Truth Magazine

By Leo Rogol

From time to time I have heard and read that voting and majority rule in business meetings are wrong; that voting is sectarian and therefore unscriptural. I, for one, would like to present the “other side of the coin” on this matter. I believe that, to a great extent, such feelings about conducting business meetings arise by confusing the issues. They begin by stating that business meetings are solely to decide matters of lawful expedients, and then argue against voting, etc. upon the basis that it might lead to the danger of initiating unscriptural practices. We need to keep the issues straight in order to avoid confusion and misteaching on this subject.

What the Issue IS NOT

There are areas where we are not at liberty to follow our opinions and in certain matters we have no right of choice in deciding whether or not a thing is to be done. The church is a kingdom, not a democracy. Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18); He is the head of the church and has all preeminence, (Col. 1: 18). He is the Lawgiver (Heb. 5:9) and the New Testament is our authority today. Hence, in this article the issue is not, Can we “vote” on matters of faith? Does majority vote constitute the rightness in such matters? Can we decide upon matters of doctrine, the organization and work of the church and other related matters that are laid down in the New Testament? We have no right to choose how often we will observe the Lord’s Supper because scriptures determine this for us. We have no right to choose what emblems will be used. We have no right to vote whether or not we will use an instrument in worship because that has been settled for us in the Bible. Sometimes in the past an instrument was introduced into worship by the use of majority vote. The sin here was the exercise of majority votes in matters of faith; hence majority vote here simply resulted in the transgression of scriptural authority because they voted upon something they had no right to vote on in the first place. Even if they unanimously agreed to have the instrument in worship, it still would be wrong. Hence, it was not the vote itself that was wrong, but what they voted on in the first place, the use of an instrument in worship.

What IS The Issue?

This involves the very practice of engaging in a business meeting. There are certain areas in the framework of the church where we have the right, and the need, to decide what to do. There are certain matters of expedients, which are methods or means of carrying out the work. In these things decisions must be made for a more efficient, successful, and continuing function of the church. For example: teaching is a function of the church (Eph. 4:11-16). It is what God “gave” the church. Now, who is to teach, how to divide the classes, what materials to use, are not outlined in the Bible. In other words, God gave the church the work to be done but did not spell out the details of the means or expedients by which this is done, or the arrangements of the teaching program. As long as there are qualified teachers, there is a scriptural organization, and the word of God is taught, then these other arrangements are left up to the decision of the church. There are, therefore, many things that must be planned and arranged that are not matters of faith, but rather, matters of expediency to expedite or aid in a more efficient manner the teaching program of the church. Hence we have business meetings to decide on such matters.

We have no specific command to conduct business meetings. Nothing is outlined as to the procedures to follow in conducting them — so long as things are done “decently and in order.” Yet we necessarily infer that some manner of deciding the business of the church must be arranged. Again, neither the business meeting nor the procedures of conducting meetings are outlined in the Bible. Hence, this must be arranged by the brethren and conducted in a way that harmony and the well-being of the church may be preserved. Since all this is in the realm of human judgment, then also the means of arriving at a conclusion satisfactory to the church must be of human arrangement. Not all are going to agree upon everything; hence we always believe that in the spirit of brotherly love the few should go along with what serves the best aims of the majority.

Those who say, voting is wrong, or that majority rule is not right, must produce a Passage of scriptures that outlines the procedures by which any action is reached in a business meeting. They must produce the specified manner by which decisions are reached to prove majority rule is wrong. If the manner of conducting a business meeting is not specifically outlined in the Bible, and therefore is left up to human judgment, then voting or majority rule cannot be against a specified rule that does not exist! Those who insist such is a violation of scriptures must therefore produce a passage of scripture that specifically tell us exactly what procedures are followed in a business meeting to prove voting, majority rule wrong. For one unable to find a specific command as to the procedures of a business meeting, and then argue voting or majority rule is wrong, is legislating in the area of human judgment.

The argurnent is made that majority rule can lead the church into something unscriptural. But this is confusing the issue. We well know we cannot vote on matters of faith! But that can work just the other way too. What if a few want to lead the church into something wrong? The majority cannot stop them! I am certain we are well aware that in some places there is a clique made up of two or three who dominate the church. They somehow have the ability to rule without any serious challenge. They are unopposed for several reasons. There are those who are so indifferent and show such little concern about the affairs of the church that it matters not to them what is happening. Then there are those who are so timid that they fear to disagree with the ruling element in the church because it’s “upsetting” to them. There are also those who think that “peace” is maintained in the church by allowing certain parties to have their way. All of this is unhealthy and adds up to – minority rule!

As far as majority rule leading the church astray is concerned, I firmly believe that in so, many places the opposite is true. A few press their desires and influence the majority and thus do whatever they desire because some feel majority rude is wrong. A few ambitious zealots can so manipulate matters as to gain their desires over the congregation.

Too often a matter is brought forth and brethren are asked to decide on it. One brother will say, “Whatever the rest want is alright with me.” This sets up a chain reaction because the next man hesitates to speak out on the matter. As a result, the whole thing is in doubt, and although everyone will go along with “what the rest want,” nobody knows what anybody wants! So they are unanimous in deciding nothing for fear that someone might dissent from the rest. Thus many business meetings serve no purpose at all except to go through a motion of one and wasting a great deal of time. I firmly believe that if brethren would decide to act on what serves the desires of the majority, much confusion, grumbling and dissatisfaction could be avoided and the church could make the progress it should.

It seems strange that in all other organizational affairs people agree to majority vote, be it Congress, PTA, or what have you. Yet a reasonable method of action such as this is rejected by our brethren in business meetings because of some strange notion that majority vote is wrong! I believe it is because of a basic problem among brethren. In the business world they can act as gentlemen and work in accord with majority rule but in the church brethren so many times act as spoiled children who raise a tantrum if their whims or desires are not carried out. If they would act as gentlemen in the church as they do in their businesses, this problem of majority rule would not exist. Did not Paul say, “Quit you like men” (I Cor. 16:13)? Become as grown men, or act maturely!

I have been in places where a chronic objector would be against any good sound plan, all because it is his nature to be suspicious and be against everything. Sad to say, many buckle under such and their excuse is, “We don’t believe in majority rule.”

Consider it this way, please. Some brethren argue that, unless all agree upon something, it should not be done. For example: the brethren agree to have a “song practice” once a month, say on Wednesday night. One brother objects, another agrees with him. The decision of the two ruled over the desires of the rest. And by their argument that majority rule is wrong, they defend their practice of minority rule! They got their way. Now, brethren, if majority rule is wrong, is this minority rule right? If a project can be killed because one or two object to it, then this establishes the law of minority rule. If majority rule is “unscriptural,” then is minority rule scriptural?

Some argue that unless the rule is unanimous, this would give the young, inexperienced the free road to push through anything that might be wrong. But this works the other way too. I have seen as many old men bring in unscriptural things and kill the initiative of the church. So the argument against the one is an argument against the other.

Some brethren are opposed to voting in business meetings. “Vote” simply means an expression of approval or disapproval of a certain proposition or person under consideration Many times names are submitted in churches in consideration of the eldership. Usually time is given to raise valid objections to the names submitted. Now, if this is not some form, one way or another, of voting, then just what is it? If voting is wrong, then this practice must cease for this is exactly what it is-voting. (Read your dictionary definition of the word.) Any time a decision is made about anything, any time any one is appointed for a certain task-this is voting. I do not know why brethren object to calling by name the very thing they practice. Even a nod of the head, yes or no, on any given motion is a vote.

Any time a matter is proposed in a business meeting, one of two things must happen. The men must accept or reject it. Hence the very thing of bringing up a matter to decide upon puts in motion the action of voting. A motion is made, seconded. Now it must be decided if it will be accepted or rejected (The definition of “vote.”) How? By determining how many are for or against it? This is a vote! There are various ways by which a vote is made to determine the matter. One way is to ask, “All in favor say yes, all opposed say no.” Or there can be a show of hands, or the process can be dragged out by asking each one individually his choice, which is only a long way of doing the very same thing that can be accomplished by a show of hands, a “yes” or a “no.” Now right here brethren practice the very thing they do not want to call it-voting. Even the ones who are against “voting” do it whether they realize it of not. Now, since it must be determined how many are in favor of a proposed motion, and the only, way of deciding on the motion is to ask how many are for or against it, then I ask someone to show a better way of deciding on a motion other than all ex pressing their approval or disapproval-if voting is wrong-because expressing approval or disapproval of a motion is voting.

Some say majority rule is wrong because we are to be “of the same mind” and that there should be “no divisions among you.” Well, the anti-cla8s folks use the very same argument when they say we should not divide into classes because that’s “division.” But the very thing wrong with the anti-class folks is what is wrong with the anti-majority brethren. They do not apply scriptures correctly, they do not “rightly divide the word of truth.” A parallel passage to 1 Cor. 10 is Phil. 1:27: “that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.” If we were voting on matters of faith in our business meetings, that would be wrong. But if it comes to the matter of expedients, or things left to human judgment in carrying out certain functions, that is not a matter of faith and we have the right to differ on methods, etc. I never read in my Bible that I have to agree with every opinion, but I do read in my Bible that I must yield my personal opinion for the good of the whole body, if the rest want a thing done a certain way.

I do not read in the Bible where one or two can ride the church with their opinions, where the entire church must yield to the whims and ‘desires of brethren who set themselves against the rest. I do read in my Bible where I must yield my desires to the desires of the church in order to preserve harmony and peace in the congregation. ,

Since the procedures of arriving at some conclusion on a given motion is not outlined in the Bible, then they rest in the area of human liberty and no one can legislate in this area where God has not defined these matters.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, pp. 11-13
March 23, 1972

By B. G. Echols

In 1881, J. Cynddylan Jones of Wales published his Studies in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. In it he made a comment that is just as needed today. He said:

“Some of our popular preachers have been descanting of late upon what they call ‘Bibliolatry’-idolatry of , the Bible. The people they come in contact with, I conjecture, make too much of the Bible. I wish I knew where such people live. I should like to go and live amongst them. The people I know make too little of the Bible, a great deal too little. They read it too little, study it too little, believe it too little. I would travel far to see an idolater of the Bible. I have not seen one yet. The truth is, that as to love Christ supremely is not idolatry of His human nature, so to believe the Bible intensely is not idolatry of mere thoughts and words.”

 

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, p. 10
March 23, 1972

By James W. Adams

QUESTION:

What is your attitude toward modern dress style affected by professed Christians in the public worship, particularly by those who lead in that worship, and the casual and familiar form of address characteristic of the prayers in the assemblies of the saints? (Texas.)

ANSWER:

The question above has been asked me by so many people throughout the United States in the last several years that I hesitate to identify it either by place or person. So many have inquired about this matter here at Pruett and Lobit where I labor that I recently wrote and published an article concerning it in our local bulletin which is not mailed out. I have been urged to give it wider circulation. Some of these matters have been argued at some length in the past, and I do not imagine what I have said will add anything to the discussion. However, the following constitutes my attitude for whatever it may be worth.

Long ago, the Psalmist contemplated the problems inherent in the attitude of the “saints” toward God and was inspired by the Spirit of God to exclaim, “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (Psalms 89:7). We live in an age in which a considerable segment of humanity is dedicated to the complete destruction of all traditional values, customs, morals of human conduct, and institutions. Reverence for God and Divine institutions, love of country, love of home, respect for parents, chastity, honesty, honorable toil, ambition, bodily cleanliness, respectable dress, conventional behavior, and the elevation of and respect for womanhood are passé”. They are regarded as outmoded and selfish inventions of the “authoritarian establishment” which have been created and maintained for the exploitation of fellow human beings.

God’s people have been seriously affected by the spirit of the age. Many of our young people particularly have adopted its clichés, fashions in dress, morals (or lack of morals), disrespect for authority (Divine, parental, and state), contempt for religion (especially what they choose to call “formal religion”), and spirit of uninhibited familiarity with God. Respectful formality in religious exercises is held to be spiritually stultifying, coldly hypocritical, and grossly irrelevant to the problems and needs of the “free spirits of our liberated generation.”

Let us note several concrete examples of the encroachment of the “spirit of the age” upon God’s redeemed people. In recent years, a great many have adopted a familiar style of address when approaching Jehovah. The “sacred style” of address so long in vogue among Christians has been abandoned and the common or vulgar “you” has been adopted. It is contended that “sacred style” was unknown to the koine Greek in which the books of the New Testament were written originally, hence without scriptural precedent. While it is true that the koine Greek of the New Testament furnishes no evidence of “sacred style,” the current use of the vulgar “you” is by no means justified on the basis of this fact. We do have a recognized “sacred style” of address in English. This being true, proper reverence for God would suggest its retention when addressing Deity. A happy solution of this matter seems to me to be that which was adopted by the translators of the New American Standard Bible. They retained the “sacred style-the thees and thous” when Deity is addressed and use the more common “you” in all other places.

Our text illustrates an attitude which was common among the Israelites of Old Testament history — God’s special people for fifteen hundred years; namely, an attitude of profound reverence in reference to everything addressed to Deity. The Psalmist said, “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (Psalms 89:7emphasis mine, JWA). The Israelites took this admonition seriously. It is a fact of history that they would pronounce the name of Jehovah only on the most solemn occasions and with reference to the most sacred matters and then only with the deepest reverence and humility.

It would have been unthinkable to one of the Israel of God to place himself on terms of familiarity with Jehovah. From my earliest childhood, I have been associated with Christians who have held the God of Heaven in the same reverence and addressed him with like fear and humility. Recently, therefore, I have been shocked and repelled to hear preachers of the gospel and others among conservative churches address God in an offhand, informal, and familiarly intimate fashion such as one would employ in casual conversation with his neighbor over the backyard fence.

It is argued by some that this casual, intimate, familiar approach to God deepens one’s sense of a “personal God.” In my judgment, such an argument plumbs the depths of absurdity. The reality of God’s existence and personal interest in and concern for -the individual person of the human family, by such an argument, is made to depend upon an assumption of equality with God manifested in vulgarly familiar address. While it is true that one’s relationship with God is intimate, real, and personal, it is not a relationship of equality. We approach God as imperfect, fallible men-sinners saved by grace. We do this “boldly through Christ” (Heb. 4:14-16), yet not with vulgar familiarity. We rather approach God as one “unworthy of the least of all his mercies” (Gen. 3 2: 10), and not on a plane of equality in our petitions and in our praise. There can be personal, meaningful, and spiritually uplifting and sanctifying intimacy without grossly casual familiarity.

Another illustration of how “the spirit of the age” has infected the people of God in our time and desecrated “the assembly of the saints” is the casual and often carnally suggestive dress of the worshippers in their public devotions. Informality is the keynote. In public life in general, people appear at formal functions involving highly dignified persons and purposes coatless, tieless, unpressed, in jeans, and, believe it or not, at times barefooted. God’s people have in many cases adopted this same attitude relative to the public worship. They rebel against any sort of formality in dress. They prefer to dress as though they were going on a picnic, a hay ride, or a fishing trip. Women come to worship in dresses which are suggestively low in back and front at the top, and short at the bottom to the point of being not simply suggestive but sexually seductive. It has been said, “Never the twain shall meet,” but the “mod” style of woman’s dress in our time has all but made this affirmation academic.

I do not subscribe to the idea that men must wear long, black coats and standing collars (if you know what that means), nor to the idea that women must be clothed in ankle-length garments with multiple petticoats and bonneted heads in the public worship. I do insist that propriety, dignity, and chastity do not have to be sacrificed to achieve a worship atmosphere that is personal, intimate, and meaningful as well as relevant. The old proverb to the effect that “familiarity breeds contempt” has not lost its meaning with the passing years and the dawning of the so-called “age of liberation.”

We ought to be able to recognize the fact that nothing is lost and much gained in the realm of civil government by a citizen addressing the head of state as, “Mr. President,” in the realm of the home by addressing those who have given us life and nurtured it as “father and mother,” and in the realm of religion by addressing the Creator of the universe in the most dignified and sacred terminology available from a posture of worship involving demeanor and dress indicative of the highest purity and reverence. Let us not permit an erosion of the “fear of God” through capitulation to the current winds of casual familiarity. There are some things which are yet sacred and worthy of the deepest respect and the most profound reverence.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, pp. 8-10
March 23, 1972

By James Sanders

The Lord once asked, “Know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?” (Mk 4:13). He had reference to the Parable of the Sower. In t at parable some of e most basic lessons of Christianity are to be found. And yet the Lord repeatedly warned, “Take heed therefore how ye hear!” There must have been a reason for the recurrent emphasis of the Lord. It would seem that though the lessons are simple and fundamental, they are often overlooked. How was the Parable of the Sower heard that day?

1. Wayside Hearer:

The wayside hearer was typified by that seed which fell upon the hard pathway. The fowl of the air came and snatched it away. This is the man who hears but fails to understand the word of God. He does not come with any design to get good, as the highway was never intended to be sown. He comes before God as do His people, but never regards what is said. Some wayside hearers have even been baptized and others never miss a service. But the Word of truth never really makes a lasting impression upon them. It comes in at one ear and goes out the other.

2. Stony Ground:

This is the soil which immediately sprouts forth but because of shallowness soon withers away. The stony-hearer is the man who fails to think things out and to think them through. He begins but never ends. Some people’s whole life is littered with things they start, but never finish. It may be a hobby, a new fashion or learning to play a piano. When Christianity became difficult, this man quits! He withered away because he had no roots. And yet surprisingly, he once received the Word with joy. But there are many who enjoy hearing a good sermon which do not profit by it. They may be pleased with the Word and yet not be changed and ruled by it. Demas was such a person.

3. Thorny Ground:

This is the seed which lacks fruit. It became choked by the thorns and thistles. The thorny-ground hearer is the man who is crushed by the cares and pleasures of this world. He is the hearer who has so many interests and demands in life that often the most important things get crowded out. He does not deliberately banish prayer, the Scriptures, and the church from his life. He often thinks of them and wishes that somehow he had time for them. He intends and resolves to make time for them but his crowded life never really gets around to it. The stony-ground hearer is easily recognized. He never grows spiritually; he bears no fruit.

4. Good Ground:

This is the soil that produces. The good-ground hearer is the man who hears and applies what he has learned. He produces the good fruit of the good seed.

It is distressing to think that some will not even read this brief article and others who do read it will never realize that the author was talking about them. He was trying to save their soul. Little wonder that the Lord said, “Take heed how ye hear.”

Bibliography

Barclay, William; DSB, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: Westminister Press. 1958. Much of the expressions and thoughts in the brief article are those of the lucid Barclay. He is a masterful writer.

Henry, Matthew; Commentary On The Whole Bible, Marshallton, Del.: Sovereign Grace Pub.

Lockyer, Herbert; All The Parables Of The Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1964.

Trench, R. C.; Notes on The Parables Of Our Lord, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 20, p. 7
March 23, 1972