Do you favour congregational government or elder led church? That might be something you are thinking through if you are involved in church planting or revitalisation. I think of the two that the latter seems to be in vogue. That perhaps reflects frustration at bureaucratic versions of congregational government and the idea that it means worrying over quoracy, votes and thresholds.
I wonder if we have to choose, or indeed if there is a third way, a kind of subversive fulfilment of both. Yes, leaders are meant to lead and so there is a responsibility on elders and wider church leadership. However, that’s not the same as imposing their will on the church. Instead, I would suggest that it is about leading the church to a place where they can discern God’s will as family together, leading to the statement in my title which we find as a description of decisions in Acts.
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us”
In my experience, this means a couple of things. First, it means that leaders are not detached from the church throw a decision over the fence to a members’ meeting and say “you decide” as though they have no skin in the game. That kind of disinterest might be seen as the opposite danger to despotic authoritarianism with the decision imposed. However, it perhaps has the same kind of root, a disconnect between members and leaders.
Second, it means that there is a sense in which we are seeking consensus. However, consensus is not the same as compromise. It’s not that we come together, hear everyone’s ideas, get the extremes to compromise (though sometimes that is necessary), and then reach a fudge, A decision has to be made and the church have to unite around that. We might argue that consensus identifies where the boundaries are, allows for a field of play that enables a level of diversity and freedom within the church but reaches an overall position on where the church sits.
This means that sometimes voting can have its place. At Bearwood Chapel we voted a few times as members together. I particularly remember this happening with a big decision to purchase property and to move to multiple services and we voted on another occasion on a matter of church discipline. Some churches may explicitly require votes and thresholds in their constitutions. I don’t have a problem with votes playing their part in discernment. However, it’s important to see them in that way, a contribution to the discernment process rather than a hoop to jump through or hurdle to get over.
This means that if you do happen to use a vote, then I would not rely on that alone. When we moved to two services at Bearwood, we did not require a unanimous verdict. However, the leaders were clear to the church that we weren’t simply looking to get a majority. We wanted to hear what the church were saying about what they believed God was guiding us towards. I think there were only a few people who voted “no” but after the meeting (it was a non secret ballot), I spoke individually to some key people who I knew had disagreed and asked them if they were willing to go ahead. They all said “yes” but if they had not, then my inclination would not have been to use the majority to override them.
And it’s important to recognise that there may be other ways that we discern. Sometimes that means getting a feel for the room for example. Indeed, I remember at times pausing in a meeting to ask the question
“There do not seem to be too many comments/questions. Is this because the proposal is an obvious no brainer and you want us to get on with it or because you are shocked at how silly we have been to come up with this?”
9 times out of 10 it was the former. The 1 in 10 though should caution us against ignoring the church! Sometimes we gave as much space for qualitative feedback. We might ask members to write in their observations or break into small groups for facilitated discussion. Both of these could often tell us more than a straight yes/no vote.
I think there are some implications for this. First, there is a healthiness to having some form of membership or belonging, however that looks in your context. Secondly it means that there has to be a way of hearing those who are committed to being part of the church securely, whether that is through email, one to one conversations or member meetings. If the latter then think carefully about what those meetings will look like and the benefits/challenges with opening attendance up to all. Remember that if you have formal membership then it isn’t merely about voting privileges.
The final implication is that it means that leaders won’t always get their own way. This is why it important to treat the congregation as part of discernment rather than a hurdle to clear. More important than me getting my way is that we as a church hear God and discern together. In that respect, although some decisions are painful, there should never be losers.
None of this meant we always got things right. Congregations are fallible just like individuals. However, it did enable us to reach the stage, not where we claimed infallibility but where we could say “it seems good to Holy Spirit and us.”
