Women's Voting 2

YFNWG (Hi Fred!) wrote in the comments on my Monday posting on women's voting and suggested that perhaps the solution would be "one vote per household."

The one vote per household that he mentions of school societies is a bit 'off'. It's "one vote per membership fee". If all my children (when they lived at home) became members, they would all vote. Or if two or three shared a membership, they would only get one vote among them.

I have a question, as well, about the "one vote per household" idea: "What constitutes a household?" What status would a boarder have? What about two single students sharing an apartment? What if my adult children still lived at home? What about a woman whose husband isn't a member of the church? Who is head of that household? Why would we adopt such a cumbersome method, fraught with all sorts of subjective pitfalls, when we should just extend the vote to all communicant members.

As for the vote only being an "expression of preference" comment: The Church Order says "those elected shall be appointed" (with the rider of course that no "lawful" objections were forth coming). The consistory is bound by the Church Order to appoint those elected. But that does not make the vote an act of governing. The Elders rule the church under Christ. The Lord's authority flows through the council, which appoints. The authority to govern, to be vested in the appointee, flows not through the congregation (as in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod,) but through the council from the Head of the Church. This is true, even though the council is bound by the Church Order to appoint those whom the congregation has elected. (This would be similar to the way in which Canada receives her Governors General. The Prime Minister provides Queen Elizabeth the name of the one whom he wants appointed. But the Queen appoints. The authority of the GG is vested in her by the Queen, not the PM; though, by convention, the Queen is bound to appoint the one the PM sets forth.)