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

[MShep2] (

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.”
In many ways I agree with you. There can be those with an overly technical view of the rules of procedure without understanding the heart and attitude behind them. To correct that, please read the book I linked to above. A really good, spirit filled leader of a meeting would be able to discern the crowd. He would know when someone is being merely divisive, and handle him one way, while a concern of a wider portion of the members should be dealt with totally differently. In fact the rules of procedure let us do exactly that via written, pre-determined, agreed upon rules.

Frankly I think those who are opposed to congregational voting see it outside the context of the rules for voting via procedure. That’s my main point. In the article above, voting is discussed in a vacuum as a dangerous thing, without discussing the safety and protection of wise rules for voting, well applied. The root question is not whether “voting” is biblically allowed. The larger question is how would God have us treat each other in arriving at group decisions.

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. .
And yet you recommend parliamentary policies and procedures for church government – the ones that she taught, and I believe you are ignoring the policies and procedures of church governance taught by Jesus and the apostles in Scripture.
Frankly, you don’t understand enough procedure to even know how to be critical of it.
Actually, parliamentary procedure has been kind to me. When I pastored churches that used it, it almost always went in my favor.
So here in this verse [James 3:13-17] 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.
PP does not make a disorderly heart orderly. It is merely external and cannot produce godliness or reverence for Christ. It is the invention of man and can provide a shallow hiding place for men who avoid God’s most piercing commands of humility and love for others. I’ve seen it used that way in many contexts.

Parliamentary procedure is based upon several presuppositions are not only unbiblical, but dangerous to the church. I’ll give you just six.

1) PP assumes that the will of the majority can be known, and that it is the safest for a church to follow. However, the true church is to listen to Christ and obey Him only (Mat. 4:4). PP tempts believers to think that the will of the congregation, as determined by PP, is the will of Christ for that church. Therefore it sets up itself as a competitor to Christ, an alternative source of authority.

2) PP assumes that the voice of the minority needs to be expressed and protects that right. But in matters of truth, doctrine, and their application to life the voice of a minority and the voice of the majority are inconsequential. We need to know what God says, not what we say.

3) PP exists in a scenario of mutual distrust – where people in power are inherently to be distrusted, and dissent, for dissent from the majority is considered valuable. In the church it reveals a betrayal to vital principles, including 1 Cor. 13:4-8, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:17, while in the latter it militates directly against 1 Cor. 1:10, Phil 2:1-5, and Eph. 4:1-6, among many others.

4) Because PP depends upon a “point-counterpoint” discussion scenario, it is almost entirely framed on a Hegelian dialectical world view of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is a fundamentally contrary worldview to Christ who has given us Himself in His word (Heb. 1:1-3).

5) PP claims to provide decision making in an orderly manner that reveals the will of the majority. But this is naïve for two reasons. First, it is an untested assumption that people vote and create a collective will. The psychological reasons involved in voting are complex and transient. If the meeting were held but a days letter, the vote could be different, depending on all kinds of factors. Therefore PP depends on the fickle will of the majority and not upon the established rock of Christ’s unchanging truth. Second, PP has to rely on the practice of a quorum to be effective. This in itself is telling since it is never countenanced in the Scripture, and is entirely arbitrary. All quorum thresholds are a small subset of the entire voting body. Yet, the vast majority of decisions in church bodies decided by the use of PP are decided by a small group within the body. For example, if a church constitution requires a 30% quorum (that’s larger than most), then all it will take is 16 – 24% of the membership to be called the “will of the majority.” But it isn’t. The concept of majority rule is almost always false and provides false safety to people.

6) PP has a Gnosticism to it that provides those with greater knowledge of its nuances greater power in church decision making. In order for the average Xtn to get equipped to use PP, he must learn at the very least the basic procedures of motions, divisions, and debates. Yet God never tells a Christian he or she needs to know any of this, but instead points him to the cross. Furthermore, and most telling: nobody has to grow in godliness to become skillful in PP, and most professional parliamentarians are not lovers of Christ’s cross. Look at our own government. In distinction, God places ruling authority in the church only to those who meet his demanding spiritual standards in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. He calls them shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4), not parliamentarians.

Why, PP is so worldly, the US House of Reps and Senate use it. What more need be said?

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.
The Bible recognizes layered authority (Mat. 22:21) but does so in a way that avoids the pitfalls of a humanly designed system, like the one above. #1 and #2 are a false dichotomy, for Christ rules through His word. This means that people who claim Christ speaks to them apart from Scripture are not to be regarded as authoritative. Your system above also ignores the authoritative role those God Himself places in authority in the church – elders – when they are qualified by the 26 qualifications in Scripture (1 Timothy 5:17). They should be above the government, no? Why does your layered system do this? So right away it is mistaken on two vital areas to the life of a church that submits to Christ. I could go on. In reality, #5 overrules #2 since Scripture and Scripture alone govern how elders and congregation have various authorities, but in your church their sphere of duty is defined by a man-made document.
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 Bible a counselor was a highly trained man in the Scripture, and in many areas related to helping the king rule. Such areas included military strategy, international affairs, economics, agronomy, and taxation (i.e., Proverbs 24:6). The NT equivalent of a counselor is not a parliamentarian, but a scripturally qualified elder (3 John 1).
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.
In the original scenario it wasn’t one man – it was many people, and your solution here proves my point on the danger of PP. It is not spiritually profitable to talk about shepherding matters publicly, yet you would allow for it if a majority (of the quorum, of course) wants to discuss it. That would directly disobey numerous biblical principles on discretion and wisdom and it would also allow the majority to overrule the elders, thus violating 1 Tim. 5:17, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, and 1 Peter 5:5.

Ted,

I would ask you to have a little more charitable reading than what you have. Obviously we both care about this subject. I think you haven’t made an effort to really understand me, and it’s extraordinarily frustrating. For example:

if you want to nitpick about the list, go for it. For numbers 1 and 2, a “false dichotomy” is where two things are set in conflict that aren’t. I didn’t set Christ in conflict with his word at all. Come on. You can be a better reader and thinker than that.

Also, when you said I “completely ignored” elders. I didn’t. See #5 where I explicitly mention elders. Maybe I didn’t mention them in the way you would have, but I didn’t completely ignore them.

A Constitution is a human document to be sure, but as it organizes and explains and references Scripture, it conforms a church to Scripture. Also, I said Scripture is over our Constitution, yet you claim it isn’t for me without giving a reason why you think it. You make assertions without proving them REPEATEDlY. Here’s another one.

The elders are not above government, unless government and Scripture are in conflict. In that case elders would teach on how they might be (as ironically I will do next Wednesday at my church). If we set elders over government in every case (of course on things the government has power in) we’d have total chaos.

When Paul wrote Romans 13 he meant for all of the church to obey government, and not just elders. I love elders. I think they are an authority in my life, but if my elder tells me not to pay taxes to whom taxes are due, he’s in violation of both scripture and government. He can’t overrule either.

I think you’re mixed up on what I mean by a parliamentary authority, and how it get’s that way. My parliamentary authority for my church is there through delegation. My elders let my church to form, and write a constitution. They also led by including in that constitution our parliamentary authority. Therefore I don’t view Sturgis’s rules as authoritative of themselves, much in the same way I don’t view government to be authoritative of it’s own making. Both are delegated authorities (and for Sturgis sub sub sub sub delegated).

Now, if Sturgis told me to do something that really was against Scripture, I wouldn’t do it. That’s why your example at the very end falls flat. If there really was sinful bickering going on, an elder should step in and deal with it. Procedure is flexible enough for that. Again, in my hierarchical delegated authority structure mentioned above, the Scripture would win in cases of sin. (hey that rhymes) I really have the sense that you’re like someone who’s been abused enough with procedure or bickering, that you see it in places that it doesn’t exist. When you get your new hammer, everything’s a nail.

I would ask you to have a little more charitable reading than what you have. Obviously we both care about this subject. I think you haven’t made an effort to really understand me, and it’s extraordinarily frustrating.
Shaynus, as wonderful a believer as I’m sure you are, you have yet to deal with the philosophical underpinnings of PP in contrast to biblical principles. I encourage you to meditate on every small clause in 1 Cor. 1:10 and contrast it with PP. Really chew it over it in your mind.

The point of blog interaction is simply to interact with what someone else writes, and hopefully inform, educate, and edify. For that reason, it doesn’t make sense to write “Frankly, you don’t understand enough procedure to even know how to be critical of it,” as you did in post 195. I give you more credit than that, and I trust by now that you see I do know enough to be critical of it. As you wrote that statement, you fell into one of the pitfalls of PP – see post 197, point 6.

Furthermore, your recent post calls me “nitpicky.” I really don’t care about that, but I disagree with it. I am concerned for the faith and obedience of Christ’s blood bought church, and therefore am consumed with her purity. I must be nitpicky when it comes to Christ’s bride. I gladly take the shame on that one. But I will not belittle you. I rather respect you, your education, and your commitment to PP. If you were merely casual about it, I wouldn’t take my time to argue strenuously. I do this not to shame you, but to honestly interact with you, hoping that if you are a regenerate man you will esteem the things that actually are “from above.” I hope that one day you will see that PP is a system developed by fallen man and rooted in the fallen principles of a fallen world, and not in Christ (Col. 2:8). I know I’m touching on matters close to your heart, but I do this to show you where your faith in Christ is compromised with the philosophies of this world.

Several centuries ago true believers were under canon law of the RCC. For believers anyway, those days are gone, and we now see it for what it was – the intrusion of man’s thinking upon the governance of the church. After that many were under state-ruled churches. Same thing – they are mostly gone, or the believers are mostly gone from them. We now see those for what they are. Likewise, someday PP will pass away from the church if Jesus tarries. Things change. The Word stays.
if you want to nitpick about the list, go for it. For numbers 1 and 2, a “false dichotomy” is where two things are set in conflict that aren’t. I didn’t set Christ in conflict with his word at all. Come on. You can be a better reader and thinker than that.
I think it is because I am a careful reader I made the points I did. Separating points 1 and 2 on a scale of authority belies a theological position, and it’s a position that has problems, which I point out. I can always learn to be a better reader and thinker, but I’m just trying to take what you wrote and analyze it, for you posited it in the post as a matter of wisdom.

Also, when you said I “completely ignored” elders. I didn’t. See #5 where I explicitly mention elders. Maybe I didn’t mention them in the way you would have, but I didn’t completely ignore them.
No you did not, and I should have been more careful to honor what you did write. I am sorry.

What I meant was that your church’s scale completely ignored elders as a separate point on the authority scale. That is wrong, and also belies a theological position. I pointed out numerous Scripture verses to that assert the congregation is always to be under the elders (except in matter of sin). “Your” scale does not recognize their role over the congregation as given to them by God in Scripture. Instead it delegates to them their authorities based on an a priori commitment to congregationalism (see #5 in your scale).
A Constitution is a human document to be sure, but as it organizes and explains and references Scripture, it conforms a church to Scripture. Also, I said Scripture is over our Constitution, yet you claim it isn’t for me without giving a reason why you think it. You make assertions without proving them REPEATEDlY.
Many churches write constitutions thinking they conform to Scripture when they don’t. Just citing bible verses but ignoring the authority of biblical elders is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Your church’s constitution disagrees with many other church constitutions that likewise cite many verses. Either your church constitution is wrong and another church’s is right, or you are both wrong. Listing out verses never makes something biblical. It has to be tested.

You assert Scripture is over your constitution, but your church has already submitted its decision-making polity to an unbiblical means of decision-making, PP. In so doing it falls into the 6 pitfalls I described in my prior post. Your church seeks to make decisions by gaining popular consensus, not by the congregation seeking the will of God as found in Scripture.
The elders are not above government, unless government and Scripture are in conflict. In that case elders would teach on how they might be (as ironically I will do next Wednesday at my church). If we set elders over government in every case (of course on things the government has power in) we’d have total chaos.
My point was poorly stated, and you are just to expose it as such.
I think you’re mixed up on what I mean by a parliamentary authority, and how it get’s that way. My parliamentary authority for my church is there through delegation. My elders let my church to form, and write a constitution. They also led by including in that constitution our parliamentary authority. Therefore I don’t view Sturgis’s rules as authoritative of themselves, much in the same way I don’t view government to be authoritative of it’s own making. Both are delegated authorities (and for Sturgis sub sub sub sub delegated).
All authority is delegated authority, except God. For believers, we say our practice as a church is taken from Scripture. But your elders did not enact parliamentary procedure because they saw it taught in Scripture. We don’t find motions, debates, divisions, and sidebars, committees, and votes in Scripture. Instead, they saw it as valuable and as a good way to lead a church to make group decisions, but they weren’t asking, “is this how the apostles and Jesus taught us to make church decisions?”

They probably had experienced it in other churches and were thereby emotionally committed to PP. Others before them saw it used in churches and liked it. And so on back in history, until you get to Henry Robert in the 1870s. Before that PP was not used in churches. To put it in perspective, PP has been in use now for 7% of church history. What about the other 93%? Furthermore, most churches in the world today do not use PP. I just got back from the continent of Africa, ministering in several countries. PP is a foreign to them as tribal chiefs are to you. And both of them have the same amount of authority in the NT church of the apostles and Christ – zero.

Now, if Sturgis told me to do something that really was against Scripture, I wouldn’t do it.
She did. She taught you it was OK to vote your preference against another believer in your church. But God teaches you:
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves. do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others
But PP allows you to regard your opinion as more important than others in your church. In many cases it is even considered noble to cast your vote in opposition to the majority (or minority). But God is not honored.

God teaches:
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
But PP allows you to make efforts to disagree with others in your church, and rewards you for doing so by :giving you the floor.” It does not seek to make Christ’s mind in Scripture made clear, but rather people’s positions on matters, and hence, Christ is not honored.

God teaches:
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment
But PP teaches that coming to different judgments is valuable and a necessary step to determining God’s will for a church. And even when a split vote is attained at the end of a meeting, all is supposedly still well. But Christ, who speaks in this verse most directly about 100% unanimity, has been deemed irrelevant.

PP, whether taught by a believer, or an unbeliever, is not a tool that leads believers to the cross and to the Word of God looking for answers. Instead it turns them inward, on themselves, for answers and eventual conflict. I know you’ll disagree with me, but your church is headed toward a split. You probably can’t see it now, but its coming. Your elders have invited it by importing the world’s politics that are justified in PP.
Again, in my hierarchical delegated authority structure mentioned above, the Scripture would win in cases of sin. (hey that rhymes) I really have the sense that you’re like someone who’s been abused enough with procedure or bickering, that you see it in places that it doesn’t exist. When you get your new hammer, everything’s a nail.
Actually, PP makes a travesty of church discipline (Mat. 18:15-17). It asks the congregation to become judge and jury of not only of the offender but of the witnesses as well, and instead of teaching the church to go confront the offender (17a) it teaches the church to cast a vote, which has no power to reach the impenitent man’s heart. It fails Christ’s great design of rescuing the wandering sheep (Mat. 18:12-14).

Shaynus, you don’t know my background, so it doesn’t really help to guess at it. PP has worked out in my favor far more than it hasn’t. If I wield a hammer it is the word of God, but PP is a pernicious nail that needs to be pulled out, not driven in.

Shaynus, you have a great advantage in your church. You are in a much stronger position to influence your church because of your knowledge in the use of PP than most others. As you know, such knowledge is leverage. PP is a system that is used by people to get what they want. Indeed, even in your church, as in all churches led by PP, conversation is steered by a moderator to those he/she believes are the best voices to speak within a time constraint.

In meetings where many wish to speak, moderators usually limit the time when many wish to speak. Why is this? Have they permission from Jesus Christ to do this? If I am to prefer my weaker brother over me, shouldn’t I give him as much time as he needs? And furthermore, when he suggests in front of the church something that is biblically wrong, and hence dangerous for the church, don’t we have a responsibility to teach him what God says (and usually in private)? And since we are asking him to vote (i.e., come to a judgment) and that he will have to give account for that vote before God (2 Cor. 5:10), then how can I in good conscience let that brother make a vote based on a faulty understanding. Now, it may take several weeks of patient counsel to get him to understand the theological implications of things. But I must wait, if I am a shepherd of souls. That brother is more important than I am (Phil 2:3-4), and if he votes contrary to Scripture, he dishonors Christ now and loses reward in heaven. If I let him do make that vote, and his vote dishonor Christ’s word, then I am a dangerous shepherd to him. I too will bear a judgment.

But my goal as a shepherd is to present the bride of Christ to Him spotless and pure. Therefore, PP is quite problematic. For it often leaves Christians opposed to each other at the end of a meeting, and almost always requires them to vote on matters they are ill-equipped to do. And I, if I am an elder, encourage that. Christ will judge not only them, but also me for facilitating a venue that encourages that.

For example, in order for a Christian to be a valid judge (and hence cast a vote) on a church budget, he must possess mature grasp on the specific Scriptures that directly and indirectly bear on the New Testament doctrine of the church. This is necessary because he is voting on spending money that has been given to Jesus Christ and does not belong to him. It would further require that they have a proven maturity in biblical financial management practices as demonstrated in his home. But what if my brother isn’t that mature? Asking him to vote on matters in which he has neither proficiency nor maturity frustrates his souls and tempt him into sins of presumption. It implicitly teaches him that no matter where he is in his walk, Christ wants him making judgments that lead the entire church.
Ted,

Your answers really tell me that you don’t understand a blessed thing about Parliamentary Procedure (or it’s heart), and again that you make more assertion than argument.

“She did. She taught you it was OK to vote your preference against another believer in your church. But God teaches you:”

Where did she say that? Please cite evidence for that. When we go into any meeting, we shouldn’t stop behaving like Christians and turn into parliamentary demons.

In fact Sturgis does say “motive ought to outweigh questions of form.” In other words, people are more important than technicalities. We are actually warned in every procedure book against party spirit and divisiveness, and that if the leader of the meeting senses dilatory action, he can call it out of order. He would do so not because of some technical rule, but that the senses a false motive. You are setting up a caricature of procedure and voting then telling us Scripture is against that caricature. In that sense, it is you who continually set up false dichotomies.

“But PP allows you to regard your opinion as more important than others in your church. In many cases it is even considered noble to cast your vote in opposition to the majority (or minority). But God is not honored.”

Again, where does PP say this at all? In years of church business meetings, I’ve never heard of the idea voting and coming to a consensus is a inappropriately noble, but God dishonoring way to work.

“Shaynus, you have a great advantage in your church. You are in a much stronger position to influence your church because of your knowledge in the use of PP than most others. As you know, such knowledge is leverage. PP is a system that is used by people to get what they want. Indeed, even in your church, as in all churches led by PP, conversation is steered by a moderator to those he/she believes are the best voices to speak within a time constraint.”

Actually you further show that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I as monitor cannot engage in the discussion. If I do want to speak for or against something, I have to step down from moderating. That’s a foundational idea in any procedural manual, further showing me you don’t know anything about procedure, yet are so confident you know what you’re talking about. It’s really stunning.

That’s not to say I don’t have influence, but most of the influence is about the speed of the discussion, rather than what acually happens. For example, I can choose on the fly what kind of voting method to use based on how much in consensus I think the church is in. For example I can say “is there any objection to ….?” Most of our voting about procedural issues is don’t this way, showing we are very much united. In fact, I can only remember two no votes in three years of meetings on any issue. This is probably due to free and full discussion, the ability for the body to amend a proposal if they don’t like it, and the tremendous leadership of my pastors and deacons.

Again Ted, since you clearly don’t know a thing about procedure, I suggest you read the Sturgis book for the first time, and maybe you’ll have another opinion.

Ted, I would just warn that it’s just as wrong to say that scripture says something is wrong, when it is permitted, as it is to say that scripture permits something when it doesn’t. Be careful to watch yourself.