Well, the perennial question of calling ministers is once again in the public eye. The Banner has published some articles on it recently; the question of an information bureau was up before Synod. But this thing is like the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. This writer would like to share with our readers a piece of recent history that may be of interest.

When I announced to the consistory that a call extended to me had been accepted, I became a witness to and participant in the making of a trio—something I had not done for years. You see, in many churches it is no longer customary for the “counselor” to counsel in the making of a trio. The trio is made and the counselor is asked via telephone to approve. Of course, the nominees, being ministers in good standing, are “automatically” approved. No counselor would dare to suggest the removal of a name for incompetence. Consistories do not need a counselor. And they do not trust the advice of us ministers. Preach in a vacant church sometime and you are invariably asked for suggestions. You submit some names of men whom you would consider competent and available for that particular church. Do their names appear on the nomination?

Anyway, we were going to make a trio. Before we started I suggested to place an ad in The Banner, reading something like this:

The congregation at is vacant and needs a pastor. We are a church of….families, located in the center of a cluster of Christian Reformed churches in a rural community. A minister with educational problems in the family has here all the advantages of the Christian School, a Christian high school and a Junior College. This congregation has a large number of young people. Any minister in the Christian Reformed Church sincerely interested in considering our call is invited to submit his name. We promise strict confidence.

This provided a good laugh. I fear the consistory thought I was out of my mind. Of course they wouldn’t hear of it. So we went to work. Here we sat, paging through the Yearbook. First the ineligibles were eliminated. That was a much larger number than we had supposed. Next we took a look at the “Favorite Sons.” They are the usual stand-bys who get all the calls from our larger and leading churches. I considered it a waste of time to nominate them. And, of course, the brethren knew nothing about them. The only recommendation was the action of other churches and consistories. Now, for the rest. A number of names were mentioned but no one, including myself, knew anything about them. It was a shot in the dark. Before we were through that suggested ad did not look quite as ridiculous as it did at first. Fact is, we decided to send it in and have it published for two weeks in The Banner. The experience would be interesting and it might at least get a discussion started.

The Editor’s reaction was similar to the initial reaction of the consistory. He consulted the Business Manager. Result: more of the same. Together they consulted our seminary professor who is an authority in such matters. Between the three it was decided not to publish the ad. They feared that it might start something very undesirable. It would cheapen the calling of ministers and lower it to methods pursued by secular vocations.

While we no longer accept what is said and done in The Netherlands as the Greeks accepted the oracles of Delphi, churches of the Gereformeerde Kerken seem to have 110 qualms about employing this method. In Gereformeerd Weekblad of May 12, ‘61, p. 368, the following appears (translation mine, C.H.):

The consistory of a rather widely scattered congregation in the western part of our country with a membership of between 400–500, formerly served by a candidate or young minister, desires to bypass the arduous task of constantly sending out audition committees. We are therefore seeking a direct contact with a minister who is eager to make a change in his field of labor (gaarne van plaats wil verwisselen). Confidence assured. Send letters to ………….

Now this makes sense. Far more sense than the excursions into the blind alley on which many of our consistories embark. Oh, you say, don’t we invoke the guidance of the Holy Spirit? And don’t you have faith in that? surely do, up to a certain point. Most certainly not when that “guidance” is predicated on the absence of sensible human chart. That this is often the case is not difficult to prove. Up to a few years ago consistories published their trios. Why was it discontinued? Consistories seemed to be guided completely by these published trios. So much so that one minister friend of mine declined over eighty calls while in his present charge. It was nothing unusual to announce two or three calls on a given Sunday. This puts my faith in this kind of divine guidance to a very severe strain. Incidentally, the Publication Committee is now again requesting consistories to send in their trios. Oh, yes, we speak piously about this guidance of the Spirit when trios are made or calls are extended. But when six months or a year later it is obvious to everyone that a mistake was made, do we then dare ascribe the mistake to the Holy Spirit? And would anyone contend that there are no such “mistakes” on record? We do not then ascribe tile mistake to the Spirit, but we wonder how this particular minister had the audacity to accept this call. And, shame on us, we treat him accordingly.

C. Huissen

P.S. The particular trio in which I had a part was successful. The first call was accepted. After a short period of mutual adjustment everybody was happy.