Theology of ordination

Pergamum · #1 (**permalink**) 10-24-2008, 02:09 PM

I need all the resources available on the theology ordination;

How does one get ordained,
Education needed?
WHat if they move churches,
Is one ordained to a particular church and does he need to be re-ordained at every new pastorate?
What of missionary ordination? Is ordination AND commissioning necessary?
What is commissioning (charging with a special task)?
Who actualy ordains the person,

Wannabee · #2 (**permalink**) 10-24-2008, 02:44 PM

Here are a couple of quotes from CHS.

Quote:

(The following letter shows how Mr. Spurgeon regarded the question of an
“ordination” or “recognition” service at the beginning of his London
pastorate: — )
“75, Dover Road,
“Borough,
“May 2nd, 1854.
“To James Low, Esq.,
“My Dear Sir,
385
“I sit down to communicate to you my thoughts and feelings with
regard to a public recognition. I am sure I need not request your
notice of my sentiments, for your usual good judgment is to me a
rock of reliance. I can trust any matter with you, knowing that your
kindness and wisdom will decide rightly.
“I have a decided objection to any public ordination or recognition.
I have, scores; of times, most warmly expressed from the pulpit my
abhorrence of such things, and have been not a little notorious as
the opponent of a custom which has become a kind of iron law in
the country. I am willing to retrace my steps if in error; but if I have
been right, it will be no very honorable thing to belie my former
loud outcries by submitting to it myself.
“I object to ordinations and recognitions, as such, (1.) Because I
am a minister, and will never receive authority and commission
from man; nor do I like that which has the shadow of such a thing
about it. I detest the dogma of apostolic succession, and dislike the
revival of the doctrine by delegating power from minister to
minister.
“(2.) I believe in the glorious principle of Independency. Every
church has a right to choose its own minister; and if so, certainly it
needs no assistance from others in appointing him to the office.
You, yourselves, have chosen me; and what .matters it if the whole
world dislikes the choice? They cannot invalidate it; nor can they
give it more force. It seems to me that other ministers have no
more to do with me, as your minister, than the crown of Prance has
with the crown of Britain. We are allies, but we have no authority
in each other’s territories. They are my superiors in piety, and other
personal matters; but, ex officio, no man is my superior. We have
no apostles to send Titus to ordain. Prelatic power is gone. All we
are brethren.
“(3.) If there be no authority inferred, what is the meaning of the
ceremony? ‘ It is customary.’ Granted; — but we are not all
Ecclesiastical Conservatives; and, moreover, I know several
instances where there has been none. Rev. W. Robinson, of
Cambridge, agrees with me, I believe; and has not: endured it
himself. Rev. J. Smith had nothing of it, nor had Rev. Burton, of
Cambridge, nor Rev. Wooster, of Sandbeach, etc., etc.
386
“Furthermore, I have seldom heard of an ordination service in
which there was not something objectionable. There are dinners,
and toasts, and things in that line. There is foolish and needless
advice, or, if wise advice, unfit for public mention. I am ready to be
advised by anyone, on any subject, in private; but I do not know
how I could sit in public to be told, as Mr. C was told by Mr.
S____, that I must not spend more than my income; and (if
married), that I must be a good husband, and not let the wife say
that, being a minister, had lessened my affection, with all the absurd
remarks on family and household matters. I do not know what sort
of a homily! should get; but if I am to have it, let it be in my study;
or if it be not a very good one, I cannot promise to sit and hear it.
“I trust, my dear sir, that you will not imagine that I write warmly,
for I am willing to submit; but it will be submission. I shall endure it
as a self-mortification, in order that you may all be pleased. I
would rather’ please you than myself; but, still, I would have it
understood by all the church that I endure it as a penance for their
sake. I find the friends do not care much about it, and others have,
like myself, a decided aversion. I am your servant; and whatever is
for the good of the church, let it be done. My knowledge is little; I
simply express my feelings, and leave it entirely with you.
“A tea-meeting of members, with handbills, and notices in the
papers, will be a real recognition; and if my God will make me
useful, I am not afraid of being recognized by all good men. I write
now to you as a kind and wise friend. You can use my
communication as you think best; and believe me to be —
“Yours, with the profoundest respect,
“C. H. SPURGEON.”
(Shortly after writing the above letter, Mr. Spurgeon preached the
following sermon at New Park Street Chapel: — )
THE MINISTER’S TRUE ORDINATION.
“Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of
Israel’ therefore hear the word at My mouth, and give them
warning from Me.” — Ezekiel 3:17.

Spurgeon's Autobiography - Diary, Letters, and Records Vol. 1.31 (pp 384-386)

Quote:

BOROUGH, May 2, 1854.
MY DEAR SIR,
I sit down to communicate to you my thoughts and feelings with regard to
a public recognition. I am sure I need not request your notice of my
sentiments, for your usual good judgment is to me a rock of reliance. I can
trust any matter with you, knowing that your kindness and wisdom will
decide rightly.
I have a decided objection to any public ordination or recognition. I have,
scores of times, most warmly expressed from the pulpit my abhorrence of
such things, and have been not a little notorious as the opponent of a
custom which has become a kind of iron law in the country. I am willing to
retrace my steps if in error; but if I have been right, it will be no very
honorable thing to belie my former loud outcries by submitting to it myself.
I object to ordinations and recognitions, as such Because I am a minister,
and will never receive authority and commission from man; nor do I like
that which has the shadow of such a thing about it. I detest the dogmas of
apostolic succession, and dislike the revival of the doctrine by delegating
power from minister to minister.
(2) I believe in the glorious principle of Independency. Every church has a
right to choose its own minister; and if so, certainly it needs no assistance
from others in appointing him to the office. You, yourselves, have chosen
me; and what matters it if the whole world dislikes the choice? They cannot
invalidate it; nor can they give it more force. It seems to me that other
ministers have no more to do with me, as your minister, than the crown of
France has with the crown of Britain. We axe allies, but we have no
authority in each other’s territories. They axe my superiors in piety, and
other personal matters; but, ex officio, no man is my superior.
88
We have no apostles to send Titus to ordain. Prelatic power is gone. All
we are brethren.
(3) If there be no authority inferred, what is the meaning of the ceremony?
“It is customary.” Granted; rebut we are not all Ecclesiastical
Conservatives; and, moreover, I know several instances where there has
been none. Rev. W. Robinson, of Cambridge, agrees with me, I believe;
and has not endured it himself. Rev. J. Smith had nothing of it, nor had
Rev. Burton, of Cambridge, nor Rev. Wooster, of Landbeach, etc., etc.
Furthermore, I have seldom heard of an ordination service in which there
was not something objectionable. There are dinners, and toasts, and things
in that line. There is foolish and needless advice, or, if wise advice, unfit for
public mention. I am ready to be advised by anyone, on any subject, in
private; but I do not know how I could sit in public to be told:, as Mr. C.
was told by Mr. S., that I must not spend more than my income; and (if
married), that I must be a good husband, and not let the wife say that being
a minister had lessened my affection, with all the absurd remarks on family
and household matters. I do not know what sort of a homily I should get;
but if I am to have it, let it be in my study; or if it be not a very, good one, I
cannot promise to sit and hear it.
I trust, my dear Sir, that you will not imagine that I write warmly, for I am
willing to submit; but it will be submission. I shall endure it as a selfmortification,
in order that you may all be pleased. I would rather please
you than myself; but still, I would have it understood by all the church that
I endure it as a penance for their sake. I find the friends do not care much
about it, and others have, like myself, a decided aversion. I am your
servant; and whatever is for the good of the church, let it be done. My
knowledge is little; I simply express my feelings, and leave it entirely with
you.
A tea-meeting of members, with handbills, and notices in the papers, will
be a real recognition; and if my God will make me useful, I am not afraid of
being recognized by all good men. I write now to you as a kind and wise
friend. You can use my communication as you think best; and believe me
to be —
Yours, with the profoundest respect,
C. H. SPURGEON.

Letters of Charles Haddon Spurgeon (87-89

Quote:

At a prayer meeting on the last night of January Spurgeon spoke against
the title “Reverend” (although he still used it “for the convenience of the
postman!”). He stated that nobody had ordained him and nobody ever
would. His only ordination was that “of the pierced hand.”

Eric W. Hayden - "Highlights in the Life of Charles Haddon Spurgeon" Chapter 24 - 1876 p. 50

***Contra_Mundum*** · #3 (**permalink**) 10-25-2008, 09:12 AM

If you want the Presbyterian perspective, then I would point to a thorough treatment of ecclesiology, like Bannerman. A truly complete treatment of the structure and officers of the church will have to deal with the biblical definition of office, and how one is set apart to it, and installed in it.

We distinguish between the ordinations of deacons, elders, and ministers. Deacons and elders do not lose their ordination if they cease serving not for reasons of sin. A Presbyterian church is more than one set of elders and a congregation, so ministerial ordination in a Presbytery will not entail the abandonment of that original setting-apart, barring an actual removal from office either, however, a minister cannot go on holding the office of minister,and having no call or exercise (unless honorably retired).

Because we view ourselves as more than solo congregations, we recognize the ordination of the rest of our own church, as well as some churches that are very close in doctrine and practice (NAPARC churches, for example). But we do not stop doing the diligence required to examine men who are switching calls from one Presbytery to another, because the Presbytery must install a minister at his new call.

And no church should simply take an unknown man, who just moved to a new city and a new church, and assume that because he was an elder or deacon in his last church, he should be one here too. No, but his ordination though done in one small part of the church-at-large, yet made him an elder in the whole church as well. So, if he is later chosen to serve actively in his new church, he will be examined and installed, though not re-ordained.

Pergamum · #4 (**permalink**) 10-25-2008, 09:53 AM

"...as well as some churches that are very close in doctrine..."

This phrase would mean that reformed baptists need not be re-ordained over and over even if they are independants, right?

As long as their doctrine is close, then a mere recognition of previous ordination and not re-ordination would be needed. If this logical?

I am an independent.

TimV · #5 (**permalink**) 10-25-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

“I have a decided objection to any public ordination or recognition.
I have, scores; of times, most warmly expressed from the pulpit my
abhorrence of such things, and have been not a little notorious as
the opponent of a custom which has become a kind of iron law in
the country. I am willing to retrace my steps if in error; but if I have
been right, it will be no very honorable thing to belie my former
loud outcries by submitting to it myself.
“I object to ordinations and recognitions, as such, (1.) Because I
am a minister, and will never receive authority and commission
from man; nor do I like that which has the shadow of such a thing
about it.

And we all know what happened to Spurgeon's church after he died.

Ivan · #6 (**permalink**) 10-25-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

“I have a decided objection to any public ordination or recognition.
I have, scores; of times, most warmly expressed from the pulpit my
abhorrence of such things, and have been not a little notorious as
the opponent of a custom which has become a kind of iron law in
the country. I am willing to retrace my steps if in error; but if I have
been right, it will be no very honorable thing to belie my former
loud outcries by submitting to it myself.
“I object to ordinations and recognitions, as such, (1.) Because I
am a minister, and will never receive authority and commission
from man; nor do I like that which has the shadow of such a thing
about it.

And we all know what happened to Spurgeon's church after he died.

Hmmm...good point.

***Contra_Mundum*** · #7 (**permalink**) 10-26-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

"...as well as some churches that are very close in doctrine..."

This phrase would mean that reformed baptists need not be re-ordained over and over even if they are independants, right?

As long as their doctrine is close, then a mere recognition of previous ordination and not re-ordination would be needed. If this logical?

I am an independent.

Perg,
Not sure what you're asking... Are you just asking me how I think RefBapts as a group should do things? I'm not qualified to judge. I tried to explain why its consistent with presbyterian polity not to re-ordain over and over.

My church/denom can receive a minister from a sister church/denom, and acknowledge that this man had a "true call" that was handled by a true church in the right way. And therefore he doesn't have to submit to another ordination that "sets him apart to the ministry" because we accept that Christ already did that a while back, outwardly noted by his ordination--which is a statement by the church. And ours is not the "only true church". Him being moved from one part of the vineyard to another is no reason (IMO) to view him as having that "set-apart" status undone in the previous place, and needing to be reset-apart again in the next.

We would say that at first, he needed to be set-apart to take the first call. And later, as one already set apart, he was called in that status to serve another call.

My personal feeling is that one RefBapt church ought to accept the existing status of an already-ordained man from a sister church. But I'm not aware of all the reasons that might not be consistent within the baptist framework. "Pastor" or "Rev" Soandso from down the street may just be a courtesy address, and never an acknowledgment that he holds an office from Christ through the church, that might lay you under an obligation to receive him as such.

I think the fundamental question is: "do you recognize that CHURCH as a part of the true church to which you yourself belong, and therefore that their acts in any way make it incumbent upon you to acknowledge the "Rev.s" they have acknowledged." Committed independents could well have a problem with this.

Pergamum · #8 (**permalink**) 10-26-2008, 02:29 PM

Rev. Bruce:

Here is where I am coming from:

I believe that pastors are ordained "clergy" that are ordained not merely to that church but to that calling.

If he switches churches it would seem that he need not be re-ordained; only that the receiving church recognize his ordination.

I know some RBs that say that I am being inconsistent because I hold to the independancy of the local church but I think that my ordination carries beyond the bounds of my local church.

I believe that if a man has pastored a church for 50 years that then dissolves, he can search for another sister church and they should accept him without requiring re-ordination even if the church that ordained him is no more. Is this inconsistent for me to believe as an RB?

Also, the issue of just what is a "sister church" comes up. What is a "sister church" and how close in doctrine and practice must that church be?

Some say that they will recognize a pastor only within their association or fellowship. But if a church is a true church that is close to doctrine, even if it is outside of my association or fellowship, then this would appear to be a sister church. If I transferred over from an RB church to a Bible Church that needed a pastor, it would appear that my ordination should be accepted since both churches are baptistic and somewhat similar in doctrine.

More than anything, this is a "bounds of fellowship" question and also a "bounds of recognition" question. If an Arminian baptist preacher become a calvinist and switched churches, would he need to be re-ordained?

If a Methodist minister with an MDiv and an ordination became a believer in sovereign grace, would he have to give up his ordination and get re-ordained? How about a calvinistic SBC preacher who becomes an RB?