8. 2 John

The second objection is that a family should not lose its representation simply because the male head of home has died. These critics insist that an elder could not represent that family’s interests since Scripture recognizes the integrity of the family even without a male head. The single mother in 2 John is treated as having an intact family (as opposed to a merged family). The “elder” (v. 1) does not go beyond his authority to exhort, to “plead” (v. 5), and to instruct. Though 2 John shows a protective concern for her and her children, the elder respects her authority over the home and is not a substitute dad. Indeed, the admonitions are much the same as those given to the male head of house in 3 John. This implies that the church (as represented by John “the elder”) is relating to the woman’s family in much the same way that the church relates to any other family. All would acknowledge that the family has not dissolved just because the husband has died. But the conclusion derived from this data is that since the church is a republic of lower governments (families) failure to allow a family to vote is failure to recognize the government of those families.

If representation were the only issue involved in voting then this argument would make sense. But we have already seen that voting is representation and rule. The elders can certainly take a family’s needs into account and represent those interests, but until that family acquires rulers it cannot rule. That rule is primary can be seen by the fact that all adults males were allowed to vote, even if that gave several votes to the same family. This would not be fair if representation were the only issue involved. All voters must be able to both represent and rule.

Therefore, though this objection is helpful in showing the integrity of a family even when there is only a single mother, it fails to show how this would warrant voting.