Before anyone has a coronary issue requiring emergency services, this post is not about about trying to take voting rights away from women who have them in their congregations. But it is about explaining how those congregations who do not allow women to vote are not just full of misogynistic neanderthals like many assume. The symbol to the left would not at all be a good way to illustrate the point of the practice. The practice is not based on an idea that women are not smart enough to have an opinion worth hearing.
Of course, there may be those within a congregation who sinfully hold such ideas and therefore speak against allowing women to vote. But the practice itself is not about demeaning women. It is about two things.
First, it is about valuing family units over individuals. Essentially the practice is meant to end up giving each family unit one vote. This is why men have to be of a certain age to vote as well. The assumption is by the age of 18 or 25, they will have their own family unit to represent is the assembly. This practice actually helps ensure that no one family ends up with undue influence. It also is meant to encourage unity within the family. The idea is that the family upon coming into the public gathering will speak with one voice. In the home, the discussion involves husband and wife, and perhaps even older children. But the decision is made in the home and then brought to the meeting. Husbands and wives should not stand in opposition to one another but speak as one since they are one flesh.
Secondly, it is about respecting the order God gives to marriage. Since only vote is intended per household, the vote is given to the husband. In this way, the wife submits to her husband in love. She does not shame him by taking a role which diminishes her husband. The husband carries out his role of loving his wife by making sure that her concerns are addressed in the assembly. He cares for her by taking the things communicated in the home to the meeting.
Sadly in the modern world, we always place individual rights first even when that means fostering division in the home. And we rebel against God’s order because it imposes a specific shape to the love we are to have between spouses.
I was not old enough to care when these battles raged in our church body. But I bet the discussion mostly was just about valuing women by letting them vote. But here is the truth, women not voting was never meant to be devalue women. It still is not, or at least should not be, in the congregations it survives in. It is about valuing family and the order God gives to it.
I write this because explaining the practice briefly is always a losing endeavor. It always ends up looking like we just don’t want to give women a voice. I hope this post will better explains the good things this practice was and is intended to protect and promote.
I can buy the idea of a family unit getting a vote. I hate that it totally excludes single females (but not single males), and I especially hate that single moms and their family units do not have the same input as families with two parents. (Actually, they have no input.) I think it sends a poor message about exactly who is valued in a congregation. Seems like one vote per head of household would be more appropriate.
What Jaime said
I think the “fostering division in the home” aspect is a bit overblown — and male only voters (or one per family) wouldn’t stop that. First of all, how many issues are there going to be where husband and wife are dead-set opposed to each other? Second of all, if there are such issues… is only having one vote going to make that less? If the husband acts in a way that the wife doesn’t like, would the husband being able to cast a vote whereas the wife can’t bring peace… or would it just bring an even more ticked off wife?
++++++
There’s too much hand wringing here. Congregations are free to organize their rules how they wish. If a congregation has only male voters, and they are content with that, enjoy your use of freedom. There’s no need to defend it – you are free.
I think are more efficient and effective ways of giving each family a vote, if that is the sole intent. Not only does this exclude families without men (as Jaime pointed out), it would also give certain households multiple votes (there are a number of families in my congregation with one or two sons over 18 still living at home).
Personally it doesn’t bother me whether votes are performed by family or by individual. I don’t believe our votes in the church are about us seeking to impose our individual wills, but instead allowing God to guide us through the outcome of our collective votes. That can happen whether it is one vote per family or one vote per individual.
Phil,
I will confess my ignorance here. What are the voters actually voting on when something comes to a vote? Are you speaking at the parish level, the synod level or both? Do these votes involve doctrine or do these votes have more to do with day to day operations of an individual parish? For instance, whehter or not to expand the kitchen or to go with a new internet provider.
If these votes involve doctrine or even Christian praxis, then I would suggest that as the care and protection of the church’s depositum fidei (cf. Jude 3) has always been entrusted to bishops, who are always male, then women have no and should not have any say in that.
Jaime,
You’ve fallen into the same pitfall which characterizes the feminization of the church, namely that because person x has a and person y does not have a, person y is therefore undervalued or unvalued. Complementarity means literally to complete something. Person x has one part of the equation and person y has the second part. Women do complete the equation but you’re complaining that they somehow lack the “right” part or the right to choose which part they play. To be up in arms about that is to, as Phil says, question the order of creation as God has ordained it to be.
Now, with regards to giving women who are heads of household a vote is equally dangerous and out of order. To say that men have always been heads of households throughout history is simply false. During WWI and WWII, how many families lost their male head of household because those men lost their lives in the war? Those widowed women never claimed a right of voting in their husbands’ stead. Why should that change now because women are having children outside of wedlock more and more? Or why should it change because a woman’s husband died tragically?
As the care of the doctrine of the church has always been entrusted to male bishops, the functions of the individual parish should always remain entrusted to male heads of households.
On a sidenote, I disapprove strongly of laypeople having votes at synodal conventions regarding doctrine or theological matters. Those are left to bishops and priests.
The article makes two incorrect assumptions: 1. That only men are heads of households, and 2. That the household is a fundamental unit of the church. The baptized believer is the “living stone” built into a spiritual temple (1 Peter 2) not the household. There are households in which the wife is the baptized believer and the husband is not.
Let me respond to a few things. First, because someone does not have a vote does not mean they do not have input. Most of what we discuss in our voter’s meeting originates from those without a vote. The input is done outside of the meeting, generally in the household they belong to whether as a child, spouse, daughter, or widow. I really find it hard to agree that anyone is left without input because of a lack of a vote.
Eric, if husband and wife are of one opinion, why does the wife need to have her own vote? Will not her voice be heard in his vote? And when they are not of one voice, should we not foster in home discussions which foster skills of communication and respect? Would not that have all sorts of benefit in a culture where even marriage is viewed as just an arrangement between individuals which can be broken at either individual’s will rather than being made one together?
Andy, you point out correctly that if voter’s assemblies have a place in the church, they should not be places of warring influence. But if we seek God’s direction, what promise do we have that God will is revealed through the popular vote of the members? I would rather cast lots. There at least we have biblical example.
Chris, as usual your condescending tone causes some of your valid points to remain unheard.
I do think there is a whole other conversation about the role of voter’s assemblies in church. We should make clear that primarily they are given to decided matters outside of what is given to the Pastor to concentrate on (the ministry of the Word and the prayers. Obviously in many cases, voter’s end up deciding to cast aside the authority given to both the Pastor and the Word.
Secondly, I think you do raise a good question about who is the head of the household? Certainly, the wife always with or without a husband remains in authority/headship over the children. But I am not sure it is altogether proper to speak of the woman as the head of the household. It might be proper to say that that role is simply vacant. Certainly many people who experience this feel a void that exists. (This paragraph is posted for more discussion. I have not thought this out more completely.)
Pr. Cwirla,
1) See last paragraph. I would welcome your thoughts on that train of thought.
2) I am not sure that this point can be sustained. Obviously, many times in the early church, entire households were baptized into the faith. Also, the verse you reference speak to people in the plural of “you.” I am not sure they well make your point which places so much emphasizes on individual. If so, should all children baptized have a vote as well? I do think it is fairly obvious that throughout most of history, families spoke to issues with one voice. Obviously there are cases where this is problematic due to sin, but I think you would be hard pressed to find this individualistic of a approach to church governance outside of the western world of today.
We do have to ask whether we order ourselves in line what what should be or what is. Many of the arguments which seem to necessitate a woman’s right to vote are situation in which God’s order has been frustrated by some sinful means (and here I should be clear that I do not always mean the sin of the woman involved). Many of you giving some support to the idea of changing from men voters to head of the household voters is obviously a response to the situations we find everywhere and I am intrigued by such an idea and it feasibility to bring good order. However, some home mind have to hold their own election first to figure out who has that role. 🙂
Well I have said enough for now. And I hope I have made clear that my main point it not to demean the practice of having women voters as it is to lend understanding to how just having men does not intrinsically devalue woman and how it does value other important things God has revealed. Rarely does a church in our day get ribbed for having women voters. But those who do not often hear about it.
Phil
Phil,
Condescending tone? Really? There was not one bit of that but since you think that is the normal way I present myself you just assume that it’s going to appear.
But you didn’t address my specific questions. Are we talking about women having votes on day to day operations or things about specific doctrine and praxis? And, are you talking about strictly parish level, district level or synodal level?
Chris,
I will address your specific questions. I’m speaking here about women voting in the normal voters assembly of each congregation. What those assemblies vote on is quite varied. Sometimes, it is things like what color the new carpet should be. Other times, it is things like who will be called as pastor or how often the sacrament is offered. As I noted, I think it would be a fruitful conversation to discuss not what voters assemblies do vote on but what they should vote on.
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you with my characterization of your remarks. Many times your comments are perceived by myself and others as very insulting. We do not feel like you are trying to engage us but rather belittle us. I may have well let those thoughts color my reading of your comments in this post.
Phil
Phil,
I appreciate this post. The value of it found in pointing out the disparity of our doctrine and practice. As to the fatherless families (for whatever reason), I would suggest it becomes the responsibility of the elders to speak on behalf of those without a vote.
The congregation to which I was a voting member used this model and it worked very well.
Phil,
You bring out a lot of things to think about which is good. I may not agree with you completely on this one, but you do bring up some good and valid points. The one thing that did stand out in my mind as I was reading was your top picture. The woman with the “no” symbol over her. To me, just to me perhaps, it sends the completely opposite message, in my mind, of what you are communicating in your post. You say your intent is not to “devalue women” and that churches that do not allow women to vote are “not just full of misogynistic neanderthals” yet this is all said next to a picture with a woman with a “no” symbol over her. You know what you are trying to do, I know what you are trying to do….but i think it just sends the wrong message. Like i said, it may be minor, but sometimes the little things speak the loudest.
Tom,
That image was meant to represent how people think about congregations who only have male voters. I tried to put the three images with the appropriate paragraphs to make that point. Obviously I did not communicate well with images. Perhaps I will add some sort of phrase in the first paragraph that makes that clear.
Phil
I do not like the idea of “input” alone for those unmarried women. Quite frankly, it is way too easy to allow that input and disregard it with votes. This was an argument used in the south to allow pole taxes. The blacks had “input” in their government, just no vote.
As to elders speaking on the behalf of those without a vote: Let’s face it. We have all been to voter’s meetings. In many congregations, these are HIGHLY POLITICAL and in many cases never resemble any form of Christian love. You may say that we are all Christians–but if you have attended enough meetings, you find that a group with an agenda will act in the most foul ways. I have been to these meetings.
Input is easily silenced or ignored—votes are not.
I agree with Tom, above. How one communicates is often as important (and even sometimes more important) than what one says. Especially when it comes to dealing with women. We don’t exactly have an exemplary history of handling these issues well in the LCMS. A discussion of voting isn’t really a good place to start, or to be treated as a stand-alone issue, unless the intention is stir up “discussion.”
Personally, I wonder if we haven’t allowed our democratic ideals to become a little idolized in our American synod. Do we really need to have votes taken on all the things upon which we do vote? If the votes are purely administrative and worldly (carpet colors, deciding to re-pave the parking lot, etc.) then who cares if women vote? I don’t think that the frequency of communion or other similar matters should be a voting matter, period. And the calling of a pastor…prayerfully drawing lots for qualified and known candidates seems to have some Scriptural precedent. 😉
Just to be clear, I don’t vote even though I am the head of my household. However, I do make sure my pastors and elders know my opinions on important matters that come up before the church – and I expect them to take my insights into account and then make the best decision for the sake of the congregation with all of the information available. That’s kind of their vocation…
Phil,
Thanks for addressing my specific questions.
That women should be involved in theological matters like how often the sacrament is offered should be left to the pastor/priest alone. Is not the priest/pastor the best person to lead the congregation in terms of its spiritual health? That is what you’re trained and educated in, not they.
I’ll admit I’m uneasy with any democratic process in the church; I’ve never subscribed to the congregational polity which dominates the LCMS and this, to me, confirms why I feel it is overall detrimental. If people want to vote on color of carpeting or whether to expand the kitchen fine, but for the spiritual matters of the church, such should be left exclusively to the priest and/or bishop.
“Eric, if husband and wife are of one opinion, why does the wife need to have her own vote? Will not her voice be heard in his vote?”
The key word there is “need”. There isn’t any need for her to have a vote, nor is there a need for her to not have a vote. This is a matter of freedom – and trying to say there is a “need” either way turns the debate from a question of best to serve and manage the affairs of the congregation into a display of piety because we do (or don’t) have women voters.
I also think we neglect what our voters’ assemblies are designed for. They are designed to manage doctrine or other such things. They are there primarily to see that properties are maintained and that there is an appropriate time set for the Worship services. It isn’t a bunch of “doctrinal” authority… of if the voters are exercising that, they are overstepping their bounds (whether it’s men only or women and men in the group).
We would do better to think in terms of vocation and service instead of “need” and right
what Jenny said…and Jaime 🙂 and Andy brought up a good point about multiple votes in a household. When I was looking for a new church I actually didn’t consider the one who only has male voters. And I have to agree with Phil; found Chris’ post condescending.
So, in some congregations that have some board systems, no one in the congregation votes — except like two or three things. In this situation, people can certainly express their opinion to the board — but the decision making is not done by voting. Would this be an acceptable form of governance? I sometimes wonder when people talk about “opinions being heard” whether they are referring to opinions being heard — and their having the ability to vote.
Let’s go further: suppose our little board that has most authority has women on it. Would that be problematic? Having this structure doesn’t seem to reject either position: it is not devaluing individuals over family units. All family units are treated the same: they can voice their opinion to the board. The board is certainly not a family unit of any kind. So, having women on it ought not to be a problem.
If a woman is serving on the board, does that really diminish her husband? That doesn’t seem to follow. Having a man on the board doesn’t diminish the authority of another man who can’t vote, does it? Or is that the problem with having a select few make the decisions of the congregation — that it removes the authority of the individual to exercise his authority.
But if that is true, then Jamie’s point (contra Chris) rings true. An individual male votes but an individual female does not. The talk of family here doesn’t seem to apply. I think Pr Cwirla’s opinion on the make-up of the church as the baptized believer rings true.
Still, I am curious as to the thoughts on a Board of Directors structure (or call it what you like — Carver model, policy-based, whatever ) Does this solve the issue spoken about here: that the democratic style of governance is problematic.
Phyllis,
There was nothing condescending unless an unpopular belief, to your mind, equals condescension.
I am a female married member of Pastor Hoppe’s church. I do not feel offended I don’t get to vote. Actually, for ME PERSONALLY, it takes it off of me. I do not go to church to get involved. Some may find that sad or being a “dead” member, but I go for very personal and private reasons – between me and my God. The church is where I go to feel peace, repent, thank God for my blessings, and learn more about His ways. I personally (again – my personal feeling) do not want to be a part of the politics that rule my church. When I walk in, I don’t want to be angry at someone for “voting” the way they did or their remarks or conversations during that session. I like my little pew and my one on one with God and don’t need a vote to make me feel at peace or a welcomed member of a congregation. Just my two cents.
Phil
Great article and explanation. The focus of women’s suffrage in the LCMS was separated from its original intent of family focus and men stepping up. Also what exactly did it solve? Im not saying we should deny votes to women (we have a hard enough time getting anyone to come), but when people make women’s suffrage a prominent moment in the Synod, we have forgotten the point of the church—Jesus!