Thread: PCA Ordination

With the hopes that none will read too much into this, I do have a question I hope someone could help me with.

How hard is it for an ordained Southern Baptist Pastor to become an ordained Pastor/Teaching Elder in the PCA? What are the steps/process and is it a lengthy process?

Just wondering. Thanks.

From the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO):

18-8. An applicant coming as a candidate from another denomination must
present testimonials of his standing in that body and must become a member
of a congregation in the Presbyterian Church in America. He shall then
fulfill the requirements of applicants listed under BCO 18-2, as well as
requirements placed upon those desiring to be licensed or to become an
intern as set forth in BCO 19.

See the PCA BCO here.

You become a presbyterian pastor when you are called to a pulpit, are examined by presbytery, and are installed, or ordained AND installed, in that pulpit.

A man who is a pastor in another denomination may well have to be re-ordained by the presbytery, if they cannot recognize the former ordination. This is not the regular practice when the man was already ordained in a church which shares certain ecclesiastical relations to the new denomination comes to the "sister" denomination.

I was ordained in the PCA, and am now ministering in the OPC. I was thoroughly, even exhaustively re-examined when I transferred. I was not re-ordained; the previous was recognized. So, I would not expect a formerly baptist minister to receive any less grilling than I received, when I was just transferring to a sister denomination. Nevertheless, presbyteries are always different, and different standards are used in different bodies. Sometimes, the process seems like a breeze for some people.

You would not, generally speaking, find a baptist pastor simply "transferring his credentials" to a presbyterian denomination. If he wanted to come in, in order to SEEK a call, he would have to come "under care", then be licensed, all which is normative for a new man following his internal "call to ministry." Once licensed, he could then actively seek a call in the church.

Hey Soli,

There are a number of options in regards to reformed denominations, some of which would not marginalize or trivialize your call to ministry through the SBC ( this is not to say that the PCA or the OPC woud do this). If you were to be "looking" to switch denominations I would find a demonination that would want to interview you, and take into high regard your previous call to ministry (remember a call is from God, not man) and look at the interview as a way of getting to know you and finding out what your gifts for ministry are. You have already been called and have already served and your are already ordained. Do not commit to a denomination who would want you to esentailly "Start over" because you weren't part of their "denomination" from the start. An ordination is being set apart, not a special ticket that is only valid with the appropriate denominational stamp. I have seen this before, a man has worked hard to accompish what God has called him to, served in a capacity that God has called him to serve in. This individual felt led to a different "denom" and what it boiled down to was, "You're gonna have to get in line like all the other and wait yor turn, we don't care who you are or where you came from we do things our way." This goes to show that the pride of man have an innate ability of scewing things up.

You are already called and ordained, no matter what, don't let anyone tell you that it's just not good enough!

Just my

Blessings

Originally Posted by hollandmin

Hey Soli,

There are a number of options in regards to reformed denominations, some of which would not marginalize or trivialize your call to ministry through the SBC ( this is not to say that the PCA or the OPC woud do this). If you were to be "looking" to switch denominations I would find a demonination that would want to interview you, and take into high regard your previous call to ministry (remember a call is from God, not man) and look at the interview as a way of getting to know you and finding out what your gifts for ministry are. You have already been called and have already served and your are already ordained. Do not commit to a denomination who would want you to esentailly "Start over" because you weren't part of their "denomination" from the start. An ordination is being set apart, not a special ticket that is only valid with the appropriate denominational stamp. I have seen this before, a man has worked hard to accompish what God has called him to, served in a capacity that God has called him to serve in. This individual felt led to a different "denom" and what it boiled down to was, "You're gonna have to get in line like all the other and wait yor turn, we don't care who you are or where you came from we do things our way." This goes to show that the pride of man have an innate ability of scewing things up.

You are already called and ordained, no matter what, don't let anyone tell you that it's just not good enough!

Just my

Blessings

Amen, and let us never forget it.

Originally Posted by hollandmin

Hey Soli,

There are a number of options in regards to reformed denominations, some of which would not marginalize or trivialize your call to ministry through the SBC ( this is not to say that the PCA or the OPC woud do this). If you were to be "looking" to switch denominations I would find a demonination that would want to interview you, and take into high regard your previous call to ministry (remember a call is from God, not man) and look at the interview as a way of getting to know you and finding out what your gifts for ministry are. You have already been called and have already served and your are already ordained. Do not commit to a denomination who would want you to esentailly "Start over" because you weren't part of their "denomination" from the start. An ordination is being set apart, not a special ticket that is only valid with the appropriate denominational stamp. I have seen this before, a man has worked hard to accompish what God has called him to, served in a capacity that God has called him to serve in. This individual felt led to a different "denom" and what it boiled down to was, "You're gonna have to get in line like all the other and wait yor turn, we don't care who you are or where you came from we do things our way." This goes to show that the pride of man have an innate ability of scewing things up.

You are already called and ordained, no matter what, don't let anyone tell you that it's just not good enough!

Just my

Blessings

Thanks for your post.

I am wondering though...does the PCA or OPC tend to place a lot of obstacles in the way of a man who was ordained say a Baptist and now is wishing to become part of their denomination? I know you said that you aren't implying that the PCA or OPC does this, but I am just wondering if you know examples within these two denominations where this happened?

Thanks for your help.

I do not know these denominations and their policies, so I really can't speak to what they will require. I think that it is a noble thing that one would question some of the traditions of a current denomination enough to want to find out about others that may be more in line with one's theological stance. I grew up in the SBC and have a fond place in my heart for Baptists. That being said, I do believe that they are in error in their semi-pelagian position. I suppose that is why I'm a Reformed baptist in more ways than one.

I guess my point was that, if one is already called by God and ordained a minister of the gospel, the denominational issues should be irrelevent if the individual has a firm grasp on the theology held by the new denomination. This is where I believe that an interview is appropriate, but to sit before a board as if you are sitting before an ordination coucil again, in my opinion is very disrespectful to your call and above all else disrespectful to God who called you. I think often man is more concerned about their tradition than they are at assiting a brother in fulfilling his call.

Conta Mundum spoke about this briefly, perhaps he could shed more light on his experience from goiing from the PCA to the OPC.

Blessings,

Thanks for your comments hollandmin and I agree with all you said.

Especially regarding the semi-pelagian error within most Baptist churches, among other theological errors that are allowed to ferment.

To answer the basic question, "are there a lot of obstacles," I would not expect them, apart from a few "unusual" questions that deal directly with changes in a man's beliefs regarding baptism, subjects and mode; and independency versus connectional-church polity. The fact is, that depending on this or that presbytery (or denomination), the road to travel will be more or less taxing.

But in reality, it is simply the nature of Presbyterianism, and the exams which are required of every minister, that for many outliers coming in, the experience is a shock. This is nothing but the basics, and they think someone is picking on them. Wrong. This is just Presbyterianism.

I really do not intend to get into any sort of protracted discussion/argument on the issue. It goes without saying that there are ordinations that I think NO ONE here would "recognize".

If Mr. Smith was ordained a bishop in the Roman Catholic denomination, and now wishes to join your church should you just say, "OK! no ordination necessary, you were already ordained"? Hey, he read Calvin's Institutes, Berkhof's ST, and memorized the Larger Catechism. Veeeeery good answers to all the questions. What's the objection?

If Mr. Jones was ordained by the Tri-Corner Pentecostal Church, membership: 3 members of his family, is that sufficient? He has an MDiv. from RTS!

Is this: "A call is a call is a call! don't every let anyone question your credentials--they are solid gold, all you need is sincerity and conviction," really what is being suggested?

True story:

My father was ordained in the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS). He transferred those credentials to the RPCES. When he became an OPC minister, he was ordained again.

Frankly, if he had let his pride interfere with his call, I would be impoverished for it today. So, this business about "Don't let anyone tell you what to do!" is for the birds. Do what the people in command of the situation ask, or else walk. Its up to you. They are trying to do what is right for conscience sake in most cases.

These kinds of cases go to show that there is more to denominational differences than disagreements over mode of baptism, or how important "TULIP" is. This is where the ecclesiology rubber meets the road. We think this business is divinely established, not just one workable option among many. And it is part of who we are. This is part of "the firm grasp of theology held by the new denomination" which you spoke of.

Pastor Jerry met the ordination requirements for his independent church, with no fixed doctrinal statement (no creed but Christ!), founded in 1950. And now he wants to join a connectional, confessional church with a theology, piety and practice that is 450 years old. If he is throwing off his Independency, why would he balk at being ordained by the church to which he is in some historic respect returning?

The very objection--which Toby couched in terms of "pride" on the part of the church and not the individual--has to do, at least in part, with his being Congregational in polity, and not Presbyterian. The Presbyterian elder has been "submitting to the brethren" from the moment he started his process to become ordained. He is "under authority" even while being pastor. Which is why even if transferring to another jurisdiction, within or without his former denomination, he submits to the process he is put through.

Ordination is not some "lifetime badge" of acceptance anyone and everyone is expected to recognize. I will (probably) accept a man's ordained position if I am in his church, or we meet in a venue where the expectations are that we should cordially receive one another, like say a pastor's conference.

But I am not authorized to perform a baptism in a baptist's church by those baptists, on the basis of my ordination! Not even if I agree to do it by dunking! Neither is the baptist minister in one of ours. But ordained, and a minister in good standing in the OPC, my father (from a different OPC presbytery) may without any special examination by our session come into our church and baptize one of his grandchildren (all things done in good order, of course). So could a PCA pastor, on the basis of the pre-established relations between our two denominations.

I'm not even saying that I know for certain that in the end, you, or someone else, transferring to a Presbyterian denomination WILL have to be re-ordained. I do know from personal experience that there are precious few shortcuts in Presbyterianism. I have been through THREE FULL EXAMS. Once, for OPC licensure; Twice, for PCA ordination; Thrice, for OPC transfer. Three hour-long (minimum) theology exams on the floor of Presbytery. I have been examined in Greek and Hebrew 2 times (by committee). In English Bible and in Church History multiple times in both committee and floor. I have submitted 4 separate papers (exegetical and theological) to the three presbyteries. I have preached for examination twice, once when licensed, once before ordination. I have been examined separately in Sacraments and in Apologetics. I have had to give account of myself and my ministry. (Does this sound strangely like 2 Cor 11 & 12 ? I must be out of my mind...)

If you did ALL this, and were told at the end of all of it, "we intend to lay hands on you for ordination, a second time?," why not?

Frankly, if I desired to move from the SBC to a Reformed denomination I would EXPECT to be asked questions AND perhaps be ordained again. I would expect to have to do a lot to make the change.

It's not a matter to be taken lightly.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

The very objection--which Toby couched in terms of "pride" on the part of the church and not the individual--has to do, at least in part, with his being Congregational in polity, and not Presbyterian. The Presbyterian elder has been "submitting to the brethren" from the moment he started his process to become ordained. He is "under authority" even while being pastor. Which is why even if transferring to another jurisdiction, within or without his former denomination, he submits to the process he is put through.

Excellent point.

I just want to say for the record that I believe an ordained Baptist minister seeking ordination within a Presbyterian denomination should not be looking for the easy route. The question I asked was simply concerning process. I did not mean in anyway to imply a "short-cut" mentality or a disregard for the policies of any Presbyterian denomination.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Frankly, if I desired to move from the SBC to a Reformed denomination I would EXPECT to be asked questions AND perhaps be ordained again. I would expect to have to do a lot to make the change.

It's not a matter to be taken lightly.

Agreed! Reading PB is almost enough to make a convert out of many a baptist boy. Reading Bruce is more than enough to convince me that this baptist boy isn't smart enough to qualify. Don't ya just love that congregational polity?

Pastor Jerry met the ordination requirements for his independent church, with no fixed doctrinal statement (no creed but Christ!), founded in 1950. And now he wants to join a connectional, confessional church with a theology, piety and practice that is 450 years old. If he is throwing off his Independency, why would he balk at being ordained by the church to which he is in some historic respect returning?

The very objection--which Toby couched in terms of "pride" on the part of the church and not the individual--has to do, at least in part, with his being Congregational in polity, and not Presbyterian. The Presbyterian elder has been "submitting to the brethren" from the moment he started his process to become ordained. He is "under authority" even while being pastor. Which is why even if transferring to another jurisdiction, within or without his former denomination, he submits to the process he is put through.

Ordination is not some "lifetime badge" of acceptance anyone and everyone is expected to recognize. I will (probably) accept a man's ordained position if I am in his church, or we meet in a venue where the expectations are that we should cordially receive one another, like say a pastor's conference.

I understand your point, and I understand the difference between Presbyterian and congregational government,

Pastor Jerry met the ordination requirements for his independent church, with no fixed doctrinal statement (no creed but Christ!), founded in 1950. And now he wants to join a connectional, confessional church with a theology, piety and practice that is 450 years old. If he is throwing off his Independency, why would he balk at being ordained by the church to which he is in some historic respect returning?

I was not saying that everyone who holds an ordination should "get in" we all know that there are ordinations that aren't worth the paper there printed on, this being said, Pastor Jerry Has prove himself by his obedience to God in the service to which had been called. Personally I would take the Creed of Christ over man any day of the week. I was unaware that the Church of Jesus Christ's legitimacy was based on years a particular denomination has been in existence (PCA 1973, OPC 1936). Since this is the case, perhaps we all should get our suits on and swim the Tiber(Please understand this last statement is not meant to suggest in any way that the RC are Christian, it was stated to prove the point). Your statement is this quote alone, tells me that this is not a pride issue on the part of Man, but on what man has created. This is a respect issue and from what I have read, it sounds to me as if your saying that we are more legitimate and closer to the Truth because we're older. I hope that this is not the case and please correct me if I'm understanding this wrong.

The very objection--which Toby couched in terms of "pride" on the part of the church and not the individual--has to do, at least in part, with his being Congregational in polity, and not Presbyterian. The Presbyterian elder has been "submitting to the brethren" from the moment he started his process to become ordained. He is "under authority" even while being pastor. Which is why even if transferring to another jurisdiction, within or without his former denomination, he submits to the process he is put through.

It is true that I am a Congregationalist, I am because I believe that Church autonomy is biblical (I know this could open another so that's all I'm going to say about that). The point that I was making in regards to "pride" on the part of the church, I think I covered in the paragraph above. this is not a pride issue, this is a respect issue, in regards to the individual who has more than proven himself. Again this is not to say that there should not be an interview and a screening, but I personally would have been insulted, not on the part of pride but on the side of disrespect toward what God has called me to and what the denom would care to or fail to recognize. I would have never subjected myself to what I went through for a second time just for the sake of changing a denomination. I would sooner go the route of Pastor Jerry, this doesn't make me any less a servant of God nor does it make the "perspective" denom better. I truly believe that there is an element of pride on the side of a denomination that would tout there legitimacy based on time.

Ordination is not some "lifetime badge" of acceptance anyone and everyone is expected to recognize. I will (probably) accept a man's ordained position if I am in his church, or we meet in a venue where the expectations are that we should cordially receive one another, like say a pastor's conference.

I think this is where the rubber hits the road. An Ordination IS for life, for if it weren't, I suppose we could ordain for an hour or so, perhaps a year depending on our mood! A man who has been called by God will be set apart by God. There is NO arbitrary time that a man is not ordained, once an ordination takes place its for life. This is not to say that a man can't loose his ordination for willful and habitual behavior that is contrary to scripture, I think we could all agree on that. I have a great deal of respect for all men who have received the call of God and have been fruitful in the ministry they have been called to, whether their Baptist, Presbyterians, Independent, congregational, community, Lutheran etc. I would recognize there Ordination as a "badge" but more specifically "set apart for the work of ministry." Believe it or not, God does work outside the walls of denominations. I suppose we could debate which denominations that have strayed (that is a subject for another time).

Soli,

If you make the decision to move from the SBC (which I would ) and felt led to a denomination that fits more with your reformed theology I would consider only the denominations that recognize your accomplishments for what they are and what God has done through you. There are other options (ARBCA, or even the CCCC). Again let me say that, God has done a good work in you, don't let man make the decision that God's call wasn't good enough. also remember, when you are canidating, their not just interviewing you, your interviewing them.

Blessings,

Toby,
As I said, I really don't want to get caught up in a long discussion about the issue. And it really would be long, because this short exchange is sufficient to reveal that there is a whole lot of "getting on the same page" just in terms of the language and terminology we are using. Conceptually, we are not even in agreement about what ordination is at root. At best we have partially overlapping ideas.

So, we would have to either agree on a definition, or else understand how the other side is defining terms, without attributing "Roman Catholic" ideas to the other fellow... "Tiber", and all that pejorative nonsense. It is my "conception" of a "theology of ordination"--one which was hammered out of the biblical and exegetical fires of the Reformation--which is 450 years old, not my specific denominational affiliation. Formulated in opposition to Rome, the only way to see it as Romish is to carelessly glance backwards at that age, when both were side-by-side (so to speak), and blur the distinct lines that were drawn

"long ago and far away,
and so irrelevant to today."

You write: "not pride, but respect." Well, frankly brother, that is exactly what pride is all about: "getting my respect." When we don't receive what we think is owed to us, our due, then we feel slighted.

You think *some* ordinations are not to be accepted, and *some* should be. OK, so do Presbyterians. Where you draw the line, and where they do is different. Who is right? What criteria shall we use? Your personal judgments?

Ordination is more than "set apart to the ministry". It is "set apart... by the Church." OK now, which Church? This has everything to do with determining "which denominations have strayed," and how far. Everything to do with theological and interpretive disagreements. These are theological questions which sent us back to the Scriptures a long time ago to find the answers, not pragmatic questions we must think up new answers for in every age.

When YOUR church answers the question: "should we ordain this man?" they must determine whether the man has ever been ordained, and if he claims (and proves) to have been previously under some so-called action, was it so like unto their intentions that they may receive that action as if done by themselves on the former occasion. And was he ever defrocked? If so, would this body recognize that action as legitimate? What effect would that action have on this body's course?

They are not merely acknowledging Holy Spirit's calling, the church is taking an official action. These matters are considered so important that the church has been wrestling with them for centuries. We ought to be listening to some of their responses.

I think this is where the rubber hits the road. An Ordination IS for life, for if it weren't, I suppose we could ordain for an hour or so, perhaps a year depending on our mood! A man who has been called by God will be set apart by God. There is NO arbitrary time that a man is not ordained, once an ordination takes place its for life. This is not to say that a man can't loose his ordination for willful and habitual behavior that is contrary to scripture, I think we could all agree on that. I have a great deal of respect for all men who have received the call of God and have been fruitful in the ministry they have been called to, whether their Baptist, Presbyterians, Independent, congregational, community, Lutheran etc. I would recognize there Ordination as a "badge" but more specifically "set apart for the work of ministry." Believe it or not, God does work outside the walls of denominations. I suppose we could debate which denominations that have strayed (that is a subject for another time).

Once again, excellent point. I can see where both of you are coming from, and in my opinion, both are making excellent points.

Soli,If you make the decision to move from the SBC (which I would ) and felt led to a denomination that fits more with your reformed theology I would consider only the denominations that recognize your accomplishments for what they are and what God has done through you. There are other options (ARBCA, or even the CCCC). Again let me say that, God has done a good work in you, don't let man make the decision that God's call wasn't good enough. also remember, when you are canidating, their not just interviewing you, your interviewing them.

Thanks for the advice hollandmin. I am familiar with the ARBCA...but not so much with the CCCC. What exactly is the CCCC and where could I find more information about them. If you do not want to use this thread to post that information, you are welcome to send me a private message regarding this hollandmin.

Brother Contra,

As I said, I really don't want to get caught up in a long discussion about the issue. And it really would be long, because this short exchange is sufficient to reveal that there is a whole lot of "getting on the same page" just in terms of the language and terminology we are using. Conceptually, we are not even in agreement about what ordination is at root. At best we have partially overlapping ideas.

I agree

So, we would have to either agree on a definition, or else understand how the other side is defining terms, without attributing "Roman Catholic" ideas to the other fellow... "Tiber", and all that pejorative nonsense. It is my "conception" of a "theology of ordination"--one which was hammered out of the biblical and exegetical fires of the Reformation--which is 450 years old, not my specific denominational affiliation. Formulated in opposition to Rome, the only way to see it as Romish is to carelessly glance backwards at that age, when both were side-by-side (so to speak), and blur the distinct lines that were drawn

It was not my intention to insinuate that PCA or OPC have any compairsion with Rome, that was not my point. It had everything to do with time or age as it were. My point was that Just because a tradition has age under it's belt, it by no means makes it perfect, and therefore warrants examination, just as an individual who may choose to come to a different denomination. As far as your understanding of ordination, I think both your idea and mine perhaps are influenced by our traditions; you see your view as biblical as do I. I suppose on this point we both must agree to disagree.

You write: "not pride, but respect." Well, frankly brother, that is exactly what pride is all about: "getting my respect." When we don't receive what we think is owed to us, our due, then we feel slighted.

The pride issue is with the denomination, the brother who has been called, ordained and fulfilled a meaningful ministry should be recognized for his faithful service not lumped into some buricratic process that essentially expects him to start over. That is not recognizing what God has called this faithful saint to.


I'm certain that we could probably debate this for days and days to come. I understand your view as I'm sure you understand mine. As you well know my congregational tradition goes back as far as yours, and perhaps this is the place that we will have to leave this debate. I respect your view, granted I don't agree with it, but that doesn't change who we are, brothers in Christ.

Blessings,

I want to thank everyone who responded to my above question.

I really am in need of speaking with someone from the PCA with regards to some of the questions I have about the process of leaving the SBC and joining the PCA. I am an ordained Baptist minister who would like to possibly serve my Lord in the PCA. Currently though, being here in New Madrid, MO...I really dont have anyone to talk to about this.

If anyone on this board could help, I would greatly appreciate it. Please send me a private message or respond on this thread.

Originally Posted by Soli Deo Gloria

I am wondering though...does the PCA or OPC tend to place a lot of obstacles in the way of a man who was ordained say a Baptist and now is wishing to become part of their denomination? I know you said that you aren't implying that the PCA or OPC does this, but I am just wondering if you know examples within these two denominations where this happened?

I know of one instance in which a former dispensational Bible Church came into the OPC along with its long-time pastor; that church is now Grace OPC in San Antonio.

I came from a Congregationalist background and when I became reformed and understood the "5 points" I thought that was all there was to being reformed or Presbyterian.

In school I have been studying Pres. style government and church polity along with all the little things like violations of the second commandment, psalms singing, all the things they bring people up on charges over that other denoms would overlook or handle differently. My point is there is a world of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians even though many would agree wholeheartedly on the Doctrines of grace. There are things that a Baptist might not even notice that a Pres. would find very offensive. It requires a complete change of mindset. One would almost need a class just to find out about all the differences.

Maybe you already know of all these little differences, if not they are definitely worth looking into.

Originally Posted by shackleton

I came from a Congregationalist background and when I became reformed and understood the "5 points" I thought that was all there was to being reformed or Presbyterian.

In school I have been studying Pres. style government and church polity along with all the little things like violations of the second commandment, psalms singing, all the things they bring people up on charges over that other denoms would overlook or handle differently. My point is there is a world of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians even though many would agree wholeheartedly on the Doctrines of grace. There are things that a Baptist might not even notice that a Pres. would find very offensive. It requires a complete change of mindset. One would almost need a class just to find out about all the differences.

Maybe you already know of all these little differences, if not they are definitely worth looking into.

With the exception of the RPCNA, other than micropresbyterian denominations there aren't too many Presbyterian denominations (I have the USA in view here) who would consider 2nd Commandment violations (by that I assume you mean physical representations of Christ) or singing uninspired songs in worship to be chargeable offenses. I can guarantee you that a minister would make a lot more waves (if not find himself out of a job entirely) if he were to advocate for exclusive psalmody in the vast majority of PCA or OPC churches than the other way around. Likewise someone seeking to uphold the confessional teaching on the 2nd Commandment will be met with puzzlement if not disdain and denunciations of legalism in the much of the PCA. Apparently this holds true for many OPC people as well, judging from the dissenting letters on this issue that were printed in the OPC magazine a few years ago.