Ordination Councils

Mine lasted 3 and a half hours. It consisted of 12 men, mostly pastors with one deacon. I only used my Bible. At one point the preachers had a very lively "discussion" on divorce. That was an eye opener for me, and when I came to the conclusion that just about everyone has their own take on that subject! When they sent me out of the room, to take counsel together as to my suitability, another "discussion" broke out. One preacher stormed out. As he passed me by in the foyer he told me that he would not sign the certificate, not because he thought I wasn't qualified, but because he didn't agree with the way the meeting was run - not according to "Robertson's Rules of Order" (in truth he had a long standing beef with the moderator). To his credit he did come see me about three years later and apologised.

There were some strange questions. My wife came in at the beginning. She was "great with child" and the first thing she was asked was if I had any homosexual tendencies!! (What sort of question was that?)

Anyway, I was glad when it was over, and was ordained.

I have been at a one or two "pre ordained" councils. They do a great disservice to the candidate, they dishonour the council, (why call them if you are not interested in their opinion?) and they discredit the church, IMHO.

 

Mine was one like that. I was somewhat disappointed with the quality of the questions.

 

That kind of nonsense would not happen if everything were done out in the open in front of the congregation.

Your wife should have answered them with a question such as "can't you see?"

 

I was ordained a deacon in 1968, and actually remember very little about it. I was asked a few questions by the ordaining council, in private, but the bulk of the questions came at the public ordinantion ceremony.

As I remember, I felt that the council should have asked more questions in the closed session, but it's possible that my views were already well known, and the questions were unnecessary.

I have since had occasion to be the interrogator at a couple of ordinantions for preachers, and the great bulk of my questions came in the ordination service. It was mainly for the benefit of those in the audience, since the council already had been satisfied with what it heard.

The questions were similar to those John R. Rice asked John of Japan at JoJ's ordination. Some were geared to determining if his views were Baptististic.

Above all, you don't want any surprises at an ordination, so the council's role is important in that respect.

As a matter of fact, a young preacher's views should already be known before an ordination is scheduled. But it never hurts to be sure.

 

I was ordained about 5 years ago. I sat before a council comprised of any ordained man in the church- pastors, deacons, retired pastors, etc. My father was also able to sit on the council since he is an ordained pastor. The questioning lasted about 2 hours and was open to the church congregation for observation. The questions were mostly doctrinal, but some had to do with ethics, church polity, etc.

I read this statement with interest. I didn't think any silly questions were asked at my ordination, but I would be curious to see some examples of "silly questions".

 

Maybe, how many angels can dance on a head of a pin?
Or, Did Adam have a belly button?
Or Can God create a rock so big He can't move it?
Or Where in the Bible is a cigarette mentioned?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I do have a question. Since the local church is the ordaining body, do the visiting pastors truly have any authority whatsoever?

 

The council serves the local church by examining the candidate. Of course the church does not have to accept their recommendations, but in most cases it would be churlish not to since they have been called to do just that. Ultimately, though, it is the church and not the council who do the ordaining.

 

They are only there to give advice to the church.
The church can certainly reject the advice.. I have seen a church do that.

The council was convened 2 weeks before the ordination service...
It found the candidate lacking and wrote a letter to the church stating so, but the church chose to go ahead with the ordination.

None of the council showed up to lay hands on the candidate.

But the guy was fully ordained anyway.
The problem with that is no church in our association would allow him to preach. He finally moved to Indiana.

Another time, the council was called, but the letter stated that only KJVO pastors and deacons would be allowed to be seated on the council.
The moderator of the association along with half the association (including myself) would not go. Again, it weakened this brother's availability throughout the association... Only a couple pastor's showed up, and the church ordained anyway. (And this candidate was like a brother to me, But I will not compromise my beliefs (anti-KJVO) to be able to set on his council... )

 

Gotta run, but to give just one example, I've known of it being asked whether the sons of God were men or angels (Gen. 6, is it?). Usually it's the young guys who ask the silly questions, just trying to participate but not quite knowing how.

 

Isn't it usually the same group who knows how to grow a church without the Holy Spirit?

 

That's them!

The questions I personally ask in an ordination council are not doctrinal at all. I ask questions related to the qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. Seems to me this is a more Biblical approach than, "Are you sublapsarian?"

 

Seems to me someone who has made disciples that questions would not be needed but rather observation.

I cannot see how anyone should pastor any church who has not made any disciples. I would think that is a primary and understood qualification in any leader. How can one lead the church of God if he has not been proven in leading at least one person by discipling that person? If he cannot lead one then certainly do not give him more responsibility.

 

I agree completely that if God's hand of blessing in making disciples is not already on the man's ministry, his call is suspect. But his spiritual qualifications as listed in the Word of God should be examined, I feel.

 

I agree. My point is that those qualifications cannot stand alone because the person must be first tested. My opinion is that to be tested he must first make disciples. The most basic testing is in making disciples where his leadership is exercised. If he cannot make one disciple then he has not proven himself in leading just one person. If he has not lead one person then how has he proven himself in leading many people in a church who can be more difficult at times?

 

Very true, and you make a Biblical point I believe. Paul told the Corinthians he discipled that they were the seal of his apostleship, and if he was an apostle to no one else he was to them because of that (1 Cor. 9:2). Likewise, if a young preacher has no fruit, no one he has discipled, then the ordination council has a right to doubt his call and say, "Come back when God has used you."

 

I think you are right on. A close friend of mine was called to pastor the church he grew up in and came to know Christ about one year ago. He was to the point where he was having troubles physically and was sick quite often aty the church he was pastoring. at the time the church he was pastoring was beginning to fight amongst themselves and in taking sides with the SBC etc. God removed him from that position and he moved back home and do whatever God had for him. When he came home the church he grew up in asked him to consider being the interim pastor. Later the church asked him ot be their pastor. He told me the vote was 100% in his favor. From what I know of him I cannot imagine anything different. I noticed that his health has greatly improved and God is using him in that church ina great way. I have seen that before and God has used it greatly.

Can you imagine what an honor that would be by the people who know you best? The people would trust and honor you because you have proven yourself.

 

Praise the Lord and Amen!