A good deal of discussion in Baptist life, even some on this site, has focused upon the role of elders in the church. How should those who hold this biblical office fulfill their role within the congregation, and how should they relate to the members of the church? Much of this discussion goes ultimately to the question of how the church is governed. Is it to be ruled by elders, or are the elders to lead, with the responsibility for making decisions remaining with the congregation as a whole? As Southern Baptists, we have clearly and, I believe, biblically, answered this question in our statement of faith.
The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M), in the article on the church, plainly states that “each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” While I am in full agreement with this statement, I will acknowledge that the wording can lead to some confusion, and perhaps even can lead some to prefer an “elder rule” model of church government. Understood rightly, however, I believe this section in our statement of faith lays out the proper ideal for how a church ought to conduct its affairs.
Much of the challenge here lies in the words “democratic processes.” The BF&M is no more specific than that, and churches are left to fill these words with whatever meaning they choose. Unfortunately, many choose poorly. In 2006, Midwestern Seminary professor Alan Branch wrote a First Person article published by Baptist Press entitled “Common Mistakes in Congregational Church Government.” In this excellent article, Dr. Branch decries what he sees as a “town-meeting democracy” in which the monthly church business meeting becomes a “free-for-all” where everyone feels entitled to voice their opinion, whether informed (spiritually or otherwise) or not. This form of polity, says Dr. Branch, is “more influenced by American civics than by the New Testament.” Filled with this kind of meaning, “democratic processes” are a terrible way for a church to govern itself.
I believe that the key to understanding congregational church polity is found in the next sentence in the BF&M’s statement on the church. After stating that the church operates through “democratic processes,” it goes on to say that “in such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord.” The importance of this principle simply cannot be overstated, and how we as leaders of churches respond to it says a great deal about how much we ourselves trust the Head of the church to govern His body.
I really do believe that the discussions on the merits of elder rule versus congregational government come down to this issue of trust. If we can trust Christ for salvation, can we not also trust Him to work in the hearts and lives of His people? Can the same Holy Spirit who convicts us of our sins not also convict those in our congregations who may have a wrongheaded view of their role in a church business meeting, ultimately leading them to the truth? American civics teaches us the importance of “one man, one vote.” But I believe that a true New Testament ecclesiology will lead us to recognize the value in following one Lord who is able to govern His church through His people.
Great article, Wes. Simply great.
Well said!
I believe this to be a good article that opens the discussion. Moving from this each church should look at the relationship of the deacon, elder and the pastor. We believe the pastor is the shepherd leader to the “flock” of believers. Yes, we are sheep. In the study of God’s Word in both Acts and Timothy we are reminded that we are servants first. Elders and Deacons alike are to be ambassadors of the church in service and management. Every church may be different, but we do follow the teaching of God’s Word.
It can be contributed to the turnover of pastors when laypeople (which I am) go past the role that God intended in trying to manage. In Acts, the seven were to look after “this” business, not “the” business. This business refers to benevolence making sure the people’s needs are addressed.
I also believe that every church should look at how a church conference is handled. We believe that the order of business in a conference is for the vote. The discussion can happen when the “committee” or “planning group” meets with individuals from the church body. This way, open, tempered outbursts are avoided. If the member has a question, provide a solution of discussion. But it is not healthy for the church to have a open argument just for argument’s sake.
“The Deacon I Want to Be” is a great series that Dr. Hunt has provided this past year to reference. Thanks for bringing this up as I believe it to be critical to the healthy atmosphere of God’s people, the body of Christ. Let’s go in Love instead of division.
Wes, very well stated my friend.
This also helps articulate the difference between “elder-rule” and “elders that rule well”. Of course the latter is biblical…the former is dangerous.
Blessings,
Chris
I agree with the article. To a point.
I am a realist, sitting in a pew. I have observed that the Elder of the church .. the pastor .. can be inclined to let the church do whatever it wants, in the name of “congregational government”, when it was clearly against scripture. I have seen more than one case where that was true.
Even among a Deacon body in a formal meeting.
When Ananias and Saphira were called to account, I don’t read where there was a vote.
Thanks to all for the kind comments.
Bob, this process of allowing the members to govern the church is not a guarantee against human sinfulness, as what you have witnessed attests. Nevertheless, I believe we must trust that God will deal with those who behave within the church in a manner contrary to His will. Indeed it was God who called Ananias and Saphira to account, immediately and dramatically. Sometimes we wish he would work that way in all cases, but obviously he doesn’t. That doesn’t mean, though, that those who participate in church government without regard for the lordship of Christ will escape His discipline or His judgment.
Good little article.
Can I recomend a book. (most have probably read it though)
“Biblical Foundations for Baptist Church: A Contemporary Ecclesiology” by Dr. John Hammett
I think it does justice to what you all are discussing. One of the best I have read by far concerning ecclesiology.
Josh
Josh,
I love Dr. Hammett’s book, and have read through it several times. Thanks for mentioning it, and for taking time to comment.
Brother Bob,
I think the problem that you bring forward though is that the majority of SBC churches subscribe to the single pastor schema…..which is not the biblical norm by any means, but a very popular scheme for churches today in America.
As a church begins to follow the commands of Christ through the Apostles and appoints more qualified men to serve as overseer in a congregation, then the attitude that you mention…where the pastor may become complacent or complicit, the other qualified men become a great encouragement to him as well as to the entire congregation.
I will say it is much easier and convenient to stay in the single pastor mode though.
Blessings,
Chris
Wes-
Would you have an issue working with a church that interpreted the BFandM 2000 differently than you do on that point? Would you allow them into your association or state convention?
I do not agree with your position of each member of a congregation having a decision making vote, but I have no problem with you leading your church that God has called you to in that manner.
I would be curious to know what scripture passages lead you to the position of democratic church rule. I have honestly never come across a coherent scriptural argument for democracy in the church, but I am open to hearing one.
Ryan
I don’t think Wes is pushing a pure democracy. I guess Wes will clear that up….yet democratic processes is a very broad subject on its own….
A pure democracy is horrific.
-Chris
Ryan,
If what you are talking about is an elder-rule model, wherein the congregation has no say over issues such as how church resources will be allocated, who its spiritual and servant leaders will be, and the like, then no, I would not favor a church such as that being a part of an association of Baptist churches.
Scripture makes it clear that the church, and not just its leadership, is to be involved in major issues such as discipline of members (Mt. 18, 1 Cor. 5), doctrine (Acts 15), and the selection of leadership (Acts 6). I’m certainly not advocating pure democracy where nothing happens without a vote of all members, but I do believe it is the congregation’s place to determine direction and priorities, and to put leaders in place who are to lead and make decisions in a relationship of accountability to the congregation.
Brother Wes,
Great article. Let me add something that I believe you may be saying but you have not said verbatim. When a church member is being caustic, and belligerent concerning the direction of the church, you are not saying that we just say; “God loves you brother and we will pray for you”, thus stopping the forward direction God is leading. Are you? I believe that I hear you saying as the Pastor we are to lovingly confront the Brother about his un-Christ like attitude concerning a direction that the church should be able to discuss without feeling threatened by the loudest speaking church member.
I know the last part of that paragraph deals more with the aftermath of an unfortunate business meeting. However, I do not believe you would advocate a “smack-down” business meeting without some sort of private confronting and if necessary, public. Right?
Blessings,
Tim
Wes-
Thank you for your gracious response. I have heard the arguments for those passages you cited before and I cannot find agreement with the passages and the idea of democratic polity. Each of the passages you cite have elders initiating and deciding and the congregation being informed of the decision and being in agreement with it. That is NOT democratic polity as it is practiced in ANY Baptist church I have ever seen, but it is the practice in most elder led congregations I have seen or been a part of. Perhaps there is a semantical misunderstanding on my part.
As far as your comments on partnership, I have to ask, do you mean to imply that you consider church government a first order doctrine or do you simply value adherence to the BFandM over the autonomy of the local church? Or is there a third option I am missing?
Ryan
Ryan,
The biblical argument is what it is, and if you find it unconvincing, it’s not up to me to convince you. As to partnership, I’m not a big fan of assigning “orders” to doctrines. Anything the scripture clearly teaches is “first order” in my view. And adherence to the BF&M absolutely includes the autonomy of the local church, just as it includes the autonomy of other bodies of Baptists, such as associations and conventions. I would never seek to interfere with a church’s decision (irony?) to submit itself to elder rule, but as I said, as a messenger to an association, I would oppose the inclusion of a church which is so demonstrably out of step with what is contained in our common confession.
I’ll check back in later, but right now I’m on my way to a pastor (elder)-led, congregationally-approved business meeting. Well, after we eat together…
:)
In 2 Corinthians 2:8, we can see a clear example of a majority action in a congregation in regard to church discipline:
“Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority” (NASB).
The key phrase is “??? ??? ????????” (by the majority) as A.T. Robertson commented: “By the many (hupo ton pleionon). By the more, the majority. If Paul refers to the case in 1 Co 5:1-13, they had taken his advice and expelled the offender.”
Oops, that should be 2 Cor. 2:6.
Pingback: Tweets that mention One Lord, One Vote :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
Brother BT,
You and I have had some great discussion on A.T.’s short definition of “many”….which he terms “majority”….which some (especially Americans) look at from the perspective of democracy. A.T. could have as easily said what the scriptures do say in the sense that it was not just one or a couple of guys that dished out the punishment,…but it was the many. The church as a whole….which goes along with the same principle of “one-mindedness” as the Apostle teaches on many occasions.
A.T. (which I think he is a great theologian) may have a little more American democracy seeping into the definition than the cultural of that day might perceive.
Either way though, the congregation was highly involved as “all” (majority) should be.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, you said:
“A.T. could have as easily said what the scriptures do say in the sense that it was not just one or a couple of guys that dished out the punishment,…but it was the many.”
The NASB translation of “majority” is to be preferred over the KJV translation of “many” in verse 6. In verse 6 we find the word “????????” (pleionon) which is the comparative form of “?????” (polus). There is obviously a difference between “many” (polus) and “more, majority” (pleion/pleionon). Other examples of the use of “pleion” (majority) occur in the following verses:
Acts 19:32 — “So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together.”
Acts 27:12 — “Because the harbor was not suitable for wintering, the majority reached a decision to put out to sea from there, if somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there.”
P.S.: Notice what John Gill said about 2 Corinthians 2:6:
“In case of gross enormities, there ought to be a public excommunication; and that this is to be done by the vote, and with the consent of the whole church, or the major part of it; and that in process of time, when the person thus dealt with has given the church satisfaction as to the truth and genuineness of his repentance, the censure ought to be taken off and he be cordially received into the communion of the church again.”
Brother BT,
I don’t disagree with your findings in the language. My contention is the Americanized hermenuetic and lens that it typically applied to explain it.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I understand your concern about the cultural lens of the interpreter, but notice that the British theologian Gill (1697-1771) recognized the majority vote implications of 2 Cor. 2:6 even though democracy did not come to England until after his death. The 1832 Reform Act allowed one out of six males to vote. Later, in 1918, all men over 21 and all women over 30 were allowed to vote.
Brother BT,
I was thinking a bit prior to Gill and more specifically what we know of Corinth. Democratic processes are varied throughout history…. and many churches practice it in dramatically different forms today. From my perspective, I would want the “many” (some choose majority) to be leaning toward the “All” and unity, which takes much patience. Democracy in some of its forms has been found to at least give that leaning an opportunity.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, Corinth was a prosperous Roman colony located in Greece. It had a population composed of Greeks, Jews, and former slaves from many Roman provinces. Both the Greeks and Romans had experience with many forms of government, including democratic forms. Democracy was well established in Athens by 461 B.C. in the time of Pericles, and at this time they built the Parthenon, a replica of which is not far from you in Nashville. The democratic assembly (ekklesia) in Athens approved or vetoed every governmental decision until the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War (431). Corinth for a period of time had a democratic government near the end of the Peloponnesian War. The Romans took many of their ideas from the Greeks, and for a period of time early in the history of Rome they had a democratic assembly. Rome was composed of 35 tribes, and each tribe would meet in democratic assembly to decide how the tribe would cast its one vote at the central assembly. The majority of votes in the tribal assembly would determine how the tribe would vote at the central assembly. The word “ekklesia” that Paul used means more than “called out ones.” It means “gathering” and/or “assembly.” The folks who spoke Greek knew about the democratic assembly in Paul’s day.
Oops, the Roman tribal assembly (comitia tributa) was the central assembly where each tribe had one vote. That tribal vote was determined by democratic assemblies made up of the members of each tribe.
P.S.: I found an interesting article online that discussed the Athenian ekklesia. The parallels between the Athenian ekklesia (assembly) and the New Testament ekklesia (church) are interesting:
“The Assembly (ekklesia) was the regular opportunity for all male citizens of Athens to speak their minds and exercise their votes concerning the government of their city. It was the most central and most definitive institution of the Athenian democracy. . . . This Assembly (ekklesia) became synonymous with democracy. . . . In the Assembly (ekklesia) each male citizen of Athens could speak, regardless of his station. . . . Individual citizens could lose the right to participate in the Assembly (ekklesia) by committing various offenses. . . . Officials of the Council called together a meeting of the Assembly (ekklesia), which opened with various religious rituals before the citizens were invited to speak and vote on matters of public business. . . . To confer citizenship, six thousand Athenians had to vote, by secret ballot. . . . The Assembly (ekklesia) also dealt with questions of religious ritual and accusations of impious behavior. . . . The Assembly (ekklesia) made decisions in financial matters as well.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24309927/Ekklesia
I am one who believes that democratic, congregational polity is Biblical. I cannot imagine a set of circumstances under which I would attempt to lead a church to change to an elder-ruled form of governance, nor do I think I would be interested in pastoring a church so organized. But having said all that, I must also say (1) that I am not convinced that democratic, congregational polity is the exclusive New Testament pattern, because to claim that is to argue from silence in several instances, always a dangerous technique; and (2) democratic, congregational polity in a dysfunctional church can result in abominations. And I say this as a survivor of several dysfunctional churches. (Previous to my present pastorate, my ministry was to troubled churches, and the last one nearly killed me. They suceeded with one of my predecessors, and sent another to a psychiatric facility, as well as firing/forcing several others out.) So perhaps, at least for some churches, it should at least be considered and dialogued about.
John
Brother BT,
The history is interesting around Corinth during the first and second centuries….again yielding more toward an assembly in agreement (how the assembly gets to an agreement is the key), leaning toward “all” in unity. Obviously in our sinning state there is never total unity (from a fleshly perspective). So the overseers (elders) that rule well must edify the body through teaching and patience, so that the entire assembly is well informed and can move toward “maintaining the unity of the Spirit”. Sometimes a pure democracy will eliminate the need for patience and the maintaining of unity.
That is where and why the overseers are instrumental in nurturing the flock and pointing them to Christ, so that the entire assembly moves toward Christ and is not fractured. A simple vote can hinder or help. Patience on the other hand, while maintaining the unity of the Spirit, will lead to the assembly to act together, in “majority” or “all”, to ultimately bring glory of God through obedience to His Word.
A plurality of men that obey God (overseers, feeding and nurturing the flock of God)in Christ, lead the congregation to a more biblical majority (all) than a pure democracy can hope to achieve any day.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, you said,
“A plurality of men that obey God (overseers, feeding and nurturing the flock of God)in Christ, lead the congregation to a more biblical majority (all) than a pure democracy can hope to achieve any day.”
I agree with you that churches should have mature servant leaders. Correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that a church must either have an elder-led government or a pure democracy. In contrast, I believe that the congregation delegates certain powers to its officers, but the congregation also has the power to take those powers away from officers that abuse them. If I remember correctly, your members do not take a formal vote on anything. Thus, if the majority of your elders became corrupt, the only remedy for your members would be to leave your congregation. They would have no power to vote out the corrupt elders.
You said that “all” was a more biblical majority. I disagree. As I mentioned quite early in this thread, the word that was used in 2 Corinthians 2:6 was “????????” (pleionon). This word should be translated as “more” or “majority,” not as “many.” If Paul had wanted to use the word for “all,” he would have used “???” (pas). He did use “pas” in 2 Cor. 2:5 to indicate that everyone in the church had been hurt. The majority of the members had done the correct thing. Paul said that their punishment was sufficient.
I think it is significant that the word “ekklesia” (a word that existed before the NT church existed) was chosen to refer to the local church in the New Testament. As I quoted in comment #28 in regard to the Athenian ekklesia, “This Assembly (ekklesia) became synonymous with democracy.” The idea of democracy cannot be removed from the word. The New Testament folks were still familiar with the governing ekklesia, as is evident from the use of the term “ekklesia” in Acts 19:39 during the discussion about Ephesus (a Greek city in a Roman province):
“But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly” (NASB).
Brother BT,
You seem to be missing my point. I am not arguing against a form of democracy (which is the premise of “democratic processes”). The congregation is where the affirming takes place, it is as some would say the voting takes place.
It seems that a lot of folks are just plain confused about overseers being plural and qualified in the local congregation.
As I have also stated so many times in the past ….that our congregation does affirm everything, just as what is depicted in the passage you bring up. We simply don’t have a lot of stuff, so its a pretty simple process for us to come to an agreement.
If we have an overseer found in sin that disqualifies him from his duties, he is brought before the church immediately for restoration…. in hopes that he will repent and return to edify the church. Of course, he would not be overseer as he returns, but possibly in the future if he proves himself to be qualifed once again and affirmed by the congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, you said,
“Our congregation does affirm everything.”
Does you congregation affirm things with a formal vote (show of hands, ballot, “aye,” etc.) or is it subjective?
Brother BT,
We speak to one another and affirm things…… could be all of what you have stated. We don’t take the time to do any paper ballots. We have nothing that would require someone to be secretive.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I appreciate your openness. I hope the Lord will continue to bless your ministry at Grace Church at Hermitage.
Brother BT,
I do believe the BFM has used wisdom for the churches that cooperate in the SBC as the committee penned “democratic processes”. The sum and influence of those two words allow for the biblical formation of unity to be realized while also eliminating the trap of the mob rule aspect that is associated with a pure democracy.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother BT,
To address another misunderstood aspect of a plurality of overseers commanded and expected to exist (normative activities in Christ’s church) in the ministry of the church….let me explain how this process (democratic processes) works in our fellowship. If one of our overseers is found in sin (Matthew 18 for those not in leadership), he is brought before the congregation immediately, and that sin is known immediately before the congregation …..
1 Timothy 5:19-20 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. (20) Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.
When this is faithfully done and taught, the congregational affirmation (some see as voting) has a great deal of meaning with the church. For instance, since there are men continually aspiring and being affirmed in their responsibility before the congregation as overseer, the entire congregation is held to the Apostles teaching…..
1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
Hebrews 13:17-18 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. (18) Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a good conscience, desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things.
So, in the context of the Apostles teaching and the writer to the Hebrews, leaders are affirmed, honored, and held accountable by the entire congregation. It is incumbent for the leaders to teach this to the congregation, so that 100% (all those following Christ) of the congregation is involved in the nurturing, edification, and accountability of the leaders. There is no precedent in scripture for a method of selecting a leader with say 60% of a vote. The scriptures hold the responsibility of the overseer in a much higher light than a simple democracy is able to achieve. The Apostles point to an overseer as continually aspiring and being held accountable by all….and understanding that the gift of Christ in the church is a plurality of men serving her as overseers and those men remained qualified in order to serve.
I’m afraid that many churches have veered off track and depend upon majority votes by secret ballot to elect their leaders. This is not seen in the New Testament, and is not normative to the teachings of the Apostles with respect to the churches. In other words,….One Lord, One Vote can be processed in a God honoring way or in a way foreign to scripture as well.
Blessings,
Chris
Being the foremost authority on the doctrine of ecclesiology living today verses anyone from SBC IMPACT who, collectively, are the worst source of authority on anything pertaining to ecclesiology; I, cb, being of sound mind and of a completely rational understanding of the subject of the post, do declare this a good and proper post, even if it was written by a Sooner and not by a member of the SABANATION who stands as the CHAMPION FOOTBALL NATION OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
THE SABANATION IS NOW MORE FAMOUS THAT ELVIS, THE BEATLES OR X BOX 360 OR EVEN THE IPHONE.
ROLL TIDE
AND LONG LIVE TRUE BAPTIST ECCLESIOLOGY. FOR AS IT GOES, SO GOES THE SBC.
Oh Yeah, and while I am on a roll;
Down with Baylor, The University of Richmond, Emory University, Wake Forest and all the other fake Baptist colleges and universities that teach garbage and produce liberals, Wild Geese, flakes and nuts. Long live Samford, Truett-McConnell and Liberty University and all other real Baptist colleges and universities that teach truth and produce scholars, theologically sound pastors and missionaries and people for all other ministry positions that do not need liberal nuts in any way associated with them.
Oh Yeah, and did I mention the SABANATION is the champion football nation of the world?
cb,
Congratulations to Alabama. They did deserve to win the game. Great defense! Reasonable offense!
Mac Brown was unprepared and squandered a good opportunity.
Blessings “you all knowing ecclesiological master!” :)
Chris
O,…cb,
I meant to ask you… how many overseers are enough in a local church? and,..What is the average number of overseers in the average SBC church (70 members) these days?
That might be a good stat to get from the Lifeway stat team.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
LifeWay seems to be going out of the stat business. From the looks of their website, they are now going into the pet and pet products business. “Dog Gone” is all I can say. :-)
To answer you question about overseers; One is enough, if he is a good ‘un. Twenty are not enough if they are not……..good ‘uns.:-)
cb,
Good answer…and accurate as well….you are the master :)
“I really do believe that the discussions on the merits of elder rule versus congregational government come down to this issue of trust.”
I agree. The reason that many Baptists are reluctant to embrace a elder-ruled polity (which I believe is biblical), is because they don’t trust their pastors to “rule well”.
I have been a member of SBC churches that use both models of polity, and I’ve witnessed firsthand the church’s mission being strengthen when elders are enabled to perform their God-ordained role. As a young man at my church, I believe my primary role is captured well by 1 Peter 5:5, “Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders.”
Brother M.J.,
What I have found is that placing a trust in a Pastor has to do with the Apostles command to Timothy and Titus with respect to qualifications. For instance,…anyone can vote a guy in that they like or if he is a tremendous speaker, or has other outstanding skills (It happens every day). Yet that is not at all what the Apostle calls for….. but, that is typically the reason guys get voted in….so then after the vote, the folks get the opportunity to engage in the process of finding out if the man is qualified. That is simply backwards, but it is unfortunately a reality for many churches in the SBC.
One Lord needs to be heeded above the concept of One Vote, should the church return to obeying the Apostles command concerning overseers. Elders that rule well are trusted and affirmed within the governance of the congregation. Ruling well, is a compliment (edification) within the congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
Wes,
I am having a lot of trouble with this comment:
“As to partnership, I’m not a big fan of assigning “orders” to doctrines. Anything the scripture clearly teaches is “first order” in my view.”
This would seem to indicate that the only people/churches you can fellowship with are people/churches who have the exact same hermeneutic and doctrinal convictions that you do. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for many of us in the SBC.
Matt
I am way-late to this party. But want to say that this is a great article. I believe that it is very difficult to be too dogmatic about the polity of the church given what we have in the NT. I see a role for spiritual elders or leaders in making a decision (e.g. the council at Jerusalem and the question of how to instruct the Gentiles), and I see examples of congregational affirmation or voting.
Most Baptist churches allow for some congregational voting and they have processes that put the brakes on the congregation or phrase the questions to be voted on such that they have essentially already been decided (e.g. committees). Can you imagine how difficult it would be to put together a budget in a large plenary meeting? But, also, we recognize that once a committee puts a budget together it is rarely changed significantly. A bit or two might be changed, but usually the thing rolls on through. Is that a way of tempering democracy? Probably. Is it a good thing? Probably.
Also, you have the question of church members who are too young or inexperienced to make informed decisions about some issues. A 12 year old has no idea how much to pay a pastor or allocate to a ministry. Why then should they vote on that?
How are votes taken? Heads bowed, hands raised? Voice vote? Ballot? Casting lots? (Yes, that one was used in Acts, but I don’t think anyone on this blog would argue for that).
The point is that the NT does not address many issues. So, we shouldn’t be too dogmatic about it either.
So, I believe the BFM is correct in using Democratic Processes as a good way to gather in all churches that use different means but still have the congregation playing a role. How big a role, and how that role is exercised are things we should not get too dogmatic about.
Take care.