Early Christian Decision-Making: And Now for the Vote (Part 2)
Read Part 1.
The famous Twelve Articles which preceded the Peasants War of Luther’s day are very modest by today’s standards. In their own day they were conservative and presented no challenge to the feudal system. They began with the demand that “every municipality shall have the right to elect and remove a preacher if he behaves improperly. The preacher shall preach the gospel simply, straight and clearly without any human amendment, for, it is written, that we can only come to God by true belief.” Luther had written words quite similar, with the difference that he named the congregation as the deciding body. In those days, of course, there usually wasn’t much difference between congregation and municipality. Now if this type of congregational control had been standard practice in 1520, neither the Twelve Articles nor Luther’s tract would have ever been written. Indeed, most political and religious leaders in those days did not take well to it. It would take over three centuries before independent congregations which chose their ministers were generally tolerated in European nations.
But the whole idea of congregations choosing their ministers would have seemed anything but radical in Jesus’ day. As I have related in previous articles, the concept of towns, cities, organizations, or religious congregations voting for their leaders was a widespread practice. The common (but not only) word for voting in the Greek language was cheirotoneo. Its second occurrence in the New Testament is in 2 Corinthians 8:19:
And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind. (KJV)
In this verse cheirotoneo is translated “chosen” by the KJV, NIV and NKJV and “appointed” by the NASB, ESV, RSV, and NEB. The BDAG lexicon gives the translation in this passage “choose” (by election). The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon (LSJ) gives the translation “appoint” (like the high priest of Judaea).
LSJ says that there are three basic meanings for cheirotoneo.
- To stretch forth the hand (and thus vote)
- To select (without explaining how)
- To span with the hand
Obviously, the third meaning has no bearing on the two NT passages. So for the usage in 2 Corinthians 8:19 the question is whether the representative was chosen by a vote in each church or selected without a vote. Commentators who say cheirotoneo here describes an election include Alford, Barrett, Bernard (EGT), Calvin, Fausset, Lenski and H.A.W. Meyer. Commentators who say the representative was appointed include Harris (EBC), Hughes (NIC), and Lohse (TDNT). Alfred Plummer does not decide in his comments which translation is right, but he points out that cheirotoneo had a shift in meaning from “elect” to “appoint” over the process of time. This shift was well explained by Edwin Hatch in his article “Ordination” in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities in 1875.
To a large extent, writers focus on one or the other meaning of the word. On the one hand, the primary meaning of cheirotoneo is “to elect.” On the other hand, the word changed in meaning to “appoint” even before the NT was written. Both Josephus and Philo (contemporaries of the NT authors) frequently use the word to mean “appoint.” Thus John MacArthur asserts that the translation of “elect” here in 2 Corinthians 8:19 is “exaggerated literalism.”
But in all of this discussion, wrong assumptions are being made. Commentators are not performing a thorough study of the word in its various contexts (do they really have the time?). But, in fact, thorough study of that kind is precisely what is necessary since cheirotoneo appears only twice in the entire New Testament.
I have not studied the word in all of its contexts. That would require using a Greek search engine to look at every instance of cheirotoneo, then read the passage in the literature in which it occurs. The whole study would be worthy of a PhD project (perhaps I can inspire someone to do just that). But I have made a preliminary study and have found the following:
- Though the word cheirotoneo did change its meaning, it never ceased to be used with its original meaning, “elect,” as well. During the time of Christ and long after, cheirotoneo was used by Greek authors to mean “vote” (e.g. by Plutarch, Lucian, Strabo, and Diodorus of Sicily). Likewise, although Philo and Josephus used the word to mean “select,” they also used it to mean “elect.” Among the church fathers, it frequently had the meaning of elect (e.g. Didache 15.1; Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 11.2, Letter to the Philadelphians 10.1, etc). In fact, even in AD 400, church leaders used the word to mean “elect” (e.g., Philostordius in h.e. 7.6).
- Another Greek word, proteineo, demonstrates the same history. It began with the meaning “extend the hand” and later came to mean “propose” but never lost the more literal meaning. Josephus also uses proteineo with both meanings.
- It appears that every time cheirotoneo is used unequivocally to mean “appoint,” it is done by one person. Thus, for example David was chosen (cheirotonetheie) by God to be King (Josephus, Antiquities, 7.53). But when a group was selecting, it had the meaning “elect” (Josephus, Antiquities 19.287—when Tiberius was elected to counsel for the second time).
Now, let’s read the sentence in 2 Corinthians 8:19 again: “He was chosen (cheirotoneo) by the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering” (NIV). A group does the selection. Thus the churches each elected the man (whom I would suggest was Aristarchus—a well-tested team worker of Paul from Macedonia). So each church voted “yes” or “no” on one man, it seems. A careful reading of 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 makes this kind of action even more apparent. It was only natural for Paul to think that the churches had the say in who would handle the money they gave.
Did churches in New Testament times vote? I am rather convinced they did, though the Bible lays no stress on any word to express it. In the case of 2 Corinthians 8:19, it seems rather clear that the churches in Macedonia were instructed by Paul to vote. It was not a vote between multiple candidates, but rather a vote of confidence on one person who would carry the Christians’ money. It was a vote, nonetheless. This action really shouldn’t amaze us. Believers in those times may not have had electricity, cell phones, and the Internet, but they did a lot of the same things we do today.
Jeff Brown Bio
Jeff Brown was born in 1951 and received Christ as a child during an evening service in the First Baptist Church of Elkhart, IN. During his senior year in college, while studying Biology, God led him to change course and enter the ministry. He later attended seminary, and completed his theological education through the PhD in Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Seminary. Jeff and his wife, Linda, have four adult children.
- 71 views
[Aaron Blumer] Ted asked earlier, where are we told that the will of the majority must be “measured”?My original question was not, “How do you determine the will of the majority?” but ”Why must you determine the will of the majority?”
1. You cannot know you what the will of the majority is unless you find out. This is what I mean by measured. You have to find out in some way. Do you say “everybody who is for this shout yes and everybody who is against yell no and we’ll see which is loudest”? Even that would be voting. Do you say “speak now or forever hold your peace” then assume the silence is unanimity? Folly. I guarantee it is only superficial unity some of the time. But even that is measuring. In short, a mandate to act as a majority is a mandate to determine what the majority is. It’s logical necessity.
2. How do I reconcile decision making by a congregational majority with the mandate for unanimity? The calls to unity are of two kinds. (a) Some are like the calls to holiness, calls to prayer, calls to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. They express the standard toward which we are growing, not the standard to which we are going to actually attain consistently any time soon. (b) They express a oneness of mind in reference to particular matters identified in the context. I.e., “Everybody accept together that what I’m telling you is the truth.” This is certainly achievable among believers in matters where Scripture speaks clearly. It becomes less attainable (and less what the unity passages have in mind) as we differ over passages that are more difficult or passages we must apply to a variety of situations.Sure – and even more difficult to attain in matters like “should we close down that ministry, let go staff, or sell our building?” The Holy Spirit only has one will on each issue, and a split vote reveals that either the minority or the majority opposes Him (or possibly both). When we violate His commands on holiness and prayer, we denigrate His glory, transgress His Word, and hurt ourselves. As His children we must repent of every sin or He will bring chastisement in time. Now, since the Holy Spirit’s Lord, Jesus Christ, demands us to live out unanimity in 1 Cor. 1:10, why is it OK to dismiss this command as impractical by congregational polity?
One thing is certain: genuine unanimity on matters of application does not exist over time even when the size of the group is very small (say, two in number!). The larger the group is and the more matters they face together, the more often unanimity will elude them. Finding ways to hear the differing views, weigh them, and then attempt to teach persuasively is a far wiser course than “We have decided. Now you are all going to pretend you agree.”Jesus Christ not only commands unanimity in 1 Cor. 1:10 but is equally dishonored when His own children pretend agreement or voting against each other. He commands His own children to “obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb. 13:17). His sheep hear His words and follow.
You asked for texts on elders choosing elders. I complied (post 20).1. I read your explanation in post 20. I have already responded to 1 Timothy 5:22, and will repeat: I do not think that you will be able to show either from the OT or the NT that “laying on hands” ever means “choose, select, elect.” So it fails as an example. In Titus 1:5 Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every city. But the Bible does not say that Titus was an elder. Acts 14:23 says that Paul and Barnabas selected elders. Where does the Bible say that Paul and Barnabas were elders? You have argued that they were leaders. I agree. “Leader” does not equal “elder.” Furthermore, it is a legitimate interpretation that Paul and Barnabas were “affirming the vote of the people,” since this is a legitimate interpretation for cheirotoneo in this instance (I do not say it is mine). So it does not appear to me that there is any specific verse which says that elders appoint elders. Perhaps I have overlooked how you have explained that Paul, Barnabas, and Titus are indeed designated as elders. One can easily argue, that these leaders, who were missionaries handled the process of elder selection. There is no verse which says that “elders selected the elders” or that “elders are to select elders,” or anything similar.
I asked you for texts on congregations appointing elders. I got none.
2. Sorry, I overlooked your question about Scripture for congregations appointing elders. I cannot say there is any verse which directly states this. That congregations as a group chose other leaders or representatives is plain in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:19; Acts 6:1-6; Acts 11:22, 30; Acts 15:1-2, 22; 15:36-41.
As I see it, the NT does not specify in any instance who chooses elders.
Jeff Brown
Ted,
I am still trying to find the best words to express my thought, but it seems like you have over-expressed the concept of unanimity on several fronts. The best form of congregationalism I have seen at work has had the traditional discussion and vote followed. However, every meeting was closed with a call by the pastor for the church to agree to move forward together. Those who shared their understanding of Scripture as being different from the majority were called to submit to the will of the congregation. Ongoing divisiveness was recognized as sin.
I don’t think sharing difference of opinion in a discussion is the same as lack of unity. I would assume your elders do not always come to a discussion sharing the exact same point of view. I find it hard to believe your elders never leave a meeting saying (if only to themselves), “Well, I’m not 100% certain I agree, but all of the other elders are convinced, and I will support the wisdom they have in this issue.”
Secondarily, you statement
I am still trying to find the best words to express my thought, but it seems like you have over-expressed the concept of unanimity on several fronts. The best form of congregationalism I have seen at work has had the traditional discussion and vote followed. However, every meeting was closed with a call by the pastor for the church to agree to move forward together. Those who shared their understanding of Scripture as being different from the majority were called to submit to the will of the congregation. Ongoing divisiveness was recognized as sin.
I don’t think sharing difference of opinion in a discussion is the same as lack of unity. I would assume your elders do not always come to a discussion sharing the exact same point of view. I find it hard to believe your elders never leave a meeting saying (if only to themselves), “Well, I’m not 100% certain I agree, but all of the other elders are convinced, and I will support the wisdom they have in this issue.”
Secondarily, you statement
The Holy Spirit only has one will on each issue…leaves me scratching my head. Where does Scripture tell us we are supposed to discern the eternal will of God in matters? In fact, where does Scripture tell us we are look for any direction in decision making by God anywhere other than Scripture. In Scripture, some things are black and white. On those, the rest of your quote would be true
…and a split vote reveals that either the minority or the majority opposes Him (or possibly both).But on most of life’s decisions, Scripture offers only principles without an eternal black or white answer. In those instances, I do not think God expects all people to draw the same conclusions, for all time. He has granted freedom there; unanimity is not required.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
The Holy Spirit only has one will on each issue, and a split vote reveals that either the minority or the majority opposes Him (or possibly both).But a unanimous vote means that every might be opposing him. Or a unanimous agreement by the elders might mean that all of them oppose him, and are leading everyone else to oppose him. Or the decision of a single elder in his area of expertise or devotion might mean that he is opposing the Holy Spirit.
So you really don’t have a way to avoid this. You have just limited the field of people who are able to meaningfully listen to the Spirit.
So Ted, I am convinced that in spite of all your explanations you haven’t solved the practical problems that you bring up, and you haven’t sufficiently (for me) explained away the texts.
[Chip Van Emmerik] Ted,I am glad for the unity and joy you have experienced, Chip. I pray it always marks your ministry - for you, your wife, kids, and church.
I am still trying to find the best words to express my thought, but it seems like you have over-expressed the concept of unanimity on several fronts. The best form of congregationalism I have seen at work has had the traditional discussion and vote followed. However, every meeting was closed with a call by the pastor for the church to agree to move forward together. Those who shared their understanding of Scripture as being different from the majority were called to submit to the will of the congregation. Ongoing divisiveness was recognized as sin.
Now, this “will of the congregation” thing… don’t you really mean the one-time vote of a quorum? 8-) IOW, if the vote had been taken again the next night, might not this “will of the congregation” flipped?
Who said having a difference of opinion is a lack of unity? :| Making church decisions with differences is a lack of unanimity.
I don’t think sharing difference of opinion in a discussion is the same as lack of unity. I would assume your elders do not always come to a discussion sharing the exact same point of view. I find it hard to believe your elders never leave a meeting saying (if only to themselves), “Well, I’m not 100% certain I agree, but all of the other elders are convinced, and I will support the wisdom they have in this issue.”
We do experience differing points of view all the time and either submit to one-another in a matter of preference (99% of all practical decisions) or study Scripture together on principles - and we work/wait for unanimity among us. Then, only after too much time has gone by and the other guys won’t agree with me, I yell until I get my way.
Scripture tasks elders to make certain decisions for the congregation; the congregation is tasked by Christ to obey and submit (unless obviously the decision is contrary to Scripture). Most SI congregationalists, upon hearing words like that, immediately assume eldership makes decisions that effect the congregation without discussing the decision with them. Resist the urge, Chip!
Secondarily, you statementI’ve not heard of unanimity applied to “most of life’s decisions,” but when it comes to the local church, Jesus Christ commands unanimity (1 Cor. 1:10). The husband-wife relationship relationship is a good analogy here to elder-congregation (cf. Eph. 5:22-25, Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 3:4-5). When I say “The Holy Spirit only has one will on each issue…” its just a theological truth (Eph. 1:11), not a method for decision making :O. I believe there are but 2 “wills” of God - decretive and revealed (cf. Deut 29:29). When Paul prays that believers “may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Colossians 1:9) he is only praying for us to know the revealed will of God - beloved Scripture ;) .
“The Holy Spirit only has one will on each issue…”
leaves me scratching my head. Where does Scripture tell us we are supposed to discern the eternal will of God in matters? In fact, where does Scripture tell us we are look for any direction in decision making by God anywhere other than Scripture. In Scripture, some things are black and white. On those, the rest of your quote would be true
“a split vote reveals that either the minority or the majority opposes Him (or possibly both).” But on most of life’s decisions, Scripture offers only principles without an eternal black or white answer. In those instances, I do not think God expects all people to draw the same conclusions, for all time. He has granted freedom there; unanimity is not required.
[Jeff Brown]Nothing similar? Bro, only leaders choose leaders in the NT church. Who are the God-ordained leaders in the church, but the elders?
1. I read your explanation in post 20. I have already responded to 1 Timothy 5:22, and will repeat: I do not think that you will be able to show either from the OT or the NT that “laying on hands” ever means “choose, select, elect.” So it fails as an example. In Titus 1:5 Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every city. But the Bible does not say that Titus was an elder. Acts 14:23 says that Paul and Barnabas selected elders. Where does the Bible say that Paul and Barnabas were elders? You have argued that they were leaders. I agree. “Leader” does not equal “elder.” Furthermore, it is a legitimate interpretation that Paul and Barnabas were “affirming the vote of the people,” since this is a legitimate interpretation for cheirotoneo in this instance (I do not say it is mine). So it does not appear to me that there is any specific verse which says that elders appoint elders. Perhaps I have overlooked how you have explained that Paul, Barnabas, and Titus are indeed designated as elders. One can easily argue, that these leaders, who were missionaries handled the process of elder selection. There is no verse which says that “elders selected the elders” or that “elders are to select elders,” or anything similar.
2. Sorry, I overlooked your question about Scripture for congregations appointing elders. I cannot say there is any verse which directly states this. That congregations as a group chose other leaders or representatives is plain in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:19; Acts 6:1-6; Acts 11:22, 30; Acts 15:1-2, 22; 15:36-41. As I see it, the NT does not specify in any instance who chooses elders.I’m with you on 1 and 2 Corinthians reflecting approval with the congregation for representatives going to Jerusalem so the offering is above reproach.
In Acts 6, the 7 men are not in a position of church leadership but are under the apostles in a specifically defined area of ministry to a subset of the church. Once the problem of the widows was resolved the ministry of the 7 was finished and so Acts 6 doesn’t reflect a permanent biblical office - and Philip walks out of Jerusalem into Samaria in Acts 8, and even flies down to Gaza.
Acts 11:22 - There is a Greek mismatch in the singular “church” and plural “they sent” - Luke’s consistent Greek on this matter is established in Acts 9:31 where both church and verbs are singular. Therefore the “they sent” is almost certainly the “elders” of Acts 11:30. Otherwise, you have the women as part of the church in Jerusalem sending Barnabas to Antioch and violating 1 Tim. 2:12, “exercising authority.”
Acts 15:22 - who appointed Paul and Barnabas to go up to Jerusalem? Did the women of Antioch participate, thus violating 1 Tim. 2:12?
Acts 15:22 - the phrase “with the whole church” is not attached to the verb “it seemed good’ but to “the apostles and elders.” Did they help establish decision? no. Acts 16:4. Besides, why would the women of Jerusalem approve the decisions of the apostles and elders, thus violating… - ahh, you know.
So let’s tally it up. The two instances of congregational approval in all the epistles have nothing to do with a church appointing their own leaders… Then we go to the book of Acts when the church is in transition, and none of these passages show a congregation appointing its leaders….
And, to boot - the ethical problem. Every time you include women as part of a congregation appointing leadership or ratifying their decisions you express approval for violating 1 Tim. 2:12.
Let’s make it practical. What would you counsel a church of 50 members, 40 of whom are female, who ask you, “how would Jesus have us appoint leadership for our church?” J-)
[Larry]Well, I’m not trying to “explain away the texts.” I mean, that’s the whole point. Isn’t that what good congregationalists like to do with 1 Cor. 1:10? ;)The Holy Spirit only has one will on each issue, and a split vote reveals that either the minority or the majority opposes Him (or possibly both).But a unanimous vote means that every might be opposing him. Or a unanimous agreement by the elders might mean that all of them oppose him, and are leading everyone else to oppose him. Or the decision of a single elder in his area of expertise or devotion might mean that he is opposing the Holy Spirit.
So you really don’t have a way to avoid this. You have just limited the field of people who are able to meaningfully listen to the Spirit.
So Ted, I am convinced that in spite of all your explanations you haven’t solved the practical problems that you bring up, and you haven’t sufficiently (for me) explained away the texts.
Well, I’m not trying to “explain away the texts.” I mean, that’s the whole point. Isn’t that what good congregationalists like to do with 1 Cor. 1:10? WinkDon’t you think it is a far stretch, given the context of 1 Corinthians, to argue that is somehow about church polity and decision making? Corinthians wasn’t about polity and decision making. It was about pride. It was a congregation which Paul rebukes for failure to exercise congregational authority, and then speaks approvingly of them doing such by “the majority” (not the totality or unanimity). So I think 1 Cor 1:10 is not a passage in your favor. It is about belief and spiritual unity among proud and divisive people. Whether or not you are right on polity, 1 Cor 1:10 doesn’t address that issue.
And all this still doesn’t address the primary issue of unity and disagreement. You say that a split vote reveals that some one or some group is opposing the Spirit. But having a unanimous vote doesn’t necessarily change that, whether the congregation, the elders, or a single elder. Anyone can be opposing the Spirit’s sovereign will, even in good conscience. And limiting input is the surest way to make sure you don’t hear anything that the Spirit might use to persuade you other wise. It seems to me that unless we believe that either we know it all or the Spirit is giving special revelation, we are better off seeking the input of others. So my point is that your system doesn’t solve the very problem you are trying to solve.
Acts 11:22 - There is a Greek mismatch in the singular “church” and plural “they sent” - Luke’s consistent Greek on this matter is established in Acts 9:31 where both church and verbs are singular. Therefore the “they sent” is almost certainly the “elders” of Acts 11:30.I won’t respond to all your answers now, Ted, but just take this one example. There is no Greek mismatch. Though a singular noun normally takes a singular verb, that is not always the case, e.g.:
“So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6:7, NIV)
polus te ochlos ton hieron hypekouon te pistei (pertinent Greek section). Here, as in several other places, the singular noun takes the plural verb. It makes sense in English as well as in Greek. See also Luke 6:19. Daniel Wallace calls this “The Collective Singular Subject with the Plural Verb.” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 401). Robertson gives similar examples.
I take issue with you that the agreement of the number of subject and verb: “the church had peace” in Acts 9:31 creates a precedent for Acts 11:22. “the news came to … the church in Jerusalem, and they sent …” These constructions are not the same at all. But in any case, the singular noun does not always have to take a singular verb.
Moreover, to say that “they sent” refers “the elders” is only conjecture, nothing more.
I would be willing to know what a professor of Greek would say about the grammar of this passage, but I don’t think he would conclude that “and they sent” could not refer to the whole church.
Jeff Brown
[Jeff] There is no Greek mismatch [in Acts 11:22]. Though a singular noun normally takes a singular verb, that is not always the caseBut in every case a singular noun and plural verb is a mismatch, technically speaking. Apart from idiomatic phrases, it causes the reader to look for a matched pair of noun and verb. Acts 11:22 is not idiomatic, and every other occurrence of this verb (send) in Luke-Acts reflects agreement in number and subject.
[Jeff] “So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6:7, NIV)I know there are instances of this mismatch, but this isn’t one of them. In Acts 6:7 the plural noun, “priests,” is matched by a plural verb in the Greek, “becoming obedient.” Luke 6:19 is an idiom – “all the crowd was seeking” But Luke 8:40 shows that when the word “crowd” is not with the adjective “all,” its accompanying verb “welcomed” is likewise singular (cf. Luke 13:17, Acts 16:22).
Here, as in several other places, the singular noun takes the plural verb. It makes sense in English as well as in Greek.
Moreover, to say that “they sent” refers “the elders” is only conjecture, nothing more.I agree, brother, but not irrational :bigsmile: .
[Larry] Don’t you think it is a far stretch, given the context of 1 Corinthians, to argue that is somehow about church polity and decision making? Corinthians wasn’t about polity and decision making. It was about pride. It was a congregation which Paul rebukes for failure to exercise congregational authority, and then speaks approvingly of them doing such by “the majority” (not the totality or unanimity). So I think 1 Cor 1:10 is not a passage in your favor. It is about belief and spiritual unity among proud and divisive people. Whether or not you are right on polity, 1 Cor 1:10 doesn’t address that issue.Should we vote on which part of “but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” doesn’t include being complete in congregational decision making? If most agree with you, then does that justify explaining that text away?
And all this still doesn’t address the primary issue of unity and disagreement. You say that a split vote reveals that some one or some group is opposing the Spirit. But having a unanimous vote doesn’t necessarily change that, whether the congregation, the elders, or a single elder. Anyone can be opposing the Spirit’s sovereign will, even in good conscience. And limiting input is the surest way to make sure you don’t hear anything that the Spirit might use to persuade you other wise. It seems to me that unless we believe that either we know it all or the Spirit is giving special revelation, we are better off seeking the input of others. So my point is that your system doesn’t solve the very problem you are trying to solve.Who wants to limit relevant input? Who said having a unanimous vote makes certain the will of the Holy Spirit is followed? What problem do you think I’m trying to solve, mi hermano in Christo??
Thanks Ted.
The whole book of 1 Corinthians is not about decision making (though the only non-apostolic decisions made in 1 Corinthians are made by the congregation). So whatever your position or my position is, this text doesn’t address it. (BTW, a church can have a split vote and still be of one mind, the one mind being that we are going forward together in deference to the majority, as evidenced by 1 Corinthians.)
I think you have argued that a church should be unified (no different opinions about what a church should do), and that the expression of those opinions is an expression of disunity and gives people an opportunity to oppose the Spirit. By extension it seems that a unanimous vote is an expression of your claims about 1 Cor 1:10, but the congregation could be without division and still be wrong.
The bottom line is stil that if people disagree with a course of action by the elder, there is disunity whether or not they voice it by voting or not. The question, no matter what, is what do we do when people disagree? I think congregational unity says that we go forward together, even if I voted the other way.
Should we vote on which part of “but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” doesn’t include being complete in congregational decision making?No, I think reading the text in its context is sufficient ;)
If most agree with you, then does that justify explaining that text away?Who’s explaining anything away? When you see a passage that refers to congregational action, you explain it away by saying that it doesn’t really mean congregational action. But this passage doesn’t refer to congregation action. So saying that it doesn’t refer to congregational action isn’t explaining anything away because it isn’t there to begin with.
The whole book of 1 Corinthians is not about decision making (though the only non-apostolic decisions made in 1 Corinthians are made by the congregation). So whatever your position or my position is, this text doesn’t address it. (BTW, a church can have a split vote and still be of one mind, the one mind being that we are going forward together in deference to the majority, as evidenced by 1 Corinthians.)
Who wants to limit relevant input?It sounds like you do by omitting the input of the congregation and insisting that they follow the elders.
Who said having a unanimous vote makes certain the will of the Holy Spirit is followed?My point is that it doesn’t. So failing to have a vote because a split vote reveals some not following the Spirit doesn’t address the matter. It simply denies the legitimacy of the work of the Spirit in an individual who is not an elder. That point is that even if all the elders agree on which direction the church should go, that doesn’t mean that it is the leading of the Spirit.
I think you have argued that a church should be unified (no different opinions about what a church should do), and that the expression of those opinions is an expression of disunity and gives people an opportunity to oppose the Spirit. By extension it seems that a unanimous vote is an expression of your claims about 1 Cor 1:10, but the congregation could be without division and still be wrong.
What problem do you think I’m trying to solve, mi hermano in Christo??yOu seem to be trying to solve the problem of congregational disunity by preventing the congregation from speaking. Apart from all the Scriptural evidence for congregationalism, I don’t think removing the congregation from the decision-making process works anyway. In other words, you are trying to prevent something (congregational disunity) by doing something that doesn’t actually prevent congregational disuinity.
The bottom line is stil that if people disagree with a course of action by the elder, there is disunity whether or not they voice it by voting or not. The question, no matter what, is what do we do when people disagree? I think congregational unity says that we go forward together, even if I voted the other way.
[Larry] Who’s explaining anything away? When you see a passage that refers to congregational action, you explain it away by saying that it doesn’t really mean congregational action. But this passage doesn’t refer to congregation action. So saying that it doesn’t refer to congregational action isn’t explaining anything away because it isn’t there to begin with.Christ’s command to the congregation in 1 Cor. 1:10 to be in complete agreement in the same judgment doesn’t relate to congregational decision making? :O Judgments aren’t decisions? :~
And where did this “congregational action” requirement come from? Jesus can’t command His church to obey His standards without first giving them some action to decide? :cry:
Fact is, the Corinthians were already acting congregationally prior to 1 Corinthians and independently disobeying Christ by not disciplining the immoral man in 1 Cor. 5. Paul stripped them of their autonomy and forced them to honor Christ and discipline out the man.
Would it be OK with you if you were in the Corinthian church and, after receiving 1 Corinthians a majority of the congregation had said, “let’s vote on whether we should discipline?” As a committed congregationalist, I suspect your answer is “yes.”
So what if you and the majority had voted to discipline the man, but a minority had voted NOT to? Wouldn’t the minority need to repent? And if they didn’t, would you start church discipline since they have disobeyed Christ (1 Cor. 5:13) and are as much leaven to the church as the immoral man (1 Cor. 5:7)?
And would you obey Christ and put out those who steadfastly refused to repent for voting no? :Sp
Ted, so many of your arguments are not relevant.
Not relevant:
- What would happen if, after the congregation made the decision, they made it again the next day
- What disobedient congregations do when they vote to disobey
- General calls to unity
Here’s why they are not relevant:
1- We’re talking about how a decision is made. If it is open to being revoted, it has not really been made. Secondly: what if the elders made a decision and the next day changed their minds? The point simply doesn’t argue for one approach more than the other.
2- Nobody is recommending that churches vote to disobey the Bible. But this, too, is moot because you can cite the same kinds of examples and raise the same what-ifs in reference to elders: what if the elders decide to disobey the Bible?
3- The calls to unity are not commands to every believer to have the same opinion on every matter that must be decided. The question is not whether it’s “OK to disobey” the command to unity, the command is simply not what you have construed it to be. Secondly, unity occurs when the body agrees to abide the decision made by the whole—just as, in your model, it occurs when the body decides to abide by the decision of the elders. I guarantee they are not changing their minds because the elders said so. They are accepting the decision and not opposing it. The same occurs when the body accepts the decision of the body.
To make a case for one method of local church decision making over another method, what one has to do is make a case for the superiority of one method compared to the others. To do that, there are several valid arguments…
1- Arguments that identify a biblical weakness in one method that does not exist in the preferred method
2- Arguments that identify a biblical strength in the preferred method that does not exist in the alternatives
3- Arguments that identify negative practical results that are unique to the alternative method(s)
4- Arguments that identify positive practical results that are unique to the preferred method
… and others, no doubt.
But arguments that identify weaknesses that exist for one method just as much as the other are not valid, no matter how numerous or passionate. Neither side can claim these in defense of their method.
Not relevant:
- What would happen if, after the congregation made the decision, they made it again the next day
- What disobedient congregations do when they vote to disobey
- General calls to unity
Here’s why they are not relevant:
1- We’re talking about how a decision is made. If it is open to being revoted, it has not really been made. Secondly: what if the elders made a decision and the next day changed their minds? The point simply doesn’t argue for one approach more than the other.
2- Nobody is recommending that churches vote to disobey the Bible. But this, too, is moot because you can cite the same kinds of examples and raise the same what-ifs in reference to elders: what if the elders decide to disobey the Bible?
3- The calls to unity are not commands to every believer to have the same opinion on every matter that must be decided. The question is not whether it’s “OK to disobey” the command to unity, the command is simply not what you have construed it to be. Secondly, unity occurs when the body agrees to abide the decision made by the whole—just as, in your model, it occurs when the body decides to abide by the decision of the elders. I guarantee they are not changing their minds because the elders said so. They are accepting the decision and not opposing it. The same occurs when the body accepts the decision of the body.
To make a case for one method of local church decision making over another method, what one has to do is make a case for the superiority of one method compared to the others. To do that, there are several valid arguments…
1- Arguments that identify a biblical weakness in one method that does not exist in the preferred method
2- Arguments that identify a biblical strength in the preferred method that does not exist in the alternatives
3- Arguments that identify negative practical results that are unique to the alternative method(s)
4- Arguments that identify positive practical results that are unique to the preferred method
… and others, no doubt.
But arguments that identify weaknesses that exist for one method just as much as the other are not valid, no matter how numerous or passionate. Neither side can claim these in defense of their method.
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.
I deleted almost everything I was going to write (and it’s a good thing), but I’m appalled by the sheer linguistic incompetence evidenced by one not-to-be-named person in this thread. I frankly can’t believe that seminaries let people graduate who are so deficient in their abilities.
As someone who is proficient in reading, writing, teaching, and recently speaking ancient Greek (mostly Attic and Koine), I implore people who would not feel comfortable sitting down and reading pages on end of Greek with relative ease: don’t talk about what the Greek means.
As someone who is proficient in reading, writing, teaching, and recently speaking ancient Greek (mostly Attic and Koine), I implore people who would not feel comfortable sitting down and reading pages on end of Greek with relative ease: don’t talk about what the Greek means.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion