Women voting on church issues

We allow women to vote. I can't find a Biblical reason not to.

 

I think we need to be clear about what "biblical' means.

1. It can mean it is in the Bible.

2. It can mean it is endorsed by the Bible.

In my humble opinion it would be a fallicious assumption that simply because the Bible contains an idea or practice it automatically endorses it and therefore we can establish a governing principle, church doctrine or policy based on it. That would be using the scripture as a pretext.

I believe that scripture records the use of the casting of lots as an historical and cultural practice but does not inherently endorse it as normative for local church decision making. In fact I believe that the church in an effort to fit in with and emulate the world has adopted an unbiblical human system of democracy in the name of pragmitism and political correctness and uses the historical concept of casting lots as a pretext to defend its actions.:smilewinkgrin:

 

The selection of the first deacons in Acts 6 provides us with an example of congregational voting.

The apostles instructed the "multitude" to look for some qualified men take some of the load off the apostles. They laid out the qualifications, and the congregation made the choices.

Acts 6:5-6:

5 "And the saying pleased the multitude and THEY chose....(Stephen and others)... 6 Whom they set before the apostles, and when they had prayed, the laid their hands on them."

 

Hi Tom I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Can you please provide some clarification?

 

Some have already expressed the opinion opposing congregational rule, you among them. They hold that the pastor and elders (or deacons) should be in authority. And they see congregational rule as unbiblical.

All I was doing was providing a scriptural example of congregational rule. The congregation voted on the deacons.

I grant your point that a New Testament practice is not necessarily a governing principle for today. The communal living in in the early chapters of Acts was apparently abandoned as impractical as time went by.

However, congregational involvement in church affairs is not isolated to Acts 5. The selection of Matthias in Acts 1, and the congregational laying-on-of-hands of Paul and Silas at Antioch are two more examples. In the absence of specific prohibitions against congregational government, I think we are free to adopt the practice.

That fact that Baptists have done so for hundreds of years, believing it to be the Biblical norm, should carry some weight.

Some Baptist churches in my area have gone to the pastor-elder-deacon system. I think the scriptures teach that the pastors, elders and bishops are all describing the same person--three jobs in one. But I don't make my difference of opinion a test of fellowship.

In fact, I address my pastor as bishop on occasion.

 

Thanks so much for the explanation. I do agree with u that congregational participation in local church decision making is recorded in scripture but recorded is not the same thing as endorsed. In fact it could be argued that they had to participate since they hadnt chosen a functional administrative leadership to that point. The intended function of deacons was to administrate practical matters. The function of the eldership was to administrate spiritual matters. Scripture dictates on all specific matters. There needs to be transparency and accountability where the congregation is concerned but that is all. The fact that baptists have done it for centuries is neither here nor there. We dont do things because a bunch of other people have been doing it for a long time before us.