Casting Lots After Pentecost

[cooper]

Is casting lots to make decisions supported by New Testament practice?

The last time we see lots being cast in Scripture is prior to the writing of the New Testament and before the day of Pentecost. Now that we have the completed Word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us, there is probably no reason to be casting lots to make decisions. The New Testament nowhere instructs Christians to use a method similar to casting lots. The Word, the Spirit, and prayer should be sufficient for discerning God’s will today—not casting lots, rolling dice, or flipping a coin.

What do you think of this quote and the broader article from Got Questions?

In particular:
- Is it significant that the last recorded use of casting lots occurs before Pentecost?
- Is comparing the biblical practice of casting lots to flipping a coin a fair comparison?

I grew up in a church that practiced ordination by lot, although there were times where only one person was nominated and so the lot was not used. I certainly don't think Scripture supports use of lots as the only or normative way to chose leadership, but I did think there could be situations where it might be helpful to, as Proverbs 18:18 says, "cause contentions to cease." I am wondering if there is significance that the last recorded use of casting lots occurs before Pentecost. I also wonder about what assumptions are smuggled into the Got Questions article that should be questioned.

[mike]

Is casting lots to make decisions supported by New Testament practice?

The last time we see lots being cast in Scripture is prior to the writing of the New Testament and before the day of Pentecost. Now that we have the completed Word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us, there is probably no reason to be casting lots to make decisions. The New Testament nowhere instructs Christians to use a method similar to casting lots. The Word, the Spirit, and prayer should be sufficient for discerning God’s will today—not casting lots, rolling dice, or flipping a coin.

What do you think of this quote and the broader article from Got Questions?

In particular:
- Is it significant that the last recorded use of casting lots occurs before Pentecost?
- Is comparing the biblical practice of casting lots to flipping a coin a fair comparison?

I grew up in a church that practiced ordination by lot, although there were times where only one person was nominated and so the lot was not used. I certainly don't think Scripture supports use of lots as the only or normative way to chose leadership, but I did think there could be situations where it might be helpful to, as Proverbs 18:18 says, "cause contentions to cease." I am wondering if there is significance that the last recorded use of casting lots occurs before Pentecost. I also wonder about what assumptions are smuggled into the Got Questions article that should be questioned.

I don't know if there is significance to that occurring before Pentecost, but it is interesting that it is not mentioned any time after that as a way of determining the Lord's will. To me, it can be a logical option when there are multiple valid options, such as an ordination where there are multiple qualified candidates. But, elimination could also be done by a second round of voting. In some ways, combining voting/nominations and casting lots is a way for the church's voice being a factor without the outcome being entirely influenced by who is the most popular choice.

That said, the lot is not mentioned even once in the New Testament, and the listing of qualifications for leadership in multiple places makes it clear that the church is to use discernment and the power of choice, not just leave it to a random drawing (which of course can be understood as God working).

[Ernie]

I grew up in the same conference as Cooper and I heard from a fairly young age (not across the pulpit) that this is suspect due to it being before Pentecost.

I've also heard it suggested that the apostles should have waited until after Pentecost to choose a replacement for Judas.

I agree with Cooper and Mike that there are times when it can cause contentions to cease if the congregation is agreed to use this method.

I know of one congregation that preferred to not use the lot, but when nominations were taken, they had two candidates with nearly equal votes.
So they voted again and had the same results. So they acquiesced to using the lot.
Turned out that the brother not chosen by lot was not spiritually ready for the role so in that case it seemed like the lot was a divine aid.

I've heard the charge that it is like rolling dice. But if you are going to use that objection, then Urim and Thummim are also suspect.
When a church does its homework and does not put nominees up for lot that are unqualified to the best of their knowledge, I think the Holy Spirit can work miraculously.

But if a church doesn't do its homework, I think God has often used the lot to appoint someone who is disqualified, to help churches realize how serious it is that they do their home work.

In addition, it does seem like God sometimes gives churches leaders according to their hearts desire.
In the conference where Cooper and I grew up in, before there was a geographic division, it was observed that in the liberal end of the conference, the lot typically fell on the most liberal man in the lot/class. In the conservative end of the conference, the lot typically fell on the most conservative men in the conference.

[mike]

I've heard the charge that it is like rolling dice. But if you are going to use that objection, then Urim and Thummim are also suspect.

When a church does its homework and does not put nominees up for lot that are unqualified to the best of their knowledge, I think the Holy Spirit can work miraculously.

But if a church doesn't do its homework, I think God has often used the lot to appoint someone who is disqualified, to help churches realize how serious it is that they do their home work.

In other words, with the lot, you just can't tell. People without the spirit of God can pick a leader by lot and they will get one. Period. God doesn't need to be in it at all. But is any event truly random when God is sovereign? So, whatever the outcome, God will use it in one way or another, even if that way is to install an incompetent leader for life.

Mostly, conservative Mennonites don't give God much opportunity to mess it up like this. There is a fairly intensive questionaire and vetting process before someone qualified by the nomination processed is allowed to be in the actual lot, in our circles at least.

I think it is wrong to say that we fully trust God's choice by lot in ordinations given the nomination and vetting process we engage. What we should say is that we use our judgment based on the information we have and the biblical qualifications and that, if this process produces multiple qualified candidates, we let God choose one by the lot.

[ken_sylvania]

That said, the lot is not mentioned even once in the New Testament, and the listing of qualifications for leadership in multiple places makes it clear that the church is to use discernment and the power of choice, not just leave it to a random drawing (which of course can be understood as God working).

Come again?
What version of the New Testament do y'all use over there at Hope?

[mike]

That said, the lot is not mentioned even once in the New Testament, and the listing of qualifications for leadership in multiple places makes it clear that the church is to use discernment and the power of choice, not just leave it to a random drawing (which of course can be understood as God working).

Come again?
What version of the New Testament do y'all use over there at Hope?

I'm sorry, I meant to say it is not mentioned even once in the New Testament after Pentacost, as noted earlier in the thread.

[Ernie]

I've heard the charge that it is like rolling dice. But if you are going to use that objection, then Urim and Thummim are also suspect.

When a church does its homework and does not put nominees up for lot that are unqualified to the best of their knowledge, I think the Holy Spirit can work miraculously.

But if a church doesn't do its homework, I think God has often used the lot to appoint someone who is disqualified, to help churches realize how serious it is that they do their home work.

In other words, with the lot, you just can't tell. People without the spirit of God can pick a leader by lot and they will get one. Period. God doesn't need to be in it at all. But is any event truly random when God is sovereign? So, whatever the outcome, God will use it in one way or another, even if that way is to install an incompetent leader for life.

That is how I look at it. I am not a fan of installing someone for life. I like the Old German Baptist Brethren way of giving people lesser responsibility and then adding responsibility as they mature and give evidence of good leadership qualities.

Mostly, conservative Mennonites don't give God much opportunity to mess it up like this. There is a fairly intensive questionaire and vetting process before someone qualified by the nomination processed is allowed to be in the actual lot, in our circles at least.

Yours is somewhat of an anomaly, I think. I've seen it messed up a lot. Parts of the procedure skipped. The wrong questions being asked. Etc.

I think it is wrong to say that we fully trust God's choice by lot in ordinations given the nomination and vetting process we engage. What we should say is that we use our judgment based on the information we have and the biblical qualifications and that, if this process produces multiple qualified candidates, we let God choose one by the lot.

Correct. I always heard it said that the lot chooses from among the qualified. One bishop even went so far as to say that the one selected by lot is not necessarily the one who is most qualified for the job but rather the one God picked for the job.

As some of you may remember from another thread a few years ago, I would like to see all qualified individuals for bishop/elder ordained. If you don't need them all at the local congregation, then ordain them and use them to help struggling congregations.

Others could be ordained and used as evangelists and pastors.

[joshuabgood]

In some circles, if you weren't ordained by use of the lot, you aren't a real preacher as God himself didnt choose you.

[mike]

In some circles, if you weren't ordained by use of the lot, you aren't a real preacher as God himself didnt choose you.

Yes. Our bishop was ordained as a minister without the lot, and as a bishop without the lot, because noone else had enough votes to qualify. He told me once that it makes him feel like he wasn't properly ordained. I told him that he can feel that he has extraordinary support from the church. It's a very clear way God calls people.

I think as Mennonites we are rightly skeptical of those who decide completely on their own to pursue pastoral positions, as many do. We prefer people to be called to leadership, as opposed to seeking it. Although many vocational pastors are essentially church employees rather than actual authorities.

[cooper]

I've heard the charge that it is like rolling dice. But if you are going to use that objection, then Urim and Thummim are also suspect.
When a church does its homework and does not put nominees up for lot that are unqualified to the best of their knowledge, I think the Holy Spirit can work miraculously.

But if a church doesn't do its homework, I think God has often used the lot to appoint someone who is disqualified, to help churches realize how serious it is that they do their home work.

In addition, it does seem like God sometimes gives churches leaders according to their hearts desire.
In the conference where Cooper and I grew up in, before there was a geographic division, it was observed that in the liberal end of the conference, the lot typically fell on the most liberal man in the lot/class. In the conservative end of the conference, the lot typically fell on the most conservative men in the conference.

These paragraphs make me much more uncomfortable with the use of the lot than I was before starting this thread.

The parallel between the use of the lot and the Urim and Thummim struck me as problematic (though I may be misunderstanding Ernie's point). The Urim and Thummim were part of an Old Covenant way of hearing from God. Christ's fulfillment of the Old Covenant, symbolized by the torn veil in the temple, I would understand as bringing an end to ways of hearing from God like the Urim and Thummim.

I think use of the lot can have value. I don't support it it is understood to function in a way analogous to the Urim and Thummim.

At times, the way some conservative Anabaptists speak about the lot sounds to me as though it is functioning in that way. I'm not saying they actually believe that, and I realize I may not be representing their views fairly. I still have more thinking to do on this, and I'm struggling to articulate exactly what concerns me. Maybe my understanding of this isn't biblical and needs correction.