Full disclosure?

During our current season of decision making, I have had people ask me about our forum for discussion, wondering why everyone can't be part of every discussion. Sometimes their questions are cast in the language of this oft-called "democratic" nation in which we live. The Founding Fathers were not as universally Christian as we sometimes suggest they were, but they did know their Bibles, and their established form of government—a republic, not a democracy—was similar to Paul's guidelines for leadership in a New Testament church.

Before we go any further, we had better make sure the difference between a republic and a democracy is clear. In a republic, the scheduled vote of the full voting population (or as many of them as show up) elects a group of leaders to make informed decisions on behalf of all of us. In a raw democracy, the full voting population would be allowed to vote on everything, all the time. Almost instantly, you can see several difficulties with a raw democracy: (1) far too often we would be holding votes just so the authorities could keep working, (2) voter fatigue would quickly set in and interest in truly important matters would wane, (3) there is no way the average voter can be informed—a really key word in all this—about even a small portion of the items up for a vote, which means that even the most faithful voters would be voting in ignorance much of the time, (4) good policies or elected officials that may take several months or years to take effect would be overturned in a week because they had yet to "make a difference."

In a republic, however, we can elect a group of leaders to gather a broad range of information and make informed decisions (albeit, not always proving in the end to be the best decision). This system allows the rest of us to keep doing what we're doing (our jobs, our needed rest, our worship) without constant distraction for elections/votes we know little about. In fact, you may argue that the more votes that elected officials turn over to us (in the form of initiatives, say), the less responsibility they are taking as leaders.

New Testament churches were always set up with leaders in place. These were elders. They had God's heart, they had their lives in order, they were not new to the faith, and they were entrusted to make informed decisions on behalf of all the disciples.

Again, much hinges on the idea of informed. While it can seem like a good idea to make every discussion a public one, when we are dealing with people this is just not true. TFH pastors and Council members are often approached in confidence about individual and homefront matters of TFH members—by these member themselves, not by gossips (a critical distinction). The knowledge of these matters affects decision making for the church as a whole, but this does not mean that the knowledge would be edifying to the body. Indeed, it is often an emotional weight on the Council to carry this information, which is why we covet your prayers. Without providing a full hypothetical example, let me be confident that you would understand how if someone came to us about an addictive or marital or sensitive health or family history problem it would impact how/where we use that person in the fellowship while they are being healed and restored.

So let's conclude. The Council wants to hear your thoughts and ideas. Feel free to write or call or comment here or pull us aside after a Saturday night gathering. But please don't look for us to conduct congregational discussions every step of the way—the sheer number of tangents of discussion that would then arise with 80 people in the room is why we were pleased to follow up the annual meeting with a number of small group discussions, where real cross-conversation could and did happen. I have personally enjoyed the cross-conversations I have had with many of you in these weeks—but yes, there have been times when I have not been able to give you all the information I have, because that information has been given to me in confidence.