nature in all cases, but it helps. It’s the collective wisdom and experience gained from hundreds of thousands of meetings over the years, and the church would do well to follow wisdom like this……
Shepherds are supposed to lead their sheep, not drive them. By using an extra-biblical parliamentary “trick” (“you are out of order”) or declaring “we are the leaders; we should just go ahead without consulting the body” the leaders of this church would be attempting to force the church to follow them - even if the body had serious problems or questions that needed to be discussed. A building program is not more important than the body-life of the church.
Ted, a leadership model that in effect says, “We are spiritual and well-trained in the Bible. We don’t need to answer to anyone but God and the Bible” is one that easily deteriorates into an oligarchy: 2 Cor 10:12 (NKJV) “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” Discipleship is a gradual process which turns new believers into a mature believers - hopefully bringing them to the position where many of the men will become elders in the church. However, I cannot believe that the “almost-elders” in the church should not be consulted in some way when making major or difficult decisions in the church. OK, voting has many problems. Maybe we should do away with it in its present form. But, as many have said in this thread, whether you call it “consulting” or “seeking consensus” or something else, the elders should seek input from the body before making major decisions, and the elders must be accountable in some way to the body - who, as you said must determine if they meet the qualifications given by Paul in Titus 1 and 1 Tim. 3. (I would also like to discuss the principles of the unity of the body (Ephesians) as well as how the wise look for counsel when making decisions (Proverbs, etc.) but this is getting too long.)
Shaynus, I know there are times when there are one or two troublemakers in the church that always want to bring up their pet subject or “problem” every time there is a business meeting. While these situations can pop up - and it may be appropriate in those times to rule them “out of order” - in general this indicates that church discipline is not being practiced. Instead, those who are divisive should be rebuked by the leadership and if they continue, put under corrective discipline (Tit. 3:10).
However if it is a major part of the body that have problems that are not being faced or are against a project you will win the battle but lose the war by ignoring them, ruling them “out of order” or winning with 51% of the vote. Sometimes these votes are necessary but they should be saved for the times when the two parts of the body can only separate since they cannot walk together without being agreed (Amos 3:3). Extremely disgruntled people (esp. if they are flesh-driven people) are not going to calmly follow the leadership because they have been voted down or ruled “out of order.”
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Featured Resource
Discussion