By Jeff Brown on
Church Polity

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.

  1. To stretch forth the hand (and thus vote)
  2. To select (without explaining how)
  3. 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:

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Discussion

Wed, 07/13/11
Jeff – thanks for the article. Your clarity is unsurpassed and attention to detail brings sobriety and confidence to all you say!

I do want to respond but before I do, I just want to remind your readers that your articles on voting are a response to my April 6, 2011 article on Sharper Iron, “Is Congregational Voting Biblical?” My answer was “no,” because the there aren’t any commands or examples of congregational votes in the NT.

However, your article above is sober and worthy of serious consideration. Essentially, you identify the 2 Cor. 8:19 as an ‘affirmation’ vote – a simple “up or down” vote (cf. Lohse, TDNT, “cheirotoneo”). Either the Corinthians would approve of Aristarchus(?) to take the money to Jerusalem with Paul, or not. I agree with your judgment! But we need to go further, for when we do, I think we will discover that the congregational vote in 2 Cor. 8:19 is very far from the kind of voting that goes on in churches today.

#1 – The 2 Cor. 8:19 vote had no authority whatsoever. If the Corinthians had voted “no” on Aristarchus, it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was still going to Jerusalem with Paul, bringing the money. The ”up or down” vote wasn’t for Aristarchus but for them. Paul was giving them an opportunity to identify themselves with his mission to Jerusalem and to let the Jerusalem church know they identified with them too. Again, their vote had no authority! As a result - 2 Cor. 8:19 - which at first looks to some as a support for congregational voting and congregational authority ends up undermining congregational polity. Here is the only clear example of a congregation vote in some manner in the NT, and its purpose was to align the church under Paul.

#2 – let’s take Kevin Bauder’s article on July 11, 2011 (2 days ago) and apply it here. He writes
“An “is” never constitutes an “ought.” Sound theological method draws a sharp distinction between historical narrative and didactic requirement.”
Is Paul teaching that churches should vote in 2 Cor. 8:19? Congregationalists say ‘yes’ and load the 2 Cor. 8:19 vote up to look like what goes on today in churches. But they violate Kevin’s words,
First, we must rely upon biblical teachings rather than examples. In other words, we look for didactic texts rather than historical narratives. Our evidence should aim to be normative rather than descriptive (we should base our theology on ought statements rather than is statements).

Second, we must support our theology from clear passages rather than obscure ones. Of course, we may debate which passages are really clearest. Too often we assume that a passage is clear if it supports our preconceived notions, but it is obscure if it appears to contradict them. A better way of understanding clarity is this: a clear passage is one that permits only one likely interpretation, while an obscure passage might permit two or more plausible interpretations. When evaluating evidence, we must grant decisive weight to the former kind of passage rather than the latter.

Third, we must look for evidence that aims to address the question we are asking rather than evidence that is marginal or tangential. It is poor practice to base our theology upon passages that merely address our question incidentally. Rather, we should locate the passages that aim to deal with the topic in which we are interested.
Like I said in my original article, there is no command anywhere for Jesus or an apostle to do church votes. Have you answered for yourself the question of “why not?”

#3 – Gee, idk, I would get really queasy trying to support congregational voting from the NT… don’t you? I mean, here you have the thinnest of evidence - the usage of cheirotoneo in the NT (Acts 14:21, 2 Cor. 8:19) and have had to back off both of them as teaching the kind of voting that churches do today. But you still support congregational voting as a NT doctrine, and cheirotoneo is one of your best supports? Again, let’s use Kevin’s post on how to arrive at biblical theology and apply it to church polity. There are no commands in the NT for congregations to vote. Yet there are commands and examples of a plurality of elders who are appointed by apostolic pattern and measures (Titus 1:5-9, 1 Tim. 5:22). They are not appointed by the congregation but by those who are likewise biblically qualified to make such appointments. Congregational votes, such as are practiced today, only mess the apostolic pattern up. For some reason when it comes to congregationalism good men flee the didactic and rely on the thinnest of biblical evidence. It’s no different than paedo-baptists relying on the thin evidence of ‘household baptisms including infants’ to help prove their doctrine.

#4 – Why not examine in detail the matter of a plurality of elders who quite clearly have full-charge authority in the church? Here you have an amazing array of not merely single words in isolated texts, nor even single verses, but entire paragraphs to study! Go to Acts, the pastoral epistles, 1 Peter 5:1-4. There are words to study too. Words like “have charge over you” “esteem them highly in love”, and “obey” “submit” (1 Thes. 5:12-13 and Heb. 13:17). Check out why John the apostle calls himself an “elder” and not an “apostle” in 3 John. It governs the whole book! God tells us exactly how the congregation is to relate to leaders, and never once does a congregation have the right to elect and depose. Instead they have to power of Scripture to call their leaders to obey God. Why is that insufficient?

#5 – Did Martin Luther want women voting in the church?…..

Yours for the gospel - Ted

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time today, Ted. So I will only answer part of your comment. First, I sincerely thank you for your compliments. I am amazed that anyone would say that about anything I have written, ever.

Second, your articles on voting provided the occasion, but not the motivation for what I have written. All the articles I have written follow the general outline of my dissertation. That is now two years old, and I am expecting will go the way of most other dissertations and gather dust on a shelf or two. So I had had in mind to try to create something that would not require a lot of time and energy, yet give readers somewhere, the essence of what I have written. My writing is about how groups in the NT church made decisions. I find that a lot of writers make statements about polity substantiated only by what someone else has written (what Sovereign Grace Ministries says about elders and synagogues is a prime example). For nearly 30 years I also have heard and read a lot from people who are of my persuasion complaining about attacks on congregationalism. But the moment someone does extensive research and writes about it, their response is usually ho-hum. Maybe they just like to carp, or maybe they are waiting to write the mother of all polity books themselves. At least here, some have had a chance to read part of what I have found out, and I feel I have fulfilled an obligation. Your articles were the occasion, not the motivation.

I am a congregationalist, but I did not do my dissertation to prove congregationalism. My professor, Kevin Bauder, would not have allowed that. I wanted to find out what the NT said about group decisions. At the doctoral level, this requires nowadays an interaction with scholarship on the Social World of the New Testament. You will note that a little in what I have written here and there. One thing studies in the social world of the New Testament tell us is that democratic-type of activity, including voting was a normal thing in the New Testament world, including among Jewish groups and communities.

If Paul had had any horror at the the idea of voting, he surely would have laid out its offensiveness to God in very plain terms. He did not. BUT THIS IS REALLY NOT MY POINT. I am concerned at how and why groups made decisions in the New Testament. The New Testament does not say what method was used - except in 2 Corinthians 8:19. My dissertation devotes several pages to cheirotoneo. That is because it is forever brought up in commentaries and in polity or leadership books. In short, I think that I have well demonstrated that it should be translated “select” in Acts 14:23 and “elect” in 2 Corinthians 8:19. I would not for a moment suggest that my conclusion is the final word, but I could be convinced to change my views only on the basis of a study of every instance of the word in extant Greek literature, with application to the two verses in question. And frankly, I know that there are scholars so good, that if I am going at it wrong, they could thoroughly shred my conclusions. But my expectiation, through an initial study, causes me to anticipate that the translations will come out like I have given them. This word, is however, a small part of the whole subject which is my interest: group decision-making in the New Testament.

I have run out of time, and will stop.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
I really have not given the full reason why I am rather convinced that churches in NT times voted. That is a conclusion I would draw from all the instances in which the Bible records that churches decided as a group on issues, or that they are instructed to decide on issues as a group. In all I have written, I have only referenced these instances one time. Because churches in the NT made decisions as a group, I am rather convinced that they voted sometimes. Other groups around them did so. Voting is simply one method of group decision-making. But voting or not voting is not all that important. That churches make decisions as a group is.

There is a command in the NT specifically to vote. I just wrote about it.

The instructions about fitness for ministry in Titus 1 (and 1 Timothy 3) are not given to determine who may choose leaders, but to know what sort of leaders are to be chosen. And 1 Timothy 5:22 poses no conflict with a congregation choosing elders (vote or no vote). Laying on hands does not mean choose for office. I am willing to be corrected, but I don’t think that one can make a case that laying on hands ever means “choose” either in the OT or the NT. cheiras epitithei is not equivalent to cheitotoneou.

Kevin Bauder’s discussion about hermeneutics in his most recent “Nick of Time” is not new for him. He may have changed his mind about my arguments in the meantime, but but when I defended my dissertation he thought they were convincing. I agree with the point, Ted, that it is dangerous to build a doctrine on one verse. But I think you have misunderstood what I was doing with my two-part article. I was explaining how I think the word cheirotoneo in its two instances ought to be translated. Conclusion: Barnabas and Paul “selected” elders in the churches they had founded. Paul instructed believers in the church in Corinth to vote about the man who would carry their money. Further conclusions require a lot more of the Bible.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
Jeff – you wouldn’t build a doctrine on a single verse, or even a series of disparate verses that simply appear to present a theme. I think I know you well enough for that. I doubt your hermeneutics and mine are different at all. And yet we’ve arrived at really different destinations on church polity. How does that happen?

Well, of course we all read Scripture through our experience, even if we do recognize when and where we are reading experiences into Scripture. We are also inconsistent in interpretation. And yes, those who are our teachers are incredibly powerful on our convictions. And then there is the problem of making good applications from valid interpretations.

Still, with those caveats, I want to make the point again: if you follow Kevin’s 3 points you will never arrive at congregational authority as taught in congregationalism, or voting as a wise decision making polity in church. Up until now my argument has been almost exclusively negative – showing how the NT offers such negligible evidence for the practice, and how various Scriptures forbid it (Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Tim. 5:17-22, 3 John).

But I don’t really dwell on those negative argument for not voting in my church because the real issue is moral. Procedures are secondary. The real issue is decision-making.

So allow me to present a positive argument for a decision-making process in the church that rejects voting – 1 Cor. 1:10: “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.” Christ requires us to make decisions in a way that produces 100% agreement. This means every time your church holds a vote that results in less than 100% unanimity it violates the express command of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, for it is not united in the same mind and judgment. It doesn’t get a pass because of where it is or what denominational affiliation it holds. It doesn’t even matter what happened in 1st Century culture, or even what the church of Corinth actually practiced. God’s standard supersedes that and is exceeding clear. And in case we miss the message in 1 Cor. 1:10, we have a vast amount of riches to teach us congregational decision making – Eph. 4:1-6, Phil. 2:1-5 for starters. The process of congregational voting, as practiced in the present day (parliamentary procedure) works against these utterly clear biblical principles that maximize preferring others before self and learning humility and submission.

Eldership doesn’t merely tip the hat to these principles but relies entirely upon them for all decision-making at both congregation and elder levels. A church with qualified elders who humbly submit to Scripture and each other will be a church that knows great peace. I’ve pastored in 2 congregational churches and 2 eldership churches. I’ve also been a member in large and small of both kinds. Only eldership makes possible an environment in which 1 Cor. 1:10 can be lived out.
[Jeff]

The instructions about fitness for ministry in Titus 1 (and 1 Timothy 3) are not given to determine who may choose leaders….
Well, we should probably take notice one thing - in neither case did Paul ask the congregation to chose, right? Then, what happened when Timothy left Ephesus, and Titus left Crete? each church would have watched other godly leaders do the work of appointing further leaders (1 Tim. 5:22, Titus 1:5). If Paul wanted congregations electing and deposing their leaders, why didn’t he just tell those congregations to do it?

Who appointed the future elders in those churches? The elders themselves - they “rule” (1 Tim. 3:3-4, 5:17), are the “stewards of God” (Titus 1:7). The congregational conclusion is that Paul wants these men to lead, rule, and be stewards over everything - but “Oh yeah, don’t lead, rule, and be stewards of the future leadership appointments!”

Scripture drives the point further. Qualified leaders “have charge over you” (1 Thes. 5:13), have full charge governmental leadership over the church (Heb. 13:17). They alone “oversee” (1 Tim. 3:1, 1 Peter 5:2). To hand over the power to elect and depose leaders removes their “rule” “stewardship” and “oversight.”

Going back to Bauder’s excellent on how to derive good theology, not once, not ever, did the apostles ask, encourage, or give a single example to the congregation to appoint their leaders. Further, given a proper historic understanding of 1 Timothy (a divided elder board in Ephesus with some unqualified elders still on it - cf. 1 Tim. 1:20) and Titus (complete church reformation in every town - cf. Titus 1:5), it is easy to understand the need for Timothy and Titus doing the appointing in their respective environments and establishing the pattern that those elder boards would follow in the future.

In your study on congregational decision making, did you study the implications of voting and 1 Cor. 1:10?
[Jeff] There is a command in the NT specifically to vote. I just wrote about it.
2 Cor. 8:19? That’s a command for churches to vote?, and is an apologia for you that Jesus Christ wants churches voting to arrive at decisions? You must have other Scriptures in your hip pocket.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
FWIW, I don’t see why we need a command to vote.

I’m still where I was when we began this debate a few months ago (though several of the whys and wherefores are more clear to me… the debate has been instructive for me): there is clear instruction to group decision making by congregations and the will of the majority must be measured in some way, ergo, the vote. The data on cheirontoneo just further supports an already strong argument, IMO.

But, to clarify, my position is not that it’s right for a church to vote to do wrong. Nor does a church vote to decide what to do when God has already provided the instructions clearly. Rather, churches vote to decide together how to apply the instructions they have to the group as a whole. Much as individuals must discern how to apply Scripture in their personal lives and parents must decide how to apply Scriptures to their families, congregations must decide to apply Scripture to congregations. They do this best with the active leadership of pastor(s) in the form of teaching, initiative, encouragement.

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.

Wed, 07/13/11
[Aaron Blumer] the will of the majority must be measured in some way, ergo, the vote.
2 questions, Aaron. Why “must it be measured?” And, where do you find this “must” in Scripture?

OK - 3 questions - how do you reconcile “the will of the majority” with the will of Christ for unanimity in 1 Cor. 1:10?
[Aaron] congregations must decide to apply Scripture to congregations. They do this best with the active leadership of pastor(s) in the form of teaching, initiative, encouragement.
But not by elders fulfilling their Scriptural mandate of “having charge,” “ruling,” and “overseeing?” We don’t practice this “must” at our church, but ask our people to support the elders’ decisions, give, serve, counsel, inform, rebuke when necessary, and all the other obligations we as individual believers have toward each other. We have Scripture to support both us and them (Heb. 13:17, 1 Thes. 5:12-13). Are we wrong?

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Ted Bigelow] #1 – The 2 Cor. 8:19 vote had no authority whatsoever. If the Corinthians had voted “no” on Aristarchus, it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was still going to Jerusalem with Paul, bringing the money. The ”up or down” vote wasn’t for Aristarchus but for them. Paul was giving them an opportunity to identify themselves with his mission to Jerusalem and to let the Jerusalem church know they identified with them too. Again, their vote had no authority! As a result - 2 Cor. 8:19 - which at first looks to some as a support for congregational voting and congregational authority ends up undermining congregational polity. Here is the only clear example of a congregation vote in some manner in the NT, and its purpose was to align the church under Paul.
Ted, I frankly find this explanation unbelievable, in all its parts.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
[Ted Bigelow]

Why not examine in detail the matter of a plurality of elders who quite clearly have full-charge authority in the church? Here you have an amazing array of not merely single words in isolated texts, nor even single verses, but entire paragraphs to study! Go to Acts, the pastoral epistles, 1 Peter 5:1-4. There are words to study too. Words like “have charge over you” “esteem them highly in love”, and “obey” “submit” (1 Thes. 5:12-13 and Heb. 13:17). Check out why John the apostle calls himself an “elder” and not an “apostle” in 3 John. It governs the whole book! God tells us exactly how the congregation is to relate to leaders, and never once does a congregation have the right to elect and depose. Instead they have to power of Scripture to call their leaders to obey God. Why is that insufficient?
I have studied every passage on elders in the NT, in Greek, I think rather thoroughly. I have taught through every one of them. I have preached on most of them.

Here are some of the books I have read on Elders in Scripture: Crouch, A Biblical Theology of the Church; Getz, Sharpening the Focus of the Church and Elders and Leaders; MacArthur, Answering Key Questions about Elders (pamphlet) and TMaster’s Plan for the Church; Strauch, Biblical Eldership; Clowney, The Church (section on church government); Robert Reymond’s and James White’s chapters in Perspectives on Church Government; Dever, Nine Marks of the Healthy Church (chapter on church leadership). All of them stress multiple elders. Most of them reject the idea that the congregation has any say in choice or rejection of elders. I have also carefully read the ecclesiastical sections of the theologies of Berkof, Calvin, Erckson, Grudem, Hodge, Shedd, Turretin, (most of which stress eldership). I haven’t mentioned the numerous commentary sections and journal articles in my library and files on the subject which are well-marked.

I have obviously studied the matter of Elders in the New Testament quite thoroughly already, and continue to study it. We differ.

As I see it, our difference is this: your beginning thought for church order is elders. My beginning thought is the Lordship of Christ: His relationship to all in His church and the relationship of believers to one another. You continually stress that if we would understand the authority of elders, we would have church order straight (and of course would forbid votes in our churches). But I reject the idea that elders are the centerpiece of church order.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown]
[Ted Bigelow] #1 – The 2 Cor. 8:19 vote had no authority whatsoever. If the Corinthians had voted “no” on Aristarchus, it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was still going to Jerusalem with Paul, bringing the money. The ”up or down” vote wasn’t for Aristarchus but for them. Paul was giving them an opportunity to identify themselves with his mission to Jerusalem and to let the Jerusalem church know they identified with them too. Again, their vote had no authority! As a result - 2 Cor. 8:19 - which at first looks to some as a support for congregational voting and congregational authority ends up undermining congregational polity. Here is the only clear example of a congregation vote in some manner in the NT, and its purpose was to align the church under Paul.
Ted, I frankly find this explanation unbelievable, in all its parts.
I agree with the plurality of elders perspective, but I am in agreement with Jeff here. Ted, please substantiate how you derive at your understanding of this passage. Where does the text and/or context indicate that their vote wouldn’t have mattered, or that this was a token vote for them to “identify themselves with [Paul’s] mission.”

Wed, 07/13/11
[T Howard]
[Jeff Brown]
[Ted Bigelow] #1 – The 2 Cor. 8:19 vote had no authority whatsoever. If the Corinthians had voted “no” on Aristarchus, it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. He was still going to Jerusalem with Paul, bringing the money. The ”up or down” vote wasn’t for Aristarchus but for them. Paul was giving them an opportunity to identify themselves with his mission to Jerusalem and to let the Jerusalem church know they identified with them too. Again, their vote had no authority! As a result - 2 Cor. 8:19 - which at first looks to some as a support for congregational voting and congregational authority ends up undermining congregational polity. Here is the only clear example of a congregation vote in some manner in the NT, and its purpose was to align the church under Paul.
Ted, I frankly find this explanation unbelievable, in all its parts.
I agree with the plurality of elders perspective, but I am in agreement with Jeff here. Ted, please substantiate how you derive at your understanding of this passage. Where does the text and/or context indicate that their vote wouldn’t have mattered, or that this was a token vote for them to “identify themselves with [Paul’s] mission.”
All I’m saying is this: had the Corinthians voted themselves on the brother to go to Jerusalem – as the other churches of Macedonia had done – it was to show their alignment under Paul’s choice of him since the brother was still going. He was already chosen by Paul. The Greek does not include an infinitive of result as English translations do: “to travel” but simply “our traveling (companion)”

“In this passage, the selection process seems to imply congregational action rather than administrative appointment” (Kent, Heart Opened Wide, 136). Kent was Grace Brethren, believed in congregational voting, and he’s probably right. Paul chose that man to go with him not predicated on the votes of men but on the man’s character (2 Cor. 8:18). The man “travels with us” to “show our good will” (to the Jewish Church). So why the votes? Paul wanted the gift to be above reproach before any Gentile critics (8:20-21) and to be above the accusation that he may have profited by it. An affirmation vote (Lohse, TDNT, 9:347) (non-authoritative, but simply to show support) is the only appropriate vote to show support for those traveling with Paul.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
Now, it may be that Paul chose the man too, I will not dispute that. But the Bible does not say that Paul chose him. It only says in 2 Corinthians 8:19 that the man was chosen (cheirotonetheis) by the churches. Check most any English translation. Did the believers align themselves with Paul? Did they voice agreement with Paul? Did they vote for both the man and Paul? Did they simply affirm Paul’s plan? The text does not say this. It only says that they voted for the man to accompany Paul. That is all. And regarding v.18, which came first, Paul’s decision to send the man along with Titus to Corinth, or the choosing of the man by the other churches? Does Paul say in v.18 that he chose the man on the basis of his character, or that the churches were convinced of the man’s character? “And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel.” (NIV)

It also makes perfect sense that the churches would each vote for the man who would handle their money. In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul tells the church in Corinth to choose reliable people from their church to take the offering. In fact, Paul says that they are to be confirmed from the Corinthian church by letter: a common practice for people who carried money for others in that day. The Jewish pattern for taking donations to Jerusalem in Paul’s day was, that each community chose representatives to carry their money there (Philo, Spec. 1.78). Would it be at all strange that Paul would use a procedure basically demanded by both Jew and Gentile in that day? By the time of the second letter to the Corinthians, the situation had changed. For whatever reason, Paul’s method has shifted to one person, instead of someone from each church (perhaps because threats on his life required a more simple procedure?). Still, the vote on the carrier would have been the normal practice for any group of people giving funds to be transported. It is also possible that the one man was voted on by the Macedonian churches, and the Corinthian church would still send along the money carriers they had selected. This point is somewhat unclear. In any case, the churches chose whoever carried the money. “I affirm you” had little to do with financial accountability either than or now. How you could call this event non-authoritative is beyond my comprehension.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
So allow me to present a positive argument for a decision-making process in the church that rejects voting – 1 Cor. 1:10: “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.” Christ requires us to make decisions in a way that produces 100% agreement. This means every time your church holds a vote that results in less than 100% unanimity it violates the express command of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, for it is not united in the same mind and judgment. It doesn’t get a pass because of where it is or what denominational affiliation it holds. It doesn’t even matter what happened in 1st Century culture, or even what the church of Corinth actually practiced. God’s standard supersedes that and is exceeding clear.
Gene Getz, one of the most well-known writers on the subject of Elder rule held pretty much this view originally. Then he realized that he was stifiling his elders’ honesty. He still did not believe in the members voting, but he introduced the idea that his elders do it. The result was a lot more honest talking of the elders with one-another. Voting thus promoted honesty in his church.

I have discussed the principle of unity within the context of church order in my book, Form and Freedom (available at Amazon for anyone reading this), and cite at least 15 passages which talk about it: “To be of one mind does not mean that no differing viewpoints are allowed. Rather, it means that differing viewpoints are subordinated to the purpose of the Gospel and the testimony of Christ … . Unity of purpose in the local church does not arise from convincing ourselves that we don’t have any differences, to repeat: the local church patterned after the New Testament is a diverse group. Nor is unity achieved when differing viewpoints are muzzled, or criticism is disallowed… . It will not be a unity in the Holy Spirit.” (71)

A vote is simply a method of expressing one’s viewpoint. Romans 14, in fact, allows for differing viewpoints and requires Christians to respect them. No passages about church unity forbid or discourage believers from expressing differing viewpoints. If a vote comes out not 100%, no unity is damaged in any way. The damage comes when believers decide they are going to go ahead and do what they jolly well wanted to do anyway, regardless of how the rest of the body has spoken.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
Well, we should probably take notice one thing - in neither case did Paul ask the congregation to chose, right? Then, what happened when Timothy left Ephesus, and Titus left Crete? each church would have watched other godly leaders do the work of appointing further leaders (1 Tim. 5:22, Titus 1:5). If Paul wanted congregations electing and deposing their leaders, why didn’t he just tell those congregations to do it?
Please give us one verse where Scripture says that Elders appoint elders: exactly elders appoint elders.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
Scripture drives the point further. Qualified leaders “have charge over you” (1 Thes. 5:13), have full charge governmental leadership over the church (Heb. 13:17). They alone “oversee” (1 Tim. 3:1, 1 Peter 5:2). To hand over the power to elect and depose leaders removes their “rule” “stewardship” and “oversight.”
I agree that qualified leaders have charge over the congregation. I do not agree that elders embody all there is to government in a church.

In most places in the world where leaders are elected they have enormous capacity to rule. In churches where pastors are elected by the congregation, it is in fact not true that their rule, stewardship, and oversight are removed. The authority of a pastor or elder grows through his exercise of stewardship. It isn’t automatic, no matter how he gets placed there. On the other hand, “the power to depose leaders removes their rule stewardship and oversight” is a true statement, only when that power is exercised. In some cases, it is a needful exercise. In other cases, it has, like anything else been abused.

I know lots of pastors who were elected by their congregations. Your statement says that they have/had neither rule, stewardship, or oversight. I think you need to rework your statement. When applied it becomes patently false. Maybe you meant that differently.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown] Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time today, Ted. So I will only answer part of your comment. First, I sincerely thank you for your compliments. I am amazed that anyone would say that about anything I have written, ever.
I meant it. You are precise and well-thought. I appreciate the discussion.
[Jeff] At least here, some have had a chance to read part of what I have found out, and I feel I have fulfilled an obligation. Your articles were the occasion, not the motivation.
Yes. You were waiting, huh? ;)
If Paul had had any horror at the the idea of voting, he surely would have laid out its offensiveness to God in very plain terms. He did not. BUT THIS IS REALLY NOT MY POINT. I am concerned at how and why groups made decisions in the New Testament. The New Testament does not say what method was used - except in 2 Corinthians 8:19.
I too am concerned about Christ’s meek children making decisions in a manner that reflects their calling into His life. Voting doesn’t reflect that calling, and is not taught as the way congregations make decisions in Scripture. I’m happy to wrestle 2 Cor. 8:19 with you all day long, hoping that at some point you’ll cry “uncle.” because you are simply putting too much weight on it.

Have you ever pastored a church alongside other biblically qualified elders who collectively possess full charge authority over the church and make decisions based on the requirement of unanimity and preference (Phil 2:3-4)?

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown] Now, it may be that Paul chose the man too, I will not dispute that. But the Bible does not say that Paul chose him. It only says in 2 Corinthians 8:19 that the man was chosen (cheirotonetheis) by the churches. Check most any English translation. Did the believers align themselves with Paul? Did they voice agreement with Paul? Did they vote for both the man and Paul? Did they simply affirm Paul’s plan? The text does not say this. It only says that they voted for the man to accompany Paul. That is all. And regarding v.18, which came first, Paul’s decision to send the man along with Titus to Corinth, or the choosing of the man by the other churches? Does Paul say in v.18 that he chose the man on the basis of his character, or that the churches were convinced of the man’s character? “And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel.” (NIV)

It also makes perfect sense that the churches would each vote for the man who would handle their money. In 1 Corinthians 16, Paul tells the church in Corinth to choose reliable people from their church to take the offering. In fact, Paul says that they are to be confirmed from the Corinthian church by letter: a common practice for people who carried money for others in that day. The Jewish pattern for taking donations to Jerusalem in Paul’s day was, that each community chose representatives to carry their money there (Philo, Spec. 1.78). Would it be at all strange that Paul would use a procedure basically demanded by both Jew and Gentile in that day? By the time of the second letter to the Corinthians, the situation had changed. For whatever reason, Paul’s method has shifted to one person, instead of someone from each church (perhaps because threats on his life required a more simple procedure?). Still, the vote on the carrier would have been the normal practice for any group of people giving funds to be transported. It is also possible that the one man was voted on by the Macedonian churches, and the Corinthian church would still send along the money carriers they had selected. This point is somewhat unclear. In any case, the churches chose whoever carried the money. “I affirm you” had little to do with financial accountability either than or now. How you could call this event non-authoritative is beyond my comprehension.
You and i only differ on the matter of authority here, I think. So my question for you is this: Had the Corinthian church voted “NO” on the man Paul approved of, and the other churches approved of, would that man have been prevented from going to Jerusalem? This assumes they also, as a church, approved someone else to go with them (1 Cor. 16:3). However, their approach there seems to be more in line with deacon testing since Paul usesthe word for “testing” (cf. 1 Tim. 3:10) - an approach that can only work under the principle of unanimity, not voting.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown

I have studied every passage on elders in the NT, in Greek, I think rather thoroughly. I have taught through every one of them. I have preached on most of them.

Here are some of the books I have read on Elders in Scripture: Crouch, A Biblical Theology of the Church; Getz, Sharpening the Focus of the Church and Elders and Leaders; MacArthur, Answering Key Questions about Elders (pamphlet) and TMaster’s Plan for the Church; Strauch, Biblical Eldership; Clowney, The Church (section on church government); Robert Reymond’s and James White’s chapters in Perspectives on Church Government; Dever, Nine Marks of the Healthy Church (chapter on church leadership). All of them stress multiple elders. Most of them reject the idea that the congregation has any say in choice or rejection of elders. I have also carefully read the ecclesiastical sections of the theologies of Berkof, Calvin, Erckson, Grudem, Hodge, Shedd, Turretin, (most of which stress eldership). I haven’t mentioned the numerous commentary sections and journal articles in my library and files on the subject which are well-marked.

I have obviously studied the matter of Elders in the New Testament quite thoroughly already, and continue to study it. We differ.
Have you ever lived as an elder among elders - to whom you submit your ministry - and they their ministry to you - where you all have full-charge authority over the flock of God? No passages in the NT contradict this, yet many contradict the heart of congregationalism - i.e., Heb. 13:17. How can a congregation have authority to overturn an eldership decision - as congregationalism affirms - and still fulfill their obligation to “submit and obey” them?
As I see it, our difference is this: your beginning thought for church order is elders. My beginning thought is the Lordship of Christ: His relationship to all in His church and the relationship of believers to one another. You continually stress that if we would understand the authority of elders, we would have church order straight (and of course would forbid votes in our churches). But I reject the idea that elders are the centerpiece of church order.
I would like to challenge you on that. I believe the Lordship of Christ is in the Scripture being obeyed, not His union with His people (Mat. 4:4 vs. Rom. 6:6-7). :bigsmile:

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown]

Gene Getz, one of the most well-known writers on the subject of Elder rule held pretty much this view originally. Then he realized that he was stifiling his elders’ honesty. He still did not believe in the members voting, but he introduced the idea that his elders do it. The result was a lot more honest talking of the elders with one-another. Voting thus promoted honesty in his church.
I hope you are sitting down. I’m not opposed to voting among elders, so long as decisions are only made once godly unanimity is attained.
I have discussed the principle of unity within the context of church order in my book, Form and Freedom (available at Amazon for anyone reading this), and cite at least 15 passages which talk about it: “To be of one mind does not mean that no differing viewpoints are allowed. Rather, it means that differing viewpoints are subordinated to the purpose of the Gospel and the testimony of Christ … . Unity of purpose in the local church does not arise from convincing ourselves that we don’t have any differences, to repeat: the local church patterned after the New Testament is a diverse group. Nor is unity achieved when differing viewpoints are muzzled, or criticism is disallowed… . It will not be a unity in the Holy Spirit.” (71)
I have you book - its very well done - really thought provoking and even worship-provoking. Thanks for all your labor for our Lord Jesus Christ. I treasure it.

We still have to play 1 Cor. 1:10 as it lies - a unanimity that is commanded down to the inner reasonings: “same mind and same judgment.”
[Jeff] If a vote comes out not 100%, no unity is damaged in any way. The damage comes when believers decide they are going to go ahead and do what they jolly well wanted to do anyway, regardless of how the rest of the body has spoken.
Bodies don’t speak. Heads do. And when bodies do speak, it usually isn’t pretty.

Who believes the majority of a church is the church’s voice? Take the same vote a week later, and you may well get a different result. I would love for you to experience a unity that does away with church voting - where everybody in church is to determine what Christ say about any particular situation, and submits to His will.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown]
Well, we should probably take notice one thing - in neither case did Paul ask the congregation to chose, right? Then, what happened when Timothy left Ephesus, and Titus left Crete? each church would have watched other godly leaders do the work of appointing further leaders (1 Tim. 5:22, Titus 1:5). If Paul wanted congregations electing and deposing their leaders, why didn’t he just tell those congregations to do it?
Please give us one verse where Scripture says that Elders appoint elders: exactly elders appoint elders.
Sure. 1 Tim. 5:22 and Titus 1:5.

But wait! You say, Titus and Timothy weren’t elders, they were apostolic designates. Well they were that, but they were also elders.

Here’s how to see it. How could Timothy or Titus know if any man was truly qualified by all the qualifications (cf. 1 Tim. 5:22)? Because they were themselves that mature, and knew by Christian experience what it meant to be elder qualified. A congregation of Christians doesn’t know what it means to elder-qualified, and so can only guess at who is, and who isn’t. Every man appointed into eldership by a congregation is therefore appointed by presumption. Every elder appointed into eldership by men who are are themselves elder-qualified are appointed by Scripture, since that is what Scripture-sensitive elders measure other men by. They can relate to Paul’s admonition not to lay hands on anyone hastily, and know how not to do that - thorough elder-testing.

In the Bible you will always find leaders appointing other leaders except in cases of rebellion. In the NT this is true - Jesus appoints apostles, apostles appoint elders (Acts 14:23), apostolic designates appoint leaders (1 Tim. 5:22, Titus 1:5). So the principle is clear - leader appoint leaders.

Who is supposed to be in leadership in the local church? A group of elders. Who then should appoint future leadership in the local church? A group of elders.

You step out of the biblical world and outside of all Scriptural precedent when you ask the congregation to do the appointing. Ask yourself the question, “where does the NT ever show the congregation appointing its leaders? As well, reflect on 3 John - John, “the elder,” doesn’t ask the congregation to depose Diotrophes. Why not?

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
You and i only differ on the matter of authority here, I think. So my question for you is this: Had the Corinthian church voted “NO” on the man Paul approved of, and the other churches approved of, would that man have been prevented from going to Jerusalem? This assumes they also, as a church, approved someone else to go with them (1 Cor. 16:3).
I am not sure I understand your question. I will make an attempt to understand it. I assume you mean, that if every other church had approved of the man Paul mentions except the church in Corinth, would the man approved by every other church except by Corinth still go to Jerusalem carrying money? I did not live then. Neither did you. I assume he would have gone with the money from the other churches, but not the money from Corinth. I find this to be a silly question. Maybe you meant something else.

Ted, you left off with exegetical concerns and filled 2 Corinthians 8:19 with your own content a while back. Your explanation comes out contrary to what the text and near contest actually state. Now you try to come up with impossible situations to create contradictions. No need for me to cry uncle when you are wrestling with ghosts.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
Have you ever lived as an elder among elders - to whom you submit your ministry - and they their ministry to you - where you all have full-charge authority over the flock of God?
Ted, I have ministered together with other elders. We all submitted our ministry to one-another. God worked marvelously through us, and sometimes in spite of us. What is so unusual about that? But I would never, like you emphasize, keep the rest of the congregation from having any say about what I am doing, or whether I should continue as an elder.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
Bodies don’t speak. Heads do. And when bodies do speak, it usually isn’t pretty.

Who believes the majority of a church is the church’s voice? Take the same vote a week later, and you may well get a different result. I would love for you to experience a unity that does away with church voting - where everybody in church is to determine what Christ say about any particular situation, and submits to His will.
Really? Then why do we often read, “The congress has spoken,” “the parliment has spoken,” “the board has spoken,” “The American people have spoken,’” etc.? Is all that they have to offer ugliness.

The head of the church is Christ. He can speak through His church just as easily as He can through an elder.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
Here’s how to see it. How could Timothy or Titus know if any man was truly qualified by all the qualifications (cf. 1 Tim. 5:22)? Because they were themselves that mature, and knew by Christian experience what it meant to be elder qualified. A congregation of Christians doesn’t know what it means to elder-qualified, and so can only guess at who is, and who isn’t. Every man appointed into eldership by a congregation is therefore appointed by presumption. Every elder appointed into eldership by men who are are themselves elder-qualified are appointed by Scripture, since that is what Scripture-sensitive elders measure other men by. They can relate to Paul’s admonition not to lay hands on anyone hastily, and know how not to do that - thorough elder-testing.
I don’t think that you really believe this, Ted. Or perhaps you do, and do not preach from 1 Tim 3 to your congregation. I am convinced of the exact opposite of what you write. I have practiced my belief, which is contrary to what you write. I found the congregations quite capable of discerning who is elder-qualified, and selecting them. The Holy Spirit lives in each of the believers in the congregation, as well as in me. God has given each believer the capacity to understand the Bible. It isn’t just elders who are given the capacity to evaluate character. Their wives sometimes evlauate character better than they do. Some elders, in fact, are poor judges of character.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff] congregations are capable of discerning….

I don’t think that you really believe this, Ted. Or perhaps you do, and do not preach from 1 Tim 3 to your congregation. I am convinced of the exact opposite of what you write. I have practiced my belief, which is contrary to what you write. I found the congregations quite capable of discerning who is elder-qualified, and selecting them. The Holy Spirit lives in each of the believers in the congregation, as well as in me. God has given each believer the capacity to understand the Bible. It isn’t just elders who are given the capacity to evaluate character. Their wives sometimes evlauate character better than they do. Some elders, in fact, are poor judges of character.
Sorry, bro. Congregations don’t get a little extra Holy Spirit zap that covers their collective lack of maturity/discernment. Being greater in number doesn’t make up for less discernment.

God has been generous to give all have the same source for discernment - Scripture - and in our church, we require all to use it to judge potential elders. As an eldership church we rely more on congregational involvement than your congregational polity church. I explain how that is so in chapter 4 of my book.

If a man’s wife is more discerning than he on who should be in eldership - methinks the problem is not eldership but the elder.

You asked for texts on elders choosing elders. I complied (post 20).

I asked you for texts on congregations appointing elders. I got none.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown]

The head of the church is Christ. He can speak through His church just as easily as He can through an elder.
I don’t believe Christ speaks through the congregation. I don’t believe Christ speaks through the elders. Too much competition. Too much confusion.

I believe He only speaks through the Scriptures. That’s what makes Heb. 13:17 so ethically challenging to congregationalists.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown]

Ted, I have ministered together with other elders. We all submitted our ministry to one-another. God worked marvelously through us, and sometimes in spite of us. What is so unusual about that? But I would never, like you emphasize, keep the rest of the congregation from having any say about what I am doing, or whether I should continue as an elder.
Thank the Lord for your happy experience. i would never want to see that argued away from you.

But bro, you can email folks in our church about me “keeping them from having any say about what I am doing.” You have at least 3 people from my church you either know, or with whom you have interacted back and forth with. And if you ask them and they don’t give you answers that exalt me as their ruling elder, let me know. They obviously need church discipline.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
Ted asked earlier, where are we told that the will of the majority must be “measured” and how do I reconcile that with the call for unanimity.

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.

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.”

As for the passages referring to elders having the “rule” over them, etc., these are open to more than one interpretation and history reveals that some of them have been debated for many centuries. My short answer is that there is plenty of room to rule and lead without making 100% of the decisions. Decision-making authority is not the only kind of authority, nor is decision-making leadership the only kind of leadership.

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.

Wed, 07/13/11
Ted, your statement is sufficient. I am happy to hear that. I won’t question it.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
[Aaron Blumer] Ted asked earlier, where are we told that the will of the majority must be “measured”?

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.
My original question was not, “How do you determine the will of the majority?” but ”Why must you determine the will of the majority?”
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.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
You asked for texts on elders choosing elders. I complied (post 20).

I asked you for texts on congregations appointing elders. I got none.
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.

Jeff Brown

Wed, 07/13/11
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
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?

Wed, 07/13/11
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.

Wed, 07/13/11
[Chip Van Emmerik] 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 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.

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?


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.”
Who said having a difference of opinion is a lack of unity? :| Making church decisions with differences is a lack of unanimity.

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 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

“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.
I’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 ;) .

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff Brown]

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.
Nothing similar? Bro, only leaders choose leaders in the NT church. Who are the God-ordained leaders in the church, but the elders?
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-)

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Larry]
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? ;)

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
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? Wink
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.

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.

Wed, 07/13/11
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

Wed, 07/13/11
[Jeff] There is no Greek mismatch [in Acts 11:22]. Though a singular noun normally takes a singular verb, that is not always the case
But 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)

Here, as in several other places, the singular noun takes the plural verb. It makes sense in English as well as in Greek.
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).
Moreover, to say that “they sent” refers “the elders” is only conjecture, nothing more.
I agree, brother, but not irrational :bigsmile: .

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[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??

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
Thanks Ted.
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.

Wed, 07/13/11
[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

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
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.

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.

Wed, 07/13/11
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.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Wed, 07/13/11
[Aaron] Here’s why they are not relevant:

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.
My point is not how a decision is made (eldership or congregationalism), although that has come up along the way. From the beginning of this thread I have been asking you to defend something you called the “will of the majority.” In post 6 you wrote, “the will of the majority must be measured in some way.” I’ll ask the question a 3rd time: Why? The Holy Spirit never speaks of such a thing, so I don’t know what it is.
[Aaron] 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.
The difference being Scripture – it commands one and not the other. Therefore we are dealing with the believer’s conscience being bound to the Word and not human traditions.
[Aaron] 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.
Good points, all, brother. But this thread is on congregational decision making.

www.churchsonefoundation.com
www.gracecurchministry.org

Wed, 07/13/11
[Charlie] 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.
I have not commented in this thread on the meaning of the Greek. But you’ve really got to help me out, Charlie. What do you mean by saying I can’t “talk about [discuss?] what the Greek means” unless I can sit down and read “pages on end of Greek with relative ease” [how many pages, BTW]? I can’t even discuss the meaning of the Greek, even if I consult standard Greek lexicons?

I would love to hear you, as someone who is obviously well qualified to discuss the meaning of the Greek, contribute your thoughts on the passages being discussed.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Wed, 07/13/11
Greg, good questions. I will tighten up my language for clarity. “If you can’t just sit down and read Greek easily (and preferably write it passingly as well), don’t think that you can exegete the language, exploiting the niceties of a text to proffer your own views and rebut others’.” In other words, one needs to be able to process the language accurately at an intuitive level before one can legitimately move into a more analytic posture toward the text.

Here are my writings on this issue:

http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-role-of-greek-in-theolog…

http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/the-purpose-of-greek-grammar/

http://sacredpage.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/silva-on-the-purpose-of-gree…

As far as the present discussion goes, here and on the other related threads, there have been a host of illegitimate (entirely wrong) appeals to the Greek text. Kevin Bauder helpfully corrected a few of them at some point a while back. I really have no interest in the theology here, since it amounts to people who believe in independent church government trying to convince other believers in independent government how to govern their independent churches!

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Wed, 07/13/11
Ted, Thanks for the response. I am tempted to respond line by line, and since I am weak, I am going to :D
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? Judgments aren’t decisions?
Correct. 1 Corinthians simply isn’t about that. It has another focus, namely spiritual unity among proud people. However, even if this is applicable to polity and decision making, it still doesn’t help you. Remember, the vote doesn’t guarantee unity. If a church is divided about something, being unable to express their difference does not mean the difference isn’t there. You are trying to pound a nail with a shoe. It simply isn’t made for that purpose.
And where did this “congregational action” requirement come from?
Jesus.
Jesus can’t command His church to obey His standards without first giving them some action to decide?
He did both.
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.
They were acting congregationally and Paul does not reprimand them for that. 1 Cor 5 is completely absent of any condemnation for their congregationalism, or their lack of elder decision making. Paul didn’t strip them of their autonomy and force them to do something. He couldn’t. In refutation of your position, he refused to do it for them. He told them to do it. And he didn’t tell the elders among them to do it. He told them to do it. And apparently they did.
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.”
Yes. And it’s historical. That’s what they did. It’s not really theoretical or hypothetical.
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)?
Yes, assuming you know who the “no” votes are, and they refuse to accede to the voice of the congregation.

Part of the dynamic of church discipline being given to the body is to protect against abusive leaders who would discipline without the two or three or the congregation. The congregational aspect means that an elder and the two or three are held accountable for their judgment. And there is, in some cases, room for legitimate difference of opinion. We, as pastors, can be wrong sometimes. And it is good to have someone who speaks up. Congregationalism provides that avenue.
And would you obey Christ and put out those who steadfastly refused to repent for voting no?
Yes. We have never had a no vote in church discipline, though I know of at least one church that refused. But again, the fact that some people might disobey God is not a reason to change the way things are done.