Last year I posted on pastoral transitions in the Presbyterian Church of Australia.
Here’s a post on the 9Marks site advocating that the elders of a church should lead the situation of pastoral succession (organically) rather than create a special committee to do the task.
The post points to articles by Mark Dever and Bobby Jamieson.
This quote from Dever sums up the theme:
If churches were healthier, we’d never need to call together such a committee. The last guy would have helped the elders to make sure that this was taken care of before he left. Indeed, the last guy would have realized that one of the most important parts of his ministry in a church is ushering in his replacement! Failing that, the elders of a church still should have taken the lead in ushering the church toward choosing a man who meets the biblical requirements and deftly handles the Word.
Sadly, too many pastors and elders have failed to discharge this crucial responsibility, and so congregations have been left with no choice but to create a committee. But this is like making the teenage son and daughter parent their younger siblings because mom and dad are absent.
I was bemused (to put it lightly) when I moved from Queensland, where the elders were automatically on any search committee, to Victoria, where they only had a place on a search committee if they were voted on by congregational ballot.
In one situation where I was assisting a vacant parish none of the elders were on the search committee.
I think wise elders will consult should seek advice from the congregation, and any recommendation that they make would be endorsed by the congregation.
But the primary work of managing pastoral succession should fall to the eldership of a local church.
mgpcpastor's blog 
Agreed. Totally. If the elders aren’t qualified to take the lead in such important matters, maybe someone can tell me why they’re elders in the first place.
In a sense it doesn’t matter who takes the lead in presenting names to the congregation, at the end of the day it is the congregation as a whole body that calls its own minister. The elders will / should have a leading role in congregational meetings of course, to remind the congregation of appropriate Scriptural standards and to lead them by prayer in discerning God’s will, but The Disruption in Scotland in 1843 was all about the fundamental right of the congregation to select its own minister and this has been a core doctrine / practice of all Presbyterian churches since.
Douglas, do ‘selection committees’ in the Church of Scotland have mandated members or are they totally comprised by congregational vote?
As I alluded in the article, in Queensland, when I was there, all elders were automatically included, as were committee (board) of management members, with members of the congregations nominated onto the selection committee as well.
In one challenging vacancy I recall my home church voted that the whole congregation would function as selection committee.
I was unaware of different practice until I came to Victoria (and South Australia, which functions similarly).
I’ve never found out which practice is rooted in which historical traditions.
Some of the context of the 9Marks material is that of Baptist/independent churches discovering and implementing collegial/elder leadership and working their way through how transitions should function in a way that honours the fact that a congregation seeking a minister is not looking for a new leader, but is seeking to identify one who will take their place among the existing leadership.
Gary, in the Church of Scotland, selection committees are elected by the congregation. It would be unusual to have no elders on the committee, but there is no mandated quota or ratio. Many city / suburban congregations still have 40+ elders, so a “committee” of all elders plus all board members would be unwieldy, to say the least.
The committee’s job is limited to doing the leg-work to place a name before the congregation, but it is always the congregation that must finally call its minister. The congregation’s call is confirmed both by a vote at a congregational meeting and by the signing of the call document. It can reject the committee’s recomendation, and it can replace the committee if it doesn’t think it is working well, so ultimate control always belongs to the congregation as a whole.
The elders’ role comes down to the leadership qualities of influence, teaching and persuasion, rather than having mandated authority.
In other words, it is almost identical to the procedure here in Victoria.
Thanks for the info.
In Australia the notion of very large elderships is not the norm.
I’d probably favour the session nominating at least one, if not two onto whatever committee the congregation settle on.
Maybe I’ll spy you from afar if I’m wandering your corridors this Friday.