The Case for Household Voting in the Church

We are approaching our first congregational vote as a church—by God’s grace, a joyful and important one. We will be voting to affirm one of our pastoral apprentices as an elder at Knox Baptist Church.

Some churches do not have their congregation vote to affirm or call pastors, but we believe congregational affirmation is both faithful to the biblical model and consistent with our confession of faith—the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

This brings us to the question: How should this vote take place?

 The most common practice today is for all covenant members in good standing to cast an individual vote. We certainly agree that only committed members should vote. However, we also want to challenge an underlying cultural assumption and offer a more biblical model. The question we must ask is: Should congregational authority be exercised by individuals or by households under covenant headship?

1. The Household of God

We live in a hyper-individualistic society in which the concept of the household has been all but erased from civic and Church life. While the topic of household representation in the civic realm deserves its own discussion, here we want to focus on its importance in the Church. Scripture calls the church “the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19; 1 Timothy 3:15). Throughout redemptive history, God’s dealings with humanity have not been individualistic but covenantal—structured through households under headship.

Every household has a covenant (or federal) head who represents his people before God. We see this from the very beginning: through Adam’s disobedience, sin entered the world (Romans 5:12). Adam, not Eve, is held responsible because he was the covenant head tasked with keeping God’s command.

This pattern continues throughout the Old Testament in men such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and David. Joshua’s declaration is emblematic: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15). God’s people have always been represented through their households.

2. Covenant Headship in the New Testament

Some assume this principle ends with the New Covenant, but the New Testament clearly maintains household order. Ephesians 5:23 teaches that the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. Fathers are charged to lead and nurture their families in the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

Even in the accounts of conversion, we see patterns of household inclusion (Acts 16:15, 31–34; 1 Corinthians 1:16). Regardless of one’s view on baptism, these passages affirm that God’s grace toward a head often brings blessing to the household under his care.

Thus, covenant headship is both a creational and covenantal reality. It is not about superiority, but about order and responsibility.

3. Why Household Voting?

As a church, we do not want to see ourselves as a collection of disconnected individuals, but as a family of covenant households under Christ.

Voting as individuals can unintentionally pit family members against each other, fragmenting the unity of the home. Household voting preserves unity under headship. Just as elders represent the congregation in leadership, heads of households represent their families in congregational decisions.

This practice also reflects historic precedent. Many early congregational churches practiced household representation. The view that every individual votes apart from their household is a relatively recent development—rooted more in modern democracy than in biblical or historic church life.

4. How We Will Apply This at Knox

Below is a simple summary of how this principle will be applied in our upcoming vote:

• Believing husband with believing family: 

  • Husband votes -> He is the covenant head;

• Believing wife with unbelieving husband:

  • Wife votes -> She represents the covenant household in the Church;

• Single adult: 

  • Individual votes -> No covenantal household beyond self;

• Christian baptized youth under believing parents: 

  • Parents vote -> Household covered by parental covenant headship;

• Christian baptized youth under unbelieving parents:

  • Youth votes -> No covenantal representation above them

    
    

5. A Theological Reminder

The problem with atomization is not merely procedural—it is theological.

 When we fragment the household and treat the Church as a collection of autonomous individuals, we distort the image of Christ and His Bride.

Household voting restores the biblical principle that the family, under godly leadership, is a covenant partner in the household of faith. It strengthens order, unity, and protection in an age of confusion and individualism.

Final Pastoral Note

This practice is not about exclusion but restoration. We are recovering a biblical vision of covenant life—one that affirms family order, honours headship, and protects the body of Christ from the spirit of our age.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” — Joshua 24:15

The Knox Leadership Team