Yes, the problem is what alternative is there? Here's what I see as a few ideas...not all of these are mutually exclusive:
1. Churches ONLY hire new Seminary Graduates, so as to not steal other church's pastors.
2. Churches put a high priority of the pastor training his own replacement from within the church.
3. Churches exercise EXTREME caution and diligence in choosing pastoral candidates in the first place, with a high priority on humility, and an extensive interview process that focuses on the spiritual reasons for entering the ministry, and holding back on those candidates who seem to be superstars, or who seem to be ladder-climbers.
Given that a wide-spead adoption of these ideas is unlikely, what other options do churches have that are stuck in the process you have described?
Also, it seems that those smaller chuches near a seminary seem doomed to be a revolving door for current or recent seminary grads before they move on.
I was reading through the business meeting minutes of church (we have them going back to 1901), and came across a couple of meetings where the selection of a pastor was the main business. This was in the 1920s.
Members would rise and nominate someone to be pastor. Then they'd take a vote. Whoever got the most votes was the man.
Here's the interesting part: The chosen pastor may or may not have known his name would come up. A committee was dispatched to inform the preacher that the church wanted him to be their pastor. No trial sermon, no visiting the church, no meeting with the search committee.
The prospective pastor would give his answer. Most of the time it was yes, but sometimes it was no. So the committee reported back to the church and the process started all over again.
So, what alternative would you propose for how we find our pastors? How does my church and God's man for us get together?
My solution is two-fold, but I think I should give some background to my viewpoint from a Biblical and philosophical perspective.
Pastors in the New Testament were selected because the people could personally attest to this candidate's doctrine and qualifications. When Paul addressed Titus to "appoint", he followed this message with the qualifications needed for a pastor. He was not to call references of others that testified of candidate's character. They personally could attest to his character and doctrine.
Another key point is that normally staff was appointed from within the church. There are exceptions in the New Testament. The Apostle John probably was a Pastor in Ephesus. However, the church knew the person and most likely could testify of his character. There also seemed to be some Pastors like Titus who went to churches to help support them. I am uncertain if these local churches knew Titus prior, but they knew and trusted Paul and at his recommendation, they accepted Titus (a little speculation, but this seems likely).
I do not like the idea that a church votes on a man that they barely know nor does the pastor know the church. To me, this seems like a recipe for disaster. Thus, I think a more Biblical approach includes:
1. Train up your future pastors from within your own church. This ideally takes advantage of your own resources. The people in your church know the strengths, weaknesses, character, and doctrine of the individuals. There are no surprises and the individual is loved and respected, though they see his faults.
2. Some churches cannot feasibly appoint their own elders. This is why forming strong relationships between other Christians and churches is essential for a church. I am, however, not talking about the Pastor alone forming these relationships, but the church as a whole forming these relationships. When the church is in need of a pastor, they can solicit help from other churches to see if one of them has a Pastor to recommend. In essence, this would be like Paul recommending Titus. While not ideal, it is better than selecting a person based upon a resume, a few sermons, and a few days "together".
I believe this is a more Biblical approach as it does not relegate the qualifications as a third tier. Rather, this makes doctrine and qualifications as the most important aspect of the selection process.
