Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen …” (Acts 1:24)

The Old Order Amish in Pennsylvania organize their churches by groups of 20-30 families within a given geographical area. Each church has one or two ministers in addition to an area bishop. As the population grows, church districts may split and need additional leadership.

            When a ministerial vacancy occurs due to a new church start or the incapacity of a current minister, new preachers are chosen from among male members of the congregation. As part of their baptismal vows, always as adults, men agree to serve as a minister if they are called.

            On a given Sunday, members file by and whisper the name of someone they recommend to the bishop, who keeps track of the nominees. All men who receive more than a set number of nominations are then called to sit before the congregation.

            The bishop selects an equal number of copies of the Ausbund, a hymn and prayer book written in the High German of Martin Luther’s day. Into one of them he has secretly inserted a slip of paper on which he has written the text of Prov. 16:33: “The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is the LORD’s alone.”

            As the congregation prays, the books are laid on a table and the candidates, beginning with the oldest, come forward to choose an Ausbund. The first candidate flips through the pages to see if the slip is inside. If not, he sits down – often with a great sigh of relief – and the process continues with the next eldest. In time, the man who selects the Ausbund containing the verse is considered to have been chosen by God for the task.

            Why would anyone choose ministers in this way? The Amish justification for the practice is found in Acts 1:15-26, the lectionary text for the day.

Apostle needed

(vv. 15-20)

The Acts account locates the story shortly after Jesus’ ascension. Following the resurrection, Jesus had told the disciples to remain in Jerusalem while he continued to teach them. After 40 days, Luke says, Jesus led them to a place on the Mount of Olives, from which he ascended into heaven (vv. 1-11). Afterward, the awestruck disciples returned to Jerusalem and gathered in a large upstairs room. [DD]

Among those present, Luke identifies the eleven remaining disciples, minus Judas. Several women were also there, including Jesus’ mother, “as well as his brothers.” Together, the gathered followers “were constantly devoting themselves to prayer” (vv. 12-14).

            At some point the group had swelled to about 120 “brothers.” Whether Luke included women believers in the count is unclear. The number 120 may have reflected an actual count, or it may have emphasized that sufficient people were there to make an important decision. In Jewish custom, 120 men was the minimum required to establish a community that could appoint a full complement of local judges.

Whether the precise number was significant or not, Peter spoke as if the core group of Jesus’ followers was present. He stood up to address the loss of Judas from their number, and explained why he thought they should replace Judas, returning the leadership group to 12 (vv. 15-17).

Peter’s speech began in a roundabout way, proclaiming that David had been inspired by the Spirit to render a prophecy concerning Judas (v. 16). Early exegetes, following a rabbinic pattern, did not hesitate to treat Old Testament verses that seemed to fit as prophecies of their current situation.

            Luke interrupts the speech with a parenthetical statement regarding Judas’ demise and his legacy of blood before returning to Peter’s scriptural arguments for replacing Judas (vv. 18-20). Peter first quoted from Psalm 69, a lament traditionally associated with David that included an imprecation against enemies: “May their camp be a desolation; let no one live in their tents” (Ps. 69:25).

            Peter adopted the imprecation as a Spirit-inspired reference to Judas’ desolate end, and perhaps to his association with a pauper’s cemetery known as the “Field of Blood.”

            Peter then jumped to Psalm 109 and plucked another imprecatory verse from a similar lament, citing v. 8: “May his days be few; may another seize his position.” Both of Peter’s quotations came from the Greek translation (LXX), and he adapted them to apply to Judas. Though Ps. 69:25 speaks of “their camp,” Peter recited it as “his homestead,” making it singular. While the Hebrew of Ps. 109:8 speaks of taking his “position” (NRSV) or “job” (NET2), the LXX had translated pequddah with episkopos, or “overseer,” the same word the early church would use for “bishop” (1 Tim. 3:1, 2; Titus 1:7).    

            Modern exegetes would shudder at the proof-texting, but whether it was Peter or later interpreters who cited them, the two verses were regarded as scriptural justification for choosing a replacement for Judas.

Apostle chosen

(vv. 21-26)

According to the narrative, Peter insisted that the candidate must be a man who had been among Jesus’ followers from the time of Jesus’ baptism until his ascension, and that he must also have been a witness of the resurrection (vv. 21-22).

            In keeping with cultural expectations of the time, women were not considered, even though they were among the earliest and most faithful supporters. Surprisingly, Peter’s statement indicates that many others had followed Jesus from the beginning, with the twelve who would later be known as apostles being chosen from among a larger pool of disciples. A casual reading of the gospels might lead one to think that the disciples were the first to follow Jesus, with others coming after.

            Two candidates were put forward: “Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias” (v. 23). How the two were chosen was not stated, but having two candidates made it convenient to seek God’s direction by casting lots between them. Following the Old Testament model of the High Priest’s Urim and Thumim, the lots were probably two stones or bones that had the same shape and weight, but a different color or markings. Each candidate would be identified with one of the lots, which were then put into a pouch. [DD]

            Prayers would be offered for God to reveal the divine will, then the person performing the ceremony would put a thumb over one lot and let the other one fall out, revealing which candidate had been chosen. The lot fell on Matthias, who was thus thought to be chosen by God to join the eleven original disciples as primary leaders of the growing Jesus movement.

            Despite the stated need for a twelfth disciple and the formal ceremony of choosing Matthias, he is never again mentioned in the New Testament.

            Reading this text from our current perspective suggests both similarities and differences.

In first-century Jerusalem, only men were considered as candidates for the leadership position, even though the gospels clearly point to the presence of devoted and capable women in the group. While many conservatives consider this a biblical mandate that church leaders must always be male, more progressive believers acknowledge that the disciples were living in accord with cultural norms of their own time, which no longer need apply. Women as well as men should be able to express their gifts for church leadership.

            The most important characteristic Peter cited was that the candidate must have been present with the group throughout Jesus’ ministry, and a witness to the resurrection. No modern person can claim to have been present while Jesus was on earth, but we would likewise expect someone chosen for church leadership to be well acquainted with Jesus, a devoted follower who can bear witness to the resurrection through their personal experience with Christ through the Spirit.

            A final thing to note is the importance of involving the community of faith in making leadership decisions. Peter sought input from “about 120” of Jesus’ closest followers who had gathered in Jerusalem. Some denominations have bishops or others who appoint pastors, but many prefer to involve the local congregation in seeking God’s will in choosing ministers who will serve them well. That does not mean they will always choose rightly: most of us know of churches that called an ineffective or poorly matched minister who damaged the church rather than building it up. 

It is also common in our world for men or women, on their own, to believe God has chosen them for a leadership role, perhaps through founding a new church. Even in those cases, however, if a gathered congregation does not endorse or support such leaders, their efforts will come to naught.

Qualified candidates, earnest prayer, and community discernment all play important roles in leadership choices within the church. Even among the Old Order Amish who still trust God to reveal the divine will through lots, the candidates are put forward by the community, and the entire enterprise is bathed in prayer. Quaint though it may seem, the process calls out ministers who approach their work with great humility, zero salary, and no hope of retirement: convinced that their calling has come from God.

Perhaps the rest of us could learn from them, too.