God begins a remarkable change in the people he saves. He transforms them from selfish, sometimes cruel individuals, into those who die to self and love their enemies. And if those high ideals are not held with an awareness of every Christian’s ongoing war against indwelling sin, this can lead to a kind of naive idealism that suggests we should all just get along, think the same, and never disagree.
When that idea creeps into the life of a church, terrible outcomes are almost guaranteed. Writing of Benjamin Ingham’s (a contemporary of the Wesleys and Whitefield) fellowship of good churches in the 18th century, Faith Cook describes a time Ingham sent two of his elders to learn from the association of churches under Scottish minister, John Glas.
“These churches, under the direction of John Glas and his son-in-law Robert Sandeman, believed in the independence of each congregation, but also insisted in a plurality of elders, together with various customs that they thought were practised in the New Testament churches. Feet washing, the community of goods and the greeting of one another with a 'holy kiss' were among their rituals. But when James Allen and William Batty, the two elders sent by Ingham, returned from Scotland and tried to implement such ideas in their own societies, the results were catastrophic.
The rock on which Ingham's work foundered more than any other, however, was the Glasite demand for total unanimity for each church decision. As the Inghamite societies argued over each possible change to their order of worship and church government, divisions and conflicts increased proportionally. At last in November 1761 James Allen, complaining that Ingham had too much authority, stormed out of a conference, saddled his horse and rode off. He established a separate church of Glasite views, an act that signalled the splintering of all the Inghamite societies which had previously worked together harmoniously.
Some drifted back into the Church of England while others joined the various Methodist groups. Out of eighty flourishing societies only thirteen were left adhering to Ingham. Summing up the situation, Seymour wrote, 'Disputes without end arose, excommunication upon excommunication followed; they condemned one another for hair-breadth differences, and were thus split like a wrecked ship into a thousand pieces.”
Stunned by the break-up of his life's work, a deep depression settled on Ingham's spirit. 'I am lost, I am lost,’ he would cry out as he thought of all that had happened.”
- Faith Cook, Selina Countess of Huntingdon, 202-203. (Emphasis mine.)
It was precisely this “demand for total unanimity for each church decision” that led to the shattering of a good work. I have seen the same erroneous principle do much damage in my own day. Cook notes how, in the case of the Inghamite churches, the crumbling of the work came from within the entire membership. What I have noticed in my day is the harm this principle can cause amongst an eldership, especially if the church holds to an “elder-rule,” as opposed to an, “elder-led congregational” polity.
If an eldership requires every decision to be unanimous, this easily leads to one elder shutting down a way forward. Now, if he is a humble and gracious man, he will feel terrible about this. So much so, that he might feel pressured to violate his conscience on a matter and vote in favour of something he actually opposes. Not good. This eventually creates “Yes Men” to the most dominant voice in the eldership.
If a man is a stronger personality and willing to stand for what he believes is right, his refusal to go along with the other elders is easily construed as “being divisive.” I have seen this play out on numerous occasions. And thus, the only recourse for those elders seems to be voting that guy out. He might even be labelled as “disqualified” because he does not agree with the whole.
As a side note, in most cases I have observed, this situation occurs in churches where the Senior Pastor is the one getting his plans crossed. This resistance to his wishes often leads to charges of “disloyalty” and tempts all parties involved toward thinking the worst of each other and assuming motives.
I am not suggesting that moving an eldership to a simple majority vote to past most business will solve every issue of church peace, but I am suggesting it is dumb to require something the Bible does not. We have many examples of the congregation as a whole voting on matters and the decision of the majority carrying. I see no reason why an eldership (which in many ways is a kind of microcosm of the entire church) functioning the same.
For the record, I have “lost” many votes over the years in our eldership. So have other elders. But, we trust the outcome of the majority. And even if that outcome leads to problems, you are allowed to change your mind as an eldership! We have led our church in a couple of ways over the last 25 years where, further down the road, we pivoted and let everyone know we had goofed on that.
But even if we missed on one decision, we kept our eldership together, we strengthened our trust in each other that we can actually speak our minds and not be turfed, and have been reminded that life under the sun is not perfect. Not even when you choose to go with the majority, instead of demanding unanimous decisions.
Does the Bible require unanimous decisions in the mundane matters of an eldership? No, it does not. And neither should we.
Addendum/Caveat/A Bit of Nuance:
It what initially might sound like a complete contradiction, I do think an eldership may vote to make certain decisions unanimous. For example, there is likely good reason for their to be 100% agreement about the addition of a new elder. And almost certainly there ought to be 100% agreement on a matter of significant theological change. But, if an eldership has the ability to vote in that requirement on particular issues without having to require for all, they will be better off in my evaluation. I do not view this as a contradiction of what I wrote above, just a careful nuance for limited situations. And one which the majority would need to agree to anyway!
