Was Jesus A Cappella?

[Guest]

This gets us off the original topic, but it is worth considering...

When I say "spiritual" people, I am not referring simply to church "members" nor to people who claim that they are spiritual. There should be genuinely spiritual people leading the church. If the leaders do not fit this description, the members should find another venue for fellowship, where only such leaders (or none at all) are present.

No innovation should be introduced in the church while there is serious opposition to it from spiritual people in their midst. In such a divided situation, it would be best to leave the church as it is—unless immediate change is necessary in order to bring the church into compliance with clear scriptural teachings that have previously been neglected. In such a case, those who oppose the scriptural changes show themselves to be unspiritual and unqualified to affect the decisions of the church.

I actually would prefer to see the church act on the basis of consensus (how better to fulfill the injunction to "be of the same mind and judgment"? —1 Cor.1:10). If there is no consensus in favor of a change (and if there is no clear teaching of scripture requiring the change), then things should remain as they were when the church last had consensus, until a new consensus can be reached.

I know that this principle may seem to some to be too "idealistic." That is because I am not thinking of the kind of "churches" that allow unconverted people to be "voting members," and who choose unspiritual people for leadership positions. Churches like that can never act upon these principles...but then, neither should they exist.

There are groups of Christians (like the Reba Place Christian Community, in Chicago) that have operated for decades on this principle of consensus, because the only people regarded as members are those who have made a full commitment to Christ and to the community.

The school that I ran for 16 years functioned on the basis of consensus of the leaders. We could not adopt any change—even if I, who founded and "directed" the school wished for it—without such consensus. We considered that we had consensus among us if there were less than two dissenters. In other words, there might be one dissenter without breaking the general consensus.

Why? Because there is an oft-repeated biblical principle that it takes two or more witnesses to establish a matter. I believe that where there is general consensus, after thorough consideration and prayer, but only one disagreeing party (rather than the two or more needed to be taken seriously), no dissenting position can be regarded as "established" in the matter of the group's knowing the mind of the Spirit in a matter.

The person who stands alone against the consensus should recognize that the Lord has not provided the confirmation that would be required to reveal His support of the dissenter's position, and should graciously come over to the side of the others, or at least not oppose it. This way, the church moves forward, if at all, with the complete agreement of the decision-makers, whether they be the whole congregation or merely an eldership.

As for the choosing of leaders, I came up with a novel way to ascertain that only such leaders were in place as would have the support of everyone in the group. I asked everyone in the group to make a list of every person in the group that they could personally respect as an elder. Any names that appeared on every list were ipso facto the leaders by consensus. If a name did not appear on every list, it meant that there was someone who could not respect that person's credentials as a spiritual leader, giving sufficient reason to forestall the recognition of that person as one of the leaders of the group.

I do not favor democratic rule in a church, since this inevitably involves the division of the congregation into camps. In a mere "majority rules" type of organization, one can never be sure that a slim majority, though winning "the vote," truly has the mind of God on an issue, if there is also a significant minority who feel strongly the other way. Consensus is the better way to preserve the unity, and to avoid the tyranny of a mere majority.

Then again, if we wished to follow only such policies as are clearly endorsed or modeled in Scripture, the best way to find the mind of the Spirit would be to "cast lots." However, it might be quite some time before a modern congregation can get entirely behind decisions made on that basis.