From nomination to Office: the path to serving
Is the election of an elder or deacon like an election for political office? While we may speak of election and voting and office, the appointment of an office-bearer in the church is principally different from that in politics. Through the years I have heard many misperceptions of what is taking place in the choosing of office-bearers, all the way from “the person elected is my representative”, to “it doesn’t matter what we do as a congregation the Session is going to see that their men are appointed.” This is the spectrum of sentiment that moves from democracy to dictatorship. Each expresses a misunderstanding about entrance into office in the church.
To grasp how appointment to office is different from political appointment, one must think about the first vow that is taken when a man is ordained or installed into office. It is this: “Do you believe that in the call of this congregation, you are called by God himself to serve in this holy office?” This vow highlights that the office-bearer’s appointment to office has come as a call from God. How can the call from God be borne out in the call of a congregation? I would like to address some of the ideas about how the process used by many Reformed Churches shows the Bible’s teaching on God’s will for appointment to office.
Undergirding the view that “the call of the congregation is the call of God” is the key teaching of providence. The truth that God so rules and overrules the creatures of this earth that they will fulfil His purpose. Providence means that the Lord uses human instruments to accomplish His purpose. The theological term for this is concursus or concurrence. It means that God works with the will of people (either freely, contingently or necessarily) to guide the choices they make. His control is not an arbitrary imposition so that choosing an office-bearer is some form of random selection, like a password generator. Nor is it a mechanical method so that if we have the process right, we can oblige God to endorse our choice. In other words, it’s not a lucky dip, nor a voter-controlled process. The truth of providence is that we seek to do what God requires all the while we trust God to bless the process. Like our daily bread, we do the work God gives us and ask Him to bless the outcome.
The word of God teaches there is a need for office-bearers. Paul tells Titus: “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (1:5). Appointing elders was required as part of the fulfilling of God’s design for the church. There is a God-ordained-need for office-bearers in the church. In Acts 20 when Paul is addressing the Ephesian elders, he says, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers…” (20:28). The need for office-bearers also shows the presence of the Holy Spirit’s work in providing overseers in the church.
Following God’s will means more than acknowledging there is a need and trying to find the best method to meet that need. We also need His providential guidance in the process we use. Thus, as we bathe that process in prayer, we can be assured that God is working to accomplish His call to office.
Grasping a Biblically informed process helps counter another error that I have heard – that office-bearers should be chosen by lot. After all, the Bible teaches the outcome of the lot is directed by God (Prv. 16:33). In Acts 1, Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas Iscariot. Some suggest that this is a more spiritual way of choosing men for office because there is little to no human engagement.
However, this overlooks several important features that indicate this manner of choosing was not a spontaneous selection. There were qualifications for those who could be chosen. Similarly, the number of eligible candidates presented were two: Matthias and Justus. Thus, it was a choice between two candidates.
Besides the limited selection, there is a profound redemptive-historical feature. The lot was used in the life of Israel for discerning God’s will and His choice. When a difficult decision needed to be made, God could be consulted at the temple and His will displayed with the Urim and Thummim. The lot was the way property was distributed in Joshua. It marked the identity of Achan as the transgressor in Joshua 7. It is quite natural that this would occur in Acts. However, Acts 1 is the only place where the use of the lot is mentioned in the NT. Importantly, this was prior to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Thus, today we live in the mature age when the congregation, endowed with the Holy Spirit and prayer, can use what God has given us in His full revelation to help make decisions. To have a process of voting may appear less spontaneous, it is not less spiritual.
So how does the call of the congregation precipitate the call of God to the office? It starts with the Session asking the congregation for nominations. Nominations are given to the elders who then evaluate the men identified by the congregation. Not all those nominated are necessarily qualified. The elders must evaluate what they know about the men. The elders can also nominate men who they deem qualified, if not nominated by the congregation.
Along with the consideration of qualifications, the elders also evaluate the nominee’s life situation and availability for service. Some may be eliminated due to other commitments or circumstantial challenges. It’s not that they are disqualified, rather they may be serving in another capacity which the elders want to see flourish. This latter consideration requires the elders to maintain biblical priorities in the life of the church. For example, when there are sufficient men for service, it may be suitable to bypass one who serves as the head counsellor of Cadets and GEMS or on the school board. If there is a shortage of men available these priorities will need to be evaluated as the need for office-bearers has biblical sanction as top priority.
Once the nominees have been evaluated, the men are informed in preparation for their names being presented to the congregation with a request for lawful objections. This request for lawful objections reminds the congregation that evaluating the men is a collaborative effort. The elders know they don’t have exhaustive knowledge of all men, so they seek the congregation’s input in case there is a character issue they are unaware of. Similarly, not every objection raised is a lawful objection. When an objection is raised, the elders must evaluate the character of the objection and the man to determine whether it is a biblical disqualification from nomination.
One question arises whether nominations can be declined prior to informing the congregation. It is suggested that the nominating process is not yet the call to office. So, no nominee should withdraw his name from consideration unless he has his own lawful objection. Once the call is placed by the positive outcome of a congregation’s vote, then the individual may decline. This is, after all, how we function with ministers, should it not also be the case with elders?
I would suggest that there are some important differences that mean we don’t need to have the same method for ruling elders. For a minister, he is called for life to the office. The nature of his calling is life inclusive. It will affect his family, and his acceptance or decline will always affect the congregations. With an elder, his calling is different. His nomination/call is for a term, and his decline will affect the same congregation in which he worships and serves. There are pastoral differences that I have seen played out with the decline of a call to serve as an elder. These were pastoral matters for the man called and for the congregation. While it appears to make the process for the elders easier, rather than declining a nomination, the nominee should wait until he is called by the congregation to this task. However, I think the pastoral weight of what it means for the individual and the congregation needs to be dealt with also. There is a need that the elders serve willingly, not under compulsion (1 Pt. 5:2). This is an encouragement for all to consider the nomination seriously.
Being too busy is not an appropriate reason for declining a nomination. You need to evaluate your priorities. Feeling inadequate is also not an automatic reason to ask to be withdrawn from consideration. God uses weak and feeble means to accomplish His purpose. A nomination, also, is between them and the Lord. Men, you must weigh before the Lord whether you can take the nomination to office willingly and trust the Lord’s design and provision for service.
Lastly, we need to reflect on the relationship between the authority of the Session and the role of the congregation in voting. We recognise that Christ rules the church through his office-bearers. The congregational meeting is not an authoritative assembly. This doesn’t mean it is purposeless. The Session establishes the agenda and presents the nominees of those deemed qualified to serve. They seek the congregation’s input by way of a vote. The Session also maintains the integrity of the voting process. The nominees are not candidates of the congregation’s choosing, but of the Session’s choosing. If all goes well, the Session agrees that it will abide by the direction of the congregation’s vote.
Once this is complete, they present the results and proceed toward ordination or installation.
Thus, in the call of the congregation the man is called of God to the office. The congregation must receive them as such. The man ordained or installed in office is Christ’s representative. Honour him as the Lord’s servant to lead and care for the congregation.
Mr Peter Kloosterman is the minister in the Hastings Reformed Church.
