Ekklesiatime VII: Congregationalism and Consensus

Consensus

Last, but maybe most important of all, we need to have a word about consensus vs majority rule. This is especially important because it actually is a major stumbling block for Christians trying to conceive of the NT truth of interactive congregational decision making. Most of us have heard of the proverbial church that splits over the carpet color (although few of us have considered seriously the idea that such splits have their genesis in the fact that churches are not supposed to be in the business of choosing or purchasing carpet). Many of us have lived through bitter fighting and wrangling in such a process, or have been hurt by a decision that did not go our way.

In our culture, majority rule is so much the accepted norm that few question its propriety under any circumstances. Many people even think that the majority opinion is synonymous with right, as though right itself is determined by popular vote. Or perhaps that if the majority of people think something is right or true that indicates with certainty that it is in fact right or true; i.e., "How can the majority be wrong?" But, the majority can be wrong. The testimony of scripture is clear that popular opinion is no reliable guide to right and wrong, whether in a moral sense or a wisdom sense. The people voted Jesus 'Most Likely to be Messiah' one day, and a few days later cried for His execution.

In a previous post I wrote about my Southern Baptist roots, and how we voted on everything down to the last penny. The fact that I had a vote mattered to be and gave me a vested interest in the 'church' that made me feel a real part, even though the vast, vast majority of votes were over very mundane issues and had no dissenting parties. But I especially remember one vote when the church was to decide on whether to make the interim pastor the permanent pastor. I was rather young at the time (somewhere in middle school), and have no recollection of what the percentages were on the vote, but what I do remember is this: many of the regular attending members were in favor of appointing the interim pastor as our permanent pastor, but on the night of the vote a considerable number of people that didn't normally attend the church at all but were on the rolls as registered members showed up, and the interim pastor was voted down.

Now obviously, that is not the way that the Body of Christ should do things.

If votes are taken in an ekklesia setting, and the majority rules, that means that as much as 49% of the congregation is not in agreement. That is not the Biblical pattern. Even supposing that the majority is as much as 80 or 90 percent, that still leaves 10 or 20 percent out in the cold. I can't find that in the NT either.

Henry Blackaby

Regardless of those things it never occurred to me that decisions could be any other way until we heard Henry Blackaby in the Experiencing God study. The first church we got back into in the late nineties was a Baptist church, and Experiencing God was a big thing at that time in Baptist circles. I had (and have) a major prejudice against prepared, pre-packaged church teaching of all flavors, but we decided to go through the course at the church. Now, you know people are weird, and in those day after Experiencing God came out and it was really 'big' they came out with Experiencing God the Bible case, Experiencing God the Calendar, Experiencing God the Notepad, and even (no kidding) Experiencing God the Musical. It was just crazy. And disgusting. But if you have never been through the Experiencing God study do yourself a favor and pencil that in on your calendar.

The heart of EG was the teaching and experience of Henry Blackaby, an unassuming pastor that started out in a tiny Southern Baptist church in Canada, so poor that they literally paid him with potatoes at the beginning. But Blackaby believed that God wanted him to be there. Much of the EG study I no longer remember after over a decade, but Blackaby's discussion on the importance of unity in church decision-making completely changed the way I looked at the church. He spoke in great humility about his conviction that if the Bible clearly stated that the ekklesias are to be in unity, then a mere majority-rule vote was not sufficient in the House of God. He spoke of how church votes worked against unity to divide congregations and cause church splits. He spoke of how he himself in his congregation patiently waited for Jesus to bring them all into one accord on any issue before they moved forward with it. He talked of his conviction that if Jesus is the head of the Church, and we are all members of His Body, then he could trust Jesus to bring His own members to agreement on any issue if it is really what Jesus Himself wants; and that if there isn't unity on a particular decision, and they don't come to unity, that could actually be a real indicator that it just isn't the will of God even if the majority think it is. Or perhaps that it is the will of God but it isn't the right time. But whatever the reason he always trusted the Biblical pattern, and the headship of Jesus.

Just imagine for one moment what a change would take place in our nation if every single 'church' were to make just that one change in their operation.

Well, it is true as Abeelen said, you won't find any votes in the New Testament. Nor will you find decisions made behind closed doors with all the body of the disciples closed out to be informed later-if-at-all. You find a consistent pattern, encouragement, and even commandment to meet corporately, discuss and debate openly, and come to unity in our decisions in all humility, depending on Jesus to get it right.

Now that's some seriously scary commitment to God.

You might also like to read more in this NTRF article "Elder Led Congregational Consensus."