Question:
How can something be considered an “assembly decision” when many in the assembly do not agree with it?
Answer:
Perhaps I should make a few comments as to how an “assembly decision” is formulated, before I answer this question.
When problems arise and an administrative judgment or action needs to be taken in a case that comes before the assembly, the responsible brothers meet apart from the assembly to get an understanding of the facts and to look into the Scriptures to determine what the assembly must do. This principle is seen in Acts 15. While what transpired in Acts 15 was not exactly a local “care” meeting, as we know it—as it was a gathering of brothers from a number of different localities—it does establish the principle that matters can be looked into by the responsible brothers apart from the assembly as a whole. It says, “The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter” (Acts 15:6). Note: the sisters, younger brethren, and new converts are not mentioned as being there. Things should not be hashed out before the whole assembly because there may be some disputing (Acts 15:7) which would not be orderly for a public forum. Also, some things might be addressed that could be defiling and would not be appropriate in such a setting (1 Cor. 14:40).
The Lord’s normal means of guiding the local assembly in a Scriptural course and in its administrative responsibilities is through those who “take the lead” (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Cor. 16:15-18; 1 Tim. 5:17 – J. N. Darby Trans.). Taking the lead in this capacity does not refer to leading in public teaching or preaching, but to the administrative affairs of the assembly. To confuse these two things is to misunderstand the difference between gift and office. Some of those who “take the lead” may not teach publicly at all, but it is very good and helpful when they can (1 Tim. 5:17). These men should know the principles of the Word of God and be able to lay them out so that the assembly might understand the course of action that God would have it to take in a particular matter (Tit. 1:9). These men do not appoint themselves to this role, but are raised up of the Holy Spirit for this work (Acts 20:28). They will be known by the assembly as having addicted themselves to the care of the saints, and by their knowledge of principles, and whose experience and judgment has been proved to be sound.
There are three words used in the epistles to describe these responsible leaders in the local assembly.
Firstly, “elders” (Presbuteroi), refers to those advanced in age: it implies maturity and experience. However, not all aged men in the assembly necessarily function in the role of leaders (1 Tim. 5:1; Tit. 2:1-2).
Secondly, “bishops [overseers]” (Episkopoi), refers to the work that they do: shepherding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2), watching over souls (Heb. 13:17), and giving admonition (1 Thess. 5:12).
Thirdly, they are called “guides [leaders]” (Hegoumenos); this refers to their spiritual capacity to lead the saints.
In the book of Revelation those in this role are referred to as “stars” and also as “the angel of the [local] church” (Rev. 1-3). As “stars” they are to bear witness to the truth of God (the principles of His Word) as light bearers in the local assembly, providing light on various subjects that it might be confronted with. This is illustrated in Acts 15. While it is not exactly to do with binding and loosing, we do learn valuable principles of administrative function in the church. After hearing of the problem that was troubling the assembly, Peter and James gave spiritual light on the matter. James applied a principle from the Word of God and gave his judgment as to what he believed the Lord would have them to do (Acts 15:15-21). As “the angel of the church,” those in this role are to act as messengers to carry out the mind of God in the assembly in the performance of the thing. This is also illustrated in Acts 15:23-29.
When these brothers feel that they have discerned the mind of the Lord from the Scriptures, as to what the assembly should do in a particular case before them, then they bring the facts (not necessarily the details, for they could be defiling) and the Scriptural conclusions before the assembly so that the conscience of all can be engaged in the matter (Acts 15:22). Then it becomes a ratified, binding decision (Matt. 18:18-20). It is called an “assembly decision” because it is made in assembly—that is, when the assembly is together as such, with the Lord in the midst (1 Cor. 5:4)—not because all in the assembly agree.
It has been asked, “Who decides what should be done in a particular case that comes before the assembly?” Our answer is—the Lord. He is the Head of the Church and the assembly is to take its direction from Him (Col. 2:18). The responsible brothers may have to look into a matter to get the facts, but once they are ascertained, the Word of God decides what should be done.
Some have the idea that the brothers are to simply formulate a proposal to the assembly, and when they bring it to the assembly, the assembly as a whole then decides. This is democracy, and assembly actions are not carried out by democratic principles. The brothers who "take the lead" are responsible to see to it that the assembly is guided in a Scriptural course of action, regardless of whether all in the assembly agree or not. If it were not so, then the older, responsible brothers (who understand the principles and know what should be done) could have their godly Scriptural judgment forestalled by the sisters and the novices, or partisans of the offender that is being judged. This means that a Scriptural judgment would become subject to those that have little experience, or intelligence, or perhaps bias in assembly matters. Surely this could not be right. Some seem to have the idea that the brethren cannot act until they get the “OK” from these persons, but this equates to the people controlling their leaders and is the root principle of democracy. Many have stumbled over this very thing when the elders have sought to carry out a Scriptural judgment, and some have disagreed with the action.
This does not mean that the elders make the administrative decisions in the assembly, and the rest of the saints have no input. It is possible that younger brethren may have the mind of the Lord in a matter when the older brethren have perhaps missed it (Job 32-33). In such a case, the older brethren should be glad to accept light on a matter that they may have overlooked. But in normal assembly life, the older, experienced brethren who understand the principles involved are the ones who have the moral weight in these assembly matters.
Nothing can be officially decided apart from the assembly having an opportunity to have its conscience engaged in the matter, and this is why the elders are to seek to reach the conscience of all in the assembly by bringing it before them (Acts 15:22). The leading brethren should be sensitive to any legitimate objection that ones in the assembly may have. But in the end, they are ultimately responsible, as “the angel” of the church, to act for the glory of God (Rev. 2-3). But it is not a binding decision of the assembly until it is done in the assembly, in what is sometimes called a meeting for discipline (Matt. 18:19-20; 1 Cor. 5:4).
In formulating assembly decisions, the responsible leaders should seek to get the conscience of all in the local assembly so that all might be exercised in the matter; however, the assembly may not follow the conscience of some. As mentioned, this is because they may be young in the faith and their consciences may not be sufficiently enlightened in Scriptural principles to be able to form an accurate judgment; they might be worldly and don’t have the spiritual discernment, or they might be biased in the matter. In either case, their judgment must be disregarded. Scripture does not demand that there must be a satisfying of all in the assembly before it can be a bonafide decision.
In these last days, when the will of man is increasingly evident in asserting itself in the church, we cannot expect to get unanimity in assembly judgments. This was the case in the judgment at Corinth. Second Corinthians 2:5 says, “If any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part...all of you” (quoted without the parenthesis as in J. N. Darby Trans.). Apparently, not all in the assembly at Corinth were grieved about the sin in their midst. Although this was the case, the assembly still carried out the action for the glory of God.
In dealing with a heretical situation, you would rarely—if ever—get the approval of the one whom the assembly judgment is against. Furthermore, family members and supporters may object, so there is usually not going to be unanimity. J. N. Darby said, “Unanimity is nonsense, a denial of the power and operation of the Spirit, and clean contrary to the Word of God. First, it is nonsense; because till the case is decided, the person charged is one of the assembly, and you are not going to make him agree as led of the Spirit in judging his own case.”
Occasionally, actions have been taken by the assembly when a few brothers were not at the local care meeting, or at the assembly meeting where the action was taken. This has led some to think that it could not be a bonafide assembly decision ratified in heaven. They cry, “But all the brothers weren’t there to decide!” This again is a democratic idea. The assembly, acting in its administrative capacity without all present, is not uncommon in Scripture. We see the principle of it in 1 Corinthians 15:5, in connection with the office of apostleship. It says, “He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.” When we compare this with Luke 24:34-48 and John 20:19-24, we find that there were only ten of the apostles present when the Lord appeared to them—yet they are called “the twelve!” Judas had hung himself, and Thomas was not there. According to Acts 1, Matthias was not yet part of “the twelve.” His election didn't happen until after the Lord had completed all of His resurrection appearances (in 40 days) and had ascended into heaven. Yet those assembled are still called “the twelve.” We see from this that “the twelve” is a term used to designate the administrative office that they held and the authority that they had to act as such. In the Corinthian epistles, where assembly function and order are unfolded, it is consistent that this principle would be taught there. It is also noteworthy that the Lord's appearances to the women are not given in 1 Corinthians 15, because assembly administration is committed to the responsible brothers. This shows that the assembly acting in its administrative capacity does not need all present before its actions are bound.
The assembly is not a democratic institution that reaches its decisions by a majority vote, with every person having an equal say in matters. We once heard a younger brother say, “I’ve got just as much of a say around here as he does”—referring to a grave and godly older brother who had addicted himself to the care of the assembly for 50 years. We had to tell him that that was simply not true. There is such a thing as moral weight, and this is gained by years of faithfully walking with the Lord and caring for the saints. Those in the place of leading and guiding the assembly carry the bulk of the weight in the assembly in its administrative affairs. For instance, there could be a case where six or seven younger brethren want to do a particular thing, but three or four grave, older brethren feel otherwise. Since the older brethren’s judgment is to be respected—carrying the moral weight in the assembly—the Lord expects the younger brethren to acquiesce in their judgment in the matter, if it differs. They should be glad to follow the spiritual lead of their older brethren.
Summary:
The short answer as to all not agreeing in an assembly action is that the assembly is not a democracy, and unanimity is not necessary in making a binding assembly decision. Those who take the lead carry the bulk of the weight in the assembly’s administrative actions. They are responsible to see to it that the assembly moves on Scriptural lines, whether all agree with a particular decision or not.