Does a Pastor need to be re-ordained everytime he switches pastorates?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Here is this view from a friend; how do I respond?

The pastorate is an office that a man fulfills, rather than a set of credentials that he acquires. 1 Timothy 3:1 teaches this: “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.” It is an office a man aspires to, and work he desires to do – not, as is so commonly believed in our day, a profession that he pursues. Where there is no local church for a man to minister in (or on behalf of, in the case of a church-planter), he cannot fulfill that office, and so he ceases to be a pastor until he is re-ordained to fill the office of pastor in a new congregation.
 
In Presbyterian circles, I believe that once you are ordained you are always ordained, unless you get in disciplinary trouble. So once pastor is ordained, if he moves to another church he is not ordained again but installed in that new role. I don't know how that works in Baptistic/Independent circles though. :2cents:
 
Last edited:
I suppose from a Baptist perspective he can make a (weak) case for that. In all of the confessional Protestant churches an Elder is still an Elder if he moves away and joins a new church. I'm sure it's the same in Orthodox and Catholic churches as well.

Pastor Greco pointed out recently that in the PCA Elders have their membership in the local Presbytery rather than the local congregation. So if a church were to dissolve, the Elders in that church are still members of the Presbytery. It would be ludicrous to expect them to get re-ordained if they started going to a new church in the same Presbytery.

I'm not exactly sure how an independent Baptist would answer him. Perhaps ask if when the command came "Appoint Elders in every city" that those Elders become somehow "unappointed" if the congregation that they were serving in broke up.

You could also ask him to expand this

Where there is no local church for a man to minister in (or on behalf of, in the case of a church-planter), he cannot fulfill that office, and so he ceases to be a pastor until he is re-ordained to fill the office of pastor in a new congregation.
Click to expand...

I read a bio of Eric Liddell after watching Chariots of Fire. He died in a Japanese concentration camp during WW2, and survivors remembered him with great respect and love for what he did. So, is the guy so closed minded that he would say that Liddell had his gifts and calling revoked by God just because he wasn't serving in his church any longer?
 
In the PCA (at least), there is provision for both. A man does not lose his ordination simply because he is not currently serving. That is true for not only Teaching Elders (pastors) but Ruling Elders and Deacons as well.

However, if a man is a pastor who does not serve in a call (whether pastoring, or other similar ecclesiastical call) the Presbytery may judge that an indication that the man is not called to the ministry and revoke his ordination). Note that this is not automatic, but rather provides the Presbytery with a mechanism to allow someone from having the "status" of minister, while not fulfilling its responsibilities.
 
Pergamum said:
hmm, this man is independent and baptistic - would it make logical sense then?
Click to expand...

What he writes is not typical of Baptist thought, but I have run across at least one brother on a message board who holds similar views. Pergy and I used to run in the same circles, although we've never met. I think he'd agree with me that although there are many good, solid men in independent sovereign grace circles, you also have some who have some strange notions from time to time. But you can find that pretty much anywhere.
 
In most conservative Baptist circles (which is where I have most of my experience) the purpose of ordination is the affirmation of the individuals call to ministry by the congregation by sending him out in order to minister.

Therefore once a congregation has confirmed that call there is no need for a re-ordination from a separate congregation.
 
Most Baptists treat ordination as life long unless there is a disciplinary issue. Some Baptists require an exam when moving from one group to another (Recognition of ordination).
 
I don't know about ordination, but some do not become elders until they've been evaluated by the local church.
While we're not Baptist, we've done something like this. I've never been ordained, so that aspect wasn't an issue. But neither have I been an elder. To call me here and "make" me an elder without proper evaluation would not be the wisest thing. So, when I candidated here I told them I would not come as an elder, but would teach until a proper amount of time had passed for the church to evaluate my character according to Scripture. During that time I taught on church leadership and explained to the church the qualifications while at the same time the elders of the church were re-affirmed. This made sure everyone was on the same page and, hopefully, instilled more confidence.

Perhaps this guy has something similar in view. If we were to call another pastor we would not consider him an elder until his character could be assessed according to the qualifications of Scripture. The only exception to this might be a close sister church sending the man, or if one of us knew him so well that it was simply a non-issue. But, even then, we would be very careful so as to not undermine the church's privilege to observe and confirm the man's calling. Still something we're working through, but the goal is to never call a man again, but rather raise up pastors in our church.

Other than teaching and aspiration, the qualifications for pastors are all character related. How can a church receive a man as pastor without knowledge of his character? Maybe that's where he's coming from.
 
When I was at Southern, they were adamant that for a Baptist to be consistently congregational that the ordination to office is "effective" only in that current congregation. Mark Dever holds as such. Dr. Greg Wills presented numerous quotes from early Baptist leaders essentially arguing the same. Unfortunately, it's been a few years now, and since I'm not a congregationalist, I didn't bother to write down the references.

Quite frankly, I agree with them - if a Baptist is going to be consistently congregational, then it would follow that being called to serve an office of the church would extend only to THAT church. That (relatively modern) Baptists ordain people to send them out to serve is an implicit undermining of the idependency and autonomy they so adamently argue is part of biblical ecclesiology.
 
The RB church that I served as assistant pastor took the view that ordination was the same thing as appointment or installation to a particular congregation. So my ordination did not go with me when I left.
 
Can this be used an argument against independency? And can a credo be anything but independent?

It seems very strange that a church would look for a pastor...when they deny that they arenot even a pastor before they are called to that church. "Pastor searches" then would turn up 0 results becuase no church=no pastor...


Is this thinking among Reformed Baptist due to the influence of the Montvillians in New Jersey?

Any arguments against this? That won't also argue against independency in general?
 
'Does a Pastor need to be re-ordained everytime he switches pastorates'

I say from my independent, Reformed Baptist perspective - yes. But then what we MEAN by 'ordination' is the next question. I completely agree as Ben has pointed out that Baptists who practice 'ordination to 'the ministry' ' are most inconsistent.

I'd love to wade into more detail on the above topic but time does not permit and I doubt that the church which has 'ordained' me will be very impressed if I tell them that I spent all week on the PB instead of preparing the sermons! :lol:

People who insist on calling themselves 'Pastor' when they have long since retired or moved on need a slap. You won't catch a Presbyterian doing this, of course.
 
Baptists who practice 'ordination to 'the ministry' ' are most inconsistent.


Hmmmm, I would like to explore this deeper as it pertain to independency.


It makes logical sense.




But, if the Lord calls one as a Pastor do they consistently lose, regain, lose regain that calling throughout one's life?




What about missionaries who hear the sad news that their sending church has dissolved? Need they return home to get recommissioned and re-ordained?
 
Interesting thought process. I suppose much of this depends on how one defines "ordination." Spurgeon was never ordained. He made it clear that his ordination was from God, so ignored the whole thing. Some churches consider any man called to preach as "ordained." Many have formal meetings and certifications. Some retain the right to revoke these certifications. Are lay elders ordained? What if they preach often? What's the difference? Why? Etc. So on. So forth. The term simply needs a narrow definition in order to pursue discussion on it. Otherwise it seems like we'd end up speaking past one another easily.
 
Can this be used an argument against independency? And can a credo be anything but independent?
Click to expand...

Yes and Yes. It is a valid argument against independency/congregationalism. And there is no inherent inconsistency with a credobaptist believing in Presbyterian church polity. If there is, then I'm in trouble :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top