Here is what I suggest: place all eligible men’s names in a database. When a congregation needs a pastor, they access the database and are given five random names. They add any names brought forward from their congregation. They pray and cast lots of some form. Accordingly, they call a pastor. They receive him as the man God has sent them.
Practical benefits:
- Hours of time are saved in district office. District presidents have much more time for other items requiring their attention like visiting pastors to ensure their faithfulness to God expressed in their ordination vows. Support staff would be much less burdened and perhaps in some cases no longer needed.
- Districts do not become monolithic. We do not end up divided as a “synod†into so called “conservative†and “moderate†districts at the bias of a particular District President.
- SETs no longer need to be kept or updated.
- Congregations are not left without full-time pastors for months and years while they wait for the a list to be generated by the district.
- Congregational politics are kept to a minimum since a traditional vote is not taken.
Theological benefits:
- Squares with our belief that pastors are sent by God and not simply the democratic choice of the call committee. Churches retain the right to call a pastor and yet do not feel they can choose him specifically.
- Stops congregations from only calling pastors they already agree with in nearly every way. This happens on both “sides". “We want a confessional pastor who uses the one year lectionary.†“We want a pastor committed to mission, open to various forms of worship, and comfortable with women serving as elders.†“We want a Fort Wayne graduate.†“We will only accept a St. Louis Graduate.†The question simply becomes, “Do you want a pastor?â€
- Removes the idea of “good,†“betterâ€, and “best†pastors. Either one is a pastor or they are not. If they are, they are to be received as such.
Your thoughts?
Digital names drawn out of a hat? it might work. I especially like that bogus expectations by pastor and congregation alike have to be worked out. This goes for either side of the conservative/liberal fence.
Phil, it’s almost like you want us human beings to give up control! If we let God be God, what are we supposed to do? (Now is when I wish there was a sarcasm font.)
Not sure what a “good”, “better”, “best” pastor is. Aside from this I think the idea is either too far or not far enough. It is too far because it assumes the pastor called will come, or at least is likely, or that it will only take 6 months to call twenty pastors so it doesn’t matter. This could easily lead people to feel like random chance is ruling the day rather than God.(If people are going to deny God’s presence, they’ll find a way.) Would you find a wife by rolling the dice, determine a career path, decide to be Christian or Buddhist? Glad Luther didn’t roll the dice on the whole “reformation thing” but rather used his conscience.
It isn’t far enough because we have a convluted system of determining “pastor”. If we are going to cast lots, lets do it for the men in that church whom are qualified already, who God is lifting up, why does God need a seminary to make someone worthy of being a “pastor”. We are certainly making his job harder than it needs to be requiring 8 years of college!
Even if the process itself is not changed at all, it seems that doing it online would at least expedite it. There is no particular virtue in filling out, sending in, and filing paper.
I am cutting and pasting my Facebook comments.
Of course you wrote that somewhat tongue in cheek. There is a false assumption that for something to be “a God thing”, it has to drop out of the sky or be a ghost hand writing “mene mene tekel…” In fact, God works through means of weak, faulty, bloated, slow, bureaucratic, flawed, and asinine human beings and their inventions.
That being said, the whole idea of relying on the council of presidents having a pow-wow and tossing names back and forth is almost completely useless in such a large synod with major rivalry, error, and mutual distrust. I propose that there should be a completely open and transparent public central database with the SET answers to every eligible LCMS pastor, searchable by keyword.
I wish congregation knew that they are NOT limited to some magic “approved call list” from some grand poobah at the district office. Synod regulations only encourage congregations to “seek the advice” of the DP. I see this is more as “Hey Pastor Jones, you’re the DP and a pretty smart old guy, we kinda like guy A, B and C. Have any opinions?” Then he could serve the church by helping to distribute the proper forms and paperwork, transferring Concordia Plans and other such minutia.
Phil,
Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? As long as the LCMS and other bodies continue with this call process which is nothing more than congregationalism combined with American democratic principles (two things the Scriptures do not teach), then the only thing which will result is the continued disparity and division which already exists within the LCMS. I think your plan is an ingenious one, sarcasm aside. It would actually allow a confessional pastor to be placed with a church which is focused on “me” theology and “feel good” worship and maybe get them out of such anthropocentrism. Of course, the opposite could happen as well. But as long as congregations still have ultimate authority to call whomever would best suit each congregation’s theology and praxis, then there will be no doctrinal, liturgical unity in the LCMS and it won’t be long before even doctrine is a matter of “adiaphoron.”
Add to this also that it might be very beneficial to the future health of the Synod (from God’s standpoint of spiritual health) if the involvement of the District Presidents in terms of the call process of vacant congregations were more limited/advisory, or eliminated altogether, replaced by another mechanism for handling such. Such as the DP’s producing the “call lists” for a vacant congregation (let alone the impression given to some congregations that they must follow the list given them by the DP), let alone their personal comments they add to the SET/PIF forms of current pastors (comments which many pastors never are shown/get a chance to read). I’m convinced the reason alot of current pastors who “know better” but keep their mouth shut with regard to aberrant problems in theology/practice in their District is precisely because of the control their DP has over them in terms of helping or hindering them in ever receiving another call. Granted, no pastors should ever be “fishing” for another call, but given the current system, if you’re on one side of the theological fence and your DP is on the other, you can’t expect any help but might wonder about hindrance. (I say this not against any person who is a DP, but to the current powers granted this iure humano office of DP. Given that we are all sinners, including the DP, is it wise that they hold and wield such power over congregations let alone pastors, who, after all, hold an office which is iure divino no less?) And sometimes, there are legitimate cases where a call would be beneficial to pastor, say, if a pastor in rural area far away from an urban environment has a wife or one of his children with a serious health issue/handicap which requires regular services that are closer than a 5 hours drive away. Such a pastor might be tempted both to wrongly start fishing for a call and/or keeping in the DP’s good graces by simply keeping his mouth shut about things going on in the District which are he clearly sees are contrary to the Scriptures and Confessions. Hence, problems in the District never get addressed by those who know better, and pastors talked behind their DP’s backs rather than earnestly speaking to them their grievances without any fear of repurcussions in terms of what ends up on their SET/PIF.