In churches, decisions are made either by bishops, boards, or the congregations. Whichever is the case, it is a group. There are essentially four ways they can make decision:
Biblical Methods
Secular Methods
Final Thoughts
Biblical Methods
Casting Lots
Bible translators assume that we know what they mean when they say casting lots,
but that terminology leaves a lot of people in the dark. The translators say that because they don’t know the precise method that was used. Today, we use this method to choose one of an equally valid number of alternatives, such as which team goes first, but we don’t call it casting lots.
We call it by the technique we use, such as rolling the dice,
flipping a coin
or drawing straws.
- A Biblical Example
In Acts 1, the apostles met to choose a successor to Judas to restore the Eleven to the Twelve. They found two equally qualified candidates, they prayed for God to control the results, then they rolled the dice, flipped a coin, or drew straws, or whatever method they used, and chose Matthias.
- How It Works and Why It Is Valid
What is the rationale behind casting lots? Doesn’t that leave the results up to chance? It really doesn’t matter if there are a limited number of equally valid results.
If you flip a coin 100 times, by chance it will come up heads 50% of the time. However, you have to flip the coin, otherwise it just lies there on the table. Chance is the description, not the cause, of the results.
The issue we want to resolve is not whether
chance
describes the results, because we all agree that it does, but who or what caused the results. When things happen without an apparent agent, we think nature or chance did it. When things happened without an apparent agent, biblical people thought that God did it. I don’t see a real difference, except that in this case, modern people don’t seem to think that sentience or even animacy is necessary for a deliberate act. - When Casting Lots Is Appropriate
Casting lots is a biblical method of choosing among alternatives only if they are equally valid at the time of the decision.
Finding a Consensus
Sometimes we have to make a decision that does not consist of choosing among equally valid alternatives.
- A Biblical Example
In Acts 15:1-10, there was a big controversy when Peter converted Gentiles to Christianity, without making them convert to Judaism first. (Until then, all converts to Christianity had been Jews.) This was not a matter of choosing between two equally valid alternatives, because it was not a yes/no decision. There are several steps to conversion to Judaism, and it is possible that some, but not all of them might apply. They decided the issue by finding a consensus.
Everyone met in Jerusalem, which was where they were all based at the time. There were three apostles in Jesus’ inner circle, whose leadership everyone would accept: Peter, James, and John. Theoretically, any of them could moderate the discussion. In this case, Peter was not eligible, because he advocated one of the positions. John most likely deferred to James, because James was older and the brother of the Lord. Thus James was the moderator.
People on all sides of the issue expressed their opinions, backing them up with Scripture and with Jesus’ teachings. When James sensed that they had reached a consensus, he announced and explained his ruling. Even though some people were not convinced, the ruling was largely uncontroversial since everyone had had their say.
- How It Works and Why It Is Valid
Finding a consensus doesn’t mean arguing until everyone agrees—that is wearisome, time-consuming, and mostly impossible. Some people might agree just to get the process over with so they can go home.
Finding a consensus means that the group apppoints a neutral moderator (if possible, a subject-matter expert), then everyone presents their viewpoints, until the moderator senses that there is a general consensus. The moderator ends the discussion, explains why some proposed solutions are ineffective or improper, and announces the final course of action that best expresses the consensus, is appropriate, and fits the facts.
Finding a consensus is biblical, but it requires a skilled, qualified, and persuasive moderator. Because we do not often use this method, there are sadly very few skilled moderators. If the moderator is neither skilled nor a subject-matter expert, the whole thing decays into finding a compromise.
If the issue is complex, or the discussion is very long, the moderator might periodically summarize the most prominent possible outcomes and take an informal poll to
see where we are.
The poll does not decide the issue or even end the discussion, it only modifies the direction of the discussion at the moderator’s discretion. The poll might uncover any issues or outcomes that the group had not yet considered. The moderator can eliminate unbiblical or improper alternatives and determine when the group has reached a consensus and what the consensus is. - When Finding a Consensus is Appropriate
Finding a consensus is appropriate when the issue has many facets and the number and validity of possible outcomes is unclear at the start.
Secular Methods
Voting
Quite often today we make decisions by voting, a technique that is not used in the Bible. Voting goes back to the social contract theory of government—the contract
takes the form of a constitution. When we vote, we have a limited discussion, then everyone votes, and whichever position or candidate gets the most votes wins.
The results come more or less as a surprise when the votes are tallied, which means opponents to the results don’t have buy in.
- A Biblical Example
There is no biblical example of voting. Voting is a feature of the
social contract
theory of government formulated by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. John Locke (1632-1704) had the greatest influence on the Constitution of the United States of 1789, and its predecessor, the Articles of Confederation of 1781. The US Constitution is the first fully codified constitution in the world, thus its provisions and procedures are about 18 centuries younger than any biblical decision-making process. At the time it was ratified, it was considered an experiment. - Why Voting Doesn’t Work Well in Churches
We all know the advantages of voting, so we only need to cover the disadvantages of voting in churches:
- There is often a time limit for discussion, which means some people don’t feel like their issues were adequately taken into account.
- The ballot most often cannot be changed to add new alternatives that come up during the discussion, so some people may feel steamrollered.
- Voting produces losers, who go away grumpy, bitter, or angry.
- There is no way to overturn an unbiblical or improper outcome.
- Church decisions are supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, but what does majority vote say about the minority?
Compromise
Sometimes a moderator tries to frame decision-making as resolving a conflict,
in which case we use the technique of compromise. In the spirit of a counseling sesssion, the moderator tries to combine elements of each proposed course of action to make a final solution. Compromise appears to be an enlightened method of making a decision, but as one of my seminary professors pointed out, compromise means that everyone goes home unhappy.
There is also no mechanism to avoid compromising principles in the course of compromising positions.
- A Biblical Example
There is no biblical example of compromise as a decision-making technique.
- Why Compromise Doesn’t Work Well in Churches
In my view, and you are free to disagree, compromise is the result of weak leadership, because the moderator has taken out failure insurance. If the compromise doesn’t work out, no one can blame the moderator. Quite often, because the compromise is a hodge-podge of ideas, the desired outcome does not materialize or turns out to be impractical.
How Should a Church Make Decisions?
Here are the alternatives:
Which method of making a decision is best for us today? We normally hold an election. However, that is not a biblical method. If there are a limited number of equally valid courses of action, drawing straws is appropriate. If value judgments are involved, finding a consensus is the way to go.
Only a few churches try to use the method of finding a consensus as their default decision-making process, but it is only effective if the moderator is skilled, qualified, and persuasive, and they don’t try to beat the matter to death until people walk out and the rest are too tired to disagree.
In my opinion, voting is not a good way to make decisions, because there are few, if any, safeguards against improper or unbiblical outcomes. If the church believes that the Holy Spirit governs the outcome, the minority feels inferior. Compromise is the worst way to make decisions, because everyone is unhappy with some part of the solution, which often fails. The only advantage to compromise is that the moderator comes out smelling like a rose.