THE PROCESS OF SELECTING RELIGIOUS LEADERS

 A few days ago, American-born Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected the 267^th Roman Catholic Pope. Electors from  the College of Cardinals met in the Sistine Chapel, in the Vatican City, to elect the new Pope.

The process of electing Pope Leo was carefully structured and followed a sacred procedure. Prior to the election, cardinals were locked inside the Sistine Chapel for the entirety of the election process, with no contact with the outside world. All cardinals, less than eighty years of age, were eligible to vote.

They entered the Chapel chanting the hymn “Come, Holy Spirit”. The chapel was secured to ensure complete secrecy. Voting was by secret ballot, handwritten on paper. Each cardinal wrote and submitted the name of his chosen candidate. Ballots were collected, counted and burned. A candidate must receive a two-thirds majority of the votes to be elected Pope.

As a non-Catholic, I was particularly intrigued with the process. Everything was done to ensure that the process was solemn and impartial. I was also enthralled by the response of the thousands of Catholics awaiting the outcome of the conclave. As the white smoke appeared from the chimney, onlookers cheered, prayed and wept. Their expressions of joy preceded the actual announcement of the person elected.

I believe a similar joy was expressed among the disciples when they selected Matthias to replace Judas, who committed suicide after betraying Jesus. The book of Acts records that about 120 persons gathered for prayer. Among those who met with the disciples were Mary, the mother of Jesus and her other sons (Acts 1:14).

Two men met the criteria to replace Judas. However, they needed to choose only one man. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry…then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:24-26).

Let’s carefully observe the process. An atmosphere of prayer captured the room. In other words, there was a corporate sense of dependence on God to direct them in making the right decision. In addition, they expressed a sense of transparency when they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart…”. Such vulnerability was a reflection of their unbiased quest to choose the better man. They saw their role as identifying God’s choice. But how was God’s choice to be identified?

For them, the process of choice had to reflect the character of God – the process had to be just. An unjust system would not reflect God’s choice. But was there a system that reflected justice and could guarantee unbiased results? A system where the outcome could not be pre-determined by the electors. It was with that desire in mind, the disciples chose to cast lots.

Casting lots was an ancient practice used to make decisions or determine a divine choice. It involved using small objects—such as stones, sticks, or pieces of pottery—that were cast or thrown to produce a random result, similar to drawing straws, rolling dice, or flipping a coin. While the exact method used was a human choice, the outcome was not. The outcome was unknown. The book of Proverbs expressed it this way: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord”(Prov. 16:33).

I wish I could say that this method is always practiced when leaders are to be appointed in churches. Some groups require unanimity among electors. Such a system erroneously suggests that “the voice of the people is the voice of God”. And, at times, allow a minority to undermine the desire of a majority.

Some other groups make decisions based on consensus. Such decisions lack specificity in decision-making and often result in unexpressed discontentment. Very often I have found the private ballot system to be the least contentious. It respects the opinion of each elector and contributes to decency and order. Godly people respect the process and the outcome of the leaders chosen.

At times, the Holy Spirit speaks through electors and identify specific persons for the task ahead. One such case appeared in the church at Antioch. Luke recorded that while they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2). The church responded appropriately by commissioning both gentlemen to ministry. I often wonder though, through whom did the Holy Spirit convey that instruction? And also, is my church sufficiently sensitive to the voice of the Holy Spirit today?