Friday, August 12th, 2005
Selecting a Pastor: Appointment or Candidating?
This spring I visited a seminary, and while there visited with a former Village Missionary who attends this seminary. At one point, he asked me, “Do you know what the major objection that students here at seminary have to Village Missions?” Of course, I am so pro Village Missions, I can’t imagine anyone having any objection to our Mission. Seriously, I thought of a few possible objections. Raising support first came to my mind. Then, I thought that some would object to going to rural churches. I thought perhaps some students would object to our missionary approach and want a more “pastoral” approach. I wondered if students would object to a dual accountability to the church and to the Mission. Finally, I wondered if our low salary might lower the appeal of some. I answered him, “Raising support.” “No,” he said and then he told me what he felt was the major objection of many of the students. “Village Missions’ system of appointing missionaries to churches rather than candidating at a church is the major problem.” He added, “There are some professors that strongly believe in the candidating process and they have communicated that to the students.” I had no idea that this might be a problem for many prospective missionaries. If this school has a problem with appointment, probably other schools have a problem with it as well. Being assigned to a church never was problematic for me. When I attended and served on the board at the church in Fernwood, ID, I saw the process work quite well. We would not have had a clue as to how to go about a process of selecting a pastor, nor probably would many be interested in coming to Fernwood. Village Missions assigned Terry and Martha Major and it was a good fit. The Majors were exactly what our church needed after a long and substantial ministry by Ray and Martha Bell. The Mission, of course, assigned us to a church after we joined. We were thoroughly disappointed when the office told us that they were assigning us to Finchford, Iowa. All we knew of Iowa was Interstate 80 and cornfields. We hated the humidity of the Midwest and wanted to be back in the mountains after three years of living in Chicago. Yet, once we arrived, we fell in love with the people and the area. Although we probably never would have chosen this area on our own or even entertained a thought of going there, it was exactly the right place for us (and we hope we were the right couple for the church). The Lord further confirmed this by allowing us to adopt both our children while we were there. This former Village Missionary suggested that I or someone else write a paper in support of the appointment process that could be distributed to students. I thought that he had an excellent idea and that the paper might have further value in ministering to some of our churches who, usually as they grow, begin to warm to the candidating process. In an effort to solicit some feedback for a future position paper (and to have something to write for this issue), I decided to write a defense of our process of appointment missionaries to churches. I did not find anything on the Internet describing the pros and cons of candidating or appointment as I began to do research on this topic. I found many suggestions for those embarking upon the process, either from the candidate’s perspective or from the church perspective. Pastors in most denominations find their positions through the candidate process. A few denominations, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, and Methodist, and possibly Lutheran appoint ministers to positions. I am unaware of how the process of candidating came into being or if there have been debates about one or the other. A survey of Biblical passages does not indicate strong support for either position but does lean toward appointing pastors. It appears that initially pastors and elders were appointed in the churches. This practice was described in the NT but nowhere do I find it proscribed as a rule to follow. According to Mark 3:14, Jesus “appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach.” In a mix of selection and appointment, the Apostles instructed the church to select “seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” whom they would “put in charge” (same word kathistemi translated elsewhere as “appoint”) (Acts 6:3). Acts 14:21-23 records a return visit of Paul and Barnabas in which they appointed elders for the churches they were visiting:
21After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” 23When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (NASB)
It certainly could be argued that Paul initially appointed elders and from there the church, as it progressed toward maturity, appointed or selected its own, but nowhere does the Bible record that. Of course, Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to serve as pastors of the churches at Ephesus and Crete respectively. Through the leading of the Holy Spirit, Paul chose Timothy to go to Ephesus and Titus as pastor of Crete. Perhaps Paul felt that Titus could better handle the rough and tumble of that wild island. Further, Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in each of the cities of Crete. Titus 1:5-7 is especially relevant:
5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
Titus was to appoint elders (presbuterous) in every city. He refers to them as an “overseer” (episkopos) (translated Bishop in the NKJV) in verse seven. A strong argument (too lengthy for here) can be made that the overseer would be the leader or pastor of the local church and thus Titus was to appoint pastors for each of the churches. Again, although Paul commanded Titus to appoint elders, we find no command to the church to do so as a rule of practice. It simply appears that it was done this way during the early church. Such a practice of appointment appeared to continue beyond the New Testament period. Clement, probably near the close of his life in AD 100, writes this to the Corinthians:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office103 of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, 104 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them,105 or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians: Chap. XLIV)
This is also a descriptive statement rather than a proscriptive statement. In the absence of any commands in the Bible as to the selection of a pastor of the church (the commands have to do with the character qualities of the pastor or elder), what way of selection should be used, appointment or candidating? For the church as a whole, I think the answer is either. We recognize that either process can be flawed. A candidate process, for example, can be a process of the flesh in which a pastoral candidate “sells” himself to the church while the church “sells” herself to the candidate (it happens all too often). An assignment can be made in the appointment process because of popularity or with incomplete information. Sometimes few churches are available or perhaps few pastors are available. In whatever process used, the leading of the Holy Spirit should be sought. According to Acts 20:28, the Holy Spirit selected the elders. In Acts 14:23 (quoted above), Paul and Barnabas prayed and fasted before they selected the leadership. We can do no less in whatever way a pastor is united with a congregation. I do believe, however, that there are reasons that favor the appointment process, especially for our ministry. Here are a few: 1. We appoint Village Missionaries based in part on the needs of the church. To a greater or lesser degree, depending upon the length of time with us, we know the maturity of the church and the further progress that needs to be made. Ideally, we appoint someone who will help that church develop spiritually. In contrast, the leadership of a church may select a pastor based on their personal preferences. They may not want to make progress in certain areas or are unaware of the need to do so. 2. In some cases, we appoint Village Missionaries based in part on their needs to develop and to grow. When I entered Village Missions, I thought I needed a certain geographical setting. The Mission leadership wisely knew that I needed a church that would help me to grow and mature in my leadership. I am so glad they appointed me to Finchford, a place I can’t imagine myself choosing on my own. I wonder how many pastors choose churches based on locale, housing, or familiarity and miss exciting opportunities? 3. Village Missionaries have freedom in preaching the Gospel without fear of being fired. Now, yes, we have accountability and if a missionary creates the problem, he may be fired by us. However, a missionary, if he faithfully discharges his duties, will have another place to go if the church refuses to respond to the Gospel. 4. Although still painful, a church will not have to undergo a “fight” in order to remove a pastor. An objective assessment can be made about the need for new leadership and the church, by vote of its members, can ask us for new leadership. 5. The Mission leadership has a greater opportunity to know both church and pastor. In a candidate type setting, both parties tend to put their best foot forward. Rare is the situation, I believe, where both parties reveal all their warts and wrinkles. The Mission leadership, especially after time, knows those warts and wrinkles and can make matches accordingly. 6. Having talked about the importance of a match, I would also say that appointing, if properly done, communicates a better perspective on matching. Most churches will want the Apostle Paul, without his criminal record. Most pastors will want the church of Philadelphia. Realistically, few such pastors and churches exist today. The church is increasingly a mission field as well as the community. I commend the attitude in a pastor that says, “I will go where I am assigned and do the work God intends me to do, no matter what the cost.” I commend the attitude in a church that says, “This is the pastor that has been assigned to us. We will follow his leadership.” Neither approach (candidating or appointment) is guaranteed to be infallible. Both have their strong points and weak points. The Bible prescribes neither approach. Yet, for the individual that is willing to trust those in authority and is willing to go to places of need, the appointment process is preferable. The church as well will advance through the assignment of a missionary based on her actual needs. Over the years, the vast majority of the appointments made by Village Missions have been good ones that have benefited both the church and the Village Missionary.
