Here’s an interesting one. Kevin DeYoung writes,
It is not uncommon to hear of churches that select their elders and deacons by casting lots. In fact, I’ve been a part of two congregations that voted to change their election process to incorporate lots. Usually this involves a double slate being chosen by some combination of the church leaders and a nominating committee and then a final selection by a “random” draw. In an effort to avoid a popularity contest and the hurt feelings that can result from winners and losers in a double slate, churches are deciding to choose their officers by pulling names out of hat.
Kevin writes from within the Reformed tribe, but a Reformed denomination with elders.
Now, the Bible has plenty of examples of decisions being made by lot. Should we do the same with elders?
(1Sa 10:20-21 ESV) 20 Then Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot. 21 He brought the tribe of Benjamin near by its clans, and the clan of the Matrites was taken by lot; and Saul the son of Kish was taken by lot. But when they sought him, he could not be found.
(1Ch 24:4-5 ESV) 4 Since more chief men were found among the sons of Eleazar than among the sons of Ithamar, they organized them under sixteen heads of fathers’ houses of the sons of Eleazar, and eight of the sons of Ithamar. 5 They divided them by lot, all alike, for there were sacred officers and officers of God among both the sons of Eleazar and the sons of Ithamar.
(Pro 18:17-18 ESV) 17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. 18 The lot puts an end to quarrels and decides between powerful contenders.
(Act 1:23-26 ESV) 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
What do you think?
Well, if it was good enough to pick apostles that way ? Actually, I believe if it is good that Presidents have term limits, so should church officials.
Wasn't Timothy told to appoint te elders? I don't like the idea of congregations voting on elders, and I like this even less.
Laymond,
Being an elder is a gift and a calling, if it's done right. Term limits are for worldly matters. I have no problem having elders serve for a few years then taking a year off, but if they are called to this ministry they should serve.
As for drawing lots, I suppose if the elders can't be trusted to do it the Biblical way, then maybe they shouldn't be elders.
Are there really churches that have more qualified men than are needed? Titus 1:6 says "If any be…" So it seems to me that they were to appoint all of the qualified men.
Apostles were chosen by lot … perhaps because they were known as "the twelve" and among two good candidates it was perceived that only one could be chosen at that time.
Elders were appointed (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). The method isn't shared – but they were appointed by evangelists!
I would trust selection by lot from among vetted candidates more than I trust selection by voting or by some "selection committee."
Nearly every other method of selection is easily manipulated by those in charge of the process.
Weren't all of the lot-casting decisions made BEFORE the coming of the Counselor, who would guide you into all truth, and who would dwell within you, and who would direct James to write, "If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, …." ?
"… of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers …" Acts 20:28.
Keith
Paul, Barnabas, Titus – " … to appoint elders in every town …"
Is it safe to assume these were local appointments in congregations (assemblies, groups) where there were no elders to start with? This is the initial appointment of the first elders. Is there any instance in the NT of elder "turnover," tenure, reappointments, or adding additional elders after the first ones because the church had grown? Any examples of how to handle this?
Without the first elders, how could there have been a process of turnover replacement or expansion? A process had to be developed or they had to continue to rely on the evangelist. Either an evangelist came by again on another tour, or else the local church, following the appointment of the initial elders, developed their own method of selection of new elders.
This is an extrapolated assumptive speculation, but I think the best interpretation would be that the evangelist or apostle (Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus) got the leadership structure in each local church started by appointing the initial group of elders, who as "overseers" of the flock, developed their method of selection from then on.
I have heard ministers say from the pulpit, "If we did it the way Paul did in the NT, I would appoint the new elders." And they were less than 49% joking. I'm not sure that the "evangelist appoint elders" model would apply to any (or very very few) of the congregations represented by people posting on this board, because they have existing elders who the Holy Spirit has already appointed as overseers of the flock.
Right you are David, if we really believe these men are called by God to serve, why not let him pick. Why not put every man's name in the pot/hat. do we not trust that god would guide us to the correct one. The apostles trusted in God. but we had rather trust in man. Who among us is to say which would make the best leader.
A local Mennonite group uses an interesting method. They prepare blank certificates for the number of positions they are filling and then have all of the qualified men bring a hymnal to the front and place it on the "altar." Then the existing leadership takes the hymnals downstairs and places the blank certificates in the hymnals. They come up and a second wave goes downstairs and shuffles the pile. A third group goes downstairs and shuffles them again and brings them back upstairs. The assembly prays and the men come forward and each takes a hymnal. The men with the hymnals containing the certificates are the chosen leaders for that term.
Per the scriptures, casting lots was used. Today, casting lots means rolling the dice at Vegas. Somewhere in the intervening centuries, the practice was misused, abused, and we are where we are today.
So, I say YES, cast lots. Pray, pray, pray, and cast the lots.
As an aside, I contend that words like "singing" and "dancing" have undergone changes in meaning that are just as big as "casting lots." The centuries have changed the meanings of words and distorted the practices.
Dr. T.,
I think the "replacement" issue explains the difference between the qualifications in Timothy and Titus. Titus is on freshly turned ground, Timothy is working in an established congregation.
Personally I think the biggest problem with how we go about selecting leaders is the lack of discipleship. I have asked my current elders to look through the Body and each select a man who is qualified and begin mentoring them into the job – taking a long term view. We'll see how it goes.
The scriptures do not say to cast lots to select elders. Rather, the scriptures give qualifications and instruct us to appoint those who meet the qualifications. Casting lots sidesteps a responsibility given by the scriptures to identify those who are qualified.
In a Democracy, the people chose our own leaders. Therefore even though we call them leaders, we the people ultimately have the autority in a democracy.
In a church whoever chooses the elders has greater authority than the elders do. If the elders are selected by the congregation the the congregation has greater authority. If an evanglist chooses the elders then the evangelist has great authority.
But who should greater athority than the elders? God, Chirst, the Holy Spirt, the Apostles, sitting elders maybe. I can see arguments for all of these, but I cannot see an argument that the the congregation or a preacher should have greather authority.
Personally, I think that anyone meeting Paul's qualifications should be appointed. This way Paul as an apostle is the one making the selection.
Additionally, I can see the point of view that once you have elders they have the authority to select additional elders.
It could be argued that casting lots allows the Holy Spririt to chose but personally I think lots leaves it to chance.
Someone else might come up with another idea of how the selection can be made, but I think in order for it be valid it should not give aothority over the elders to anyone who should not have athority over them. This is why I disagree with the ideas that either congregations or evangelist should choose elders.
"It could be argued that casting lots allows the Holy Spririt to chose but personally I think lots leaves it to chance."
Ah, there's the rub. "Chance" is a pagan concept. Biblically the lot isn't chance but is the express will of God. Do you believe the lot is purely random or do you believe God will guide dice, straw, stone, etc. to produce the result He determines? The ancient believers opted for the second choice.
Interesting article and question Jay.
My take on the Acts 1 casting lots passage and this entire practice should be viewed in light of the coming of the Holy Spirit. All of this was taking place during the time that the 120 were meeting in the upper room having prayer meetings and patiently waiting for the day of Pentecost. The apostles had not been endued with power from on high yet. (Acts 1:8)
And at this time the Holy Spirit laid out the qualifications for Judas' replacement, Acts 1:22-23 (remember because Judas hung himself it was necessary for another apostle to be chosen as foretold in the Psalms). They nominated two men who met the qualifications set forth, and they were considered to be equally qualified men by the apostles for the position being considered.
And it must be kept in mind the "casting lots" of Acts 1:6 decided nothing but indicated God's choice (1:24).
Now as we all know casting lots was an Old Testament way of discerning God's will (Lev. 16:1-22; Joshua 18:8–10; 1 Samuel 14; Proverbs 16:33). But after Pentecost such methods became obsolete and God's will was decided by the leading and the instruction of the Spirit (Acts 15:28–29; 20:28).
There is no mention of the practice after this time. In fact it seems that though there were many critical decisions that needed to be made among the leaders of the church in the first century (including the Jerusalem conference regarding acceptance of the Gentiles), there is not a single case of casting lots beyond that case with the replacement of Judas.
Take the example and choice of the seven special servants (first deacons??) in Acts 7, the congregation decided without the help of lots. In Paul’s instruction of the choice and appointment of elders in Timothy and Titus, again, no reference is made to the practice of casting lots, though no specific instruction or guidance is given about the “process” other than the scriptural qualifications and human judgment.
So my initial conclusions are based on fact to the sudden way in which the practice ceased after the day of Pentecost, even though many tough decisions remained to be made for the church, leads me to believe that God would have us use spiritual wisdom (see 1 Cor. 6:5), prayer (Acts 1:24) and the instrcutions and guidance of the Holy Spirit through inspired Word (cf. Acts 15:15-19; Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3) to make the decisions regarding the appointing of elders rather than casting lots.
It seems to me that the casting of lots seems to have been for another day when God had not revealed so much of His truth to us.
Although I must honestly admit, the way I've seen elders sadly appointed and who is appointed in some congregations, it might have just been better to have prayed and "cast lots" then some of the "dudes" and "lemons" they got:)
But clearly PLENTY of room for differences of opinion on this subject.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
As for the authority issue – What if Paul intended an ongoing Phil. 2 process? Evangelists appoint elders and then submit themselves to them. Again, our issue is not with what the text says – obviously a congregational leader that we call "evangelist" (neither apostle nor elder – possibly transient like Titus or placed like Timothy) appoints elders and holds them accountable – but with what this means in our modern context. Perhaps our local congregations do not have a high enough view of the role of the evangelist.
Good points, all. This discussion really relates to decision making in the church.
We do not have many examples of how operational decisions were made in the Jerusalem church. There are two accounts of such in Acts (ch 6 & 15), and they do have some common characteristics. In Acts 6, a functional problem came up in the church. The apostles kept their spiritual priority and didn't resort to putting out fires. The apostles gave the plan for a solution that would address the issue without them diverting their attention away from what God wanted them to do. They turned the selection of the "Seven" over to the congregation (vs.3, or those affected), but the apostles gave the qualifications (vs.3). So the congregation got to participate in the solution of their problem, and the apostles approved it (vs.6)
Result? Verse 5 "This proposal pleased the whole group." Was this processed blessed by God? Verse 7 "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly….."
In Acts 15, a doctrinal problem came up. Since the Jerusalem church with the apostles was the "doctrinal center" at that time, that's who had to consider the issue. The issue was considered primarily by the apostles and elders of the church (vs 2,vs 6,vs 23 but also the church (assembly) was not left out (vs 4, vs 12 [the whole assembly], vs 23). So the elders and apostles seemed to be in charge, but the church also received the testimony. The Holy Spirit seemed to endorse the process and the outcome (vs. 28). Gladness and encouragement was the result (vs. 31).
In both cases, the listening to the evidence, forming a rationale, and making a decision was done by the leaders in whom God had vested the His authority. But this was done in a way that the church could at least passively participate in the decision by hearing the evidence along with the leaders (Ch 15) or actively participate by making choices under given guidelines (Ch 6). The important outcome in both cases is that the leadership and the church operated in UNITY. They were together on seeing the wisdom of God in the decision. God blessed the result with an increase in those being saved and encouragement for this in the church.
It's been my experience that where things fall apart in most of our situations is the communication between the leadership and the congregation because the leadership doesn't want to tell the congregation because "somebody will get upset" and the congregation doesn't have confidence in the leadership operating in that perceived black box to either ask for the help of the Holy Spirit (much less hear from Him) and to make decisions that are the best for the church (in their NSHO) [not so humble opinion].
On casting lots, what that implies to me is that I am admitting that these inanimate objects controlled by chance have a higher probability of receptivity to the voice of God than I do by the Holy Spirit living within me. To the extent that this observation is true for any leader, is the extent to which the church is deep trouble.
And Todd, your comment about discipling leaders before they become elders is right square on! How many new elders have said after about 6 months that they had no idea what they were getting themselves into. "If I had known this, I wouldn't have ……"
Thanks for posing this question. There was some rationale behind it. I would prefer it over the majority rules approach. Like Keith Brenton stated too, Titus apparently chose them. I just don't think churches, especially ones that already have elderships, will go for letting the preacher do that.
Maybe the elders should appoint, and the congregation should ratify. There should be a mechanism that bad elders can't just perpetuate themselves.
Another question: Should the minister or ministers on staff, that are qualified, be elders?
Keith,
I agree that the apostles felt there could be but one replacement for Judas, due to the importance of the number 12 — parallel with the 12 tribes and 12 sons of Jacob.
Of course, Jacob was also known as Israel, so having 12 apostles makes Jesus parallel to Jacob=Israel — which is important for reasons we may discuss one day.
Two men were equally qualified and only one could serve in the position, and so they cast lots.
Tandj109, that's the method used in my congregation. The elders and ministry staff put together a list of names they feel are suitable. The congregation votes – all candidates who receive more than 75% of the membership's votes are appointed. And we have terms for elders – to prevent burnout. All those who have served as elders continue as spiritual leaders in the congregation but the immediate decision making is done by those currently serving.
All,
Saul was selected king by lot, but David and Solomon were selected by God through his prophets without lots. God just told them who was to be king. (Saul didn't work out.)
In 1 Chr 10, duties of priests were assigned by lot, but it was simply the order of rotation — not the selection of leaders. And they were all qualified for a given job that could only be done by a limited number of people at one time.
Pr 18 suggest solves quarrels by lot, but Solomon is commended for his wise judgments, such as the case of the two women fighting over a baby. He didn't decide that one by lot. Rather, the lot is appropriate when there's no better way.
In Acts 1, only one man could replace Judas as an apostle, and two were equally qualified.
Sometimes, the best and wisest choice is to flip a coin, but it's not the first resort when God has given us better approaches.
Thus, as Robert Prater pointed out, the apostles chose the seven deacons in Acts 7 by qualification (full of wisdom and the Holy Spirit) based on the congregation's recommendation. There were no lots cast.
In fact, there is no record of lot casting after Pentecost.
I don't know who all here is an elder, but I'd be surprised if an elder suggested picking elders by lot! Speaking as an elder, my greatest concern for my congregation is that the next generation of elders be better than the present generation (myself included). And I serve with great men of God.
The idea of selecting their replacements by lots is repugnant to me, because I've seen how great great elders are for a church and how horrible bad elders are.
There's no limit on the number of elders a church can have. Therefore, I can see no reason to choose among X qualified men by lot.
On the other hand, there are two huge mistakes often made in this regard.
First, a man is not "qualified" just because he fits the requirements of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 2. A "shepherd" and an "overseer" must have the requisite gifts of God for those roles. Eph 4 is explicit that being a pastor is a gift, and many men who are not brawlers are not gifted to the task.
Second, I agree with those who say the congregation has to be involved in the process, but also agree that, normally, the existing elders should have a say, as they have knowledge and experience the congregation does not. (It's a different case when the eldership has lost the support of the church.)
It's quite common for a man to be put forward by the congregation even though he would in fact be a very poor elder. An elder needs the support of the congregation but it's not a democratic process.
Rather, the whole thing has to be viewed through Spirit-ual eyes. And that means searching out men gifted by God, through the Spirit, to serve in that capacity.
And the presence of those gifts is seen by his life of service. A man truly qualified to be an elder should already be doing some of the things an elder does — and only prevented from doing more by not being an elder.
Therefore, when he's ordained, the church should see him as being freed to finally get to use his gifts in their fullest realization for the church.
Paul was chosen by a direct revelation of Jesus. He was taken up into the third heaven (paradise) and had his unveiling of Jesus as the Messiah, and his subsequent calling as the apostle to the Gentiles.
Todd, are we just to pragmatic to believe in God's power anymore?
Do we still believe in being called to do God's will.
We seem to cling on to the indwelled "HG" sometimes I get the idea that we just need someone to blame if things don't go as we intended.
In general, perhaps we are. As for me however, I was called to this via two specific dreams, sustained by others and constantly am amazed how a lesson planned months in advance meets the needs of a visitor or sudden crisis – often without me having any clue such was happening. I can either chalk it up to "coincidence" and shrug it off or I can take the Bible at face value and try to figure out how it applies to our modern world.
Blessings my brother.
Jay said, "A man truly qualified to be an elder should already be doing some of the things an elder does — and only prevented from doing more by not being an elder."
I agree. But I wish this statement could be as true in practice as it is in ideal. The realism is that it is too often the opposite.
So, let's get real. (at the risk of having this thread set a new record for number of posts) ….
A man who is gifted in "hands-on" prayer for the sick, personal encouragement, discernment in counseling, role-model for the youth, etc., after becoming an elder, finds himself attending endless meetings, hearing "what are you doing about this" complaints, settling gripes between members who don't like the service starting time, on and on. You know the drill. How many elders have said, "I used my gifts more effectively before becoming an elder."
Since every elder is supposed to know everything that is going on (because they "control" it), many people feel they can just bend the ear of their favorite. If they were to ask about why this money was spent for that purpose and if the elder replied, "I don't know anything about that. I've been busy visiting the sick and praying for healing and working for peace within families and calling people who haven't been attending, …..etc." That might fly in some churches who have done well in educating the congregation about spiritual leadership.
Our organizational matrix identified as "a church" has developed traditional expectations of elders as settlers of arguments (just be sure it's my way), police over things I think needs fixing, the place to go to complain about a minister, etc. How often in churches do we talk about qualifications based on our interpretation of certain scriptures, portray offices with people looking like shepherds with a staff, but treat the people like they are the complaint department and a personal lackey to do things we way we know they should be done.
Some people are then chosen to be elders more for their organization skills (CEO in their company) than for spiritual gifting.
Knowing that group decisions can be of high viscosity, a "senior minister" is endowed with responsibility to make the church more maneuverable like a "quick response" unit, while being visionary, motivating, fluent, available but studious and scholarly, have all under control, and they lived happily ever after. But now who's in charge? Who answers when complaints come? Even worse, what if the complaints are legitimate? The minister now feels like he has 12 (whatever number) bosses and the elders don't answer to anybody (on earth, anyway).
There is a tension between what an elder should be (and do) and what the congregations expects and makes the job out to be. It is a tension between the body of Christ and a human structured organization. Of course, some congregations are better at handling this than others. But, generally speaking, don't we need to recognize and admit to this problem, teach all members what spiritual leadership is supposed to be, and move on toward being Christ's church?
Frustration over unchangeable bureaucratic scaffolding is one reason the "house church" concept is growing in popularity. Rather than address the bureaucracy problem, it just bypasses it and starts over (with new problems).
Why is casting lots for elder selection even up for discussion? Because it illustrates that the job of an elder is at least as much a result of what the congregation molds the job into as it is a result of spiritual activities that really require spiritual qualifications and gifting. That means there isn't enough difference in the final outcome between using spiritual selection criteria and the random chance of casting lots. And we make it so.
Is this a problem, or not? If so, what should be done about it?
Here is a method that combines casting lots, prayer, guidance of the Spirit, and wisdom.
(1) pray pray pray about a selection
(2) reduce the choice to the toss of a coin
(3) toss the coin into the air
(4) while the coin is in the air, your choice will hit you like a ton of bricks
(5) don't look at the coin
Well I for one feel a lot better after reading this article. The last time I drove around the back of the church building and saw the elders throwing dice against the wall, I thought they were shooting craps.
Todd, I guess the answer to your question would depend on one's belief in an active Holy Spirit, huh ? Very revealing question to ask.
Sorry – my small attempt at humor above was probably out of line. I meant no offense to anyone.
Tom, I appreciated the humor in your post, and I thought about saying so earlier. That may not be a rousing endorsement, however, since my own sense of humor can be somewhat on the side of weird.
Tom,
I thought it was funny, too. Favorite comment of the day!
Does that mean we have all cast our lot together?
Just to stir the ashes … what if an evangelist from another church – but acquainted with the one needing elders – appointed them from among the candidates?
Would we trust God to express His choice(s) through an evangelist today? If you were that evangelist, would you not pray (and perhaps even fast) before going to make the selection(s)? Consider what Acts 20:28 says about the choice of elders:
My guess is that the cities where Titus and Paul and Barnabas selected elders were not the only cities where they ministered ("in each church," Acts 14:23; "in every town," Titus 1:5) … nor were they ever described as being paid by those churches. (We know Paul made tents – Acts 18:2-3.) Maybe with this question we're edging into a different but related issue which has caused a possible conflict of interest where there originally was none: full-time paid ministry.
I saw in the posts one comment about the number of elders. I have been in churches very small with no elders, and with three elders. but, as I analyzed the men there I believed that there were men that were qualified that were not allowed to serve because the congregation felt there were already enough. As I read in the scriptures the qualifications for these men it seems to me that the work that they are to be doing should be endless, meaning that if all of the men that were qualified were performing the duties of an elder the growth and health of the church would be greatly magnified? How could an area of the world not be magnified for Christ with multiple men doing that work? These men were not the men supposed to be manipulating the physical work of the church or congregation, but for the spiritual, and was there work to be limited to only the congregation or to the saved. I would see their work to be greatly involved into what I will call the missionary area, being a leader in the forefront of members in finding, educating, and making disciples of their locality. This is a responsibility that most congregations including the group of elders just dump onto the preacher, or in a few cases another hired servant. Larry Cheek.
Keith,
In the mission field, it would make sense of the missionary of a newly planted church to oversee the ordination process, even though the missionary often serves with several congregations. And I suspect this has happened many times.
I like the idea of casting lots for elders, if the men on the ballot are literally qualified by the qualifications in first Timothy and Titus. It would take the politics out of the process. I would warn though that Titus was to appoint elders (Titus 1:5). This was to be done with prayer and fasting (Acts 14:23). Also note that the elders sat as equals with the apostles (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22). This being said the elders of the city should be able to appoint elders without the need of casting lots. If no one has the spiritual health to be able to make wise spiritual decisions, then casting lots may be the best way to go.
How about a business meeting with all the men there?
Is that preferred to elders? In that case, isn't everyone present acting as an elder in practice?
The ones acting as elders are those whose views carry more weight due to the authenticity, credibility and respect they receive from the remainder of the group
But if none in the business meeting meet the qualifications?
How long can a group meet until three or more do meet the qualifications? It was so in the New Testament. Paul is not coming around today appointing them but, he did write down the qualifications to be an elder.
Shouldn't that group stop meeting and attend where there are qualified elders?
Have any seen that done?
Or an alternative would be to borrow elders, have them start attending (place membership) where none are qualified until three or more do meet the qualifications.
Alabama John,
As a rule, there are a lot of church problems that would be helped by mergers. Having a half dozen Churches of Christ in the same town bickering over petty disputes is not the biblical pattern!
Actually, there are a lot more problems that would be solved by having hearts and a theology that makes mergers possible.
You are on target. When an assembly of believers have not men who are qualified to serve as elders, they should they should either disband and attend where qualified elders, invite an elder to oversee their meetings. In Titus 1:5 Paul sends Titus to appoint elders in each city, rather than each individual assembly or congregaton.
Alabama John,
As a rule, there are a lot of church problems that would be helped by mergers. Having a half dozen Churches of Christ in the same town bickering over petty disputes is not the biblical pattern!
Actually, there are a lot more problems that would be solved by having hearts and a theology that makes mergers possible.