On Ordination
I had the privilige to go to the ordination of a good friend of mine yesterday. So far, I have been to three ordination councils (including my own) and they were all vastly different. I know this difference is what some would call a hallmark of being a Southern Baptist, but I'm not so sure that historical attribute is very wise. Allow me to explain.
My ordination was, in my opinion, fair. I was ordained at the church where I currently serve. The Director of Missions for the local assocation was there, as was another area pastor and all the deacons of the church. After figuring out that I was not a heretic, my question and answer session quickly went the route of "what are you going to do for our church?" This was fine for me.
A few months later I went to an ordination council at a church across town. The makeup of men in the room was similar to my council. Only, this church was ordaining a former staff person. After over an hour of questioning, it was evident that this candidate, who is about 20 years my senior, did not have a working knowledge of any major doctrine and left me even questioning his salvation. Believing that God is the "most high" is not a sufficent answer to "What does it take for one to be saved." My pastor and I were the only lone dissenters and the council ordained this man to be a preacher of the Gospel because he "meant well" and had a "good heart."
The council I went to yesterday (in a neighboring city) was even more different. The questions were tougher and the candidate knew his stuff and it wass probably run the way a council should be run.
This all leads me to ask the question: "Should the Southern Baptist Convention have some type of standard for ordaining ministers?" If we did, how would we do it with 40,000 churches across the country? I know it is not a part of our tradition to do so (which doesn't make it wrong or right), but I feel that some action needs to be made.
Like I said, I've been to two councils that were run sufficiently. However, I've also been to one that would make most Christians cringe. Whether it be an associational, state, or convention-wide process, something needs to be done because the convention is running the risk of sending out un-qualified people who will ultimately lead sheep to danger.
posted by Charlie Wallace at
11:02 AM
20 Comments:
Do it the Biblical way; leave it to the apostles or those they appoint to do the ordaining.
Matthew,
How would that work in a congregational church?
Also, what is your definition of an apostle?
Charlie,
This is one of my "pet-peeves." I get extremely irritated by the lack of organization of ordination councils. Mine was a "I just wanna pat you on the back, thata-boy" meetings. They didn't ask me any hard or demanding questions. In fact, I seriously doubt they know anything about my actual theology (not that I'm a heretic or anything ;)). But, I could be a non-trinitarian or a hyper-calvinist or a padeobaptist ;)(just kidding my Presbyterian brethen, you know I love you guys). The point is that they would have no idea because they didn't ask any meaningful questions.
So, to answer your question, yes. There should be a standard in place. The PCA does it better than any other denomination that I know of. That is why you find very few incidences of unorthodox teaching in the PCA. I would like to see something like that implemented in the SBC. Heck, I would take the exam over. Of course, we wouldn't many pastors left.
An apostle is one who is appointed by Christ for founding the church.
I do not believe we have any apostles today, hence we have no power to ordain officers in the church.
God Bless
Matthew
I would simply make an adjustment in the PCA's procedures in order to adjust it to congregational polity. Since there is precedent in Baptist and congregational circles in inviting local ministers to "interrogate" the candidate, it really is not much different than the actions of a presbytery.
Of course, the PCA has universally adopted the Westminster Confession as the standard of subscription (as subordinate to the Bible but holding our system of Scriptural convictions), and so it is a bit easier to ensure doctrinal uniformity. However, this could easily be implemented in SBC or congregational circles by merely asking questions that are derived from the BFM 2000 or the individual church's statement of faith. The BFM would be a good one because it allows for flexibility and orthodox diversity while maintaining the fundamental truths of Christianity. Then, the "presbytery" (i.e. council of ministers) should make an up or down recommendation to the congregation on whether or not that candidate is ready for ordination.
As far as worrying about crushing someone who "has a good heart" but doesn't know a Mormon from a Methodist, this can be dealt with pastorally. If a candidate flubs a section of his ordination exams in the PCA, the presbytery will correct him, encourage him, and usually offer another attempt at the next presbytery meeting (3 months later or so). This allows for fatherly support, and I have found that the elders are quite sympathetic to the rigor of ordination exams, because they've all gone through it. If the congregation ignores the elders' recommendation, then under congregational polity he should be ordained, but the blood will be upon their hands, not the elders'.
I'm interested to see what Ben Hames might think of this, because he was ordained in a Baptist church and then later went through the ordination process in the PCA.
Good post, Charlie.
Oh, one more thing. Not to be picky, but I'd like to mention something that has to do with some forms of congregational polity and ordination.
I Timothy 4:14 clearly teaches that ordination is the work of the elders (lit. presbyterous), not the diaconate. I am quite aware that many congregational churches have deacons who think they're elders, but this is not the case Scripturally. Just continuing to make a case for elders in Baptist churches, because it is the elders who are entrusted by Christ to shepherd and feed the flock, and yes, at times to keep evil and well-meaning wolves from entering the pulpit of our churches.
Yay elders. Yay biblical deacons!
Thanks for you comments, Drew. I do believe the PCA does things right. And to comment on something Michael said, yes, you're right, there would be fewer pastors in the SBC - and that might be a good thing. Some pastors that I have met really have no business being in the minsitry (based on numerous factors). But then again, any ol' Baptist church can ordain any ol' time it wants to. In fact, one can even get ordained through the internet.
I think it would be difficult to have enough pastors (elders) at these councils in SB life. The average association in South Carolina has at least 50 or so churches. However, around 2% actually come to ordination councils. So the question then would be, "How does the DOM get those pastors to participate?"
Charlie,
What you are saying points to one major problem when it comes to Baptist polity, DISORGANIZATION. That is why I think Baptists (realize this is a general statement) miss the boat when it comes to the New Testament church. It seemed like back then there was a distinct and understandable hierarchy. Everybody answered to somebody else. Everybody was accountable, not only to God but to one another. Why do you think Paul was admonsihing congregations all the time. Because in one way or another, they answered to him (or at least they answered to someone).
Right now, that is simply not the case in the SBC. While I believe being congregational is a good thing, each congregation should not be totally autonomous entities. Think about it, after we become Christians, we aren't totally autonomous beings. We are, or at least we should be, held accountable by the universal priesthood of believers, by our local body of believers, and ultimately by Christ our Lord.
Honestly, I am way more Presbyterian in my eccesiology than I am Baptist.
That's an interesting point. You claim (and I agree) that the SBC is disorganized. The irony in that statement, is the convention itself is one the most organized and, if you will, beauracatic religious entities that exists. If anyone has ever been to an annual meeting or worked for any state convention, or other entity such as Lifeway, Guidestone, etc. you know what I'm talking about.
With that said, how has it come to matters of significance (like ordination) where SB's are lacking organization and structure?
I realize, too, that SB churches will always cry for autonomy. But too much autonomy is selfish and dangerous. Therefore, the question to ask is, "how much autonmony do we need?"
Biblically, I find warrant for "setting someone apart" for a specific ministry (e.g. a local church pastorate, missionary, evangelist, etc.). What I do not find is any ceremony that turns someone who was formerly "laity" into "clergy."
Thus, I do not find warrant for "ordaining" someone into "the ministry" as it is generally conceived. As believers, we are all "ordained" into "the ministry" by Jesus Himself. Being "set apart" as an elder (or deacon) in a local congregation is a different question, though. I see no problem in publicly recognizing someone's ministry responsibility, and having spiritually representative individuals in the congregation lay hands on and pray for the newly recognized elder (or deacon). Maybe a fellow elder from another local congregation could participate as a show of solidarity and a as symbol of Christian unity. But, since the role of elder (or deacon) is confined to a specific local church, I believe the authority to recognize or take away recognition of someone's ministry depends on the local congregation in which they are to exercise that ministry.
Thus, for example, whenever a "pastor" resigns a local church position, he is no longer a "pastor" until another local church recognizes him as "pastor" in their congregation.
David,
Welcome to the site. I agree with you that all Christians are called to minister. When I was licensed and was asked about my call to the ministry, my first statement was that we are all called to ministry. There is a danger of making a marked and dividing distinction between clergy and laity. The fact that we call some clergy and others laity is inherently devisive.
However, when seperating out those who have full intention to carry out the ministries and ordinances of the church, I feel the SBC needs to set some parameters.
Charlie,
I still don't see where the Bible says anything about "those who have full intention to carry out the ministries and ordinances of the church." I believe we all are called to be 24-7 Christians. Whether or not you get paid for it is irrelevant. Also, the idea that only "ordained" people can peform the "ordinances" seems to me to come more from Roman Catholic tradition than it does from the Bible.
Well there are many things that we do in our churches that don't necessarily come from the Bible.
I don't think the setting apart of people for full-time service is inherently wrong just because it's not biblical.
It's just an affirmation to the pastor-to-be (which is a Biblical office) that He is qualified (i.e. not heretical so as to lead people astray which happens in the SBC with our poor ordination policies).
I don't think the goal of getting rid of ordination council all together would ever happen nor would it be beneficial for the Kingdom.
Very interesting post and comments. There is a paper floating around the net somewhere that looks at the history of ordination and it's biblicalness. Maybe someone knows where to find it.
I was present at an ordination of an elder of a MacArthur-like baptist church. It was a very throrough interview/test. It was like a crash course in theology and the history of the bible.
This person was able to be ordained because he had just completed his bachelor's degree in biblical studies of some sort. Which brings me to ask, is a specific serminary or biblical degree always a prerequisite? Biblical? Necessary?
I once spoke to an elder of a PCA church and I threw him off track when I brought up terms like justification and imputation as well as paedobaptism and credo-baptism. I thought since he was an elder that those terms were appropriate. I felt bad and didn't pursue that avenue any longer.
SDG,
Mark
Mark,
I'd be interested in seeing that paper.
I'm not sure if a seminary degree/Bible college degree would be necessary. If the candidate had a thorough knowledge and understanding of all the subjects (that my mythical council regulations would have decided on), then, it would not matter. However, I would question the reasons why the candidate was not pursuing theological education (if in fact, he was not...he could be currently pursuing it, of course).
As far as being biblical, the only thing that even resembles any formal schooling (besides Phar/Sadd) was the school of the prophets in the OT. (See Elijah and Elisha's stories)
But again, unless one interpets Scripture from a strict, literalist view, something that is unbiblical is not necessarily unacceptable.
Okay, I found the article and it's only the second time I've glanced at it. So I am not "promoting" it, but wanted to give the link. It's by Frank Viola who may have some fringe ideas. The article is called "The Pastor: Where Did He Come From?" and does talk about ordination.
I think one in a pastoral position should desire to pursue a theological education. I desire one and am not even a pastor. I'm just a geek though.
I do wish the folks with the degrees would use their education to try to growth the Church instead of just trying to grow a church.
Mark
Ps. It would help if I gave the link, huh?
http://www.ptmin.org/thepastor.htm
Mark,
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
"Amen" on your last comment, too.
Mark,
Thanks for the link on the Viola article. It was very informative. I'm not sure, yet, whether I'm ready or not to "bite off" everything Viola has to say on other topics, but his read on ordination seems pretty much on target to me.
Charlie,
Are you saying "pastor-to-be" is a biblical office? Or just "pastor"?
I don't mean to get into a big polemic over this whole point, but it does have some practical implications. For example, if an "ordained pastor" is fired from his church for immorality or false doctrine, but the church that "ordained" him does not retract the ordination, he may still go around claiming to be a legitimately ordained Gospel minister. I think there is something inherently anomalous about this situation. It seems to me that it makes more sense, as well as being more compatible with biblical ecclesiology, for ministerial accountability to be maintained at a local church level.
The only "Church offices" I find in the New Testament beyond "local church offices" were those of the 12 Apostles.
I'm stating that pastor is a biblical office.
If an ordained pastor is fired for those reasons, I think it would be a good idea for the ordaining church to revoke his ordination. Although, the chances of that happening are probably lower then the SBC coming up with a unilateral ordination procedure
Charlie,
I agree with you that "pastor" is a biblical office (which is equivalent to "elder" and "bishop" in my understanding).
It seems like 1 Timothy 5.22 is quite apropos in the situation we are talking about, but, as you point out, very rarely taken into serious consideration. I think it would commit the "ordaining church" to continue in some kind of supervisory (or at least, accountability) relationship with those they ordain.
"Do not lay hands upon any one too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home