# Congregational voting



## timfost (Jul 20, 2016)

Hi all,

In my denomination, the majority of our churches practice male headship voting. To clarify, this does not mean that the guys call all of the shots, as they are supposed to _represent_ their families. Single men also have a vote over 21 in my congregation.

Personally, I don't have any strong convictions one way or another.

What are your thoughts for or against it from a practical and/or biblical standpoint?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## earl40 (Jul 21, 2016)

timfost said:


> Hi all,
> 
> In my denomination, the majority of our churches practice male headship voting. To clarify, this does not mean that the guys call all of the shots, as they are supposed to _represent_ their families. Single men also have a vote over 21 in my congregation.
> 
> ...



I wonder where the idea came from about the sheep "voting" for matters in the church came about?


----------



## Jack K (Jul 21, 2016)

What matters do they vote on? It seems right that church members choose their officers who will exercise spiritual authority over them (candidates having been vetted and approved by a session or presbytery).

I don't see why this would be done by family vote. The officers of the church do not minister indirectly, through each family's patriarch. Rather, the officers minister directly to each individual member. Each member is preached to, shepherded, instructed, served, prayed for directly. I do affirm a measure of male headship in the home, but I don't see Scripture making the guy into an intercessor or some kind of quasi-ordained fellow so that the authority of the church over all members of the family runs through him. Neither, then, should any voting. Giving all adult members an individual vote signals that each of them is personally and individually united to Christ and his church, enjoying those benefits and responsibilities.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 21, 2016)

timfost said:


> Hi all,
> 
> In my denomination, the majority of our churches practice male headship voting. To clarify, this does not mean that the guys call all of the shots, as they are supposed to _represent_ their families. Single men also have a vote over 21 in my congregation.
> 
> ...



If the congregation is going to elect a kirk session/consistory/vestry what you outlined sounds appropriate. 

The real question is what things should be determined by the presbyters who have oversight in the congregation; and what if anything should be determined by the vote of the laity?


----------



## mgkortus (Jul 21, 2016)

The confessing males members of our congregation vote on elders and deacons each year (from a pre-approved list from the consistory). In addition, during times of vacancy, they vote from a trio a ministers on whom to call. 

In addition to these things, the annual church budget is approved by the congregation. Also, expenditures over a certain dollar amount (I believe $10K) come to the church as well.


----------



## timfost (Jul 21, 2016)

earl40 said:


> I wonder where the idea came from about the sheep "voting" for matters in the church came about?



Earl,

Certainly this topic is worthy of consideration, but I'm hoping to keep this conversation to the usual practice of Presbyterian churches, not to digress into apologetics concerning the practice itself.

Thanks for understanding.


----------



## timfost (Jul 21, 2016)

Jack K said:


> What matters do they vote on?



I'm thinking primarily of electing officers. It could also include amendments to the constitution, adopting a formal position, etc.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 21, 2016)

timfost said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder where the idea came from about the sheep "voting" for matters in the church came about?
> ...



Indeed. I plan on bring up such in the near future.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 21, 2016)

Although I don't know that I've seen this argument made, I think the idea behind household voting is that women aren't supposed to rule in the churches. If they vote and a vote really means something, then arguably they are "ruling" in some sense, especially when you consider that there are usually more women members than men. They theoretically have a voice as described in the OP, just as they would in the household, although submitting to the husband. 

I think this probably used to be much more common in a wide variety of churches than it is today. In addition to the RCUS, I think this is also the practice of the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. (WELS) I think some Baptist churches do this also, but it is probably a relatively small number, I think. But I've heard of some family integrated type churches having male head of household voting.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jul 21, 2016)

This subject has been enormously controversial in the Canadian Reformed Churches (where I served until recently), sister churches to the RCUS. 

Some have argued that voting for office bearers is a matter of authority, and therefore to be restricted to the male communicant members.

Others have insisted that voting is advisory -- Reformed churches (following the Church Order of Dort) do not have a congregational form of church government. The consistory appoints office bearers. Normally it appoints those elected, but the possibility is there that, for some reason, they don't. 

For the first 50 years or so, the Canadian Reformed Churches only had men voting for office bearers. However, over the last decade, two synods have affirmed that it is a matter for local churches to decide for themselves. That's where things currently stand.


----------



## timfost (Jul 21, 2016)

Thank you all, this is helpful.

Question: If male headship voting is a matter of authority, how can it be reconciled that male laity do not have authority in the church as do those in office? In other words, wouldn't this be a better argument for voting within the consistory/session _alone_ since male laity are under submission and not in authority in the church, but rather their households?

Again, I am asking to understand the various positions, not because I have a specific position on the matter.


----------



## MW (Jul 21, 2016)

This is a question which divides Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Presbyterians maintain the consent of the people is necessary but the power of election remains with the Session and Presbytery. On this basis voting is merely giving one's consent. Congregationalists maintain the power of church government is vested in the congregation. Advocates generally argued that, since women were not permitted to exercise authority, the congregation was essentially a "fraternity," and only male members could vote. So voting carries different ideas in the two systems.

Samuel Rutherford's Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline examines Thomas Hooker's defence of congregationalism, and has a lengthy section on this question. He makes the point that women are capable of making a profession of faith, of hearing sermons, of testing the spirits, of privately teaching and exhorting in the faith, of following church discipline, etc., all without exercising authority; and therefore they are capable of giving consent in common with the members of the congregation as to the persons who shall exercise rule over them.

Besides these weighty reasons, it is also worth considering that women join in congregational singing (and in some cases have been known to carry it). So the requirement for silence in the churches is not intended to make them mute bystanders and spectators. The "one mouth" by which the church glorifies God, Rom. 15:6, includes the voice of women.


----------



## timfost (Jul 22, 2016)

Rev. Winter,

Thank you for your helpful response. A few follow-up questions:

1. I couldn't find Rutherford's book online. Is it available?

2. In your opinion, is male headship voting in a Presbyterian setting an American synthesis of Presbyterian and Congregationalist government or is this a historical issue beyond our borders?

3. Can you recommend good reading resources on the issue?

Thanks again,


----------



## MW (Jul 22, 2016)

Tim, you will find a text version of Rutherford's Survey at EEBO TCP. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A57981.0001.001?view=toc

American church history is not my forte, and I could only speak in generalities. From what I understand the Presbyterianism which emerged through the Ulster-Scots' influence was the same as the Scots Presbyterian system so far as ecclesiastical authority is concerned, but someone better versed in the details will be in a better position to comment. In terms of the Dutch reformed polity it is often said that its church courts are broader whereas Scottish Presbyterianism has higher church courts. It may be that congregationalism has had an influence on the polity, which seems possible given the history, but I couldn't point to any specific sources on that.

There is a piece in Thomas M'Crie (the elder), Miscellaneous Writings, which is against female voting in the context of it being raised in the Secession church. He was likely consulted because of his knowledge of Scottish church history, but he goes outside this field to provide arguments for his position.

The matter was discussed in the Free Church of Scotland General Assembly just after the Disruption, which was owing to the strong position of the Free Church on the right of the people to choose their own office-bearers. It is intriguing to see the two constitutionalists, James Begg and James Gibson, fall on different sides of this debate. The discussion can be found in the Proceedings of the General Assembly 1843 (I think the discussion took place in the second GA later in the year), and this should be available at googlebooks. There are also a few pamphlets connected with the rise of the discussion, and some of these should also be available at googlebooks.


----------



## JonC (Jul 23, 2016)

Others may correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the idea came from the local church as an expression of the Body of Christ, the Spirit abiding with a corporate people, and God working through and within that entity. In Scripture this can be viewed as Paul appeals to a local church (the Christians in Rome, the Church of Corinth, etc.) rather than simply instructing the overseer of that church in matters of faith. Sometimes I think that we forget that the "sheep" are also the saints comprising and functioning as the Body of Christ. 

In practice, it appears to me that one legitimate reason for having corporate accountability is to keep the leadership accountable thereby avoiding a drift from proper doctrine/theology and diminish the influence of the human component when it comes to spiritual matters. Given what I believe to be a lack of biblical literacy, spiritual discernment, and the influence of culture on our assemblies I do not know that congregational voting is necessarily the best method. 

I could accept either method. I understand all members voting, but I also see a benefit for placing responsibility on the men. I favor elder rule, but that is not the practice of my church.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 23, 2016)

Travis Fentiman has some resources on the subject available here, including Rutherford and M'Crie.


----------



## timfost (Jul 24, 2016)

Was Rutherford an anomaly on this issue or was the notion of women voting a widespread practice historically in Presbyterian circles?


----------



## MW (Jul 25, 2016)

timfost said:


> Was Rutherford an anomaly on this issue or was the notion of women voting a widespread practice historically in Presbyterian circles?



Rutherford only spoke to the "vote" because that was the formal action supported by the advocates of the congregational way. The main thing he was aiming at was that women should be included in seeking the "consent" of the congregation, and he seems to allow that the vote might be "tacit." The consent of the congregation was considered a normal part of Presbyterian polity. E.g., the Second Book of Discipline, Henderson's Government and Order of the Church of Scotland, Gillespie's Assertion of the Government.


----------

