Voting in a Congregational Meeting

[N. Eshelman]

Today at breakfast I was talking with my wife about congregational voting habits. (We have a congregational meeting at 3PM pacific time- pray for us).

My wife is quite sure that she only believes in 'head of household voting' and I am inclined to see that as well. But we were wondering if any churches practice that?

I am familiar with male only voting as well as all communicants having a voice (RPCNA practice); but what about head of household voting.

Example: If we had all male voting then we would take away the votes from single women and widows. In head of household voting- these women could have a voice in the congregational matters (and we are Presbyterian, so they are few- budget, office bearers, property purchases, etc).

So, thoughts?

 

[ValiantforTruth]

If only heads of households can vote, where's the incentive to have large families???

 

[rbcbob]

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

 

[JBaldwin]

I should have voted all communicant members, as I was confusing my current church with the last church I attended where only communicant members 18 and older could vote.

Scripture teaches that all are equal in the kingdom, and I would think that all those in the church should be able to vote. Women should not be excluded.

 

[Marrow Man]

There was a memorial (same as an "overture"; essential an official motion) before the ARP General Synod a few years ago over this very issue. One of the church's wanted to go to head of household voting, but not for the right (read: biblical) reasons. It seems that the youth of the church were promised a church van, while some of the older guard wanted the money spent on a new organ. It went to a vote at a congregational meeting, and because the church was blessed with many communicate youth, the van prevailed. This upset some of the older folks, who saw that if it was only one vote per household, the numbers would have gone their way. The memorial, incidentally, did not pass at General Synod, and in part that was probably because of the rationale behind the memorial.

 

[Rich Koster]

Other: All regular members present (quorum) who have mature discernment and are in good standing.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Other: All regular members present (quorum) who have mature discernment and are in good standing.

What is a 'regular member'?

Who decides what mature discernment is?

 

[au5t1n]

"Head of household" would include a widow living alone, as well as singles, I think, but a "male-only" system would not. Also, perhaps it's not fair for larger families to have more votes in an "every communicant member" system, especially since almost always a household would be unified in what it would vote for (or it should be anyway). A one-vote-per-household system has a lot of advantages. It covers those widows and singles, and prevents people from taking advantage of their multiple communicant teenagers' voting powers.

 

[LawrenceU]

Other: We do not hold congregational votes. There is nothing quite like lowering leadership down to the LCD.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Other: We do not hold congregational votes. There is nothing quite like lowering leadership down to the LCD.

Not even to call a pastor?

 

[Casey]

Voting in Presbyterian churches (Session has authority) is different from voting in Congregational churches (congregational majority has authority). My understanding is that the voting taking place in Presbyterian churches is to make known to the Session (local ministers & elders) the desire/preference of the congregation. Strictly speaking, in presbyterianism the Session makes the decision in matters, not the will of the majority. So it makes sense to have all communicant members in good standing make their thoughts known to the governing body of the congregation.

 

[fredtgreco]

Voting in Presbyterian churches (Session has authority) is different from voting in Congregational churches (congregational majority has authority). My understanding is that the voting taking place in Presbyterian churches is to make known to the Session (local ministers & elders) the desire/preference of the congregation. Strictly speaking, in presbyterianism the Session makes the decision in matters, not the will of the majority. So it makes sense to have all communicant members in good standing make their thoughts known to the governing body of the congregation.

That may be the case with "unofficial" matters (i.e. receiving the budget), but in the only true area of congregational voting - electing officers and pastors. The Session should not make that decision, based upon the principle (enshrined in Presbyterianism) that the congregation cannot have officers/pastors forced upon them, but must willingly submit.

 

[Casey]

In my two previous congregations, recommendations of men for the office of ruling elder are given to the Session by members of the congregation, the Session examines the men, and then the Session presents those who are qualified to the congregation as options in a congregational vote. Isn't this normal?

The reason I bring this up is because, again as I understand things, the Session is exercising authority whereas congregational votes (technically speaking) are not. And so it's a moot point whether women vote, because the congregational vote is not an action of authority (though it would be in a Congregational church).

 

[fredtgreco]

In my two previous congregations, recommendations of men for the office of ruling elder are given to the Session by members of the congregation, the Session examines the men, and then the Session presents those who are qualified to the congregation as options in a congregational vote. Isn't this normal?

The reason I bring this up is because, again as I understand things, the Session is exercising authority whereas congregational votes (technically speaking) are not. And so it's a moot point whether women vote, because the congregational vote is not an action of authority (though it would be in a Congregational church).

No, I don't think so. The congregation can completely within its prerogative vote not to elect a man put forward for election. That is a exercise of (self) authority. In a similar way, a pulpit committee can put a candidate for pastorate in front of the congregation, but it is up to the congregation to elect or not.

 

[Casey]

Back to the BCO for me

 

[rbcbob]

Other: We do not hold congregational votes. There is nothing quite like lowering leadership down to the LCD.

Not even to call a pastor?

... or church discipline?

 

[Rich Koster]

Other: All regular members present (quorum) who have mature discernment and are in good standing.

What is a 'regular member'?

Who decides what mature discernment is?

1) Regular member as opposed to temporary (one who is temporarily in the area who does not transfer membership from home, such as a college student).
2) The Elders would determine if a youngster had the capacity to understand the business at hand.

 

[Dearly Bought]

My understanding is that all communicant members have voting privileges in our congregation. Having recently transferred from an RCUS congregation that practices male head-of-household voting, it is actually a little strange to witness again, even though I was American Baptist for the vast majority of my life so far. I favor male head-of-household voting and see Biblical ground for it.

 

[Edward]

2) The Elders would determine if a youngster had the capacity to understand the business at hand.

Ah. Sort of like when I was a teenager and didn't fully understand how Presbyterian churches worked. A slate of deacons was put up for a voice vote. I knew one of the men wasn't qualified, so I voted 'no'. It was recorded as a unanimous vote for the slate.

(For the rest of the story - he later proved his worth by leaving his wife, and the church. But the leadership probably recognized that I didn't understand the business at hand.)

 

[LAmom]

I should have voted all communicant members, as I was confusing my current church with the last church I attended where only communicant members 18 and older could vote.

Scripture teaches that all are equal in the kingdom, and I would think that all those in the church should be able to vote. Women should not be excluded.

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.

 

[N. Eshelman]

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.

She's a keeper.

 

[LawrenceU]

Other: We do not hold congregational votes. There is nothing quite like lowering leadership down to the LCD.

Not even to call a pastor?

... or church discipline?

The communicant members would vote when calling a pastor, but the candidate will have already been approved by the elders.

In church discipline, no, they would not vote. Matthew 18 does not say that the person should be voted upon by the congregation. It says that the congregation should be told and that if he will not respond to them then he is to be 'as a Gentile and a tax collector.'

When I posted my original statement it was with the understanding that I almost always hear regarding the term 'congregational vote': Congregational polity. And, many churches in spite of having elders are congregational in polity regardless of what their bylaws may say.

 

[jwithnell]

... or church discipline?

Wow, I didn't realize that congregationalism went this far! I am blessed and pleased that my spiritual oversight is in the hands of men who have been given that authority by God, are well grounded in the scriptures, and very wise

 

[au5t1n]

I should have voted all communicant members, as I was confusing my current church with the last church I attended where only communicant members 18 and older could vote.

Scripture teaches that all are equal in the kingdom, and I would think that all those in the church should be able to vote. Women should not be excluded.

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.

Excellent post. I think you are right. Something is off if household members (including any teenagers) are divided in their voting. One-vote-per-household seems to have many advantages.

 

[Rich Koster]

2) The Elders would determine if a youngster had the capacity to understand the business at hand.

Ah. Sort of like when I was a teenager and didn't fully understand how Presbyterian churches worked. A slate of deacons was put up for a voice vote. I knew one of the men wasn't qualified, so I voted 'no'. It was recorded as a unanimous vote for the slate.

(For the rest of the story - he later proved his worth by leaving his wife, and the church. But the leadership probably recognized that I didn't understand the business at hand.)

I believe that all elders should not be judged by the failure of a few. I don't think I want a five year old voting on constitutional amendments or the calling of a pastor. I grieve that you were exposed to such good-ol'-boy-ism at a young age.

 

[Mushroom]

2) The Elders would determine if a youngster had the capacity to understand the business at hand.

Ah. Sort of like when I was a teenager and didn't fully understand how Presbyterian churches worked. A slate of deacons was put up for a voice vote. I knew one of the men wasn't qualified, so I voted 'no'. It was recorded as a unanimous vote for the slate.

(For the rest of the story - he later proved his worth by leaving his wife, and the church. But the leadership probably recognized that I didn't understand the business at hand.)

I believe that all elders should not be judged by the failure of a few. I don't think I want a five year old voting on constitutional amendments or the calling of a pastor. I grieve that you were exposed to such good-ol'-boy-ism at a young age.

I would venture it was more of an aversion to confrontation. Still a sad thing to see.

 

[Edward]

I believe that all elders should not be judged by the failure of a few. I don't think I want a five year old voting on constitutional amendments or the calling of a pastor.

Voting came with admission to the table. Generally speaking, that occured at 12 or 13. So, at least there weren't any 5 year olds voting.

 

[JBaldwin]

I should have voted all communicant members, as I was confusing my current church with the last church I attended where only communicant members 18 and older could vote.

Scripture teaches that all are equal in the kingdom, and I would think that all those in the church should be able to vote. Women should not be excluded.

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.

While I can completely understand your point, and I in part agree with you, I think there are times when votes should be taken from all communicant members, not just heads of households. I am thinking in particular of the election of a pastor or elder. When it comes to voting for leadership, I think each communicant member should have a say. As a communicant member of the congregation, I am just as responsible to submit to leadership as my husband is. My husband is not the mediator between me and the pastor or me and elders. If I felt strongly enough that I could not submit to a particular elder or leader and my husband did, I would vote my conscience. Of course, if the congregation elected the person, I would submit to that.

 

[JML]

Other: We do not hold congregational votes. There is nothing quite like lowering leadership down to the LCD.

Not even to call a pastor?

... or church discipline?

The communicant members would vote when calling a pastor, but the candidate will have already been approved by the elders.

In church discipline, no, they would not vote. Matthew 18 does not say that the person should be voted upon by the congregation. It says that the congregation should be told and that if he will not respond to them then he is to be 'as a Gentile and a tax collector.'

When I posted my original statement it was with the understanding that I almost always hear regarding the term 'congregational vote': Congregational polity. And, many churches in spite of having elders are congregational in polity regardless of what their bylaws may say.

Other: Our church's practice is similar to Lawrence's.

 

[rbcbob]

Other: We do not hold congregational votes. There is nothing quite like lowering leadership down to the LCD.

Not even to call a pastor?

... or church discipline?

The communicant members would vote when calling a pastor, but the candidate will have already been approved by the elders.

In church discipline, no, they would not vote. Matthew 18 does not say that the person should be voted upon by the congregation. It says that the congregation should be told and that if he will not respond to them then he is to be 'as a Gentile and a tax collector.'

When I posted my original statement it was with the understanding that I almost always hear regarding the term 'congregational vote': Congregational polity. And, many churches in spite of having elders are congregational in polity regardless of what their bylaws may say.

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?