Majority Rule

Dear Bro. Thomas and Sis. Martha,

Loving greetings in the faith which we share.

At this time, I do not want to deal with the questions of exactly how Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, I Corinthians 7 and all the other passages might be interpreted in regard to current ecclesial issues. What I do want to deal with is the basic concept of ecclesial unity as it pertains to your current situation.

In the constitutions of most ecclesias, a clause will be found that reads something like this: “In matters not affecting essential doctrines, we mutually agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority.”

When the majority is wrong

We may make the mistake of supposing that “majority rule” is simply a convenient way of doing things, borrowed — with no particular Biblical justification –from the democratic governments of England and America. We may thus assume that, in ecclesial life, this rule really means: “I agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority, unless I believe them to be wrong.”

Upon reflection, you must see that we cannot limit the rule to such an interpretation. If everyone agreed to submit to the will of the majority only when he or she thought it to be right, then the clause would mean almost nothing! We would then have the perfect prescription for ecclesial disunity.

In my experience in the Truth, that has been the case too often. Brothers and sisters have stayed together in an ecclesia, thinking themselves to be in harmony, until the first real problem arose. Then they divided from one another because one side or the other had supposedly “departed from the Truth” in a relatively minor matter.

I grew up in a Christadelphian group that did this regularly, and I began to see the futility of such a philosophy very early, even before I realized that it was also unscriptural. The proper way to read this clause is surely: “In matters not affecting essential doctrines, we mutually agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority, even when the majority is wrong.”

Even if your ecclesia makes what you consider to be a wrong decision, your duty is to remain peaceably with the ecclesia unless that decision affects the essential doctrines of the Truth.

When you disagree

At one time or another, each one of us finds himself at variance with an ecclesial decision. During the last 20 years, I have disagreed with various ecclesial decisions (and at times with the failure of the ecclesia to make any decision at all). But when I asked myself, “Can I quit, walk away, resign or transfer membership because of this?” then 1 also had to ask myself, “Is my disagreement about a first principle?” Of course, the answer was always, “No!” So after a bit of grumbling to myself, I would try to get on with the positive business of the Truth and the ecclesia.

For example, you have a case pending regarding Bro. Alexander. Would an ecclesial decision to allow him to break bread be a matter “affecting essential doctrines”? You might think that since his case involves the marriage issue, and since there are commandments that deal with marriage, divorce, and even remarriage, that, “Yes, this is a matter of essential commandments that must be understood and kept correctly by the ecclesia as a whole. I cannot go along with what I believe to be wrong!”

Yet surely you can see that there is no attempt by the ecclesia or any members to deny any of Christ’s commandments. Admittedly, there is difference of opinion as to how to apply the commands in this particular case. Is that sufficient reason to consider leaving the ecclesia? If it is, then, conceivably, every difference of opinion as to how to apply any commandment of Christ could be considered a matter of “essential doctrine.” With such a view, we would frequently be on the verge of disfellowshiping all and sundry.

From time to time, you have heard me say how many different views there are on divorce and remarriage questions. In some areas, these different views (as to how various divorce and remarriage cases should be handled) exist more or less amicably side by side when the majority opinion is allowed to rule. In other instances, ecclesias and families have been separated for many years -­with all the attendant hurts and spiritual losses — because some believers were convinced theirs was absolutely the only right way to handle these difficult problems.

I do not mean to say: “There is no right answer.” What! do mean to say is: “Even if you or I have the perfect answer, you or I should not try to force it upon everyone else under threat of withdrawal if they disagree.”

Scripture principles support majority rule

To return to the “majority rule” principle, I want to stress once again that this is not just a convenient way of doing things. We ought not to readily put it aside when we feel that “the ecclesia has done something wrong.” No, it is much more than this. I believe very strongly that it is, itself, fundamental to the Truth.

One of the fundamentals of Bible teaching is the unity of the body of Christ. This is addressed by one ecclesia’ s statement of faith in the following words: “Those who believe the gospel and are baptized into Christ become brethren in Christ. They also become a part of the one body with Christ as their head…” (Rom. 12:1 ,4,5 ; I Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 4:4,12-16).

Sadly, such an article is not in every Christadelphian statement of faith. It should be! If this basic principle were taken more seriously, there would be much less division in the brotherhood and we would not be facing some of our current problems.

We are to be one body and we are to be humbly disposed to our brethren: “All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble…submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (I Peter 5:5; Eph. 5:21).

These passages are the clearest in proving the rule scriptural. There are other passages, however, which support the point almost as directly. All the exhortations to “be of the same mind” or of “one mind” are saying this same thing (e.g. Rom. 12:16; I Cor. 1:10; II Cor. 13:11; 1 Peter 3:8,9). There are two ways to achieve being of “the same mind.” One is to get rid of or run away from everybody who disagrees with you; in which case, the command is pointless because you have assured you agree with those you are with. That is the wrong way. The other — the right way — is for the minority to submit to the majority when no first principle is at stake.

Essential vs. non–essential

There are two things that make for true scriptural unity among believers: strict agreement on real essentials, and loving toleration of differences on non­essentials. The failure to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials is behind almost every improper division.

In matters of non-essential doctrine, we must, in service to the principles of peace and unity, submit to the will of others (i.e. the will of the majority) even if (especially if) we think they are wrong. Remember that, just as our obedience to the commands to love, be forgiving and “turn the other cheek” is only tested when we are wronged, so also our obedience to the commands to submit to one another, unify the body and be of one mind are only tested when we have a significant difference of opinion with our brethren.

Ecclesial unity is like the marital bond

I would like to leave you with one final thought. Both of you know that divorce is, generally speaking, contrary to Bible teaching. While there may be mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances in particular divorces, nevertheless we all recognize that any divorce falls short of the Biblical ideal to which we are called. There is no argument about that!

How sad it would be if a couple entered marriage with less than total commitment, subconsciously intending to terminate their marriage at the first sign of serious trouble. “We can no longer agree on such and such. Let’s get a divorce!”

Yet the spiritual bond that holds brothers and sisters together with one another, and with Christ, is a marriage bond of a higher order. It is a spiritual bond having to do with eternal life and the glorious “marriage supper of the Lamb.” Wouldn’t it be tragic to spiritually “divorce” your brothers and sisters, or to cause a believer to leave the Truth, over a non-essential matter?

I would find it ironic that differences about how to deal with a literal divorce, especially at second hand and after the fact, would lead any of us to be guilty of causing a “spiritual divorce.”

I think it is important that we talk about these matters as soon as possible. I would welcome your comments on the above and your suggestions as to what we can do to avert a real problem for the ecclesia.

With love in the bonds of Christ,
Phileo