Voting in a Congregational Meeting

[Scott1]

Acts 6

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

I think we can discern several principles from this passage:

1) the congregation chose their officers
2) the officers are men
3) they are ordained, set apart, by laying on of hands

It does not appear that voting or selection was restricted to heads of household only, and it does appear the congregation had say, perhaps best understood in the sense of confirming God's appointment, of those who rule over them.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I just recently have returned to the RPCNA. I do have a son, who living in my household, that will be 19 next month. He is under my authority as household membership would be considered maybe. He should be allowed a vote as far as I can tell. If I had a wife I would hope she would see things my way. But I believe that some women are more astute than their husbands when it comes to authority, membership, and Christ, the King of the Covenant which he is mediator over. This is a hard question.

 

[JML]

Acts 6

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

I think we can discern several principles from this passage:

1) the congregation chose their officers
2) the officers are men
3) they are ordained, set apart, by laying on of hands

It does not appear that voting or selection was restricted to heads of household only, and it does appear the congregation had say, perhaps best understood in the sense of confirming God's appointment, of those who rule over them.

Acts 6:2-3 (NKJV)

2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

Did the congregation choose? Yes. But only because they were given the authority in this particular situation by the apostles. I don't see how this was meant to be an example for every situation. The eldership does have the right to say to the people "you choose and vote" but they also have the authority to not do so. Also notice the "we" in verse 3. It was the elders who appointed them, not the congregation.

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

How do we understand Paul in 2 Cor. 2:6-7?

NKJ 2 Corinthians 2:6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow.

Is this not the church imposing discipline by vote?

Hi Bob,

I don't see a vote in this passage. The people carried out the judgment that was brought against the offending party. In this particular occasion, there definitely was no vote. Paul had ordered them to do so (if we take this as the same man in 1 Cor. 5).

1 Corinthians 5:4-7 (NKJV)

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.

 

[dannyhyde]

All communicant members over 18 years of age.

 

[rbcbob]

Acts 6

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word."

5This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

I think we can discern several principles from this passage:

1) the congregation chose their officers
2) the officers are men
3) they are ordained, set apart, by laying on of hands

It does not appear that voting or selection was restricted to heads of household only, and it does appear the congregation had say, perhaps best understood in the sense of confirming God's appointment, of those who rule over them.

Acts 6:2-3 (NKJV)

2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

Did the congregation choose? Yes. But only because they were given the authority in this particular situation by the apostles. I don't see how this was meant to be an example for every situation. The eldership does have the right to say to the people "you choose and vote" but they also have the authority to not do so. Also notice the "we" in verse 3. It was the elders who appointed them, not the congregation.

---------- Post added at 09:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

How do we understand Paul in 2 Cor. 2:6-7?

NKJ 2 Corinthians 2:6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow.

Is this not the church imposing discipline by vote?

Hi Bob,

I don't see a vote in this passage. The people carried out the judgment that was brought against the offending party. In this particular occasion, there definitely was no vote. Paul had ordered them to do so (if we take this as the same man in 1 Cor. 5).

1 Corinthians 5:4-7 (NKJV)

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.

John, the question I would ask is how then do you interpret η επιτιμια αυτη η υπο των πλειονων “the punishment inflicted by the majority?” Lenski comments:

“What arrests the attention is the fact that Paul writes ‘by the majority.’ The action had evidently not been unanimous”.

 

[TimV]

Is the conscience of the wife less to be considered than her widowed sister in the next pew?

If one reads Num. 30, I think a strong case could be made for heads of households only, but that would include widows and divorced women.

 

[JML]

John, the question I would ask is how then do you interpret η επιτιμια αυτη η υπο των πλειονων “the punishment inflicted by the majority?” Lenski comments:

“What arrests the attention is the fact that Paul writes ‘by the majority.’ The action had evidently not been unanimous”.

I interpret it as Paul ordered them to purge the man out of their assembly and turn him over to Satan. This would have included giving up fellowship with him as we see in 1 Corinthians 5. The majority followed the directive of Paul and did so. Inflict mean to carry out, not to decide whether or not they will carry it out. It seems as though some did not listen and continued in fellowship although I would need to study that section in more depth. However, I still don't see a vote. An order was given and it was carried out (by the majority). I don't think that Paul gave the order and then the church came together to vote to see whether or not they would do what Paul said or not. Paul was asserting his apostolic authority over them.

 

[rbcbob]

John, the question I would ask is how then do you interpret η επιτιμια αυτη η υπο των πλειονων “the punishment inflicted by the majority?” Lenski comments:

“What arrests the attention is the fact that Paul writes ‘by the majority.’ The action had evidently not been unanimous”.

I interpret it as Paul ordered them to purge the man out of their assembly and turn him over to Satan. This would have included giving up fellowship with him as we see in 1 Corinthians 5. The majority followed the directive of Paul and did so. Inflict mean to carry out, not to decide whether or not they will carry it out. It seems as though some did not listen and continued in fellowship although I would need to study that section in more depth. However, I still don't see a vote. An order was given and it was carried out (by the majority). I don't think that Paul gave the order and then the church came together to vote to see whether or not they would do what Paul said or not. Paul was asserting his apostolic authority over them.

John, I see your point and it is a good one. However I still take from the text that the church was being called upon to agree with the judgment and such agreement or assent was sought. The passage is cited in some copies of the 1689 at chapter 26:7 which is used in many churches' constitutions on disciplinary voting.

 

[Mindaboo]

When I discussed this with my husband, it was not because I do not think women are equal in the kingdom--I just really struggle with a wife voting differently than her husband (read: against her husband). I think it is great that I get an extra vote in on my husband's side and take advantage of using it. If there were a matter that we could not agree on, I would probably not vote at all vs. voting differently than him. I don't want it to be mistaken that I believe a woman's voice should not be heard. This is the reason I think it should be head of household (single women and widows) and not male only. Submitting to your husband in all things lawful seems that that would apply in the situation of voting on church issues. Tonight I watched a few women vote against their husbands and husbands against wives. Yikes. At any rate, not a huge deal. I am not going to do anything about it. I will continue to vote my conscience and that is aligning myself with my husband.

This is what I do too. I have abstained from a vote, because I couldn't in good conscience vote for something. I discussed it with Brad first and we decided how it should be handled. I would never vote against him, but he understands when I am not in full agreement with him. I would have no problem being in a church where only the head of the households vote. I wish that was the way our church handled it, but they don't. I couldn't imagine voting against my husband.

In our church our children who are communing members vote and they vote like we do, or if for some reason they don't agree and they have a valid point we let them abstain as well. I should say our children vote like we do. I have no idea how other families handle these issues. They don't vote against us.