Issues on ordination

Granted, but previous statements point toward a lack of value in the training. This whole deal could be a misunderstanding.

(Emphasis mine). Exactly, it is a matter of opinion (in this case, read: conscience). We have to, carefully, make those judgments in the way we feel led.

 

THere were two instances presented and the reason that was cited in this situation is that he would not "see a difference." The council was wrong in their view, thus he should not have seen it their way. While he may have been cocky, he was not cocky because he disagreed and would not recant (which seems to be the point of the post).

The boy was right and just because he stands on truth should not make him cocky. While I was not there, based upon what was written I would have to conclude they did not have just cause to vote against him.

 

I would like to start by pointing out that none of us, except Tim, was actually in this meeting, thus it seems silly that we are telling him what the candidates intentions were. We all know that how a person states something tells as much as what they state. Tim, actually sitting at the table, was led to feel that the candidate answered in a way that demonstrated a spirit of superiority or cockiness...none of us are truly in a position to question this since we were not there to hear the way the answers were presented.

Having stated that, a candidate must be careful how he answers a question. The term sacrament certainly infers to most baptist (rightly or wrongly) an act that is more than symbolic. The council's concern could very well have been that if this candidate did not make this distinction clear in the pulpit, people might be unintentionally misled. Please remember that all of this talk of freedom is tempered by Paul's warning that we should never allow our freedoms to be a stumbling block to others.

If my ordination committee had shared a similar concern with me, I would have simply explained my reason for using the term, but followed that up by stating that, from their reaction, I can see that perhaps another word choice would be preferable. I think the fact that this candidate seems, from Tim's statement, dismissive of their concern would be a huge red flag. This is not a small matter; the nature of the ordinances is of tremendous importance to our understanding of Christ and His atoning work. TO stand on a definition, while disregarding how many might misinterpret (to their own detriment) that definition, shows a lack of spiritual maturity. The other answers, although again I was not there to hear, could also have been given in a way that would show a lack of concern for other people's input (a trait which has been see in many ordained men, but is disastrous).

Let me conclude by saying that we will be held accountable for those that we ordain. We are saying that we see in them the traits our Lord has called us to look for. If I had any doubt, I would hesitate to lay hands on a person. If a person is immature, the Scriptures make it clear that they are not yet qualified to lead the people of God. This is why we are told to let the candidate be tested first...we should know them well...there shouldn't be questions of this nature. We should not be quick to lay on hands. If I were on a council, where I truly shared your concerns, I would tell the young man to continue to serve the Lord for a year or two more, then come back.

 

Perhaps Mr. Spurgeon was correct. He was never ordained,,,,because, why lay empty hands on empty heads?,,,

Surely this man's local church had reason to believe their pastor was ready for ordination, so I am assuming his physical presentation couldn't be that off,,,,,,,I don't know!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Reagrdless whether or not you think he was accurate in his definition or use of the word(s) in question, he was asking this council to put their stamp of approval on him; if the council (or even one member) had concerns, he should have rightly submitted to the council which he placed himself under.

 

Humility is crucial in pastoral ministry; many are shipwrecked for lack of it. But I see your dilemma, especially since most of the ministers I know struggle with the sin of pride - including me. And it was worse when I was 29!

The council needs a lot of wisdom (and a fair bit of humility) to figure out where the disqualifying line is. One clue for me would be his response to correction; specifically, correction about a "haughty look". If your candidate is waging war on his pride, then I would be slow to cast a vote against him (all other things being equal). If he is stiff-necked, I would see a council's affirmation as a detriment to him, his ministry, and all those affected by his eventual shipwreck.

 

Good point. There are many well-known ministers who have a conceited air about them at times.

 

I would invite you to reread my post. I said, "While he may have been cocky, he was not cocky because he disagreed and would not recant." In other words, I left open the fact that he could have still been cocky or arrogant, but disagreeing is not cocky.

I disagree. An ordination council is both Pastoral and Academic. While I would agree in some locations this would cause problems, I believe this situation should be a higher intellectual group than those other situations. Those who make up the ordination council should be proven men in both their theological and pastoral abilities. This is not a congregational member or a young Christian audience. Thus, I may delve into the intricacies of theology in a manner I would not in certain situations. Questions will be asked and answered that are controversial and the council should have the wisdom in determination. In fact, the men on the counsel should be men of Biblical wisdom, not men who fail to understand theological nuances.

Different ordination councils operate differently. I know some who intentionally try to find areas of disagreement in order to see how the man thinks, defends his position, and reacts. The purpose is not to gain a type of submission but to see how well the person interacts with various viewpoints while defending his own. Theological disagreement is okay in these situations.

Yet, in this situation, I do not see the definition of Sacrament as being one I would have even wasted time in discussing with the candidate (and if chairman of the committee, I would have stopped this line of questioning). They should have moved on. Yet, to say they tried to convince him he is wrong, that is the fault of the council. Historically, the candidate was correct. BTW, the admonishment was not to "be careful" but that he was wrong. To that end, the counsel was wrong.

Yes, "we will be held accountable", and that is why I would not be on a council unless I knew the nominee very well. If I am going to be held accountable, I need to see the man's life and doctrine. I do not think a few hours of questioning can help me determine whether he should be ordained. Yet, I do believe the questioning is beneficial and should be done. However, if you make it to an ordination council, the people in that room should know you well enough to testify of your character prior to arriving. If not, they should dismiss themselves from the proceedings. If the council knew the man's life and doctrine prior, the council would not question whether he was taking an unpopular stand on a tough issue or is being cocky. As well, if he was cocky then he would not be in front of the counsel or this would have been known before the council.

My belief is simple, you can disagree and not be cocky. He was right to disagree. The council was wrong in their narrow theological view of the definition of sacrament. And the men in the council should have known the man's life and doctrine prior to the candidate's arrival to the council.

 

In my opinion, an ordination counsel is not to pass or fail a candidate, but to offer counsel to both the candidate and the local church. Most candidates will be young...I was 19 when ordained...and will be nervous among "giants"....he may very well pick up five pebbles along the way in his defence.

I think the council should write their recommendations on paper to be passed on to the candidate. Encourage him and correct where needed.

If he was already pastoring a church, he must have displayed some standing..give him space and let him grow.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Apart from the stuff to do with knowledge, ability, and 'denominational rightness' which has been dealt with, just two comments,

Firstly is the fruit of the spirit very evident in his life? .. if the answer is 'No' then he shouldn't be ordained.

Secondly, 29 isn't really young.

As an aside, I'm far from convinced about tthe whole ordination thing, seems very much a remnant of making someone a priest from the catholic/anglican traditions.

Regards
Bob

 

Some have intimated that ordination councils should rubber-stamp those the congregation approves of. I could not disagree more. In my life, I've rarely seen a council reject anyone despite the fact that the candidates were nowhere near qualified nor exhibited a calling. One young man was being ordained at a local IFB church. It came out in the ordination council (held during the service) that he was cohabitating with his girlfriend, who was pregnant by him. "Well, we can't send these folks home, now can we?" They ordained him. (Bone of contention # 1: Ordination councils should meet way prior to the service, btw, and in some churches around here, they actually meet DURING the service while everyone in the sanctuary listens to singing. Others meet an hour prior to the service).

Candidates should be examined relative to life and doctrine. If some ordination councils would do their jobs, I wonder how many churches would be spared reckless teaching, leadership, and moral failure from their pulpits.

 

In my group of churches, the candidate has usually been pastoring a church for sometime and is well known by the local pastors who form the committee. Hence, faults will be known. It may be that the local church committee will be so advised long before an ordination meeting is called. The ordination meeting virtually becomes a formality to recognize the candidate, rather than an "attack" meeting.

I think sometimes we make muchado about nothing and it can become a time when others exercise their "authority" over others.

Cheers,

Jim