# Congregational votes



## Constantlyreforming (Dec 23, 2014)

In the Elder Rule church model, is there any argument for having church votes? I'm thinking that church votes only enable sheep to be divisive and show division and cause potential church splits. THoughts???


----------



## David Pope (Dec 23, 2014)

​


Constantlyreforming said:


> In the Elder Rule church model, is there any argument for having church votes? I'm thinking that church votes only enable sheep to be divisive and show division and cause potential church splits. THoughts???



Are you envisioning congregational votes on issues other than church officers, or are you questioning whether the congregation must (by voting) accept the officers to be put in authority over them?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 23, 2014)

Mankind keeps trying to vest a single body or individual with ALL available power. This is unwise. And unbiblical.

I have seen it seriously proposed that a congregational body has NO business voting on anything; in particular, not voting in leaders, be they deacons, elders, or ministers. The alternative proposed was not (as we might have expected) episcopal hierarchy; but elder-rule in a purely congregational/independent setting. The elders in this scheme were viewed as a self-perpetuating, self-appointing body. The absence of any broader connectionalism means leadership accountable neither toward those below or above.

Splits _will _take place under these conditions. After suffering short or long, people without recourse under tyranny will depart. If some of them reorganized, the original church views them as schismatic, and no-church; because under their view there's only one legitimate church within a specified locale. Only churches planted by the original church are allowed, at some distance, with leaders for the new situation selected by the leaders of the mother church. There's a kind of "apostolic succession" mentality going on here.

There is a place in ecclesiastical order for the people's consent to be acknowledged, where leaders are not free from "recall." There is (in Presbyterianism) a place for whole congregations and leadership to be accountable to a broader swathe of the church. And the reason is: there needs to be as much accountability in a system resident in a fallen world as there can be. Or perhaps put better, as much as Christ has appointed for the true balance of authority and submission.

There is a risk in every system or institution managed by fallen humans that bad things will happen. Abuse will occur. Presbyterianism will fail also. But at least there are on-paper checks of unrestrained power that may be invoked by various parties, in order to allow for curbing the unruly.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2014)

They ought to vote for their officers. Wise officers might also adopt bylaws whereby the congregation votes to ratify elder decisions on certain matters of high importance but not disciplinary in nature, such as the purchase of property. It can be helpful to get congregational buy-in, and have a check on elder power, in some of those situations.


----------



## JOwen (Dec 23, 2014)

In our congregation male confessing members vote for all offices. We also have rule in place that says any purchases over a certain amount need ratification of the male members before the consistory can proceed. Obviously this means voting on a budget when it comes to building a church and such (as we did in 2000), but also lesser items like a generator, new air conditioning, new sound system, etc. Unless absolutely necessary, we wait until our annual congregational meeting for such things. We also voted on our original bylaws's at our institution in the 1920's, as well as any ratification of them since. Our last ratification came this year when we voted to add a section dealing with the definition of marriage. Other than these parameters, the consistory of the congregation works on behalf of Christ to maintain, govern, and otherwise discharge the requisite duties and ministries of the congregation.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 23, 2014)

No matter what type of ecclesiastical government a church might have, there is a sense in which all churches are "congregationalist," in that, when push comes to shove, people vote with their feet and with their checkbooks. Not saying it's right, just that that's a reality - even in Presbyterian churches.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 23, 2014)

bookslover said:


> No matter what type of ecclesiastical government a church might have, there is a sense in which all churches are "congregationalist," in that, when push comes to shove, people vote with their feet and with their checkbooks. Not saying it's right, just that that's a reality - even in Presbyterian churches.



This is so American and sad.......


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 23, 2014)

Many good responses heretofore.

Just this--

It is inimical to Presbyterianism, and any sound ecclesiastical government, not to recognize the two-fold responsibility of office-bearers to approve candidates and the congregation to have a say in those who minister, govern, and serve among them. It is a biblical pattern: no one can come into office without being approved by those who already hold office and no one may be imposed on the congregation, i.e., the congregation must agree on who her office-bearers are. 

In practice, this means that a man, say, to become an elder must be approved by the existing body of elders and presented to the congregation (perhaps after a process in which the congregation is given opportunity to nominate) for their approval and then subsequently ordained by the approving body (presbytery in the case of a minister). This means that no one may come into office, though the congregation wants him, if the sitting elders do not approve of him. Similarly, this means that no man may come into office, even if the sitting elders approve him, in the case in which the congregation does not approve him. To put someone in office over the objections of the congregation is hierarchicalism and tyranny, plainly and simply. The congregation must approve its office-bearers (as even must, separately, the sitting elders themselves).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 1, 2015)

This whole discussion makes me great full for the gospel. The Lord commands us to do church in a particular way but our sin always gets in the way. But our Lord chooses to use us broken and sinful creatures to build His church. And we cannot fail because He is with us. It always strikes me as odd when so many emergent church people hate the church without realizing that it is the very bride of Christ they are referring to, and he is a jealous husband. 

That being said as far as voting goes we should always respect how a church decides to run itself within the parameters of both ecclesiastical and state law. No way will eliminate a church split or any other problems because we are sinful human creatures. We are required to do our best the way our Lord commands us and let him do the rest.


----------

