Empty Board Seats By Dr. Gary Hoag

Filling Empty Board Seats

How did the early church select an overseer to fill an empty board seat (and what does this have to do with Holy Week)?

Most answer this question by pointing to the qualifications lists of 1 Timothy 3:1–7 or Titus 1:5–10. While these texts list character traits to look for in board candidates, consider another text to stimulate your thinking to gain insight in the selection process, especially in light of the Holy Week demise of Judas which left an open seat on the governing body of the early church. Acts 1:21–26 reveals their process and offers fresh insights for us today.

²¹ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, ²² beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” ²³ So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. ²⁴ Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen ²⁵ to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” ²⁶ Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Notice the two layers of the selection process. One reflects the human role, and the other reveals God’s part in guiding the process. For the eleven, they looked for a person known to them who had been with the Lord Jesus from the beginning. Two candidates met these criteria: Barsabbas and Matthias. For God’s part, the eleven cast lots to allow God to show them who of the two would serve as the final member of the twelve.

Have you ever seen a board selection process that was unclear or appeared to be rigged? This is not about loaded dice or a coin with two heads, but rather a selection process that was vaguely outlined and, as a result, was ripe for abuse and exploitation! In contrast, think about this New Testament illustration regarding the selection of Matthias. Because the disciples cast lots, no one could say this process was manipulated.

In the ancient world of the Scriptures, in the days of both the Old and New Testaments, people believed the gods had sway over the affairs of humankind. It was actually quite common to cast lots to interface with the gods or with the one true God. We find a memorable example of this related to God in Jonah 1:4–7.

⁴ Then the Lord sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up. ⁵ All the sailors were afraid and each cried out to his own god. And they threw the cargo into the sea to lighten the ship. But Jonah had gone below deck, where he lay down and fell into a deep sleep. ⁶ The captain went to him and said, “How can you sleep? Get up and call on your god! Maybe he will take notice of us so that we will not perish.” ⁷ Then the sailors said to each other, “Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity.” They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah.

Back in the case of the eleven and the filling of the empty seat of Judas, the lot fell on Matthias. We know little about Matthias, but Hippolytus of Rome provides one important clue (c. A.D. 235). In his work, On the Twelve Apostles: Where Each of Them Preached, and Where He Met His End, Hippolytus mentions “Matthias, who was one of the seventy.” The seventy appear in Luke 10:1–12 as followers personally sent out on mission by the Lord Jesus.

Who was Hippolytus of Rome? Ancient sources report that he was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, who numbered among the twelve. This ancient external testimony of Hippolytus corroborates the biblical evidence. This candidate Matthias indeed met the candidate criteria.

The selection process that identified Matthias in Acts 1 suggests that the eleven abstained from the cultural pattern of choosing overseers based on wealth, status, and/or lineage. Instead, they adopted a process for locating at least two qualified candidates. Also, we see them employ an intentional practice to get their opinions or bias out of the way so that God could make the final choice from among two candidates that surfaced.

Don’t hear this as prescriptively suggesting that every board casts lots to choose between candidates, though one board on which I serve follows this biblical example to allow the Holy Spirit to make the final choice. Hear this descriptively urging you to outline a process that hinders people from manipulating the outcome. Boards do well to structure the identification processes carefully in order to locate candidates with Christian maturity and demonstrated gifting. And they also do well to guard the selection process to avoid scheming and exploitation.

All this has everything to do with Holy Week.

Why?

Churches and ministries need board members who are not focused on their own agendas or selfish gain like Judas but willing to give their lives to advance God’s work like the eleven. Locating such candidates is challenging, so thankfully the New Testament gives us this two-part model for filling empty board seats.

####

Gary G. Hoag, Ph.D., is president of Global Trust Partners, the international accountability entity recently birthed by ECFA. He has written or contributed to ten books including, The Council: A Biblical Perspective on Board Governance (ECFA Press, 2018) co-authored with Wesley K. Willmer, and Gregory J. Henson. This post comes from content from that book.

Not able to be with us at the Outcomes Conference 2019? Then follow the event and what is happening by tracking it on social media using the hashtag:

#Outcomes19