QUESTION: How can a decision be considered an "assembly decision" when many in the assembly do not agree with it?

ANSWER: Perhaps I should make a few comments about how an “assembly decision” is formulated before answering this question. When problems arise and a judgment or administrative action becomes necessary for something related to the assembly, the responsible brothers meet apart from the assembly to better understand the facts and to seek in the Scriptures how the assembly should act. This principle is found in Acts 15. Although what we see in Acts 15 is not exactly a meeting of brothers, as we usually call it, since there it was a meeting of brothers from various locations, the passage establishes the principle that matters can be examined by responsible brothers apart from the assembly as a whole. There it says: “The apostles and elders met together to consider this matter” (Acts 15:6). Notice that the sisters, young brothers, and new converts are not mentioned as participating in the meeting. Things should not all be discussed in detail before the whole assembly, for some debates may occur (Acts 15:7) that would not be fitting in a public meeting. Furthermore, there are things dealt with that could contaminate and would not be appropriate in such a circumstance (1 Cor. 14:40).

The normal biblical way for the Lord to guide the assembly in its administrative responsibilities is through those who “preside” (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Cor. 16:15-18; 1 Tim. 5:17). To preside or lead in these matters does not refer to leading in teaching or public preaching, but in the administrative things of the assembly. Confusing these two things is to fail to understand the difference between gift and office. Some of those who “preside” may not even teach publicly, but it is very good and profitable when they do (1 Tim. 5:17). These men should know the principles of the Word of God and be equipped to present them so that the assembly can understand the course of action God would like it to take in the case at hand (Titus 1:9). These men do not elect themselves to this role, but are raised up by the Holy Spirit for such work (Acts 20:28). They will be recognized by the assembly as people who have devoted themselves to the care of the saints and also by the knowledge they have of principles, being recognized as fit in their experience and ability to judge.

There are three Greek words used in the epistles to describe these responsible leaders in the local assembly.

The first, “elders” (Presbuteroi), refers to those of advanced age and implies maturity and experience. However, not all the older men in the assembly necessarily act as leaders (1 Tim. 5:1; Titus 2:1-2).

The second is “bishops” (Episcopoi), which has the sense of overseers and refers to the work they do, which is to shepherd the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2), watching over souls (Heb. 13:17) and admonishing (1 Thess. 5:12).

The third is “guides” (Hegoumenos), which has the sense of leaders and refers to their spiritual ability to lead the saints.

In the book of Revelation those who have this role are called “stars” and also “the angel of the church in [location]” (Rev. 1-3). As “stars” they should act as light-bearers for the local assembly, bearing witness to the truth of God (the principles of His Word), and providing light on the various matters with which the assembly may be confronted. This is illustrated in Acts 15. Although the action there does not refer exactly to binding and loosing, we can learn valuable principles from their administrative function in the church. After hearing of the problem that was afflicting the assembly, Peter and James shed light on the matter. James applied a principle of the Word of God and gave his opinion as to what he believed the Lord would like them to do (Acts 15:15-21). Acting as “the angel of the church,” those who had this role should serve as messengers to bring God's mind to the assembly at the time a decision is to be made. This is also illustrated in Acts 15:23-29.

When these brothers feel they have discernment of what the Lord's will is based on the Scriptures, regarding what the assembly should do in a particular situation, then they present the facts and biblical conclusions before the assembly (not necessarily the details, for these could contaminate others), so that everyone's conscience may be exercised in the matter (Acts 15:22). Then that is a decision “bound” or ratified (Matt. 18:18-20). It is called an “assembly decision” because it was made in assembly, that is, when the assembly met as such, having the Lord in its midst, and because it is thus a valid decision (1 Cor. 5:4). It does not mean that it is a decision with which everyone in the assembly agrees.

Someone asked: “Who decides what should or should not be presented to the assembly to be decided?”

Our answer is: the Lord. He is the Head of the church and the assembly must seek His direction (Col. 2:18). The responsible brothers may have to examine a matter to obtain the facts, but once they are certain of it, it is the Word of God that decides what should be done.

Some think that the brothers should simply formulate a proposal for the assembly, and when they bring it before the assembly it will be up to the assembly to decide by majority. This idea is nothing but democracy. Although there is some truth in this, the brothers who assume leadership are responsible for making sure that the assembly is being guided in a course of action grounded in the Bible, regardless of whether everyone agrees or not. If it were not so, the godly and biblical judgment of older and responsible brothers (who understand the principles and know which path to take) could be neutralized by the sisters, by the less experienced and also by people with partisan feelings. In this way biblical judgment would be subject to those with less experience or discernment, or who were not impartial regarding the assembly's matters. Something like this obviously would not be correct. Some seem to think that the brothers could not act until they received an "OK" from these people, but this would amount to the people controlling their leaders, which is the root of democracy. Many stumbled at this when the elders sought to carry forward a biblical judgment while some disagreed with the action.

This does not mean that the elders make administrative decisions in the assembly without the other saints being able to give their opinion. It is possible that younger brothers may have the mind of the Lord on a certain question when the older brothers have overlooked it (Job 32-33). In such cases the older brothers should gladly accept the light shed on the question, which perhaps they had not perceived. But in the normal life of the assembly it is the older and experienced brothers who understand the principles involved and who have upon themselves the moral weight in these assembly questions.

Nothing can be officially decided without the assembly having the opportunity to have its conscience exercised with the matter, and that is why the elders seek to reach the conscience of all in the assembly by setting the matter before them (Acts 15:22). The brothers who lead should be sensitive to any legitimate objection that others in the assembly may raise. But in the end they will be the ones responsible, as "the angel" of the church, for acting to the glory of God (Rev. 2-3). But it will not be a decision taken by the assembly until it is made in assembly, in what is sometimes called the meeting for discipline (Matt. 18:19-20; 1 Cor. 5:4).

When formulating the questions for decision by the assembly, the responsible leaders should seek to touch the conscience of all in the local assembly, so that all may be exercised in the matter. However the assembly may not act according to the conscience of some. As has already been mentioned, this occurs because these may be new in the faith and their consciences may not be sufficiently enlightened by biblical principles to be able to form a correct judgment. It may also be the case that there are worldly people without spiritual discernment among the brothers, or that they are biased regarding the question. In any case, the judgment of such people must be set aside. The Scriptures do not require that the satisfaction of all in the assembly be sought in order for a decision to be right.

In these last days, when man's will is increasingly evident in his attempt to prevail in the church, we cannot expect to obtain unanimity in the judgments made by the assembly. That is what happened in the judgment that took place in Corinth. In 2 Corinthians 2:5 it says:

"If anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but in part [...] all of you" (The J. N. Darby version casts doubt on the originality of the words in braces). Apparently not everyone in the assembly in Corinth was grieved by the sin that was among them. Nevertheless, even so the assembly carried forward the action to the glory of God.

When dealing with a situation of heresy it will be very rare -- or even impossible -- to obtain the approval of the person whom the assembly is judging. Furthermore, his family and friends may protest, so unanimity will hardly be achieved. J. N. Darby wrote: "Unanimity is absurd, it is a denial of the power and operation of the Spirit, and clearly contrary to the Word of God. First, it is absurd because until the question has been decided the person who is being accused is part of the assembly, and you will not be able to convince him to judge himself guided by the Spirit".

Occasionally decisions were made by the assembly when a few brothers were not present at the brothers' meeting or at the assembly meeting, when the decision was made. This has led some to think that that could not have been a valid decision of the assembly and ratified in heaven. The argument of these was: