Voting to Apostatize: Unitarianism
Several hundred years ago, a heresy sat poised, ready to ignite. All it needed was the right match, and 18th century Christianity would be engulfed in flames. The match was found in a young pastor and his congregation just outside of Boston, Massachusetts, USA. The heresy, now called Unitarianism, still simmers and burns today all over the world, but especially where I live in New England.
The match was struck in 1753. Pastor Lemuel Briant had been asked by several elders to quit his pastorate at the First Congregational Church of Braintree, MA. Their reasons were more than justified. In the past year his wife had left him, taking their children away. In departing she had also leveled against him several public accusations of impropriety. But in spite of the family situation, Briant refused to resign. In addition to all that, the church elders demanded he retract a catechism he had given to the children of the church, one written by a man who explicitly denied the deity of Christ. The church’s elders felt it best for Briant to care for his family. They also feared for the spiritual health of the church’s children.
But Pastor Briant simply ignored the elders. Understandably upset, the elders called in several pastors from other churches for help. These pastors were the same men who had ordained Briant three years earlier. In a private meeting, he was again prevailed upon to immediately resign and go take care of his family. However, Briant again refused. Instead, he made his own demand. He insisted that he be given a church vote.1 If the congregation voted to keep him, he would stay, but if he was voted out, he would go.
Lemuel Briant had read the people well, for when the church came together to vote, they stuck with Briant. They completely rejected the recommendation of their own elders and the three pastors who had ordained him. According to original documents, the church retained Briant by an “overwhelming vote.”2 Today, this church is called the United First Parish Church of Quincy, and it is acknowledged as the first Unitarian Church in history. As such, it quickly abandoned all faith in the Eternal Son of God, the Trinity, and the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. In a word, they voted to apostatize.
The spread of Unitarianism
Buttressed with that success and the power of the vote, Unitarianism spread like wildfire in the early days of American democracy. The world was ripe for a more appealing religion that affirmed innate human goodness. Christian colleges such as Harvard, Yale and Tufts fueled the fire by training men in the doctrines of Unitarianism and smuggling them into trinitarian churches. Within a generation, scores of trinitarian churches in New England converted to Unitarianism through congregational votes. They never looked back, and today most New England towns have a look-a-like Unitarian church near the village green.
Such events are still happening today. Churches still vote for unqualified men to lead them, or, as mentioned in the previous article, to embrace sexual sin. In hindsight, voting doesn’t really provide safety. In fact, it can be the tool for spreading dangerous heresy. When it came time for that Boston congregation to choose their own path, they led themselves astray. They abandoned Christ and lost the gospel. Like Solomon’s foolish son Rehoboam, they “abandoned the counsel that the old men gave him” (1 Kings 12:8). And like Rehoboam, it is unlikely that any of the people of that congregation believed they were doing anything wrong. More likely, they felt euphoric after rejecting the counsel of the older men and forcefully displaying their independence.
Could it be that voting has the power to dull our spiritual senses to Christ’s position of Lord of the Church, and how He wants it governed?
Consider what one man wrote:
God’s will is objectively given through the vote of the local congregation. Whether it’s His will for discipline, for officers, for how money should be spent—it is done by the vote of the congregation. That’s God’s way.3
If church votes reveal God’s will, as that author maintains, then how do we explain churches using their votes to depart the Christian faith? That’s not God’s way! Thousands of churches have made votes that went against Scripture, and to this day still do. Voting can end up replacing the Bible as the real authority in our church because it appeals to our love of freedom and choice. We should know better, but it carries a kind of intoxicating power that dulls us to the power of the cross.
Robert’s Rules of Order
This is not to say that all voting is wrong. It is just wrong in a church that believes God’s guidance in Scripture is inspired and infallible. Apart from the church of Jesus Christ many secular and religious groups wisely make decisions through votes. For these groups, voting makes sense, as it does in the world’s democracies of the twenty-first century. These groups want to be governed by the voice of men, and would never look to the Bible for authoritative guidance. Typically, they use voting procedures as taught in Robert’s Rules of Order.4
Ironically, Henry M. Robert wrote his famous book in 1876 after witnessing a painful Baptist church meeting in New Bedford, Massachusetts. To offer assistance to future churches in the hopes of reducing church tensions, he studied the United States House of Representatives as a model for how orderly decisions could be obtained without trampling on the rights of the minority. He streamlined their parliamentarian procedures into basic motions, deliberations, divisions, and votes. His book, slightly modified over the years, is today the de facto authority for decision-making procedures for organizations of all kinds, including tens of thousands of churches.
In the United States, churches will even write into their constitutions a particular edition of this book, so as to avoid possible confusion over details of parliamentary procedure. Once defined in the constitution, the church binds itself to Robert’s Rules of Order as their sole authority for congregational decision-making, including discussion, dissent, and votes.5
This kind of thinking led one pastor to write the following:
At the end of the day, the thing that gets churches in trouble is not usually grossly unethical behavior but failure to follow good procedure. I recommend that EVERY church…have a parliamentarian from outside their organization go through their constitution and look for problems.6
His words pretty well express the passion some feel on this topic. But I wonder—is the thing that really gets us into trouble “failure to follow good procedure”? At the end of the day, is our best hope for unity with each other employing a Robert’s Rules professional who can whip us into parliamentary shape, lest we trample each other? Is the Bible so dysfunctional that we need the expertise of unbelievers to get along in the same Christian church?
As wonderful a man as I’m sure he was, Henry Robert did not examine Scripture to learn how Christ and His apostles gave inspired instructions on how churches should make decisions. Rather, Robert’s major goal in writing his book was to ensure that the voice of the minority should not be trampled on by the power of the majority, but be given a voice and power appropriate to their size in public meetings. This is certainly a laudable goal, because this is a real problem for people who are not led by the Spirit. However, God’s power for Christians begins with the cross of shame in this world and embraces the wisdom that is “from above” (James 3:17). The world needs
Thousands of church constitutions claim the Bible as their sole authority in all matters of faith and practice and yet bind themselves to one of the world’s practices that has no power to sanctify believers. Parliamentary procedure, which is totally foreign to God’s infallible and sufficient Word, instead possesses the power to divide them. I’ve seen people come to church meetings clutching their Robert’s Rules like swords in their scabbards, prepared for battle, while leaving their Bibles back in the car. Why would we want to hold open our Robert’s Rules in one hand while holding a closed Bible in the other? We open our meetings in prayer to God only to open the floor to ourselves. “Do we have a motion? OK, good. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Now we can debate.”
Distrust and Dissent
Parliamentary procedure, whether practiced in the United States government or in a Christian church, is a technique of decision-making designed to regulate those entrusted with authority. Its entire premise is predicated on the distrust of those in power. The principles and presuppositions of Robert’s Rules of Order are useful in the world because they recognize that men are sinful and prone to love power. However, they are diametrically opposed to apostolic teaching and with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This is why non-Christian religions such as Unitarianism practice voting as an integral part of their congregational decision making policies. They require voting power so that they can hold their leaders in check and retain self-determination in an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
But seeing a church make decisions by parliamentary procedure is a remarkably strange way for individual Christians to learn submission to authority, or even godly decision-making. It is simply wrong to believe that God’s will for individual Christians is to follow Scripture when making decisions, but for church decisions His will is to employ parliamentary procedure. Hopefully, no one encourages individual Christians or Christian families to make decisions based on votes, majority rule, checks and balances, and so forth. As I’ll discuss below, we who have received God’s Word and Spirit have a better way: 100 percent church unity, attained through submission to Scripture.
No wonder so many churches experience a revolving door of leaders and members. We practice something so central to our church experience that is utterly foreign to the entire text of God’s inspired and sufficient revelation. How can something man-made inspire, nourish, and build the church of God? When the world’s ways lead the church, the sensitive souls of believers are tempted to all manner of sins toward each other.
As well, parliamentary procedure is designed to encourage and elicit dissent in a context of external order and decorum, not the inner reformation of the heart. Sooner or later, allowing a church environment of dissent and division will bear the fruit of jealousy and selfish ambition. James says, that “is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic” (James 3:15). God’s church is never to provide a platform for even the tiniest bit of strife and division, nor to encourage any kind of “political process.” Strife and division breed church splits, and many an injured saint will tell you so. But sometimes that pain can be God’s megaphone, leading us to ask the right questions. One of those good questions is actually a straightforward one: “How, then, does the Bible teach us, as a church, to make decisions?”
One Hundred Percent Unanimity
Every church has one goal: to glorify our triune God. That includes honoring Him in how we make our decisions. One word stands above others in decision-making: unity. Unity reflects God’s glory in the church. Paul wrote,
[L]ive in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom. 15:5–6)
When Paul says that our one-voice unity glorifies God, he is not discussing how we sing together, but rather how we live together. And since living together in harmony requires making decisions that affect each other, we are obligated to make all of our decisions in a way that prevents God’s glory in Christ from being disgraced. We must make our congregational decisions in such a way that any disagreeable or discordant voice is roundly recognized as an affront on God, not us.
So, here’s a heads-up warning: God’s standards are not only earthly high, they’re heavenly high. In fact, they are so high that they are impossible for non-Christians to live by. God’s standard in congregation decision-making is perfection—one hundred percent unanimity in all things—and such a high standard can only be esteemed among a redeemed people who love Christ’s cross more than their own voice. His standard for every congregation is passed on to us through Paul:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Cor. 1:10)
Even through this was written by Paul, he was nothing but the pencil. The opening words “by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” mean that it is Christ Himself, the Lord of the Church, speaking here in absolute resurrection authority.7 His words are not merely suggesting that we attain perfect unity in our decision-making. Quite the opposite. He is commanding it: “all of you agree…be united in the same mind and in the same judgment.” The Head of the Church and Lord of life is not asking us to merely strive for one hundred percent unanimity in our church decisions, but to live it. It’s an important distinction because to intentionally practice something that is satisfied with less than one hundred percent unanimity in His church is high-handed sin against this express command.
How high is Christ’s own standard? Any church is not in one hundred percent unity of mind and judgment at the end of their next meeting has violated the decree of the risen Lord. They may preach the right gospel, but they aren’t living by it. Church leaders who authorize practices that tempt and lead the sheep into direct violation of the words of Jesus Christ in 1 Cor. 1:10 must give an answer for this compromise in the day of His judgment. These are strong words, but the precious souls of Christ’s sheep require protection, not temptation. How can voting, which promotes different voices and expressions and decisions attain to the high standard our Lord has set for us of “one voice” unity?
Notes
1 Cf. W. S. Pattee, History of Old Braintree and Quincy (Quincy, MA: Green and Prescott, 1878), 221. Thanks to Dr. Sheldon Bennett, present minister of United First Parish Church (Unitarian Universalist) for his kind and generous assistance in the history of his church and Unitarian Universalist beliefs.
2 Clifford K. Shipton, New England Life in the 18th Century (Cambridge and Boston, 1951), 347. Cf. William P. Lunt, Two Discourses delivered September 29, 1839 on the occasion of The Two Hundredth Anniversary of the Gathering of the First Congregational Church, Quincy with an Appendix (Boston: James Monroe and Company, 1840), 132–34. As a testimony to the church’s influence in American history, two presidents, John Adams and John Quincy Adams, lie in state in the basement of the church.
3 Colin Smith, “Where’s the ‘C’ in the Baptist Distinctives?,” accessed January 19, 2010, at http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=1155.
4 Henry M. Robert, Robert’s Rules of Order (New York: Morrow Quill, 1971), iii. Robert was an engineer whose expertise consisted of making seaports suited for large vessels.
5 For an example of the intrusion of Robert’s Rules, note the discussion on church discipline in Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005), 71, and its associated footnote.
6 Greg Gilbert, “I Move We Don’t Vote So Much,” April 3, 2008, The IX Marks Blog, Church Matters, http://www.9marks.org/blog/i-move-we-dont-vote-so-much (accessed February 24, 2009), emphasis original.
7 See also 1 Corinthians 5:4 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 for other uses of this authoritative statement.
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).
[Jeff Brown] We were more like a family talking together.I am glad for that too, and glad Robert’s Rules recommended it!
There are a lot of books for church leaders that are not catalogued in the Bible, but are helpful for those wanting to follow Christ nevertheless, like Gregory’s Seven Laws of Learning. You won’t find much Scripture in that book, but it sure is good stuff for preachers, S.S. teachers, etc., for knowing how to teach. And it is understandable to most everyone. We use dictionaries, grammars, and style manuals (when we need them) for writing church documents. Many of us use books on preaching, or even secular works on public speaking to help us deliver more effective sermons. I really think Robert’s Rules of Order fits into the same category. For many churches in the US and Canada it is a help toward orderly, peaceful, group meetings.I agree with Jeff that there are many helpful books from non-Christians that help us. I will even give a “topper” and say that I even use a number of books written by unregenerate men in my study of Scripture because they may highlight sociological and anthropological issues not dealt with by commentators. No, the point isn’t whether we can profit from non-Christian books or not. It’s weighing the content of the book in the light of Scripture. That is a function of discernment.
Had Jeff been pasturing in 8th C Germany (forgive the anachronism), his process of gaining “orderly, peaceful, group meetings” via a closer reading of Robert’s Rules would likely have failed miserably. Why? Because people back then hadn’t a clue of the underpinning values of democracy. Mostly they were serfs, and would have thought of wise decision-making in terms of “what does the lord of us serfs say, for we know by experience that safety comes from following him.” They would have felt very uncomfortable with Jeff’s newfangled consensus procedures.
I just came back from the country of Malawi, and teaching pastors from all over the continent for 2 weeks in South Africa. No church over there votes (except the few exported by the states), and there are a lot of churches in Africa. The black churches reflect their tribal culture, and most black churches pattern their governance on a tribal mentality. It isn’t even questioned. I was invited to teach The Titus Mandate, based on Titus 1:5 and the rest of the NT, which teaches God’s form of redeeming church governance for all cultures and at all times.
If we transplant Jeff Brown’s governance style and polity to 8th C Germany, or even modern day Africa, his approach would be viewed as weakness (lack of confidence). They would not feel comfortable that consensus means safety. Christians would actually distrust him for him and him alone not making the final decision.
It is in effect no different than the modern lands of democracy in the West, where most church governance is patterned after a democratic mentality. I would suggest the reason Jeff’s approach to consensus brought leadership and peace to that fledgling church was because he was working with people who grew up already thinking that consensus brings safety.
The solution for those born of God’s word (James 1:21) is not to shape our leadership style and polity to suit our culture (tribal or democratic). No, for on Crete, Paul rebuked the believing leaders for bringing their culture of leadership into the church (Titus 1:12) and commanded Titus to “severely rebuke” each of them so that they might become sound in the faith (Titus 1:13). Instead we are called to confront the fallen cultures of this world with the redeeming church culture of Christ, which starts with no-holds submission to the word of God.
Holding onto a tribal perspective in church fosters an amazing breadth of compromise. I spoke with men who’s pastor over them (yet in a different church) has multiple wives, and for the first time, these pastors were struggling with “husband of one wife” (among other things). But those pastors need to be faithful to Titus 1:5-9, not their culture, if they are to see great and lasting fruit. Their church culture makes war on those principles.
In the same way, the democratic structure called congregationalism needs to be challenged with “obey your leaders,” and “to very highly in love esteem those who have charge over you in the Lord.” A democratic church culture makes war on those principles. This is why I challenge every one of you to be faithful to Titus 1:5-9, not your culture.
[Jeff Brown] ntimes preferable procedure, even in parliments. So I brought up the idea at a board meeting. The group was split on using the concept, but I managed to convince them to give it a try. Eventually, we did most of our decision-making by consensus. That made our meetings more sensible and more harmonious. Ultimately they were willing to let me try the method in church business meetings. It had the same effect. We were more like a family talking together.Jeff, great point here. A good chairman of a meeting will sense when things are less controversial and use an appropriate voting method. He can time when to bring something to a vote by seeing how the discussion has gone. A vote can mean various things. If the chairman says “is there any objection to going ahead and voting on this?” If no one says anything, then you just took a vote to “move the previous question,” without the formalities and time spent.
In general if there is division in a body, parli-pro is not going to bring it out, but it may have a way of dealing with it in the really touch situations.
Ted, maybe I should have made it more clear that I was not talking about Germany, where I have planted churches. I was talking about a 100-year old church I pastored in the US. That is why it had a “board,” which I have never established in Germany. I lead the American church away from a practice they had been using for years, if not 100 years, of voting on everything. The church however, practiced and maintained congregational government before I arrived and after I left. I simply got the board to use consensus decision-making most of the time, instead of voting, thanks to my reading of Robert’s.
And Pauline rebukes? I told a number of disobedient Christians that they were sinning — all on my lonesome. Please don’t ask me to repeat what they were all doing!! Most changed, a few left. There was one of those instances in which I wish I had consulted my board before I acted. The outcome would have been a world better. Sharp rebukes I saved and still save for “idle talkers and deceivers” (i.e. false teachers). No one really needs to advise me in those instances what to do. There were and are lots and lots of preachers who have handled their office just like I, and often much better, whose churches practice congregational government. It isn’t polity that makes or breaks a leader.
As for Congregationalism and Malawi. I don’t know. I have never been there. My mission has established churches in the CAR, Chad, Congo, Ivory Coast, Camaroon, Liberia, Ghana, Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia, Kenya, and South Africa during the past 90 years. I have visited Zambia. The type of government of the churches we have planted in Africa is almost always congregational. Have the pastors been strong leaders? In 1974, fourteen of them in Chad were executed for refusing to lead their churches back into animism. Afterward they were thrown in an unmarked grave. They had plenty of chance to relent, but did not. Few pastors in the world have attained that level of leadership.
Jeff Brown
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945113,00.html
And yes, if I show up in a monk’s robe preaching, please, kill me.
Thanks for posting the URL!
Jeff Brown
[Ted Bigelow] No, we don’t poll the elders. No, each elder doesn’t need to speak to the matter. That’s congregationalism, which assumes all people in a decision making capacity are responsible to weigh in on a decision. Its part of the presupposition that the more people in church who weigh in on a decision, then the closer you are to discovering God’s will. In eldership, the goal is to understand what God says on every situation and be faithful to it.Ted, it’s statements like this that drive me crazy. So in eldership, how does God reveal what He says on every situation? Does He download it into each of the elders’ brains? Does He write it on the wall of the room in which the elders are meeting? Does one person say, “On the count of three, we will all say what God’s will is on this matter. Ready? One, two, three! … ” No, the matter is discussed and then a decision is made as individuals express what they believe to be God’s will on the matter, (hopefully) based on Scripture.
In distinction to congregationalism, eldership is based on submission.
I could just as easily say that in congregationalism “the goal is to understand what God says on every situation and be faithful to it.” The statement means nothing to the discussion because both sides are trying to discern God’s will on the matter.
By the way, I serve in an elder-rule church. The congregation votes on deacons, elders, and constitutional changes. I think the Bible is unclear enough on the matter that both elder-rule and congregationalism are acceptable forms of church government. I find your arguments so far to be unconvincing.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I could just as easily say that in congregationalism “the goal is to understand what God says on every situation and be faithful to it.” The statement means nothing to the discussion because both sides are trying to discern God’s will on the matter.Yes, and I think all would say that about their church polity - Catholic, Apostolic, Unitarian, Baptist, Church of Christ, etc. But there is only way to discern God’s will in a manner pleasing to God - through His word. When Paul tells the Ephesians to know the will of the Lord, he is telling them to obey God’s revealed will. That is, Scripture. You might re-read what I said to Larry about the replacement of preaching with drama illustration. Congregational rule’s objective is to determine the vote of a majority at a point in time, and to use that vote to set policy, make decisions, etc. It is not the objective of congregational polity to determine what God says in Scripture and obey it even if it disagrees with the majority, which is exactly what biblical eldership will do.
By the way, I serve in an elder-rule church. The congregation votes on deacons, elders, and constitutional changes. I think the Bible is unclear enough on the matter that both elder-rule and congregationalism are acceptable forms of church government. I find your arguments so far to be unconvincing.Greg, I’m a little familiar with your church. I had a friend in Des Moines who attended several times before moving. But it’s not an eldership church. It’s a congregational church. When the congregation votes, and those votes decide who gets into the office of elder and who does not - then you are in a congregational church. Certainly your church uses the word “elder” to describe certain people who get elected into office, but it doesn’t rely on Scripture alone to define who gets into the office. It uses voting in the process.
As a result, your church doesn’t reflect the pattern established in Titus 1:5-9. In the Bible - which I believe is sufficient to tell us how to live as a church (and church governance is an important part of that) you won’t find congregational voting. God put in the Bible what He wanted, and left out what He wanted. Based on what we have in the 66 books of the Bible, the “man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work.” We call that the sufficiency of Scripture.
If you believe God wants church leaders appointed into eldership by congregational votes, then my challenge to you is to be a faithful Berean and “see if it be so.” I’ve written about it extensively as you know. Please also consider that adding methodology to Scripture always introduces spiritual danger to the people of God, and often comes about becasue of a lack of esteem for what is written. And this too: Titus 1:5-9 is sufficient to teach us how Christ, the Lord of the Church and Savior of men (Titus 1:4) wants elders appointed. The ancient text was Scripture the moment it was written, and it was immediately sufficient not only for Titus on the how and the who of eldership, but for the church “in every city” on Crete as well.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Ted] Actually, a lot of people say voting is safe. And what they mean is that is’s safer than the alternative – submitting to a small group of men who make leadership decisions for the church.You’d got a false choice going there, Ted. That is, there are more options than “safe vs. unsafe.” I think you may have misunderstood some of the folks you’ve quoted.
As proof that a lot of people believe it is safe, just look at all the people in Christian and non-Christian and non-Christian churches who vote. They don’t practice it because they believe it is unsafe.
There may be some who believe voting is a fool proof way to make right decisions, but I don’t know anybody who believes that. Let’s just say it’s not a majority view among those who practice voting. Rather, all decision making is understood to be unsafe because regardless of whether it’s a group of elders or a congregation, they are fallible sinners.
But you’re right that many see congregational voting as safer than small-group-of-elders decision-making.
But let’s take a look at what really happens in most churches. In every church I’ve been involved in, some decisions are made by a small group of leaders or an individual. Every single one of them. The differences exist as to how much is decided by the elders, etc., vs. how much is decided by the body at large.
So as far as the nuts and bolts of actual decision making goes, very few churches are against “elder rule.” They just differ on what the scope of elder power should be. Since the NT does assign some tasks to the congregation as a whole (discipline, 1Cor5, 2Cor2; appointing deacons, Acts 6; etc.), it’s reasonable to say that the NT model is “some decision making by pastors/elders, some by the body as a whole.”
So then the real issue boils down to two questions:
- Where does the ultimate decision making power in the church reside? (i.e., are the elders accountable at all to the body? Christ is the Head, but are only elders capable of exercising discernment as to what His leading is? If both elders and believers in the pews are capable, who is the ultimate authority?)
- By what mechanism is the decision-making authority of the body to be exercised? How is their mind on a matter to be identified? (I’ve yet to hear of a method better than voting).
I wonder if you are prepared to deny any of these assertions…- Believers are capable of discerning the meaning of Scripture, and seeking to apply it to their lives
- Groups of believers are capable of discerning/applying Scripture to their group
- All individuals and groups of believers are capable of error in this process (there is no “safe” decision-making process)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron] So as far as the nuts and bolts of actual decision making goes, very few churches are against “elder rule.” They just differ on what the scope of elder power should be. Since the NT does assign some tasks to the congregation as a whole (discipline, 1Cor5, 2Cor2; appointing deacons, Acts 6; etc.), it’s reasonable to say that the NT model is “some decision making by pastors/elders, some by the body as a whole.”I think it is important to define “elder rule.” Historically, it means a form of polity that places full charge authority in the hands of leaders, offering no recourse to the congregation to overrule the elders. Congregational rule offers recourse to the congregation to overturn decisions by the group of leaders (be they called elders, or another term).
I don’t like the term elder-rule. It has negative connotations of men who rule and aren’t loving shepherds of people. But for discussion here, I would ask that we try to keep the terms (elder v. congregational rule) black and white.
And again, Aaron, based on decades of personal experience and thousands of conversations, and pastoring multiple churches, I think you are as wrong in your statement “very few churches are against “elder rule,” as you are to say, “all decision making is understood to be unsafe because regardless of whether it’s a group of elders or a congregation, they are fallible sinners.” Have you never heard Proverbs 11:14 applied to congregational rule?
[Aaron] Where does the ultimate decision making power in the church reside? (i.e., are the elders accountable at all to the body? Christ is the Head, but are only elders capable of exercising discernment as to what His leading is? If both elders and believers in the pews are capable, who is the ultimate authority?)The ultimate power in congregationalism lies in the vote of a majority at a place in time.
The ultimate power in eldership lies in Scripture since it specifically requires that only qualified men may lead and shepherd the flock (Acts 20:28, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, 1 Tim. 3:4-5, 1 Tim. 5:17).
[Aaron] By what mechanism is the decision-making authority of the body to be exercised? How is their mind on a matter to be identified? (I’ve yet to hear of a method better than voting).That’s too bad, since in the Scripture the congregation is never asked to vote. Thankfully, Scripture does reveal how the Lord wants congregations to make decisions.
The priesthood of the believer grants to each one the authority to know and apply the revealed will of God to all of life, including every decision in church. Why should that authority be taken away and replaced with the far lesser authority of a single vote? That’s very poor shepherding. When God’s people are called to vote for decisions in church, their priesthood as individual believers is exchanged for a political process.
Scripturally qualified shepherds don’t yearn to make decisions and have authority, but to shepherd the souls of God’s own and dear people according to the fullness of God’s revealed word. That’s why we want all the people to read and apply Scripture to all decisions in life. And that includes their church decisions. I encourage you to read The Titus Mandate, especially chapter 3, “Restoring Your Authority in Your Church.”
I do completely affirm it. It is the congregationalist who doesn’t believe and live this. That’s why you ask believers to vote instead of read and apply Scriptural authority to their church. In an eldership church, each person with an open Bible holds the authority that is over the elders and the church, for what God says must rule. After all, in an eldership church only the authority of Scripture binds the elders together. In congregationalism, each person has the Bible taken out of their hand and given a single vote to change their church. What binds them together is not Scriptural authority, but a political process that yields a majority decision.
I wonder if you are prepared to deny any of these assertions…
- Believers are capable of discerning the meaning of Scripture, and seeking to apply it to their lives
They are, and they must if they are to be faithful to Christ who has qualified them as His priests, able to pray directly to Him, and to express the authority of His voice in Scripture, not their voice in a vote (Rev. 1:6).Groups of believers are capable of discerning/applying Scripture to their group
If by safety you mean infallibility, then “no.” But if by safety you mean what the Scripture means – living by faith in God’s revealed word regardless of the outcome – then “yes.”All individuals and groups of believers are capable of error in this process (there is no “safe” decision-making process)
Your choice to ask believers to cast votes in church takes them out of the safety of God’s revealed word and dangerously casts them on the swirling ocean of man’s wisdom. But the choice to call them to obey Scripture in every matter, including church decision making, is true safety (Psa. 119:117, Proverbs 18:10).
Discussion