Is Congregational Voting Biblical?
For most of us, voting is a common experience. Many vote for our government representatives and, if we are involved in civic groups, we may vote in them as well. Voting is a means by which we express self-determination. “We the people” have the privilege and duty to help choose our future directions.
Voting is also how most congregations make their most important decisions. In Episcopal-style churches, the congregation votes on large purchases and on who will serve in various leadership positions. In “representational” churches, such as Presbyterian and American Lutheran, the congregation vote on leadership appointments, large purchases, and other membership matters. Independent churches such as Congregational, Baptist, or Bible churches vote on budgets, leadership appointments, large purchases, committee appointments, doctrinal changes, and membership matters. Voting is a common practice in most congregations, granting members a voice in the church’s affairs and decision making.1
It is widely assumed that voting in church is biblical, or if not biblical, a matter of freedom. Many believe it provides safety for the congregation and is a good way to build consensus in the church. In fact, have you ever read anything to the contrary? I struggle to think of anything in print that calls into question a practice so commonplace in our churches. It’s not like anyone is debating the practice voting in our churches, or even our synods, assemblies, presbyteries, conventions, conferences, etc.
Just as we vote in church we also claim to follow the Bible. Our doctrinal statements and constitutions are up front about this. Most churches claim something similar to the following:
This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.2
But we all know it is one thing to claim that our church accepts the Bible as authoritative over “proclamation, faith and life,” and another to live it out. That excellent statement you just read comes from a Lutheran denomination that debated and voted at their 2009 convention to ordain openly homosexual men and women to the office of elder. That was a truly sad event. Claiming the Bible led them, they voted against the Bible.
My recent book, [amazon 1453831274], examines the matter of voting in the light of Scripture, because neither Paul nor his protégé Titus led churches or appointed leaders with votes. The difference is surprising since this is how we who live 2,000 years later would have expected an apostle and his protégé to lead churches. So it’s worth repeating. Paul and Titus didn’t use votes in church. The reason is deftly simple. They were serving God’s redeemed people, not an agenda. Titus was on Crete as a shepherd with a heart of compassion for hassled and distressed sheep. He came to build the church, not coalitions.
So like the Lutheran statement says, we profess Scripture’s authority over our faith and practice. That being the case let’s take the opportunity in this chapter and the next to apply Scripture to the practice of church voting. It’s a major part of church practice and affects everybody, even those who don’t participate. I start with an awkward lunch I had once with an area pastor.
“We vote as often as Jesus and the apostles taught us to.”
Several years ago the pastor of a medium sized Baptist church (GARBC) and I got into a discussion about voting and its role in church. Like many Baptist churches, his holds firmly to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Indeed, the very first declaration in their doctrinal statement is this: “We believe that the Holy Bible is…the only, absolute, infallible rule for all human conduct, creeds, and opinions.” That put us on the same page, theologically speaking.
While talking over coffee he shared they were going through some dark days with congregational infighting and distrust of the leadership. Within the past few weeks, he and the other elders had been out voted by the congregation at the annual meeting, and people were leaving.
He went on to explain that he and his fellow elders thought they had prepared themselves for a small amount of conflict at the meeting. They had their talking points down and believed they were ready to lead the congregation into a building project. However, the church meeting turned sour when budget issues and the building project were raised. Some members were upset about friends who had recently left the church with unresolved complaints about the leadership. My pastor friend had been chosen as the elder to address that issue, and he tried to explain the situation to everybody’s satisfaction. But instead his answers only led to more questions.
He was confronted with a Catch-22 situation: either give detailed answers to the church about private matters, or explain his unwillingness to share details and leave the voting members dissatisfied and possibly upset enough to vote down the budget. To his own regret, he admitted that he went too far trying to satisfy the people in the hopes of getting the vote passed. He felt he shared too much in explaining the problems of the people who had left and how the elders viewed it. His indiscretion also hurt the subsequent vote. The meeting ended with a series of votes defeating the proposals laid before the congregation by the elders. The pastor told me that people were now distancing themselves from the elders, that distrust was increasing, and folks were leaving.
Eventually I asked him how he felt the situation reflected the Bible’s teaching on church practice and voting. He fell silent. I suggested that votes aren’t really necessary in a healthy church, and can even bring disunity. He looked at me quizzically, because he believed they produced unity. It was then that I dropped what was, at least for him, a bomb. I told him that we don’t hold votes in our church. He again looked at me, completely taken back. He pushed back from the table, tilted his head to one side, and squinting his eyes looked at me with something close to disdain. He had never heard of a church that didn’t vote.
His reaction caught me off guard, so I explained our position this way: “We do church votes as often as Jesus and the apostles taught us to.” A wry smile crossed his face as he went through his mental concordance searching for every verse on church voting. He quickly admitted that neither Jesus nor His apostles ever taught Christians to vote, but claimed that voting in the church is a morally neutral practice. “Oh?” Given the agony his ministry was going through, now I was the one who pushed backed—tilting and squinting.
Taking the opportunity, I explained that there is only one reference to voting in the entire Bible, and that one reference is far from neutral. It is Paul’s vote that helped put Stephen, the first martyr, to death (Acts 26:10). His vote was murderous and resulted in the first martyrdom in church history. “If voting were morally neutral,” I asked him, “then why would Paul confess his vote as sinful?”
Of course there are such things as morally neutral practices, such as the time church should start on a Sunday morning, the color of the carpet, and a thousand other matters. Each local church is free to judge that for themselves. There is even a word for such neutral practices: adiaphora. But voting is not adiaphora since it allows for disunity in the body and can lead to apostasy.
I believe the church is built on the teachings of His apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20, 3:5), Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. Yet neither Christ nor a single apostle initiated a church vote, taught a church to vote, or encouraged a church vote. Not once, not ever. What shall we make of this? Were they stupid? Or worse, do we now know 2,000 years later a better way to make church decisions than our Lord and all of His apostles?
They certainly knew how to vote—all it takes is the raising of a hand. But they built every local church with godliness and unity. Under the pure and wise guidance of God they wrote inspired letters to churches that form the content of our faith. These teachings do, indeed, reflect what my friend’s Baptist church’s doctrinal statement says: “the only, absolute, infallible rule for all human conduct, creeds, and opinions.” If we believe that, and Scripture doesn’t teach us to vote, why do it? In fact, when apostles encountered churches that used practices like voting they revamped them so they would obey Scripture. This is the kind of thing that happened to Crete’s churches (Titus 1:5). Apostolic ministry to dysfunctional churches began at the level of polity, radically altering them from the top down in order to makes them healthy, unified, and safe.
My pastor friend didn’t stay much longer at that church. Sadly, things got progressively worse for all. The disunity eventually affected the leaders as well as the rest of the membership, and in sadness and distress, he moved far away to lead another church with the same voting polity.
Notes
1 For further information on church structure, see Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 10th ed., (Nashville: Abingdon Press, revised 1995).
2 “Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,” 19. Reference from online edition, current as of August 2009, (accessed November 11, 2009) at http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organiza….
Ted Bigelow Bio
Ted Bigelow earned the MDiv and ThM at The Master’s Seminary and has a doctorate in expository preaching from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He pastors Grace Church in Hartford, CT and has been married to Deena since 1987. They are blessed with 4 children who, by God’s mercy, love the Lord: Katie (20), Karryn (18), Daniel (15) and David (13).
- 5598 views
Hi Dan,
Didache 15:You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you.
I assume you are looking at the word “elect” in Didache 15:1 as proof of early voting in church history. However, the Greek word in Didache 15:1 is from “cheirotoneiv” and is never translated in the NT as “vote” (see Acts 14:23, and 2 Cor. 8:19). It doesn’t make sense to use the meaning of vote in either of those verses, as I point out in my book, and have discussed in this thread. It was however used of voting among ancient pagans.
Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, V. 1,660-661, Edward Gibbon:I can’t respond to Gibbon. I’m way beyond my small area of expertise in trying to exegete him! However, I’ve never seen him cited before as an authoritative source on ecclesiastical polity either. Instead, see Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8:140, (Eerdmans, reprint 1995).The submission, or the resistance, of the clergy and people, on various occasions, afforded different precedents, which were insensibly converted into positive laws, and provincial customs: but it was everywhere admitted, as a fundamental maxim of religious policy, that no bishop could be imposed on an orthodox church, without the consent of its members. The emperors as the guardians of the public peace, and as the first citizens of Home and Constantinople, might effectually declare their wishes in the choice of a primate: but those absolute monarchs respected the freedom of ecclesiastical elections; and while they distributed and resumed the honours of the state and army, they allowed eighteen hundred perpetual magistrates to receive their important offices from the free suffrages of the people.
1 Clement 44:1-2And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.Ahh, I feel better here. I discuss this passage (the earliest of all Christian writings outside the canon) at length in Chapter 11. It displays the NT appointment pattern of elders entirely. And here is why it dismisses the congregational claim that authority lies in the congregation. Go back and read the Clement quote and notice that the church consents but does not appoint. “Appointment” is with those in authority, “consent” is with those in agreement. Only “other approved” men do the appointing.
I’m in debt to Jeff Brown here. See http://www.amazon.com/Form-Freedom-Jeff-Brown/dp/3937965068] Form and Freedom .I’m not familiar with Jeff’s work.
Thanks again, Dan. I enjoy the discussion.
Did the body at Corinth vote and then act in unity to punish? Or did they not vote, but acted in disunity with the majority punishing and a minority not punishing?I still fail to see why they had to vote and what they would be voting to do. No decision had to be made. The decision had already been made. I suppose they could have voted on whether or not to obey what Paul said. If that is the case, then I think that would have been rebellion and a bad argument for congregational voting.
If they didn’t vote and instead acted individually, that would have been very divisive. Much more divisive than a vote, which in my experience is not divisive when led by reasonable Biblical leadership. Those who didn’t expel would have still received him. How can you have part of a church expelling and part of it receiving? I don’t see how the church could even stay together as one church for very long like that. And that’s our model for step 4 church discipline?
Regarding the majority/minority issue, I don’t know what Paul meant. He could have meant that when he wrote 2 Cor, the church had grown larger but that a majority of the present church was part of the 1 Cor 5 situation. We simply do not have enough facts as to what Paul meant. I think it is pure speculation.
Some of my best friends believe the congregational vote is to be part of the assembly. I don’t have any ill will toward people of that belief other than I wish they weren’t so headstrong in being wrong. :oP
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.
[Ted Bigelow] I assume you are looking at the word “elect” in Didache 15:1 as proof of early voting in church history. However, the Greek word in Didache 15:1 is from “cheirotoneiv” and is never translated in the NT as “vote” (see Acts 14:23, and 2 Cor. 8:19). It doesn’t make sense to use the meaning of vote in either of those verses, as I point out in my book, and have discussed in this thread. It was however used of voting among ancient pagans.Well, this one will be next to discuss, though it has been brought up.
TDNT says, “Raising the hand to express agreement in a vote is called χειροτονέω.” Thayer’s agrees. Calvin agrees - which I already posted about a hundred posts back.
Calvin: “…the whole body, as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus, it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but because they received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election… . We must interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church.” - John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, vol. 2, regarding Acts 14:23.
Similar to how one might say that Speaker Boehner “passed a bill” even though he only led in its passing.
See also the early English Bibles [spelling is archaic]:
Acts 14:23 (Tyndale Bible 1534) “And when they had ordened them elders by election…”
Acts 14:23 (Cramner Bible 1539) “And when they had ordened them elders by election…”
Acts 14:23 (Geneva Bible 1557) “And when they had ordeined them Elders by election…”
A.T.Robertson: “χειροτονέω (from ceirotono, extending the hand, ceir, hand, and teinw, to stretch) is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in 2 Corinthians 8:19 , and then to appoint without regard to choice as in Josephus (Ant. XIII. 2, 2) of the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by Alexander. So in Acts 10:41 the compound proceiratonew is used of witnesses appointed by God. But the seven (deacons) were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed (katasthsomen) by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus ( Titus 1:5 ) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas “ordained” them as we say, though the word χειροτονέω does not mean that.
I see the preponderance of Greek expert people saying that this word evokes a vote or at least approval by the body. And they seem to indicate a progression from “facilitating a vote of a body” to “appointing with the selection of the body” and chronologically Acts is right in the middle of that progression. So it could go either way. Except in other ways, I see a pretty fast progression to man-centered church in the first couple generations of the church, so I think some guys decided to wrest the Text a little. In other words, some of the latter part of that meaning, I think, comes from the man-centered problems that occur in the early church. And they might have held on to asking the people to rubber stamp with their consent might for a while.
I was a member of a church in Columbia, SC for a while. It was baptist and constitutionally we were supposed to vote. The only major “vote” I ever saw went like this: Pastor: “I really think we should build this extension. All in favor - say aye, all opposed, be quiet! haha. Motion passed. Let’s have some cookies and punch.” No pauses in that quote. That pastor was getting things done. And I believe that the same sort of trend happened in the early church. Teaching your people and bringing them to a point where they will make the right decision is hard.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ted, I really don’t think that I’ve proven that a vote is required. But I definitely lean toward thinking that Scripture asks for it and examples it at least on some occasions. I actually agree that Titus 1 puts more of a mandate on Titus because it doesn’t use χειροτονέω. Titus is more of a missionary type of guy assisting the start of some very immature churches.
Instead of saying that a vote is required, I would say that a church that can vote for their elders and do church membership business in a spirit of unity (and thus follow the mature-church Biblical model) should be the goal of the pastors / elders.
But I also don’t think that a vote is sinful or dis-unifying per se, though, done poorly, it can be. Just as elder-ruled churches done poorly can be horrible places which are unsafe and frustrating for God’s people.
Suppose I move to a town 500 miles from my former residence. There is no Bible believing church in the town, so I start witnessing to my neighbors and co-workers and start having Bible studies in my home. Soon we have 10 families represented in these Bible studies, and we do not want our church-like activities to continue indefinitely without the Scripturely mandated office of elder to be present. How do we go about making that happen?
I can understand the concern about having a “vote” be the final arbiter of who gets put into place. I thought of an analogy, Ted, and I’d appreciate you letting me know if this analogy fits in any way. A father and mother and five kids are going out to eat. They have a standard for their family that they will only eat at healthy restaurants that are relatively inexpensive. If the final decision of where they are going to eat is based on a vote from all seven, then the kids could very well choose a place that doesn’t meet the standards, and the vote would mean they would have to go there anyway. So the vote shouldn’t be the final decision. The father can definitely get input from the kids, even using a raising of hands or a marking of ballots, but the father has the authority to actually make the final decision. In a church situation, the congregation has input (technically a “vote”) in regards to whether a particular person meets the qualifications of being an elder, but the final decision regarding eldership would come from someone with authority to make that decision rather than having a vote be the authority.
So in my new-church situation, with no elders to begin with, how does the first elder get put into position? I know they shouldn’t do it by a vote, but what other options are there? I want to follow Scripture, but all I can see is that Scripture is saying elders should be appointed by other elders, but there are no other elders in this situation.
Ted: Dan, the only exegetical contribution you have made to the discussion thus far is to claim that since Jesus rebuked demons and thereby expelled them, therefore the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was likewise the expulsion of the man from the Corinthian church. Dan: Can we be sure that ἐπιτιμία was a sentence of expulsion because ἐπετίμησεν was sometimes a act of expulsion? No. But expulsion is within the set of meanings indicated by this word.Really? Is it really your desire to attach the meaning of expulsion to epitimao? If so, kindly reference a Greek reference work for support. It still looks like you are comparing Jesus’ casting out of demons to church discipline – a long stretch. Its like claiming prayer contains the meaning of food creation since sometimes Jesus prayed and thereby created food, or that epitimao contains the meaning of “stillness” since Jesus sometimes rebuked the wind and waves and creating great stillness (Mat. 8:26). Could you reference anyone who agrees with you that an expulsion is within the set of meanings indicated by epitimao?
Yours is a claim that twists Mat. 18:17a. In the first part of v. 17 the church is to only reprove an impenitent brother, but not expel him (c.f., 2 Thess 3:14-15). He only gets expelled if he refuses “to listen even to the church” (18:17b). You mistakenly have the rebuke expelling him when the Lord teaches it does not expel him but is the next in a series of calls to repentance. When and if the expulsion comes, it is not accompanied by a rebuke, because the impenitent is no longer considered a Christian since he is hard to repentance.
You seemed to want to say that ἐπιτιμάω was always a verbal rebuke. Here were your words: “and always refers to a spoken reproof… never… written, nor a ‘concrete penalty’ such as a vote of expulsion, but only a brotherly correction.” My only point was that such a limit on the meaning of ἐπιτιμάω is not consistent with NT usage.I stand by the assertion that epitimao is always a verbal reproof, and never a vote, or a censure. Therefore, 2 Cor. 2:6 does not mean the church voted, but gave a verbal repoof to the man in keeping with Christ’s words in Mat. 18:17a. And as I explained before, he couldn’t have been the man expelled from the church in 1 Cor. 5, for the man in 2 Cor. 2:6 has no steps of repentance to perform. But the man in 1 Cor. 5 did – he had to leave his father’s wife’ bed.
That doesn’t certainly mean that the 2 Corinthians 2 usage was expulsion. But it could be and you should say it can’t.
So in my new-church situation, with no elders to begin with, how does the first elder get put into position? I know they shouldn’t do it by a vote, but what other options are there? I want to follow Scripture, but all I can see is that Scripture is saying elders should be appointed by other elders, but there are no other elders in this situation.Thanks for the great question – and analogy.
Paul holds it as an imperative that a man be tested before entering eldership (1 Tim. 3:10). That rules out a vote right there since a vote tests nothing scriptural.
I think your situation is like that in 2 John, a small church without qualified elders. However, it submits itself to John, who does not identify himself to them as an apostle, but “the elder” (2 John 1). That’s not a self-appellation meant to showcase John’s eminence and dignity, but a scripturally defined office in the church of Jesus Christ, and John is writing a letter to a church.
Moving to our own time, when you have a church without elders it would be wise to ask for help from an elder(s) in another church on the appointment process. The outside elder, who has himself been tested by the standards of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 is biblically qualified to assist the church by helping test those up for eldership. He would rely heavily upon the information he learns from the church members concerning each candidate’s character, and the outside elder, like Titus, can render an valid judgment with the consent of the church after testing the candidates (1 Tim. 3:10). I explain how this process of testing works in chapters 3, 4, and 8 in my book. This does not violate autonomy since the outside elder is not exercising control over the church.
You’ll notice I used plurals in the last paragraph, since eldership is a team ministry, always done by at least two. Titus was not allowed to appoint only one elder in any town on Crete. It always had to be elders (pl).
[Ted Bigelow] Really? Is it really your desire to attach the meaning of expulsion to epitimao? If so, kindly reference a Greek reference work for support. It still looks like you are comparing Jesus’ casting out of demons to church discipline – a long stretch.AT Robertson: to adjudge penalty
Vines: Originally it signified the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of citizenship; then it became used of the estimate (time) fixed by a judge on the infringement of such rights, and hence, in general, a “penalty.”
Here’s the point I was making: You claim, and you need to claim to support your unusual position, that epitimao MUST NOT be a penalty, but MUST be a verbal rebuke.
I point out that at times it was more than that and even represented an expulsion of another sort.
[Ted Bigelow] Yours is a claim that twists Mat. 18:17a. In the first part of v. 17 the church is to only reprove an impenitent brother, but not expel him (c.f., 2 Thess 3:14-15). He only gets expelled if he refuses “to listen even to the church” (18:17b). You mistakenly have the rebuke expelling him when the Lord teaches it does not expel him but is the next in a series of calls to repentance. When and if the expulsion comes, it is not accompanied by a rebuke, because the impenitent is no longer considered a Christian since he is hard to repentance.This should be obvious, but I certainly do not think that Matt 18:17a is to expel.
I’m not sure why you’re saying that because I never said it.
[Ted Bigelow] Thanks for the great question – and analogy.But the congregation does have imput into such testing, and it seems to me that a generic style vote is appropriate in this testing stage, as long as the final appointment is not by vote. After all, doesn’t the imput have to be exercised by some tangible means? If someone asks me if person A meeets qualification B, I have to express my knowledge of the man by some means, even if it is only nodding my head up and down. That head nod can only be thought of as a type of “vote” for the man. Not an authoritative vote to be sure, and my nod would never be MAKING the man qualified, but it’s impossible for me to actually have input in the discussion of qualifications without making that judgment known in some way.
Paul holds it as an imperative that a man be tested before entering eldership (1 Tim. 3:10). That rules out a vote right there since a vote tests nothing scriptural.
I think your situation is like that in 2 John, a small church without qualified elders. However, it submits itself to John, who does not identify himself to them as an apostle, but “the elder” (2 John 1). That’s not a self-appellation meant to showcase John’s eminence and dignity, but a scripturally defined office in the church of Jesus Christ, and John is writing a letter to a church.Suppose we get help with the testing process, and six men from the ten families meet all the qualifications for elder and are willing to serve. Do all six of them automatically become elders since they have all met all of the qualifications? Does a church with only ten families need 6 elders, or does it not matter how many or how few we may think we need? If we haved six qualified men, then all six would be in the office, right?
Moving to our own time, when you have a church without elders it would be wise to ask for help from an elder(s) in another church on the appointment process. The outside elder, who has himself been tested by the standards of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 is biblically qualified to assist the church by helping test those up for eldership. He would rely heavily upon the information he learns from the church members concerning each candidate’s character, and the outside elder, like Titus, can render an valid judgment with the consent of the church after testing the candidates (1 Tim. 3:10). I explain how this process of testing works in chapters 3, 4, and 8 in my book. This does not violate autonomy since the outside elder is not exercising control over the church.
You’ll notice I used plurals in the last paragraph, since eldership is a team ministry, always done by at least two. Titus was not allowed to appoint only one elder in any town on Crete. It always had to be elders (pl).
[Kevin Miller] I thought of an analogy…I realise your post was not directed at me, but I wanted to offer another analogy that highlights the room for a continuum of both authority and decision making within the various structures discussed. In your scenario the authority rests with the dad, but the decision rests with the kids (with veto power residing in the dad).
Another analogy would be the election of a US President. The decision rests with the voting citizens. But the authority does not rest with them. The authority rests with whatever the US version of the Electoral Commission (which calls the winner) is and the judicial branch of the government which has the power to swear in the President-elect as President. All of this is done under the final authority Constitution.
That the people have the right to make the decision does not in any way diminish or challenge the authority of the Supreme Court Justice on Inauguration Day. Nor does it challenge the ultimate authority of the Constitution.
Of course this is not a perfect analogy because the elders are to have more of a leadership/ruling role than a Supreme Court Justice does. But in combination with your analogy, I think it points out the fact that congregational involvement in decision making in no way necessarily diminishes, challenges, or makes irrelevant the authority and leadership of the elders.
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
[b:] Ted: Really? Is it really your desire to attach the meaning of expulsion to epitimao? If so, kindly reference a Greek reference work for support. It still looks like you are comparing Jesus’ casting out of demons to church discipline – a long stretch. Dan: AT Robertson: to adjudge penaltyDan, could I get the citations for those quotes? My Vines says the following (under “Rebuke”): “epitimao signifies imply a rebuke…” 3:253.
Vines: Originally it signified the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of citizenship; then it became used of the estimate (time) fixed by a judge on the infringement of such rights, and hence, in general, a “penalty.”
Here’s the point I was making: You claim, and you need to claim to support your unusual position, that epitimao MUST NOT be a penalty, but MUST be a verbal rebuke.Kindly consider the following:
NIDNTT: 1:572
CL: “The verb is found in secular Greek from Herodotus to the 3rd cent. A.D., meaning to honour, censure, penalize, and raise in price. The noun, also found until the 3rd cent. A.D. can mean penalty, value, honour, and respect.”
NT: “The verb is found frequently in all three synoptic gospels, implying disapproval, but not exaction of a concrete penalty.” (emphasis mine)
“CL” refers to the use of the word in the secular world, while “NT” refers to its usage in the New Testament. What you are doing is taking one meaning of the verb epitimao – penalize – and stretching it to “expulsion,” and then inserting your stretch into the NT. But as NIDNTT specifically states, the word is “not exaction of a concrete penalty.” IOW, you are mistaken in both the Classical and NT use of the word.
TDNT: 2:625
“The NT maintains the same tradition [as LXX] by 1. forbidding rebuke except as brotherly correction and 2. treating effective threatening and reproof as the prerogative of God and His Christ alone.” Please note that TDNT does not go anywhere near the idea of expulsion when it comes to person to person rebuke.
This contradicts your assertion:
I point out that at times it [epitimao] was more than that and even represented an expulsion of another sort.The next item:
I certainly do not think that Matt 18:17a is to expel.But you are painting yourself into that corner since you are claiming the epitimao of 2 Cor. 2:6 was expulsion by rebuke. Yet, Jesus only taught the church to rebuke in the 3rd stage of discipline, while the impenitent member is still among us. The expulsion comes only when a person is impenitent after the church has completed “epitimao-ing” him.
Kevin: But the congregation does have imput into such testing, and it seems to me that a generic style vote is appropriate in this testing stage, as long as the final appointment is not by vote. After all, doesn’t the imput have to be exercised by some tangible means? If someone asks me if person A meeets qualification B, I have to express my knowledge of the man by some means, even if it is only nodding my head up and down. That head nod can only be thought of as a type of “vote” for the man. Not an authoritative vote to be sure, and my nod would never be MAKING the man qualified, but it’s impossible for me to actually have input in the discussion of qualifications without making that judgment known in some way.Well, I like where are you going, but consider a stronger involvement than a vote for each member. The 3rd chapter of my book deals with this extensively. But briefly, the congregation has total control over the testing process, not a mere single vote. This is because each member of the church is to hold up each elder candidate to the light of Scripture (Titus 1, 1 Tim. 3). If any one person knows of any one thing that might disqualify a potential elder, he or she is responsible to bring that either to the candidate in private, or to those overseeing the testing (other elders). Since God commands that no man be placed into eldership unless all 26 qualifications are met, each concern/accusation/charge against a potential elder must be taken with all seriousness and followed up. If the concern is accurate, the man is not allowed to be an elder. Period. So the congregation holds the authority as they hold open the word of God and use it. This is a much higher authority than a single vote.
Consider the following scenario in voting. A church is voting on elder candidate A and elder candidate B, and the constitution stipulates that elder candidates must receive a super-majority vote to serve on the board. Candidate A receives 100% affirmative vote, but candidate B only receives 80%. Therefore, both are approved.
What do we do now? Obviously there are concerns among 20% of the voters that “B” is not qualified. How do we pursue those concerns? In a congregational polity church, we don’t. But in a biblical setting, we must, for God requires 100% unanimity, and requires that an elder must be truly qualified by His qualifications, not a church vote.. Do we ask for the 20% of the people who voted “no” to see us after the meeting? Would they not feel hesitant to do so? Might they not know something but yet be too embarrassed to go against the 80%? Or do we just go ahead and ignore the 20%, assuming that a man is qualified because he wins a popular vote?
That’s why voting never tests a man. Even the 100% vote doesn’t prove Candidate A is elder qualified. It just means everybody voted for him. Big whoop.
That would be quite the exceptional situation, no?
Suppose we get help with the testing process, and six men from the ten families meet all the qualifications for elder and are willing to serve. Do all six of them automatically become elders since they have all met all of the qualifications? Does a church with only ten families need 6 elders, or does it not matter how many or how few we may think we need? If we haved six qualified men, then all six would be in the office, right?
But let’s assume it to be true, what does the Scripture say: “These men must also first be tested; then let them serve…” The verb “let them serve” is an imperative. Yes, they must all serve.
If the Electoral College ever exercised their Constitutionally authorized independence, and voted to appoint a candidate different from the majority of American voters, all “hell” would surely break out, as we have been told for decades that American is a democrary, which it is not.
All of which serves your main point well. Voting can be legimate without being binding. In truth, the American presidential election is really nothing more than a huge opinion poll. But appointing a President who did not receive a majority vote would be foolish, as such a candidate would find it difficult, if not impossible, to govern.
Perhaps all this explains some of the NT language about churches making decisions, giving consent, etc. Wise elders will seldom move in a direction that the congregation does not support. Time must be given to bring the church along. At some point, however, a decision must be made. I think it is both Scriptural and wise to poll the congregation by voting to see if patient teaching has accomplished its intended effect. If a vote demonstrates that it has, by all means move ahead. If a vote indicates it has not, slow down and keep teaching.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[Ted Bigelow] Dan, could I get the citations for those quotes? My Vines says the following (under “Rebuke”): “epitimao signifies imply a rebuke…” 3:253.In 2 Cor 2, it is the noun epitimia, not the verb. Look at sources discussing the noun. There is not always equivalence in meaning.
Kindly consider the following:
NIDNTT: 1:572
CL: “The verb…
NT: “The verb…
[Ted Bigelow]Ted, I’m sort of behind in this discussion. Your assumptions and innuendo into what I’m proposing are completely out of line. No of course I don’t think Alice Sturgis is a greater authority than the apostles. The kind of accusations you’re making don’t belong in intelligent and level-headed conversation.
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).
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?
Since you mentioned Alice Sturgis, a word of history here, the current edition was edited partly by the late Joyce Parks of the BJU communications faculty. This was a woman who applied scriptural principles to procedure for most of her adult life.) Here we have a fundamentalist professor who in her time was one of the world’s leading authorities on parliamentary procedure. She advised countless churches over the years in how not to be divisive. She helped many churches defend themselves from lawsuits of divisive members. I studied under Miss Parks in her final class. She died a month after school got out. We spend much of our class going back to the Bible to see how these rules we were studying really did stem from scriptural principles when properly enforced. Frankly, you don’t understand enough procedure to even know how to be critical of it. You may have had many bad experiences with overbearing moderators, or people who used proceadural tricks to get what they want. That is what is earthly and sensual. Where selfish ambition exists, there you will have every evil thing, including disorder. I’m really glad you mentioned James 3 in your rebuke of me because I think it’s one of the best verses FOR using procedural rules.
James 3:13-17
“Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”
So here in this verse we see that where there is disorder, we should assume there is bitter jealousy and selfish ambition. If a congregation is in disorder, such disorder is a symptom. It is wise to think that those rules that conversely are orderly mirror Gods own sense of order.
Parliamentary procedure acknowledges layered authority. For example, my church’s constitution lists our authorities in turn. So here they are from highest to lowest authority.
1. Christ the Head of the Church
2. Scripture, His Infallible Word
3. The Laws of the United States of America
a. The US Constitution
b. Federal Law
c. The Constitution of the State in which we reside (Virginia)
d. The Laws of Virginia
4. The Charter of our Church
5. The Constitution and Bylaws of our Church which govern how our elders and congregation have various authorities.
6. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Proceadure, Most current edition.
You see Ted, I see the Standard Code as one of many authorities. I have various authorities in my life, and each is under delegated authority from God. So to accuse me of setting another authority above Christ and the Apostles’ teaching is totally ridiculous. Scripture is sufficient to guide is in how we make decisions. But it is just that, a guide. We should not do things in opposition to Scripture, but there is latitude to use wisdom to discern the exact mechanics of how decisions are made. I find that a good understanding of procedure is a safe and wise way of going about doing this since in the abundance of counselors there is wisdom. Those counselors yes, do include people like Alice Sturgis and Joyce Parks.
In the case of division in the church your article mentioned, I stated that I would call the gentleman out of order for bringing up a topic that was not germane. You assume that this would cause further division, and that’s not necessarily the case. Let me pick up with how I would have handled the situation using procedure as chair of the meeting. If he persisted in wanting to discuss various leadership decisions in the past. I would tell him “look if you would like to propose that we suspend talking about this subject of the building, and start talking about something else. I’m fine with that, as long as the majority is with you.” You see at that moment one man hijacked a discussion. In that instance, he had placed himself in authority rather than agreed upon rules for discussion. If the majority wanted to talk about something else, they could have, but they needed to do it decently and in order.
Also if you’re going to call into question anyone’s trust in Scripture’s authority as our only and final rule of faith and practice, at least ask a few questions first instead of shooting first and asking questions later.
Discussion