Have you ever felt frustrated with the calling process in our churches? We certainly can be thankful that the Lord provides shepherds to congregations, but judging from the complaints I've heard over the years, both con­gregations and ministers can feel disgruntled at times. Is this unavoidable? I don't think so. Let's take a look at how it goes and how things can be improved.

Fatigue⤒🔗

For a vacant church, going through the calling pro­cess can be long and tedious, perhaps especially for the consistories and calling committees. The people investi­gating ministers for recommendation to the consistory spend many hours collecting information. Consistories take time to weigh the options and sometimes turn down the committee's recommendation. This frequently means going back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, the congre­gation often endures long periods of silence from their governing body which strains their patience.

When (finally) a name is presented to the church and enough support is found within the congregation, the ac­tual call may then be issued. Frustration can mount for the brothers and sisters when a minister comes, preach­es, meets the congregation, asks lots of questions, shows care and concern for the needs presented, and appears interested only to return a "no" answer days later. Thus begins another months-long process of considering a new minister or candidate.

When this happens not once or twice but three, four, five, or more times (over many months if not a year or two), the process becomes disheartening for the vacant church. "Call fatigue" sets in and by the time the sixth minister is called, only half the people show up to meet him and very few expect him to say "yes." The minis­ter, then, isn't at all sure that the congregation actually wants him to come, and such a malaise can easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Aggravation←⤒🔗

If there is frustration in the vacant church there can at times be aggravation in the church of the minister who happens to receive many calls. It occurs more often that certain ministers receive call after call after call. At times these arrive simultaneously but just as frequently they come on the heels of each other. A minister has just spent weeks considering and declining a call only to receive another one from a different church a month or two later.

During the time when the call is being considered, the congregation (which, as a rule, would like their min­ister to stay) is on pins and needles. Finally they hear that he has decided to decline the new call and continue his existing call to their congregation. A sense of happy relief sets in only to be displaced with aggravation when their minister receives a new call a short time later and the whole congregation is once again thrown into a time of uncertainty. Members of the congregation can easily think: "Don't these churches get the hint? He has decided to stay, so leave him alone!"

Exasperation←⤒🔗

It's at this point that a minister, too, can feel exas­perated. When a call is received (an honour in itself, to be sure), the minister's regular work within his congre­gation slows down and nearly stops. He has to give time, energy, and focus to the calling church. In most cases he will go for a visit. People will email or phone him about the call. All of this becomes (necessarily) very distract­ing and his congregation will notice that too.

If the calling process puts a strain on the minister's congrega­tion, it puts an even greater strain on the minister and his family. I don't mind saying that it is a grueling few weeks, for you must, with an open mind and a ready heart, consider the possibility of uprooting your family, breaking ties with your congregation, leav­ing friends and perhaps extended family connections, and poten­tially moving a long distance away. As minister and father, you worry about the impact on both your flock and your family. Mean­while, your wife and children are also anxiously thinking about all these things.

You can say that all of that comes "with the territory" of being a minister, and that's true. But make no mistake: it's an exhausting and upsetting time for the family. When a minister and his family have to go through this repeatedly in a relatively short time, it becomes oppres­sive and burdensome. It begins to feel like the only way you can put a stop to the constant interruptions and the pressure to move is by accepting a call. But then, if the minister faithfully carries on as before, it usually doesn't take too many years and the whole unpleasant and errat­ic "pressure-cooker" starts up again!

There's a problem with our system. All the parties feel its shortcomings at one time or the other. I don't know of any superior system but to reduce everyone's frustration, let me present a few ideas to improve the one we've got.

Transparency←⤒🔗

To begin with the vacant church, I would encour­age consistories to be as transparent as possible with the congregation. Everyone understands that research­ing potential candidates or ministers takes time. People also comprehend that specifics cannot be shared until the time that a formal recommendation is at hand, but when no information is forthcoming for long stretches, people get antsy. Why not make a remark in the pastoral column from time to time that lets people know the process is underway, names are being considered, and information is being gathered? A timely update along with an en­couragement for people to make this a matter of personal and family prayer will keep the congregation thinking and praying alongside the consistory.

That transparency should extend to the minister or candidate under consideration. Over the years I've encoun­tered different "philosophies" in calling committees (or consistories). Some choose to contact in advance the man they have in mind in order to see if there would be any compelling reason he could not consider a call at that time. Others choose to keep the minister in the dark, say nothing to him, and spring it on him out of the blue! There seems to be a view that telephoning the minister in advance would somehow taint the purity of the calling process.

As you may guess, I personally favour the former ap­proach and would encourage it. While I certainly regard the entire calling process as guided by the hand of the Lord which we need to carefully honour, I do not think this excludes consultation with a minister in advance. God's guidance is also in that telephone call, is it not? Can we not see this as part of the broader process of gathering information (in the same way that contact is made with elders, deacons, or other church members to inquire after the minister in question)?

The reality is that the Lord also directs the circum­stances of a minister's current ministry and family life. There may legitimately be things going on which would prevent him from accepting a call anywhere at that mo­ment. Would it not reduce the frustration for the vacant church if they called someone who was at least in a pos­ition to consider accepting their call? I'm also convinced that for most ministers, eliminating the element of com­plete surprise would also reduce their frustration in be­ing caught off guard or flat-footed by an unexpected call.

Five is the New Three←⤒🔗

Unless I miss my guess, it seems there has been a change as to when congregations might first consider a minister eligible for call. It used to be that churches wouldn't call a man before he had served a minimum of three years in his current church. This is one of our unwritten rules which are changing - in my view, for the better – to five years. That seems to be the new minimum call-free period. Some calling churches haven't taken this to heart yet but I would urge them to do so – three years is a very short time to minister to a congregation. Just consider: would you want your own minister (assuming all is well) to be called away after only three years?

I understand that, in times past when there was such a shortage of ministers, it was more necessary for the pas­tors to move around frequently. That time has passed. The percentage of vacancies is lower and the length of time a church remains vacant is not as great as it used to be. Seminary students are graduating each year and some are on stand-by for a call, giving the churches options.

Besides, a five-year ministry is still brief enough. Building trusting relationships in pastoral work takes time and your effectiveness tends to increase the longer people get to know you and you them. Professors at CRTS advised us back in the day to not leave before one Catechism cycle was completed, generally six or seven years. Unless there are special difficulties in a minister's work that would make it advisable to move earlier, I hope our churches will think in terms of a man having "five plus" years under his belt before considering him for a call.

Timing of Calls←⤒🔗

The timing of calls is also sometimes vexing and even baffling for ministers. For example, I have seen a minister receive a call (usually the out-of-the-blue kind) the day before he is to go on summer holiday with his family. Nice, relaxing summer vacation, eh? Or the call comes a week before Christmas, a time of the year when extra sermons need to be prepared and the family is com­ing home. After a full fall session of preaching, teaching, and visiting, a pressure-filled call is the last thing need­ed over the Christmas period. Please, consistories and congregations, I beg of you: give the timing of your call careful thought. Ministers aren't looking to be coddled but just to be given a fair shake to consider your call at a time when they have the physical and mental energy and focus to do so.

To me, the best time of the year to launch a call is in the first third of the year, January through April. It's not a time for extended holidays (spring break at the most), so congregants and ministers are available to interact with each other. It also fits in well with the seasonal work in both church and school. For example, Catechism classes normally end in April. Profession of faith, installation of new office bearers, the celebration of Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost all take place in the spring. School (for those minister­ial homes with school-age children) ends in June. If a minister considers accepting a call, a very natural time of the year to transition from one congregation to the other is after school is out (or at least after Catechism is done). A winter or early spring call will allow for a timely move prior to September.

Calling Cycle←⤒🔗

Calls which are made in the summer or fall are com­peting with the normal time of holidays or the begin­ning of a new season of both church work and school studies. The latter is a time when renewed focus is placed on the congregational work. I wouldn't say such calls are impossible to consider but I would say their timing is far from ideal and likely does more to add to the all-around frustration.

Could we not begin to think in terms of a calling cycle? If we accept that the first four months of the year are the best time for calls, why not aim to make all the calls for a year within that time period? For example, a calling committee could be mandated to come with a list of three suitable men by late fall. Using the list, the con­sistory and congregation could then proceed with calling in early January, one after the other if necessary. Some vacant churches wait lengthy periods between calls – is that necessary or beneficial? I would think that more than one suitable candidate could be researched and rec­ommended simultaneously.

With a list of three men in hand, it would only take weeks (not months) to move into the next call. If after three calls there is still no positive reply, would it not be to everyone's benefit to take a break for eight months and have the calling committee go back to the draw­ing board? After three solid attempts, it will be good for everyone to have the pressure off for a while. The con­sistory and congregation (and ministers) could then get mentally prepared for the next calling cycle.

Stop Consecutive Calls←⤒🔗

What should we do about the frustration of consecu­tive calls? It's simple: vacant churches should stop mak­ing them. Wait a full year. Seriously, when a minister has considered an incoming call and turned it down, then most often it means he has recommitted himself to his current call in his existing congregation. This being the case, the man should be given time to press on with that call and neither he nor his congregation should need to undergo that unsettling process of reconsidering his standing for at least another twelve months. I think it would be healthy if this became the new normal, one of our unwritten rules.

An exception to this would be when a minister indi­cates to a new calling committee (which, wisely, inquires in advance by phone) that his circumstances are unusual. It could be that he may not have felt able to accept the recent call for particular reasons but at the same time, he is quite open to another call. In other words, the pastor is looking to move on. In that case, a quick, consecutive call makes good sense and may actually reduce every­one's aggravation. This is just one example of how an inquiring, informed, and perceptive calling committee could serve its congregation very well.

All in all, I hope we can collectively do a re-think of our calling practices. Why not get the discussion going around your coffee table and in your consistory room?