-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ordination of Women
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
It would seem so, seeing as the SBC's Lifeway provides this certificate for ordination of women to the Gospel ministry:
http://www.lifeway.com/Product/ordination-for-minister-P001147794
http://www.lifeway.com/Product/ordination-for-minister-P001147794
crixus
Member
Yes, for those groups you mentioned.
Why ordain them? What purpose does it serve?
Excellent question
Answer of the North American Baptist Conference (JesusFan/DaChaser/Yeshua1's denomination):
http://www.nabconference.org/sites/default/files/files/resources/Credentialing Guidelines Final_1.25.16.pdf
http://www.nabconference.org/sites/default/files/files/resources/Credentialing Guidelines Final_1.25.16.pdf
For me, the question is not about gender, but about ordination itself. Before I can answer, I need to know what ordination is, who performs it, and what is its purpose.
Because of the way ordination was perceived by my home church and a couple of the churches I have served, I avoided ordination to make a point. The way I was raised, (1) ordination gave a pastor the ability to administer the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper (communion). (2) It was administered only by other ordained people, often from other churches in the area. (3) It was provided in order to elevate a person from being a simple member of the church to make someone an authority in the church.
I disagree with all three positions/practices.
My understanding of ordination along the three points made above, with one more added:
(1) Any believer can baptize, but it is best done under the oversight of the local community of believers who will be responsible for discipling the new convert into spiritual maturity. Communion may be shared as an ordinance of the church. Ordination has nothing to do with these ordinances.
(2) Persons are ordained by the local body of believers (by the individual members together - no matter if they are personally "ordained") and the ordination does not necessarily travel with a person from church to church. It is a statement by a local body (whether done wisely and with discernment, or done hastily and thoughtlessly) about a person's suitability and character for a certain type of kingdom activity.
(3) Ordination is a statement by a community of faith that a person has been set aside by God to kingdom service and has the blessing of a group of Christians who will vouch for and support their ministry.
(4) Because of the realities of this world and the practices of other bodies in Christendom, ordination is seen by the government as a special status within the church. For some roles associated with certain areas of ministry - such as chaplaincy - ordination may be provided as an accommodation to the systems of authority and accountability in our world. I really dislike accommodating the poor understanding of ordination, but many churches believe it is acceptable to do so for the greater good.
Given this perspective, I would participate in ordination for both men and women.
Sounds good to me!
Basically, to validate/agree/recognize tha the person is gifted and functioning as the Lord intended tem to do in local church!
This sounds like a regular member of the body of Christ. In your opinion, what would be grounds for ordination?
In the Book of Acts, we see deacons being ordained for a specific ministry in the church. I tend to see ordination as acknowledgement and support of a particular calling for ministry.
Let me offer a few comments.
I would go so far as to suggest that it "must" be under the oversight of the congregation. I am aware of the arguments that would allow any "disciple (as the First London Confession says) to baptize, but I think that as a practical matter the entire congregations must give its consent because it has the job of discipling the convert.
I agree.
I general I agree. It was the belief of the early English Baptists that "ministers" should come from within the local bodies. I suspect this was partly principle — Baptist ecclesiology posited that each congregation had been endowed by God with the gifts it needed — but I suspect it also was practical: There was not exactly an abundance of Baptist ministers available (a problem that continue to plague the English Baptists for decades).
But let me offer this: Baptists, with their emphasis on autonomy of each congregation can easily become atomized and out of touch with other congregations. I do not see it as a fault that a congregation should reach out to other congregations to help decide if a candidate passes muster. Of course, the final decision will be with the congregation.
I could agree, perhaps, but we both know that's not what it has come to represent.
And a few words on the portability of ordination. The standard practice, I believe, is that pastors' ordination follows them as they move from church to church, while a deacon's ordination is strictly with the local church and may even expire. (I'm not going to get into my belief that deacons more often than not function as elders in many Baptist churches and not really as deacons as outlined in the New Testament.) This is something of a problem because no one seems to have the authority to revoke ordination should the minister prove to be a rogue or worse.
To get back to the original question, I would suggest that many Baptist churches will not ordain people (read women here) because they recoil from ordaining them even though they are tasked with pastoral duties and simply want to call them "directors" or some such to avoid the whole ordination question.
If you define ordination as in point three, I'm with you. But it's become so wrapped up in churchism that I think some other term would be better.
I would go so far as to suggest that it "must" be under the oversight of the congregation. I am aware of the arguments that would allow any "disciple (as the First London Confession says) to baptize, but I think that as a practical matter the entire congregations must give its consent because it has the job of discipling the convert.
I agree.
I general I agree. It was the belief of the early English Baptists that "ministers" should come from within the local bodies. I suspect this was partly principle — Baptist ecclesiology posited that each congregation had been endowed by God with the gifts it needed — but I suspect it also was practical: There was not exactly an abundance of Baptist ministers available (a problem that continue to plague the English Baptists for decades).
But let me offer this: Baptists, with their emphasis on autonomy of each congregation can easily become atomized and out of touch with other congregations. I do not see it as a fault that a congregation should reach out to other congregations to help decide if a candidate passes muster. Of course, the final decision will be with the congregation.
I could agree, perhaps, but we both know that's not what it has come to represent.
And a few words on the portability of ordination. The standard practice, I believe, is that pastors' ordination follows them as they move from church to church, while a deacon's ordination is strictly with the local church and may even expire. (I'm not going to get into my belief that deacons more often than not function as elders in many Baptist churches and not really as deacons as outlined in the New Testament.) This is something of a problem because no one seems to have the authority to revoke ordination should the minister prove to be a rogue or worse.
To get back to the original question, I would suggest that many Baptist churches will not ordain people (read women here) because they recoil from ordaining them even though they are tasked with pastoral duties and simply want to call them "directors" or some such to avoid the whole ordination question.
If you define ordination as in point three, I'm with you. But it's become so wrapped up in churchism that I think some other term would be better.
Ordination is an acknowledgment from both the Denomination and local church person auth to do tat ministry now
Baptist churches, if obeying th Bible, sould not hve women in roles of senior pastor/elders....
Not with Baptist churches- it is strictly a local church action.
Granted, most Baptist churches will invite ordain men of like faith and practice to sit on the board and to recommend to the church a course of action. The local church is under no obligation to accept the recommendation of the council - but normally does.
In Baptist life, I have never heard of anyone being ordained by a denomination. That is a local church activity.
Does anyone else have a different experience or information I don't have?
They do not like the term, but SBC fits the bill!
In terms of being a denomination, I agree. But there is no such thing as an SBC ordination. The individual churches ordain.
The other SBC churches do recognize it as being valid, correct?
Typically, yes, but they are not required to do so.
Yes, that's right. In the SBC, there would be many churches that would not accept a woman who was ordained. Yet many of those same churches would get upset about it, which is a bit of a strange thing since it indicates that they still find it meaningful, even if they don't believe it is real.
In my view, God ordains people to tasks, whether or not human hands approve of it. There are lots of God-ordained people out there (men and women) that many churches would not dream of "officially" ordaining.
That depends on which flavor the Baptist church is.
The ABC-USA has a two-step system. Churches may ordain on their own; for the ordination to be recognized by other churches or the denomination's agencies, the ordination must be confirmed by the region. In practice, I suspect, a local-regional ordination is probably the norm.