The vast majority of Baptist congregations today make widespread use of congregational voting in the decision making process of the local church.
In fact, voting is more than simply an element of church polity in Baptist churches—it is central to the identity of the church itself.
But is congregational voting biblical? Is this form of decision making really taught and affirmed in the New Testament (NT)?
This article will attempt to answer these questions by doing the following:
Evaluate the arguments typically presented in favor of congregational voting
Present additional weaknesses of congregational voting
Discuss the biblical model for church authority and decision making
An Examination of the Arguments for Congregational Voting
The arguments in favor of congregational voting fall into three main categories. Let me identify and address them now.
Argument 1: Churches Acting as One
The first argument for voting is that churches in the NT are described as acting as a group and not as slaves of their pastors. Texts demonstrating this are as follows:
In Acts 6:1-4, the apostles asked the entire church (not just the elders) to identify seven men they could set over the temporal affairs of the body.
In Acts 11:19-24 and Acts 13:1-3, the church in Jerusalem (not just the elders) sent Paul and Barnabas on various missions; and in Acts 15:22.
The church at Jerusalem (not just the elders) sent men to Antioch to carry out specific tasks.
Indeed, these texts speak of the church acting as a group and not as pawns of their pastors. But there is more to these passages, and more to this question as a whole, than proponents of voting typically realize. Consider a few observations about these texts.
The Church Acting with the Elders (Pastors), Not without Them
*Note: In this article, the terms "pastors" and "elders" are used interchangeably.
In Acts 15:22, it says expressly that “it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men…” While it does not say “the elders sent them,” it also does not say “the people without the elders sent them” either.
The believers, with their leaders, were acting as a unit. The same is easily implied from the Acts 6 passage.
The apostles summoned the church and instructed them to select seven men whom they could appoint as deacons. But was this summoned mass just the non-elder membership?
Highly doubtful. The elders were an inseparable part of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6; 21:18), and, in many places, including the Acts 15 passage we just discussed, their name is mentioned along with the congregation.
It is, therefore, highly unlikely that the seven men selected in Acts 6:5 were selected without the leadership and direction of the elders of the church.
Fallacies of the Acting as One Argument
This reasoning is guilty of the following logical fallacies:
Fallacy 1: Churches can't act as one if pastors in charge
One of the fallacies of this argument is that a church cannot act as a unit if the elders are in charge. This can easily be refuted. Consider the example of a Christian family. Biblically speaking, the father is the head of the household and is the ultimate decision maker for the family (Eph. 5:23; 6:1).
But let’s say one Friday night the family has a discussion about where to go for dinner. Many options are put forth, but in the end everyone agrees on Pizza Hut. They all go together and have a great time.
Now, did the father lose his authority because he worked with his wife and children to make this decision? No. Did the family wrest power from the father because they had input, and, in the end, decided together? Clearly not.
The same is true in the examples of churches making decisions in the book of Acts. The elders worked with the people to make the decision. They all agreed on a course of action, but the elders did not abandon their authority in so doing, and the people did not become their own kings in the process.
Fallacy 2: Churches can't act as one without voting
A second fallacy is that a church cannot act as a unit without voting. We are conditioned by the American culture to see voting as integral to every group decision; we cannot contemplate any other option.
But groups do not have to vote to make a collective decision. Take the family dinner scenario we just discussed.
The father asks his wife and children where they would like to go for dinner. The mother says Cracker Barrel. One child says McDonald’s; the other says Pizza Hut. The mother says she’s tired of McDonald’s, but Pizza Hut sounds good. The father agrees. The kids look at each other and say, “Let’s do it!”
A unified decision has been made, but no vote has been taken. Churches can make unified decisions in the same way.
According to Alexander Strauch, ongoing, effective communication is the key to this type of decision making:
The goal of the elders and congregation should always be to speak and act as a united community. Both the leaders and the led should take the time and make the effort needed to work and pray together to achieve this oneness of mind.
This means that elders must inoculate themselves against aloofness, secrecy, or independently seeking their own direction. Godly elders desire to involve every member of the body in the joy of living together as the family of God.
This requires a great deal of free and open communication between the elders and congregation.[1]
Argument 2: The Believer’s Spiritual Disposition
Another argument used to justify congregational voting is related to the believer’s spiritual disposition, first as being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and second as being designated a priest unto God.
The Indwelling Holy Spirit
In an article published online by Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, MN, the author uses several passages in 1 Corinthians to argue that the work of the Holy Spirit in the disciple makes believers capable of leading themselves via the democratic process and voting.[2, 3]
The article argues that 1 Corinthians 1:24 shows that Christ has given his wisdom to all believers, that 2:12 teaches that the Holy Spirit “has been given to all believers for spiritual understanding,” that 6:4 demonstrates that the Corinthians possessed “the mind of Christ,” and that 2:16 notes that “even the least esteemed were…qualified to judge disputes between Christians.”
The sum total of these truths, the article proposes, justifies the widespread use of congregational voting.
But does it? It is important to note that in each of these passages, the issue of congregational voting and decision making is not being addressed. None of these texts in their context have anything to do with congregational voting.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s examine these passages to determine if they could indirectly support congregational voting.
1 Corinthians 1:24
First up, 1 Corinthians 1:24. Here is the text in its context:
22, For Jews require a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
The wisdom of God spoken of in this text is not the wisdom given for living and making godly decisions, the kind that would be needed during congregation voting. The kind of wisdom this text refers to is the wisdom of God demonstrated in the cross of Jesus Christ.
The Greeks wanted to see God work in terms of what they considered wise, perhaps by bringing an intellectual or physically glorious king to save the world; the Jews wanted a Savior who would give them victory over their national enemies, most notably at that time, the Roman Empire.
As Hodge rightly observes, “This doctrine met the demands of neither class. It satisfied neither the expectations of the Jews, nor the requirements of the Greeks.”[4]
God’s wisdom was not like that of either of these groups. He brought a humble servant to die for mankind, and per Paul, only those enlightened by the Holy Spirit could see the “wisdom” of God in this approach.
It is true that the Father gives wisdom through the Holy Spirit to those who seek it (James 1:5), but this passage in 1 Corinthians has nothing to do with the kind of collective wisdom needed for the outcome of a congregational vote to reflect God’s will.
1 Corinthians 2
What about the passages from 1 Corinthians 2? Here are those texts:
12, Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
16, And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
The context
In chapter two, Paul is continuing his argument regarding God’s wisdom as demonstrated in the cross of Jesus. Chapter one ended with a poem of God’s wisdom through the cross, a wisdom which humbled the mighty and exalted the lowly so that “no flesh should glory in his presence” (1:29).
Paul continues in 2:1-2 by declaring that his own preaching was in accord with God’s wisdom in the cross: “And I, brethren, when I came to you…I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”
The wisdom Paul was preaching was “the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory” (2:7), the wisdom of the crucifixion.
He then goes on to argue that those things which are ours due to the crucifixion are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit: “Now we received…the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God” (12).
He then transitions to discuss the wisdom of the Corinthians’ recent behavior, arguing that the spiritual man (the one guided by God’s Spirit) and the natural man (the one guided by his own flesh) could not come to the same conclusions about spiritual matters (13-15).
Believers, however, should always see and act through God’s wisdom because, inasmuch as the Spirit lives in them, they have access to the “mind of Christ” (16).
This mind, however, does not guarantee wise decisions on the part of believers, for in 3:1-3, he says:
“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ…. For you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?”
Gordon Fee sees a stern rebuke in this passage:
On the other hand, the Corinthians are involved in a lot of unchristian behavior; in that sense they are "unspiritual," not because they lack the Spirit but because they are thinking and living just like those who do.... [Paul] is "after them," as it were; and he uses their language…to shame them into reality.[5]
Conclusions about 1 Corinthians 2 and voting
What do we conclude from all of this? We conclude that:
Verse 12 does not apply to the kind of wisdom needed in a congregational vote. It refers to an understanding of the faith-rewards God has set aside for Christ’s disciples, rewards that can only be understood by revelation of the Holy Spirit.
The “mind of Christ” mentioned in verse 16 does not guarantee godly decisions, inasmuch as the Corinthians, who had access to that mind, completely rejected its wisdom and chose instead to act wickedly.
The Priesthood of the Believer
Baptists also argue that the priesthood of individual believers makes them as a group capable of making godly decisions through congregational voting. In an article entitled “Congregational Church Governance,” one author summarizes this position nicely:
Persons have a God-given competence to know and to follow God’s will. Those who respond by faith to God’s grace-gift of salvation become “believer priests” (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 5:1-10).
Each believer priest has direct access to God through the Scriptures and prayer and is free under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine God’s will.
Furthermore, each believer also is part of a “royal priesthood” in which Jesus Christ is the High Priest (Hebrews 7-10). This priesthood is a fellowship in which each believer priest is to seek God’s direction as a cooperative part of that fellowship.[6]
What is "priesthood of the believer"?
To answer this claim, we must first examine what "priesthood of the believer" really is. Here are the basics:
In formal biblical terms, a priest was one who offered sacrifices and gifts to Yahweh (Heb. 8:3-5). The High Priest in the Jewish system would preside over the offering of animal blood sacrifices for sins and material offerings to God (Heb. 8:3).
This system was temporarily established until Jesus Christ could come and offer himself to God as a once-for-all sacrifice for sin and an all-pleasing gift to the Father (Heb. 7:20-28).
Now Jesus presides in the true tabernacle in heaven (Heb. 8:1-2), and the dwelling place of God is no longer a physical structure (temple or tabernacle), but the human heart through the agency of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19).
Inasmuch as no human-only agent is now involved in offerings to and intercession with God, the believer is said to be, in a sense, his own priest. He can enter the “holy of holies” where God dwells and interface directly with him through the ongoing priesthood of Jesus Christ.
Priesthood of the believer and congregational voting
It is critical to understand that priesthood has nothing to do with congregational voting or the individual believer’s day-to-day ability to make decisions that are in accordance with God’s will.
Every believer is different: each has different gifts (Rom. 12:3-8), different levels of maturity (Heb. 5:12-14), and different roles to play in God’s economy (Eph. 4:11-12).
Furthermore, priesthood does not mean a believer must no longer follow the directives of the Word of God, as if some kind of internal force would always guide him to the right decision.
It is precisely because of this fact (that believers are prone to follow their flesh rather than the indwelling Spirit and written Word) that God has prescribed a structure for decision making and leadership that counteracts this tendency.
Congregational voting, far from honoring that structure, actually upends it, making it possible for the most fleshly members to drive the decisions of the entire church.
Argument 3: The “Majority”
A final way many attempt to substantiate voting is through the use of the phrase “by the majority” in 2 Corinthians 2:6. Central Seminary argues that this phrase refers to voting:
How did New Testament congregations make their decisions? We get a glimpse of the process when Paul deals with the restoration of a repentant church member.
This individual had sinned in the past and was disfellowshipped by the congregation. Paul states that this discipline was meted out “by the majority” (2 Cor. 2:6, NASB).
In other words, New Testament churches had some mechanism by which the individual members could register their support or lack thereof for specific actions.
That mechanism is precisely what is called a “vote,” in whatever manner it was conducted.[7]
The argument is that the phrase “by the majority” necessarily means a vote took place. But is this the only option for this term in this situation? I do not believe it is. Let me explain.
The context of 2 Corinthians 2:6
The text in its full context reads as follows:
4, For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, with many tears, not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have so abundantly for you.
5, But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent--not to be too severe.
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.
8, Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him.
9, For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things.
Paul is likely here referring to the immoral brother from 1 Corinthians 5:3-7. Paul instructed the church in this earlier letter to put this particular believer out of the fellowship immediately due to his grievous sin.
The church obeyed, and at some future time this same man returned and sought forgiveness.
In the passage from 2 Corinthians quoted above, Paul is instructing the church to receive the believer back into the fellowship. In discussing this issue in 2 Corinthians, he notes that the punishment levied against the immoral brother was carried out “by the majority.”
The word "majority"
The Greek word translated “majority” here is pleion and means “greater in quantity, the more part, the many.” Of the 56 uses in the KJV, it is translated “more” 23 times, “many” 12 times, and “greater” 5 times.[8]
Except for its use in 2 Corinthians 2:6 (which is highly suspect), the word is never mentioned in the NT in relation to voting or any kind of church-related democratic process. So does it refer to voting here? I highly doubt it for several reasons.
First, it could simply mean that many in the congregation had refused the immoral brother fellowship as they were instructed by the apostle (1 Cor. 5:4-5). The “majority,” then, was the “many” who obeyed the apostle and shunned their brother until he repented.
Second, if there was any kind of show of unity sought by the elders before putting this man out of the church, it did not have to come through a vote. They could have simply read Paul’s letter to the people and said, “We have sinned in letting this happen, and now we must obey and withdraw our fellowship from this man.”
The people, brought under conviction by the Spirit, answered back, “Yes, we must!” and then acted on that conviction. Agreement and unity can be obtained by means other than voting.
If voting occurred here, and was as widespread as proponents claim, why is there no direct reference to it in this text or anywhere else in the NT? Other than the word "majority," which we, in our modern democratic culture automatically connect to voting, there is no mention of "vote," "voting," "vote counts," or any other action related to this matter that would imply an actual vote took place. Furthermore, why is there no record of voting processes, tallies, or motions (or similar actions) anywhere in Acts or the epistles? If it was such a critical part of church life and practice, why do the apostles not give any instruction on it?
And, if voting happened as often in the apostolic period as it does in the typical Baptist church today, why are the arguments for it based solely on texts that are, at best, only indirectly related to it?
Could it be because the early church never practiced it, and that our interpretation of these texts is due more to cultural influence and church tradition than the teachings of Scripture? I believe the evidence bears that out.
Additional Weaknesses of Congregational Voting
In addition to weaknesses in the biblical arguments, congregational voting has many other weaknesses:
Voting directly contradicts the authority of the elders (pastors) as specified in the NT. Texts like Hebrews 13:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, and 1 Corinthians 16:15-16 command the people to submit the elders. A vote that goes against their counsel, therefore, is a violation of the will of Christ.
Majority decisions often do not produce godly outcomes. Numbers 13 is an infamous example. The faithful spies wanted to go in and take the land, but the majority of them (and that of the people) disagreed. Forty years of wandering were the result.
Voting gives both new, immature believers and seasoned, mature believers the same weight in decision making. This dilutes the power and protection of godly wisdom and experience.
Voting provides the loudest groups, or those who do not mind conflict, with a greater say in church decisions than anyone else. Many people who would like to have a say will simply not come to a business meeting because of the possibility of conflict.
Only a small percentage of church members actually participate in the voting process. We tell ourselves votes are "fair" and "give everyone a say," but they actually don't. Most of the church simply isn't there.
Voting creates winners and losers, sowing the seeds for bitterness and future conflict. Instead of fostering an environment of communication, understanding, and consensus, voting, particularly on a contentious issue, causes sides to be formed, winners and losers to be created, and hurt feelings and long-term animosity to be harbored.
A Biblical Model for Church Decision Making and Authority
The biblical design for church decision making and authority looks nothing like the typical one used in a Baptist church. The system God has designed has three essential components:
Multiple, biblically-qualified pastors who have sole spiritual authority in every church
Multiple, biblically-qualified deacons who serve the physical and temporal needs of the people under the authority of the pastors
A congregation of submissive disciples whose involvement in and approval of church-wide matters is limited and specific
Multiple, biblically-qualified pastors
Everywhere you look in the NT, you find more than one local pastor for each church. It is nowhere stated expressly that every church must have more than one pastor, but it is clearly the approach the apostles and early Christians took with regard to their spiritual leaders.
One source left no room for doubt on this issue:
An analysis of the data seems, therefore, to indicate the existence of oversight by a plurality of church leaders throughout the NT church in virtually every known area and acknowledged or commended by virtually every NT writer who writes on the subject.[9]
Even those who promote a single pastor structure recognize the scriptural evidence for multiple pastors. In his defense of single pastor polity, Daniel Akin notes:
The argument for a plurality of elders, pastors, overseers, leaders is easier to make based upon the biblical evidence. For example, every time the word elder (presbuteros) appears in the context of church leaders, it is always plural.[10]
Consider the NT evidence regarding the number of pastors in each congregation [11]:
The apostles and their delegates ordained multiple pastors in every church
So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. Acts 14:23
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you. Titus 1:5
The churches demonstrated a widespread use of multiple pastors
To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. Phil. 1:1
Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this situation. Acts 15:2 (see also 15:4 and 6)
On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. Acts 21:18
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him… James 5:14
John MacArthur notes how each NT church was led by a body of elders, not a single man trying to carry the weight of the entire church on his shoulders:
In the New Testament church leadership belonged collectively to a group of elders who were its leaders under the Spirit of God. One man was not responsible for doing everything, and that’s how it should be.
The pastor is not the professional problem-solver who runs around with an ecclesiastical bag of tools, waiting for the next problem to repair or the next squeaky wheel to grease.[12]
The Authority of the Pastoral Office
NT pastors are not simply figureheads, however, nor are they merely chaplains; they are men with real spiritual authority over their congregations.
Notice the commands of Scripture in this area. In Hebrews 13:17, the writer instructs, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls….” The word obey means “to listen to, yield to, comply with,” and the companion admonition to submit means “to resist no longer but give way.”
The believer is willingly to follow the instruction of the pastors placed over him because these men have been given genuine authority to rule, “to command, have authority over, and be the leader of” the congregation. As noted earlier, how can this happen if they are outvoted at a business meeting, or if they must seek approval by the people for every decision they make?
Multiple Deacons in Every Church in Submission to the Pastors
Deacons were established to assist the pastors in providing for the material and temporal needs of the people, allowing the pastors to focus on the spiritual concerns of the congregation.
The office was first established in the church in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 6:1-4. Here is the account:
1, Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
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;
4, "but we will give ourselves continually to the ministry of the word.”
The office of deacon was not established as a position of spiritual authority in line with or surpassing the pastors; from the outset it was an office of service designed to fall under the authority of the pastors.
Note how the apostles worded their request: “Seek out from among you seven men…whom we may appoint over this business.” The deacon is not a substitute pastor, nor is he lord over his pastors.
The deacon’s work is to help his pastor by taking care of the physical, temporal needs of the people so that the pastors can focus on their eternal, spiritual needs.
This is why the apostles said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men…” (2b-3a).
Limited Congregational Involvement without Voting
The biblical design for the church ensures that the congregation has a role in specific areas, but it does not allow that involvement to usurp the authority of the pastors.
The New Testament gives three examples of the congregation and pastors working together on church-wide decisions. They are as follows:
Church discipline. Jesus instructed in Matthew 18 that the last step in dealing with an unrepentant brother or sister is to “tell it to the church” (17). Excommunicating a member cannot be a pastors-only exercise; the entire church must be involved.
Sending missionaries to the field. In Acts 15:3, the Scripture says, “So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.”
We see this again in verse 22, “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.”
Selecting deacons for pastoral approval. I won’t quote the passage again, but in Acts 6 the apostles did not identify qualified deacons themselves, but gave the responsibility for that task to the people.
And, as also mentioned earlier, given this was the church in Jerusalem which had not only apostles but also elders, it is highly likely that the elders worked with the congregation to select the deacons for apostolic approval.
Beyond these three things, there is no biblical mandate for congregational involvement or approval of any kind. And, when this interaction does occur, it cannot be accomplished through a church vote. The final decision always remains with the pastors.
Conclusion
The arguments put forth in favor of voting are riddled with biblical weaknesses. The reality is that NT churches, while often acting as one, were not led by democratic processes culminating in widespread congregational voting.
The early churches were led by a multiplicity of qualified pastors, assisted in their work by a group of devout deacons, all of which are supported by a congregation of submissive believers.
At the opening of this article, I proposed the question, Is voting biblical? After careful study of the arguments and the Scriptures, I can answer this question in one way only: No.
NOTES:
[1] Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, revised edition (Littleton, Colorado: Lewis and Roth, 1995), 294.
[2] “Did they vote?”, Centralseminary.com, January 17, 2014, http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/did-they-vote (accessed March 1, 2016).
[3] Paige Patterson, a well-known Southern Baptist and President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, echoes this argument: “Believer-priests with regenerate hearts have access directly to God. The Holy Spirit indwells each believer-priest…. Therefore, the ministries of the church should derive from the action of the corporate body seeking the face of God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit and expressing that through some process, which for lack of a better term may be called a vote.” “Single-Elder Congregationalism” in Who Runs the Church? ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 140.
[4] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, reprint edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 23.
[5] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 123.
[6] “Congregational Church Governance,” Baptistdistinctives.org, https://www.baptistdistinctives.org/resources/articles/congregational-church-governance/ (accessed March 1, 2016).
[7] “Did they vote?”, Centralseminary.com.
[8] Bible Study Tools, Biblestudytools.com (accessed February 21, 2016).
[9] George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles in The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 176-177.
[10] Daniel L. Akin, “The Single-Elder-Led Church: The Bible’s Witness to a Congregational/Single-Elder-Led Polity” in Perspectives on Church Government: 5 Views, eds. Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2004), 64.
[11] Note, the terms elder, bishop, pastor, and overseer are used synonymously in the NT. See 1 Peter 5:1-2 for an example.
[12] John MacArthur, The Master’s Plan for the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 85.