Vance E. Trefethen

Observations: 1. Tom agrees Acts 6 and 15 both show a church deciding a matter of judgment (Q. 1). But Connie Adams (Guardian of Truth [3/3/94] p. 4) said, “In both instances divine revelation resolved the problem at hand.” 2. Tom agrees women were present in some business meetings in the NT (Q. 1). But Mike Willis (GOT [3/18/ 93], p. 185) said, “The desire of women to be present at these meetings” is “a usurpation of the authority God gave to men.” Bobby Holmes (GOT [12/2/93], p. 723) said, “The inclusion of women participants in business meetings thus violates her role given in 1 Timothy 2:12. . .” (ital. in orig.).

I commend his courage in breaking with GOT on these issues. Perhaps he will receive the blessings of Matthew 5:11, as I have.

Arguments: Tom’s responses are in italics, and mine follow in regular type.

Makes his pattern a test of fellowship. There is no “test of fellowship” to be found in my proposition or in anything I’ve written on this topic. Please don’t misrepresent me. Jesus decides fellowship in the universal church; local churches handle fellowship for themselves.

“Pattern should reflect a binding quality.” You can’t get much more binding than “that is the pattern churches should follow — to the exclusion of all others” (1st Aff. ¶ 6).

He says Acts 15 is the only pattern in his book, but then adds other passages. (1) We aren’t debating the format of my book. (2) The quote was taken out of context. It was showing the sole example of how elders lead decision-making, not the cases where elders aren’t specifically mentioned (Acts 6, 1 Cor. 5, etc.), which are covered elsewhere in the book.

“Elders become mere figureheads with no authority to decide any matter.” (1) This confuses “authority” with “private decision-making in matters of judgment.” Titus was to “speak, exhort, and reprove with all authority” (Tit. 2:15). The evangelist doesn’t decide matters of judgment for the church (does he?). “Authority” doesn’t require secret decision-making, else the preacher is an “eviscerated” “mere figurehead.”

Do elders have authority to privately make decisions that bind the whole church? “The elders of the local church … are subject to Christ, the head of the church (Col. 1:18). Therefore, elders do not, and cannot enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ which are revealed in the

Scriptures” (GOT [4/21/94], p. 244). Amen.

“Consensus is not found in the scriptures!” (1) The word isn’t in my proposition either! (2) The concept is taught in Acts 6:5; 15:22; 15:25; 1 Corinthians 1:10. (3) “Leadership” and “authority” don’t occur in the NT with regard to elders. Do elders have neither?

Including women leads to women overriding men, women preachers, etc. (1) If so, why does he teach that women may be included on some occasions, per Acts 6 and 15 (Q. 1)? Won’t the women in Tom’s meetings want to become preachers too? (2) Anyone “overriding” others (male or female) in matters of judgment violates 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:1-3; Acts 6:5 and Acts 15:22. (3) Abuses don’t disprove the practice. Baptism is often abused (sprinkling, infants), but it is still the right thing to do, if we avoid the abuses. (4) Some believe having women participating in mixed Bible classes is a dangerous step toward feminism. Should we forbid it?

“Elders have no oversight in consensus.” This confuses “oversight” with “private decision-making.” They have no “private decision-making” in the Bible pattern, but lots of “oversight.” I challenge for a lexicon defining “oversight” as “private decision-making without congregational involvement.”

Acts 6 — the Apostles privately decided everything. (1) All the features he gave came after “the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them. . .” (Acts 6:2). Was it “private” (Tom) or did it include “the multitude” (Luke)? (2) My proposition says the pattern must “include (comprise as part of the whole) the whole church.” Since he says Acts 6 teaches the whole church is authorized to be included (Q. 1), he admits they were included. (3) Can elders decide whether men or women will serve as leaders over benevolence? Wow — I teach it’s a matter of faith that men (not women) are leaders, but Tom says it’s a judgment for elders to make privately. Do elders today privately decide the qualifications of deacons? I don’t think he believes this argument. (4) Since the Apostles “called the multitude,” I submit that refusal to call the multitude violates the “traditions of the apostles.” I believe we should do it the way the Apostles did it. Tom says we don’t have to. That, in a nutshell, is the debate.

His pattern calls for decisions with no private meetings, but they had them in:

Galatians 2:2: “I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute. . .” Where’s the decision in a matter of judgment here? Paul’s gospel was divine inspiration, not congregational judgment.

Galatians 2:9: To get a private decision for the church, one must cut off Paul in mid-sentence: “James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. . .” He stopped here, but read on: “. . . that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision” (Gal. 2:9). Who are “we” and “they”? Was the whole church commanded to go to the circumcision or the Gentiles? The “fellow-ship” was in preaching the gospel, with an agreement to go to different audiences — but it says nothing about binding this evangelistic “decision” on the church. Galatians 2:9 will backfire on Tom. Only three men met with Paul and Barnabas in Galatians 2:9 — out of at least 14 “apostles and elders” (12 apostles + at least 2 elders). Either a tiny minority (3/14) of elders or men make decisions for the church without the other elders or men: or Galatians 2:9 is not congregational decision-making, but private action by individuals. Which?

Acts 15:6. (1) This is a decision about what Gentiles must do to be saved. Do elders today have the right to privately decide what the plan of salvation is? (2) The “multitude” was included in the context (Acts 15:12).

1 Corinthians 5 includes the whole church, but 1 Corinthians 6 shows private decisions for the church. (1) I’m glad we agree 1 Corinthians 5 involves the whole church. (2) 1 Corinthians 6 isn’t about “matters of congregational judgment.” It settles a matter while still a private dispute, like the first two steps of Matthew 18. (3) 1 Corinthians 6:5 also backfires. Yes, an elder could be the “one wise man” who settles a dispute privately between two saints. Then what? Does the church now change some collective action? Can one elder privately decide things for the whole church without involving the other elders? I don’t think he believes this.

Vance will learn some things are too scandalous to be done collectively. (1) More scandalous than fornication that’s not even named among the heathens (1 Cor. 5:1)? (2) Where in the NT will I “learn” this? (3) If it causes the weak to stumble, why did God command it?

“Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matthew 18.” The first sentence is my pattern for a church with elders, so the second is wrong. I’m glad we agree that Matthew 18 includes the whole church.

Vance musts see contradiction between “male leadership” and “decision-making women.” (1) If Tom could see the difference between “leadership” and “excluding every one from participating,” this debate would be over. If these were synonymous, elders could never include other men or the whole church. But Tom agrees they should, at least sometimes. (2) “Decision-making women” privately deciding things are just as wrong as men who do so. In the Bible, the whole church participates — not women (or men) deciding things and forcing them on everyone.

Acts 11:27-30 shows private decisions by elders. (1) The decision is in 11:29. “And in proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined [arizo] to send money for (“unto,” “towards”) benevolence. If the elders who received it had decided to spend it on a new meeting tent, they would have betrayed the generosity of the donors. (2) Where in Acts 11 are the decisions made privately by elders? Don’t just say “it is inferred” — show what phrase infers it and the specific decisions made, and show that they were made without including the whole church. Book, chapter, and verse, please. (3) Handling money doesn’t mean “privately deciding” things. Paul and Barnabas handled the money, but they didn’t privately decide anything, did they?

“In the absence of elders, male leadership prevails” (Answer to my Q. 2). Notice:

A. “Male leadership prevails” in the absence of elders (Q. 2).

B. A church with no elders included men and women in decision-making in the NT (Q. 1).

C. Therefore: including the whole church in decision-making doesn’t violate male leadership.

He must give up the arguments about feminism, women usurping authority, etc.

Answers to First Negative Questions: (1) Yes, and I’m willing to modify the negative remarks on “voting” I made in my book, in the interest of honesty and searching for truth. I found the scholarly quote on Acts 15:22 recently while preparing for this debate (is there any negative reply?). See also 2 Corinthians 8:19, where “chosen” means selected by a vote or show of hands (Thayer, p. 668; Strong, p. 77). “Voting,” as radical feminist Alexander Campbell (1835) said when he taught the whole church must be included, means any expression of opinion, whether raising the hand, saying “yes” or “no,” etc. Churches with secret decision-making have such voting all the time, among those allowed to participate. (2) Yes to both, provided the scriptures authorize it and the congregation has asked an “agency” to act on its behalf. (3) No. (4) They can’t. One group “overturning” another in matters of judgment is wrong, regardless of gender. (5) “Buying supplies” — the whole church gathered and chose servants (diakoneo) to do that in Acts 6. “Financial information” was discussed in Acts 6 among the whole church, which is how they knew certain widows were needy. “Hearing complaints” — see above on 1 Corinthians 6. “Investigating . . .” isn’t “private decision-making.” If you find out someone is sinning, you haven’t made a decision for the church. (6) If the leaders disagree with the multitude, there is no consensus yet.

Questions for Tom: (1) GOT [4/7/94], p. 206 criticized a “rump meeting” of a few men who privately decided to change a church bank account to prevent fraud by others, without including the rest of the men or women. What Scripture did they violate? (2) Where in the NT does “authority” refer to the right to privately decide matters of collective judgment? (3) When elders include the whole church in decision-making, do they lose “authority” or “oversight”? (4) Since women are authorized to attend meetings (1 A A. 1), by what authority could the men decide to exclude them? What other authorized activities may men prohibit women from doing?

Summary: We agree that all four cases I gave show the whole church included in matters of congregational judgment. Tom’s “exceptions” either deal with matters of faith, individual action, say nothing about private decisions by elders, or show the inclusion of the whole church. When-ever matters of collective judgment were handled in the NT, the whole church was included. Please join me in affirming that we should follow the Bible pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 18-20
August 18, 1994

Tom Roberts

My worst fears are being realized in that, as the debate advances, Vance is progressing deeper into error, affirming a position with dreadful consequences of feminine equality and denial of eldership oversight which some will accept. The negative requires that I answer his material yet not allow him to side-track me into debating other men or affirming a non-existent GOT position. I fear he confuses criticism of a public position with persecution (Matt. 5:11).

Observations. Congregational participation under male leadership is our practice in most assemblies and does not contradict elder oversight or allow women equal authority in decision-making. Vance grants women decision-making authority without admitting leadership. Conversely, he speaks of elders having leadership without making decisions. But decision-making is a form of leadership and elders who decide nothing are figureheads and not leaders.

Pattern contents: I do not misrepresent his test of fellowship since he advocates a “pattern” (his book, pp. 24, 26, etc.), and any alternative is “as foreign to the New Testament as is instrumental music” (p. 107, quoting Lynn Trapp). As with music, he has drawn a line. Acts 15 the sole pattern? My affirmative will show passages in addition to Acts 15.

Authority of Elders Comments: If evangelists are to “speak with all authority,” but make no decisions, is this true of elders? No, evangelists and elders occupy separate functions and elders are specifically charged to “exercise the oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2). His reference to GOT [4/21/94] is a misapplication. The author denied anyone the right to “enact or enforce any other laws than the laws of Christ.” I agree. The church is not a democracy but a spiritual body with Christ as its head and the law of Christ is eldership oversight, not consensus! Though not in his proposition, consensus is taught repeatedly in his book and is the heart of this debate. Now he has gone beyond consensus and specifically endorsed church voting instead of eldership oversight. One person/one vote is a subversion of truth! Every voting person has an absolutely equal voice. Vance denies believing in feminism but a church vote knows no gender, acknowledges no maturity, and respects no sub-mission. Voting changes female participation to female leadership and female majority gives women control of the church. He cannot give women the vote in one breath and deny them leadership with the next. Subjection does not exist in the ballot box. Consensus might include persuasion but voting is raw majority rule, removes women from their subjection to men (1 Tim. 2:11-15), and the congregation from submission to elders (Heb. 13:7, 17). Once the principle of female leadership is introduced, the door cannot be shut. Others will allow co-teaching in Bible classes, women serving the table or preaching.

What A. Campbell said about voting is as irrelevant as what he said about the missionary society and wrong in both cases. The “casting lots” of Acts 1:6 decided nothing but indicated God’s choice (1:24). Vance’s quote on Acts 15:22 is misleading. Thayer says of “seemed good”: “1. To be of opinion, think, suppose… 3.b. it seemed good to, pleased, me; I determined” (p. 154). It is also used in Acts 15:28 and his “interpretation” would reduce the Holy Spirit to a vote no greater than that of the youngest female member! Compare its use in Acts 14:23: did Paul and Barnabas “vote” or “appoint” elders? Vine explains that stretching forth the hand “is not to be taken in its literal sense . . . . since it is said of God, Acts 10:41,” and adds: “It is also said of those who were appointed (not by voting, but with general approbation) . . . 2 Cor. 8:19″ (Vine, p. 69).

Private Decision Comments: Acts 6. He asserted it is “without divine authority” for private decisions to be made without the whole church. But my negative cited seven private decisions of the apostles, and his assertion changes nothing.

Acts 15; Galatians 2. Private meetings with elders and other men took place as specifically stated (Acts 15:2, 6; Gal. 2:2). Decisions were made for the whole church regarding matters of judgment: to accept Paul in fellow-ship (Gal. 2:9; Acts 9:26-28); spheres of service (Paul to Gentiles; Peter to the Jews); that Titus would not be circumcised (indifferent to God, 1 Cor. 7:19, but with congregational implications, Gal. 2:4-5). So Galatians 2:9 doesn’t backfire on me. Elders cannot alter the plan of salvation (Acts 15:70, but they can oppose false teachers, support truth and decide in areas of judgment.

1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Congregational action in chapter 5 does not negate the private decisions in chapter 6. There, individual judgmental matters having congregational implications were decided by one or more. Personal disputes should be handled by wise men in the church and not the heathen (6:1). Using hyperbole, Paul asked if there is not even one “among you” (the church, v. 5) who could “judge between his brethren.” The wisest in the church ought to be the elders who “judge” (decide) disputed matters between members so that it does not destroy the whole congregation.

Acts 11:27-30. It is understood that the money that came to the needy churches from the messengers, Paul and Barnabas, was sent and received for benevolence. A decision by a receiving eldership to buy a “new meeting tent” would have been sinful. Vance missed the point. The elders, having received the money for benevolence, yet had to make decisions: who was to receive it; how much was each to receive; how long was it to be given, etc.

Male leadership in absence of elders. His syllogism is faulty since he shifts terms from A to B. “Male leadership” is not the same as “men and women in decision-making.” He assumed what he failed to prove.

Scandalous Matters, Sensitive Matters. The whole church can be involved in discipline without requiring that every member (babes in Christ, weak in faith, young in age) know the sordid details. Consideration by mature elders is not the same as baring it to those whose faith might be destroyed. “Fornication” before the church is one thing; the shocking evidence that proves fornication is another. Benevolence can also be sensitive. The church should be aware of the needs of brethren without financial disclosure that would discourage and embarrass those in need. A wise eldership can avoid congregational problems by privately dealing with scandalous and sensitive information.

Past questions: (1) See material on voting above. (2) Since Vance accepts that an “agency” acting is the same as the church acting, he needs to tell us what is wrong with an eldership acting “for, or on behalf of the congregation. In Acts 6, the seven men acted “for, or on behalf of ” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation caring for the needy saints. In Acts 11:27-30, the eldership received the funds “for, or on behalf of ” the congregation and it was the same as the congregation receiving the funds. He accepts agency provided “the congregation has asked an `agency’ to act on its behalf.” But God has commanded agency: eldership oversight. Let the reader choose: “Tend to the flock of God which is among you, (arriving at consensus), (counting the ballots), (giving women equal authority) or (exercising the oversight).” (3)

Vance said “No,” that a majority of women cannot rule over a minority of men. But he approves of voting and each vote counts. A majority of women who vote outnumber a minority of men who vote. Why is that not overturning the decision of men? Why is that church not controlled by women? (4) Vance accepts that deacons can “decide the multitudes of decisions” about buying supplies for the church. But why are deacons qualified to make decisions “before and without calling together the whole congregation” and elders are not? If deacons are “appointed” (Acts 6:2) and elders are “appointed” (Acts 14:23), why are deacons empowered to make decisions, and elders not empowered? The qualifications relate each to the work to be done. (5) Vance described a stalemate in consensus when “leaders disagree with the multitude.” Exactly! Every collectively must have a mechanism for avoiding stalemates. In a democracy, voting provides it; in the home, it is husbands (Eph. 5:23); in the church, elders are appointed to make decisions for the collectivity.

Vance’s Questions: (1) A “rump meeting” of a few rebels is an unauthorized meeting and violates 1 Peter 5:5b, among others. Elderships have authorized meetings (1 Pet. 5:2). (2) Jesus has been given “all authority” (Matt. 28:18) and as law-giver has ordained elders be appointed to “oversee” and “shepherd” the collectivity. Vance under-stands this with deacons but objects to it with elders. (3) Yes. (4) I did not concede that women are authorized to attend business meetings. Acts 6, etc., authorizes congregational meetings in which women are present under male leadership. In these assemblies, women may participate short of assuming decision-making authority. God has placed women in subjection under men (1 Tim. 2:11-15) but Vance’s voting would make them equal. Men do not prohibit women from doing any authorized activity.

Questions for Vance: (1) What passages permit deacons the right to make decisions on behalf of the congregation but prohibit elders from making decisions? (2) How can a woman vote her conscience yet remain in subjection when she disagrees with her husband and the elders? (3) Does voting give women leadership authority? (4) Can a woman co-teach a Bible class in the church so long as she is under subjection to her male co-teacher?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 21-22
August 18, 1994

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that the pattern of decision-making in matters of congregational judgment must always include the whole church (including women) under male leadership in all local churches (both with and without elders).” I ask each reader to join me in affirming this proposition.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in my articles are my own and are net intended to represent in any way the views of the elders or members of my home congregation.

Definitions: “The Scriptures” — the 66 books of the Bible. “Teach” — instruct by command, example, or necessary inference. “Pattern” — “anything proposed for or worthy of imitation” (Webster College Dictionary 5th Ed.). “Decision-making in matters of congregational judgment ” — actions of a local church that involve (1) choosing between several scripturally authorized courses of collective action by selecting the one most advantageous under that congregation’s circumstances; or (2) making a determination in some matter affecting the congregation that God has left to human reasoning to figure out, while following whatever inspired principles may govern the matter in general; distinguished from “matters of faith,” which are doctrines and principles decided by Deity. “Include” — “to take in or comprise as a part of the whole” (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary). “Whole church (including women)” — all the male and female members of a local ekklesia, or congregation, of Christians. “Under male leadership” — subject to the instruction, teaching, presiding or chairmanship over a group by one or more male Christians, as is commonly practiced by male adult Bible class teachers and male song-leaders. “All local churches (both with and without elders)” — every congregation of Christians, regardless of whether they have pastors (or bishops, or presbyters, all of which are synonymous with elders).

What this debate is not about: (1) It is not about Feminism. We both oppose the evil influence of Feminism on the church and the family. (2) It is not about women serving as preachers or bishops. I object to such violations of God’s plan for women. (3) It is not about whether churches should have elders or whether elders have leadership, oversight, or responsibility in the local church. (4) It is not about whether elders or a few Christians may ever meet privately to discuss the work of the local church. I’ve met privately many times with fellow-Christians, elders, and family members to talk about the work of the local church, and the Bible contains approved examples of such private meetings.

What this debate is about: This debate is about what constitutes the Bible pattern for congregational decision-making in matters of judgment and whether private meetings have authority to make decisions in matters of judgment and bind them on the congregation at large. It will be accompanied by another debate, which I will publish along with this one in a single volume, in which Tom will affirm that matters of judgment may be decided privately without the whole congregation.

Some believe elders may, should, or must decide some or all congregational matters privately. (The qualifiers are supplied because all who believe in private decision-making don’t agree on all the particulars.) And some teach that churches without elders should have men only business meetings as a “substitute” for elders to privately make decisions in matters of judgment for the whole church. There are lots of other private methods of decision-making churches might want to use as well. But any system of decision-making proposed for any local church must stand or fall solely on the basis of whether it is authorized in the Bible. If the NT shows churches making decisions privately by elders or men’s business meetings or some other private method, then churches should follow that pattern, to the exclusion of all other methods. But if the NT shows that churches always decided matters of judgment by involving the whole church under male leadership, then that is the pattern churches today should follow to the exclusion of all others.

Arguments: 1. Acts 6:1-6. It is a matter of divinely revealed faith that males should lead congregational work, and a matter of faith as to their qualifications. It is a matter of judgment to select which particular males meet the qualification and should be appointed to do the work. The easiest way to handle this would have been for the apostles to hold a private meeting and decide everything for the congregation. Instead, they followed a more cumbersome course of action and “called the multitude of the disciples” together to handle the matter. The Apostles explicitly avoided the most “expedient” method in favor of involving the whole church. Anyone who would have prohibited women from attending this meeting would have been encouraging the women to violate the Apostles’ command. It is disturbing that some may prohibit women from doing what the Apostles command women to do (cf. Rom. 10:2).

“And the saying pleased the whole multitude” (6:5) shows the presence of the whole church. “. . . And they chose Stephen, a man full of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus. . .” (6:5). The antecedent of “they” is the whole multitude, which is synonymous with the “whole church” of my proposition. “They chose … [7 men]” meets the definition of decision-making among scripturally authorized alternatives. The inspired men gave the qualifications, while the whole church exercised judgment in choosing men who met the qualifications. The whole church was called together, the whole church agreed to appoint men, and the whole church chose the men, all under male leadership (the Apostles, with 7 other males selected as leaders over the benevolent work), in a congregation where no elders are mentioned. Acts 6:1-6 meets all the requirements of my proposition for a church without elders.

2. Acts 15:12-27. There are two types of “decisions” in this chapter. Peter said, “God made choice” (15:7) about the Gentiles hearing the Gospel. Acts 15:28-29 shows that the Holy Spirit revealed what doctrines were binding on the Gentiles. None of the deliberations or activities in Acts 15 could have changed God’s decision. None of our meetings or discussions today can change anything God has decided, either.

But Acts 15:12-27 shows a congregational decision made by the Jerusalem church about communicating a message to the church at Antioch. Acts 15:12 says “the multitude” was present for the discussion of the doctrinal matter of faith concerning Gentile salvation, and the con-text continues with the issue of communication with the Antioch church. “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren” (15:22, KJV).

The Holy Spirit did not send or choose the men. The church handled it as a matter of judgment. “22. It seemed good (edoxee), `it was voted’ — the Greek word being that regularly used for taking a decision in assembly” (The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 9, p. 205). “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas” (NIV).

Acts 15 shows that “the multitude” (15:12), “the apostles and elders with the whole church” (15:22), “having assembled with one accord” (15:27), decided to send chosen men, and made the choice of Judas and Silas as the particular men (15:22). The process of decision-making included the whole church under male leadership (Apostles and elders, with two males selected as messengers/leaders), meeting all the requirements of my proposition for a church with elders.

3. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 11-13. This passage uses the second meaning of “matters of judgment” given earlier. God has decided that sexual immorality, covetousness, etc., are sinful and that Christians who practice them should be purged out of a local church. The decision we make is a judgment about whether someone is practicing these sins and has reached the point of needing to have this passage invoked upon them. A church must make judgments about erring members: “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Cor. 5:12) How does a church make this judgment?

“In the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan” (1 Cor. 5:4-5). Who gathers together? They are “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), which was made up of male and female members (cf. 1 Cor. 7:15-16). We must infer that this takes place under male leadership from 1 Timothy 2:11,12, which would regulate the conduct of the men and women. Paul said the things he wrote were for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 12). Therefore, decision-making in a matter of judgment must include the whole church (1 Cor. 5:4), including women, under male leadership (1 Tim. 2:11-12) in all local churches (1 Cor. 1:2).

4. Matthew 18:15-17. This is similar to 1 Corinthians 5 because it requires a church to render judgment in the matter of a sinning member, but in this case one accused of sinning personally against a fellow-saint. Christians must follow the steps Jesus gave to resolve the matter privately. If the accused doesn’t hear the individual, or the witnesses, it becomes an issue for “the church.” We’ve all studied the meaning of ekklesia, “church,” for many years. Ekklesia refers to an assembly or congregation, and this passage teaches that decision-making in matters of congregational judgment involves the whole church (ekklesia) including women (because women are part of the ekklesia) under the male leadership (1 Tim. 2:11-12) in all local churches (because Jesus has authority to command all saints to observe this, cf. Matt. 28:16), with or without elders.

Questions for Tom: (1) Can a church ever decide a matter of judgment by including the whole church under male leadership? If so, what passage authorizes it? (2) Is there a pattern for decision-making in churches without elders? (3) Are elders limited by command, example, and necessary inference in the way they lead a church? (4) Is there any example of elders in a NT church deciding a matter of judgment without including the whole church? (5) Does ekklesia ever refer to a private meeting of elders or male-Christians-only in the NT? (6) Does any Scripture authorize any unqualified men to act as “substitutes” for elders?

Conclusions: I used to believe and practice private decision-making. I changed because of two facts: (1) The New Testament gives a clear pattern of decision-making in matters of judgment: the whole church under male leader-ship; (2) No command, example, or inference shows a church handling matters of congregational judgment any other way. Four cases command or exemplify the method of decision-making I affirm. No passage teaches anyone to make decisions without involving the whole church. Please join me in affirming that we must follow the inspired pattern in all that we do in service to God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 14-15
August 18, 1994

This debate is important because Vance suggests a radical departure from the practice of the NT and makes his unscriptural “pattern” a test of fellowship. As one who serves as an evangelist and an elder in a local church, I deny his affirmative as both unscriptural and impractical. Our difference is not personal nor is his honesty or sincerity impugned.

Definitions: I commend Vance in appealing to the Scriptures. However “pattern” should reflect a binding quality beyond that of his dictionary (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Tim. 1:16; Heb. 8:5). Since Vance is advocating a pattern that requires “congregational decision-making in matters of judgment” and requires “an increased role for women in the decision-making processes of local churches” (Vance Trefethen, Confusion or Consensus, p. 3), his obligation is to show that pattern. He brands private decision-making by elders as “without authority” (ibid., p. 6), thus sinful. Since a pattern allows no deviations, if it can be shown that a single exception to his pattern exists, he has no pattern. However, Vance is confused about what makes a pattern. He states “Acts 15 is the only Bible pattern there is on the matter” (ibid., p. 32), but attempts to add Acts 6 and 1 Corinthians 5, etc., to that pattern. Either Acts 15 is the “sole” (only) pattern or it is not. When defining “decision-making in matters of congregational judgment,” Vance emphasized that this addressed matters of judgment and not matters of faith. Agreed, but we differ on “decision-making” itself! His pattern calls for every decision to be made by the whole congregation (including women), under male leadership. This would be required in every congregation, whether or not there were elders. I suggest that this makes elders mere figureheads, with no scriptural authority to decide any matter. Though he affirms that he believes elders have “authoritative work to do in overseeing and leading a local church,” he also requires a “consensus” (ibid, pp. 22,24,25, et al): a contradiction of terms. Consensus is “a collective opinion, general agreement” (Funk & Wagnall’s Study Dictionary) in which women carry the same force as men in “decision-making” or there is no true consensus. “Consensus” is not found in the Scriptures! It fits well in a democracy, but the church is a theocracy where elders are specifically mandated (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:2; etc.). It is exceedingly strange that his entire pattern is built upon a word that is not found in the Scriptures (either specifically or in principle).

What this debate is not about: (1) “Not about feminism”? Though his disclaimer is appreciated, it is futile. I respect that he rejects feminism as such, but his position opens the door to the very evil he denounces. “Consensus” puts women on a par with men in decision-making. If a consensus of women in the majority disagrees with the consensus of men in the minority (which is true in many churches), he has placed the decision of the women over the men. The women may be humble and discreet, but either they have decision-making authority or they do not! If the minority of the men over-ride the decisions of the majority of the women, consensus would be destroyed. But when he allows the decisions of the women to prevail, he has violated 1 Timothy 2:11-15. His pattern has put him on the horns of a dilemma. (2) “It is not about women serving as preachers and bishops?” Again, I respect his disclaimer and join with him in denouncing such as a violation. But as a practical matter, once he opens the gate to decision-making women, it is foolish to think that all will be content with this “increased role” and nothing more. Already, congregations exist where women are leading in public worship. Some allow women to teach mixed classes of men and women “under male leadership” or as “co-teachers.” His position, however unwitting, advances women in that direction and cannot logically prohibit it. (3) “Not about whether elders have leadership, over-sight, or responsibility in the local church?” But of course it is. His definition of “decision-making” and “consensus” eviscerates biblical elders. Elders have no oversight in a consensus. Responsibility adheres to those making decisions and since the consensus decision is the congregation’s, the responsibility is theirs and not the elders. (4) Ad-dressed in #2 above. (5) No disagreement here.

What this debate is about: The role of elders. Does the scriptural pattern require congregational meetings (including women) every single time there are decisions of judgment to be made? or: Do elders have authority from God to meet privately and make judgment decisions that bind the whole church?

Arguments: (1) Acts 6:1-6. According to Vance it is a sin for private meetings of males to make decisions for the whole church. But look at the text. The apostles (1) privately decided to change previous practices, (2) privately decided to stop serving tables, (3) privately decided to have others serve tables, (4) privately decided that these would be men and not women, (5) privately decided there would be seven of these men, (6) privately decided the qualifications of these seven and (7) privately decided that they would appoint the men and not allow the church to do so. Yes, what the apostles privately decided pleased the whole multitude and they had a role in choosing the men who would serve. The whole church can be, even should be, involved in some congregational actions. Clearly his “pattern” denies the very thing found in Acts 6: private decisions by males that are bound upon the whole congregation. His pattern is not found in Acts 6. It violates the “traditions of the apostles” (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:16).

(2) Acts 15:12-27. His “pattern” calls for a congregational decision with no private meetings. Though the action “pleased the whole church” there were private meetings and his pattern fails in the very place he affirms as his “sole pattern.” Relating Galatians 2:1-10 to the meeting in Acts 15 will reveal the flaw in his exegesis. Galatians 2 shows that when Paul went to Jerusalem, he met privately (2:2) with “those of repute.” Acts 15:2 shows this private meeting to be with “the apostles and elders” who made the decision to give the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. After this, they met with the whole church (15:4), then had another private meeting with the apostles and elders (15:6). Again, there is no disagreement with involving the church in the process but his pattern denies the truth of these private meetings where decisions were made. These multiple exceptions to his “sole pattern” show that he has no pattern.

(3) 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 11-13. There has never been a problem with involving the whole church in various processes, including discipline, as in this text. The problem is his assertion that no private decisions can be made that bind the whole church to the decision of the few. Read just a few verses beyond ch. 5, into ch. 6:1-5, and we see the very thing he denies. In the matter of brother going to court against brother, Paul admonishes that brethren ought not go to court before the unrighteous, but that there should be a “court of the saints” (v. 1). He advises that we ought to be able to “judge” by finding at least “one wise man who shall be able to decide between brethren” (v. 5). Here are “wise men” (would elders qualify?) who make decisions for the whole church in disputes between brethren. Vance’s pattern is in tatters!

(4) Matthew 18:15-17. He recognizes that discipline is a congregational matter and that it should be done under “male leadership”! Could these males be elders? If Vance could see the contradiction between “male leadership” and “decision-making women,” this debate would be over. When the church at Antioch sent relief to the needy brethren in Judea (Acts 11:27-30), they sent it to the “elders” (v. 30). (What decision did the women make?) When the relief went to the elders, did it not go to the churches? In this case, the elders represented the churches which received the benevolence. If discipline began individually and continued until it came before the church, would it not be before the church under the leadership of the elders? Vance will learn that there are scandalous actions of brethren that do not need to be aired before the “whole church” lest they cause weak brethren and babes to stumble. Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matthew 18.

Questions: (1) Yes, Acts 6, Acts 15, etc., but this does not prohibit private decisions by male leaders. (2) Elders are authorized to make decisions for the church as the passages above prove. If elders cannot make such private decisions, no other group could. But if elders are authorized to do so, in the absence of elders, male leadership prevails, as you yourself propose (1 Tim. 2). (3) Yes. (4) Yes, as seen above. Additionally, in Acts 11:27-30 it is inferred that the elders decided who, how long and how much, etc. (5) No, but this does not rule out an ekklesia acting through agency. Examples: 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:23 (messengers of the churches acted on behalf of the church); Acts 11:27-30 (elders received the funds on behalf of the receiving church). (6) No, an unqualified man cannot act as or substitute for an elder. But in the absence of elders, male leadership is authorized (1 Tim. 2:11-15) as you admit. Congregations existed for a time without elders (Acts 13:1-14:23). Male leadership is necessarily inferred.

Questions for Vance: (1) Do you believe Acts 15:22 authorizes voting? (2) Can an ekklesia be represented by agency, and if so, is it the same as the ekklesia acting? (3) If the majority of a congregation is women and the women disagree with the minority men concerning a matter of judgment, can the majority rule? (4) How can women be involved in “decision making,” remain in subjection, yet overturn the decision of men? (5) Must the entire church be gathered to decide the multitudes of decisions about buying supplies, caring for the needy (including sensitive financial information), hearing complaints between members, investigating scandalous moral actions of members and make every decision about every matter? (6) Is an eldership bound by a consensus even though the entire eldership disagrees with it?

I urge brother Trefethen to abandon his faulty pattern which will only generate strife and stumbling among brethren and to turn his considerable talents to edifying (Eph. 4:29).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 16-17
August 18, 1994