;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Church Life, David Rogers, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Ordination, Pastoral IssuesMinisterial Ordination
Posted by David Rogers in Church & Missions
*Knowing this is a potentially controversial topic, I want to make clear right from the top that I am, by no means, dogmatic on this, and am totally open to gaining any further insight from Scripture any of you may have to offer on this.
I do not believe that ministerial ordination, as traditionally practiced in Baptist churches, has a biblical basis. I also believe that it can end up having an adverse affect on the advance of God’s Kingdom. I do believe, however, in publicly setting apart individuals called by God to a particular ministry, laying hands on them, praying for them, and commending them to that ministry. I believe this is biblical, and has a generally positive effect on the advance of God’s Kingdom.
In traditional Baptist practice, there is a three-fold recognition of God’s call on the life of an individual, and commendation to ministry: first, license to preach; next, ordination; and next, installation into a specific ministry role.
I believe that what is symbolically communicated by such a practice flies in the face of the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. It props up the idea that “professional ministers” are, in one way or another, a class apart. Historically, it has its roots in the Roman Catholic concept that certain members of the Church, by virtue of their ordination (“holy orders”), have prerogatives and abilities to carry out certain spiritual tasks (“sacraments”) that others do not. Some historical justification for this is also at times adduced from the Old Testament practice of ordaining priests, insinuating that Christian ministry is essentially a continuation of the Old Testament priesthood.
I am not arguing against recognizing specific individuals and commending them to certain ministry tasks or roles, such as those of elder, deacon, missionary, evangelist, teacher, etc. This is what is normally done in a ministry “installation” ceremony, or missionary commissioning service.
I believe that, biblically, in the Body of Christ, each of us is “licensed” to preach, and “ordained” to ministry, in a general sense, at the moment of our conversion. Most ministry “roles” or “offices,” however, are specific to local church contexts. I believe it is generally a good thing for those in modern “para-church” ministry “roles” to be subject to local church accountability, as well. When someone is “installed” as the new pastor at a local church, they are accountable specifically to that local church for the exercise of that particular ministry. When someone is “ordained to gospel ministry,” however, the idea communicated is that they are recognized as legitimate, authentic “gospel ministers,” whether they have a specific “role” or “office” through which they carry out their ministry, or not.
The following are the New Testament passages I have found that seem to speak one way or another to the question of “ordination” and/or ministry “installation.” I have included my own comments and observations on each passage…
In Matthew 10; Mark 3:13-19, 6:7-13; Luke 6:12-16, and 9:1-6, Jesus Himself personally commended the twelve apostles to specific ministry tasks, as well as appointed them to the specific ministry “role” they were to carry out in the Church. Judas was later disqualified from his appointment after his betrayal of Jesus, and subsequent death. In Acts 1:15-26, we learn that Matthias was named to take his place through the process agreed upon by the other eleven.
In Acts 6:1-7, seven men (commonly regarded as the first deacons) were chosen by the members of the Jerusalem church to oversee the daily distribution of food. The apostles prayed for them, and laid their hands on them, apparently commending them publicly to this specific task.
In Acts 13:1-3, Barnabas and Saul were prayed for, set apart with the laying on of hands, and sent off for the specific task to which the Holy Spirit had called them.
In Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for the churches they had planted, praying and fasting for them, and committing them to the Lord.
In Acts 15:40, Paul was “commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord,” together with Silas, as he set out on his second missionary journey.
In Acts 20:28, Paul instructed the elders in the church at Ephesus: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” In v. 32, Paul also committed these same elders “to God and to the word of his grace.” A legitimate question can be asked, at this point, if the elders were elders exclusively of the church at Ephesus, or also elders of the entire “church of God” throughout the world. While church history does indicate that there was a relationship of collegiality and mutual respect and recognition among church leaders in various locations, there is no reason to assume an official “connectionalism” between local churches or a trans-local leadership hierarchy at this time.
In 1 Timothy 4:14, Paul writes to Timothy, “Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.” Also, in 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul writes something similar: “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” It is unclear exactly what the context of this event was. However, it would appear that Paul knew that Timothy had at one time been commended to a specific ministry, which, in 2 Timothy 4:5, he calls “the work of an evangelist.” Likewise, the specific context of 1 Timothy 5:22 – “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others” – is unclear, though it is possible, given the general context of the book, to link it to the appointment of elders.
Finally, Titus 1:5 indicates that Titus was given the task by Paul of appointing elders in every town on the island of Crete. Nothing is said explicitly, however, as to whether or not this involved a public recognition and commendation of these men, setting them apart to this specific ministry.
It is evident that the action of “laying on of hands” was known and commonly practiced in New Testament churches. There were also special moments in which certain individuals were publicly recognized, prayed for, and commended to a specific ministry. However, there is nothing to indicate that the significance of such an action was the same as that conveyed in modern Baptist “ordination” ceremonies. There is no indication in the New Testament that anyone was ever publicly recognized and set apart for “at large” ministry. Whenever this occurred, it was always with regard either to a specific ministry responsibility linked to the direct accountability of a local church, or to being commissioned for itinerant missionary or evangelistic ministry.
At this point, although one may agree there is no specific New Testament justification for the practice of ministerial ordination, the question still remains: “What harm does it cause?” While I am reluctant to in any way “cast stones” at all those who in good faith and with very noble intentions carry out or submit to traditional Baptist ordination practices, I see the following potentially negative consequences for doing so:
- The idea is symbolically and falsely communicated that there are two separate spiritual classes within the Body of Christ: “clergy” and “laity.”
- The idea is also communicated of a professional ministry “club” or “guild,” for which the official initiation ceremony is ordination.
- Ordinary “lay people” are led to believe that there are certain tasks in the Body of Christ that should generally be reserved for “ordained clergy,” and are thus, in many cases, encouraged to remain passive, and not put to use the spiritual gifts that God has given them.
- There is a potential conflict of interest, with respect to discipline and ministry accountability, between the congregation that initially ordains a minister and the congregation in which he later serves and/or becomes a member.
- Church leaders who fall into sin, and are disqualified from specific ministry roles and tasks they previously occupied in a specific local church setting, many times continue to maintain their “ministerial credentials,” and take advantage of this circumstance to dupe those in other local churches who are unaware of their moral failure.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Yes, but please tell me how could a unified corpus of universally-recognized New Testament texts have come into being without bishops who were universally recognized as head pastors over their cities and in some way responsible for the whole church?
Your understanding of Scripture and ordination would entail that every congregation would discern which texts were inspired and which were not. No bishops, no New Testament canon. In fact it was that way until the Synod of Rome which was in 382 I think, Rome did not use Hebrews, others did not accept Revelation but used 1 Clement and Didache, etc.
Universal ordination in the Roman Catholic church did not take effect until the medieval period. In the RC church today one must be welcomed and given permission by the church’s local head pastor (bishop) to function as a priest legitimately (in both the sacramental and teaching roles). In other words, the RC church in many ways is more local than are Baptists where there simply is no local authority who can make such decisions.
Otherwise, good reflections.
David,
Being a Baptist and an ordained pastor, I have never seen ordination as being something, a ritual that elevates myself, or any other man over the people in the pew.
I have always seen it whether for a deacon, or a preacher, as a recognition of God’s call from the local congregation and recognition of God’s gifts for the task ahead.
When the man or the church begin seeing it as a hierarchial elevation of power they better sit down and rethink their position.
Thanks for the article.
T.A.
David
In a recent interview (a few months ago) they asked me about my Biblical Studies degree — I was applying as a Systems Administrator for an I.T. Department. One of the interviewers was a Christian and asked, “Are you ordained?”
I looked at him and the best answer I could give was, “Not by man.” He smirked and said, “You must have looked me up online.” Although I hadn’t, I did afterwards. But I didn’t find anything about him, unfortunately
.
Abu
Just because something would be difficult without our current history doesn’t mean that the actions were inline with Scripture. If that were the case, this blog with surely be titled rcIMPACT! since we would all have remained Roman Catholic.
Tim
You said, “I have always seen it [ordination] whether for a deacon, or a preacher, as a recognition of God\u2019s call from the local congregation and recognition of God\u2019s gifts for the task ahead.”
Do you ordain your Sunday School workers? VBS Staff? Nursery workers? Janitors?
It seems to me that we should recognize God’s call on them, even for the task ahead. Or are Deacons and Preachers in a special class of ordination?
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
David R – I like you more every time I read your writing, bro.
Curious, though – How do you think the legal responsibilities of an ordained minister to administer weddings fits into this? Would you think that any Christian, before God, has the right to officiate a wedding? Obviously, that mentality is a bit contradictory to how the legal system views “ordination.” I guess I’m just interested in how you think THAT really fits in with Scripture.
I think what you’re getting into is whether ordination is universal. Are you saying it should be “task specific”, rather than “He’s an ordained deacon” that applies regardless of who ordained him, etc.? I definitely agree, because different churches have such different approaches to ordination. We have a gentleman in our church who claims to be an ordained preacher, but nobody knows who ordained him or when, or anything else about it. Many churches won’t ordain unless a licensed minister is called to pastor a church. I don’t know how that’s Biblical, but it is apparently seen that way by many.
Bernard: I am an elder and not ordained and I have performed a wedding in the absence of a pastor. No problem at all.
Does the scripture make any tie between weddings and the church? I don’t think so. I believe church weddings are strictly a tradition.
Bill – Interesting. So, in theory, those folks are definitely married in the eyes of God but MIGHT not be so in the eyes of the state? (Depending on state laws).
This is “interesting” to me because my wife and I were married by our “second choice” – her brother, who is licensed to preach but has never been called to pastor a church, thus will not be ordained by his church, “could not” marry us since the state requires that he be “ordained or authorized by his church to perform weddings.” My understanding is that only ordained ministers are authorized by the Baptist church to perform weddings.
It’s just a curious issue, to me.
To your list of relevant Scriptures you should add John 20:23, in which the Resurrected Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins – and perhaps more important to retain sins.
This is obviously an awesome responsibility. Are you suggesting the Lord meant every Christian to have it? The context of the passage suggests otherwise – the Apostles were gathered in a room and there is no indication anyone else was present.
Abu Daoud,
Your comment raises a number of different issues related to Roman Catholic-Evangelical/Baptist apologetics that could divert the main thrust of this post into a hundred different directions. Not saying they are not good, valid questions. But, as Lew observes, the main purpose of this blog is to discuss among Baptists issues that specifically affect us as Baptists. Not to say that the opinions and observations of non-Baptists are not welcome. Far from it! But, the specific angle I am coming from here is a “non-traditional” response to the “traditional” Baptist take on this.
In any case, I will respond here by saying that there are other theories on the development of the NT canon other than the officially-sanctioned RC view. Check out, for instance, F.F. Bruce, “The Canon of Scripture”:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-Frederick-Fyvie-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
There are also divergent views related to the development of the monoepiscopate in the early Church. My friend, Alan Knox, has an interesting post on this question here:
http://assembling.blogspot.com/2007/11/gospel-and-monoepiscopacy-in-ignatius.html
Also, as I have written here on an earlier post, I am personally sympathetic to the concept of the “city church” (http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/05/07/the-one-true-church/), though I see it as more of an informal, organic network than as a formal, hierarchical organization.
I do think that your observation that “universal ordination in the Roman Catholic church did not take effect until the medieval period” is telling, and gives somewhat of a clue as to the origins of current traditional Baptist practice.
Tim Blankenship,
As I make clear in my post, I see no problem in recognizing, praying for, and publicly setting someone apart for a specific ministry. I guess the problem I have is when we say that someone, on the basis of having gone through an official ceremony, is now officially a “minister.” I think Lew makes a good point, asking whether we ordain SS workers, VBS staff, nursery workers, janitors, etc. I believe that, in the Body of Christ, we should always be recognizing God’s call in other people’s lives, and encouraging them to put to use the various gifts that God has given them. But, this applies to everyone, not just those in a special “ministerial” class.
Lew,
Good observations.
Bernard,
Yes, indeed, the government complicates matters a bit by requiring ordination in order to officialize a marriage, and giving tax breaks on the basis of ordination.
But, I believe we are in very murky waters, theologically, when we allow government policies to dictate our practices, rather than the Word of God.
Patrick,
If we were to add John 20:23, then we would also need to think about adding all of the different versions of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:44-49; John 20:19-23; and Acts 1:4-8). Although the original context of each of these passages was a specific task commendation given to the apostles, I believe there is good reason to extend this same commission to the Church at large, and, as a result, to each individual member as an essential and integral part of the Body.
If you are referring here to the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 20:23, though, then refer back to my comment to Abu Daoud.
Bernard: I was authorized by the church to perform the wedding. There really is no “Baptist Church” only Baptist churches, so authorization to perform weddings is (I think) a local church issue.
Bill – Again, just curious, not throwing stones
Did you have that authorization in writing, or just a verbal approval? Is that written as part of the job description of an “elder”? Were the couple both members of the church that authorized you?
Sorry for the slight derail. I think it’s relevant, but not totally connected.
David – Since marriage is a legal issue, if we as “churches” deal with marriages at all, don’t we have a moral and ethical responsibility to submit to the authority that God has placed over us? There are VERY good reasons for the “state” to require that only “authorized” agents of a church can administer weddings, in my opinion.
Don’t we submit to the government all the time? Don’t we have fire code issues? Building codes? Legal documents so we aren’t accused of kidnapping every time we take kids to youth camp across state lines? Handicap ramps and restrooms just because the law requires them? Are these Biblical requirements? Not by any means.
My point is that “ordination” is also a legal term, not just a church term. An ordained minister has legal status, and that is a BIG part of why it is valid in our Baptist culture. For a Baptist church – and, as Bill says, they are all independent – to “stop ordaining” based on a regulative principle application has implications that go far beyond “Sunday morning”. Simply saying “it’s not in the Bible”, in my opinion, doesn’t carry enough weight to justify.
That said, I don’t like the “division” that is created, either. I don’t think deacons or elders should be “ordained” in the same sense that pastors are. I also don’t think that weddings should be isolated to “just” ordained ministers, but it’s complicated, I know.
Just rattling…
Bernard: I was authorized to perform the wedding at a business meeting. It is not listed as an elder responsibility in our constitution. The couple were both members. I have also baptized and conducted funerals.
Bernard,
In Spain, we have faced the issue where only Roman Catholic priests were authorized by the government to perform “religious” wedding ceremonies. In such a case, many Evangelicals have opted to have a non-government-sanctioned “church wedding” and an informal additional ceremony at the local equivalent of the “Justice of the Peace” (in most cases, the local mayor, or a city council member).
I agree with Bill that the Bible nowhere specifically ties weddings and the church. However, I think it is a great thing, as the family of God, to celebrate together the joining of two lives, and to pray God’s blessing upon this new union publicly. Whether this ceremony has official government sanction or not, though, is, in my opinion, indifferent, just as long as we are, as you observe, duly submitting, at the same time, to the government’s authority.
Bill – Thanks! That’s a “possibility” that I didn’t know existed.
I think David’s most important point is whether ordination contributes to the clergy / laity distinction. A distinction that I believe does more harm than good.
Isn’t ordination, to a certain extent, INTENDED to reflect to “a church” that some other church of “like faith” approves this person for ministry? In other words, isn’t the idea of “universality” a BIG part of the entire purpose?
Without ordination, wouldn’t there be SOME method in place of saying “Hey, gang, we trust this man to truly be called of God to minister!”???
In other words, isn’t ordination simply an official stamp of approval on someone to authenticate their serving as a “spokesperson” or representative of the organization? (church)
Which part of ordination do “you” think is wrong?
I’m exploring, not arguing.
PatrickW,
Just as an aside: John 20:23 doesn’t say that Jesus only gave the Apostles power to forgive/retain sins.
In fact, the Greek word for “apostles” is nowhere in that verse/chapter. The word “disciples” is though. It appears to me that whatever authority Jesus gave to them went to all his disciples, not just his Apostles.
In John 6, Jesus calls a “large crowd” following him, his disciples.
Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus (but not an Apostle) – John 19:38
God’s Glory,
Lew
Bernard,
Your comment #19 gets to the heart of the ordination issue. Yes, churches today use ordination in order to communicate a “stamp of approval” to other churches. This is primarily used when an elder (pastor) leaves one church and moves to another.
Of course, Scripture seems to give a different view of how a church should recognize whether or not someone is an elder (pastor).
-Alan
Bernard,
I think a big part of our problem goes back to a system of church leadership that is, in large part, alien to the practice of the NT church. Biblically, elders were appointed from within a congregation, not sent out from one congregation to another. Those who were “sent out” were, by definition, “apostles” or “missionaries.” Whenever an “apostle” or “missionary” settles into the life of an on-going local congregation, and assumes a leadership role, in my opinion, they cease to function as an “apostle” or “missionary,” and begin to function as an “elder” or “deacon” (e.g. officially recogized “servant” of a local congregation).
The NT does make reference to “letters of commendation” for itinerant ministers. I think this is a good practice. However, I still see no place, from a biblical perspective, for officially ordained “ministers at large.”
David,
I guess one of my quesations has to do with your primary objection: ordination as practiced in Baptist churches may lead to a two layer distinction and thus be harmful, and therefore may not be what the Bible intended. Does not the “appointment” of some as elders, the “laying on of hands” of others that is in the Bible not have the same potential?
Steve
Lew (#20):
Disciples or Apostles, they were locked in a room so it could not have been too large of a group. Verse 24 tells us that Thomas was not present for this event, and by implication suggests that Jesus was talking to the remaining ten of the twelve (Judas being dead by this time).
Another point is that Jesus breathed on whoever was in that room. If memory serves, the only other time in Scripture we see any member of the Trinity breath on a human is in Genesis when Adam was given life. This would seem to indicate something momentous was happening.
Whoever it was, what kind of authority was Jesus giving them? Was it a specific task or something more general?
Steve Young,
I’m not sure if this answers your question, but I see a big difference between appointment to a specific role, commendation for a specific task, and ordination to a spiritual status or class. I also believe it is significant that the roles of elder and deacon are specifically local church roles.
David,
We may have a little more agreement than I thought. I do believe that Ordination is for the ministry of a local church. I believe that Ordination as a pastor/elder/overseer/shepherd should be done when a person accepts his first church, and that church chooses to ordain. I do not believe it bestows any special power/roles to a person.
Steve
Steve,
If I understand you correctly, the difference we may have is the following:
I do not believe that when a pastor leaves one church for another that his “ordination” at the former church should go with him. He would need to be “installed” again as pastor at the next church. Also, if he went through a period in which he was not actively functioning as a pastor at a particular church, his “ordination” would become defunct. As I understand it, what makes someone a “pastor” (or “elder,” or “bishop,” which I consider to be different aspects of the same “office”) is that they happen to have that responsibility at a particular local church, not that they have been set apart for life as a “pastor,” whether or not any particular congregation recognizes them as such. Also, because of the false concepts usually associated with the term “ordination,” I would prefer to avoid that term altogether. Other than these items, we may well be in agreement here.
David: I don’t know if this confuses things or helps clarify. The term \elder\ is clearly a local church function. I am an elder in our church, but I certainly wouldn’t be one if I joined another church. I don’t consider the term pastor as synonymous with elder although most baptists don’t make a distinction. The bible speaks of the word pastor as describing a spiritual gift. Thus we may, as a local church, ordain (or install) someone with a recognizable pastoral gift as an elder in our church, but that ordination should not, as you suggest, carry over to another church. I agree, the way ordination is conducted now, what we are doing is elevating someone from the lay class to the clerical class.
Bill,
In 1 Peter 5, the verbs “shepherd” (related to “pastor”) and “oversee” (related to “bishop”) are used to describe the role of an “elder.” Jesus, in this context, is also called the chief Shepherd (or “Pastor”). I agree that the terms are not entirely synonomous, though, as I stated before, they refer to different aspects or roles of the same “office” in the church.
David,
You have a consistent problem! You have a tendency to look at what the Bible says instead of following Baptist tradition.
We can’t have that, young man!
I haven’t really thought through this one, but I think I agree with you.
Dave,
A couple of things:
1. Could the conceptual distinction between positional and earned authority (that I brought up in the “Thoughts on Family Focused Faith (Part 1)” thread) be of any use here? On thing I’m hearing is that we tend to focus on (positional) ordination authority, perhaps to the detriment of congregational ministry, which usually runs more along the lines of earned authority. I’m also reminded that Jesus repeatedly had to deal with the disciple’s obsession with position and steer them away from it. I rather suspect He needs to do the same with us.
2. I’m getting leery of using “Minister” as a clerical title. It too easily lends credence to the idea that ministry is primarily a job for the clergy (which David has already addressed. This easily leads to burn-out pastors (who are carrying alone a burden that should be carried by the church as a whole), and overly-passive congregations. Pastors are supposed to be equipping the congregation to do the work of ministry. Unfortunately, “pastors do the ministry and the congregation just attends church” seems to be an all-too-ingrained tradition.
Oloryn,
Good points. I agree with you.
[...] Several things can be safely inferred, though, about the role of deacons in the NT church. For one, their main (or only?) function, as implied by the literal meaning of the term διακονον, is that of service. In the case of the “seven” in Acts 6 (if we may regard them as “deacons”), their particular service was the task of distributing food. In the case of Phoebe in Romans 16, it is stated in rather generic terms that she had been “a help” to many people, including Paul. On the basis of 1 Timothy 3, and the specific qualifications given (parallel to those of “overseers”), it is evident that the “deaconate” (at least, in the church at Ephesus) was viewed as a recognized role within the NT church, and not merely a descriptor of all believers serving in any capacity at any time. However, I do not believe that we may regard “deacons” (nor “overseers”) as a special class of individuals set aside by “ordination” from the rest of the members of the Body (I present my argument in favor of this view here). [...]