Cons. Anabaptist ordination practices

[silentreader]

In our congregation, nominations are given by members - the lot is determined by "natural break" for example - if one name is given 60 times, and 2 names 3 times and two times, we would move forward without a lot. Candidates are then interviewed to determine sense of call, as well as to determine theological and practical positions. Once that is completed, our advisory team would recommend the candidates to move forward. Candidates would be licensed with view to ordain for a two year term to allow them time for training and preparation. A formal ordination service follows at the two year mark based on a recommendation by our congregations leadership team and approval by congregational ballot to validate the sense of call. (very abbreviated summary)

I like this. What sort of church is this?

Ernie -it is an unaffiliated Mennonite church in Ontario - Faith Mennonite.

I thought that sounded familiar.

[Ernie]

I like this. What sort of church is this?

Ernie -it is an unaffiliated Mennonite church in Ontario - Faith Mennonite.

Interesting. I have in-laws that go to Faith. Was not aware of how they did ordinations.

[thebluffs]

I like this. What sort of church is this?

Ernie -it is an unaffiliated Mennonite church in Ontario - Faith Mennonite.

Interesting. I have in-laws that go to Faith. Was not aware of how they did ordinations.

the two year licensing period is something that's been done for the last 12 years or so.

[steve-in-kville]

Ernie -it is an unaffiliated Mennonite church in Ontario - Faith Mennonite.

Interesting. I have in-laws that go to Faith. Was not aware of how they did ordinations.

the two year licensing period is something that's been done for the last 12 years or so.

Maybe this should be a thread all its own, but when we were in a KMF setting, what was the point of "licensing" men that were going into the mission field? I've seen directories that list the ordained, and then have a handful of men that were licensed? Never understood this. Please expound.

[Josh]

Probably has to do with visas and generally interacting with a host nation. They want to see credentials that someone is officially a pastor.

More plain groups tend to only go places on work or non pastor visas.

[ohio jones]

Maybe this should be a thread all its own, but when we were in a KMF setting, what was the point of "licensing" men that were going into the mission field? I've seen directories that list the ordained, and then have a handful of men that were licensed? Never understood this. Please expound.

It may also have to do with the specific time period of the assignment and the fact that they are not serving their home congregation. If they come back after two or three years, the license would expire and they wouldn't necessarily be part of the ministerial body at their home church. Of course they could be ordained at that point, either for the mission field or to serve their home congregation.

[mike]

Maybe this should be a thread all its own, but when we were in a KMF setting, what was the point of "licensing" men that were going into the mission field? I've seen directories that list the ordained, and then have a handful of men that were licensed? Never understood this. Please expound.

It may also have to do with the specific time period of the assignment and the fact that they are not serving their home congregation. If they come back after two or three years, the license would expire and they wouldn't necessarily be part of the ministerial body at their home church. Of course they could be ordained at that point, either for the mission field or to serve their home congregation.

There could be a whole discussion of how many plain groups treat the mission field differently from stateside life. For example, this idea that laypersons can preach (probably by giving them special charges to preach or administrate that apply only to the field and not to their role in their home church, but maybe even beyond that). There are other things as well, such as the hanging veil for women being acceptable on the field but unacceptable stateside, which is my church's official position. (There are a number of unofficial exceptions as well.) There are probably many more examples of differences that exist between the two spheres.

[Josh]

There could be a whole discussion of how many plain groups treat the mission field differently from stateside life. For example, this idea that laypersons can preach (probably by giving them special charges to preach or administrate that apply only to the field and not to their role in their home church, but maybe even beyond that).

Technically, a church with no active ministers will often have the laity preaching as well, but you do raise a good point. In the most extreme examples, missionaries who are laypeople will conduct weddings, communions, baptisms, and even ordinations overseas (although some CA groups consider an ordination to grave of a matter to leave up to a missionary, and will arrange to have bishops fly to Timbuktu to conduct the ordination). (Why a bishop must be present at an ordination is an interesting question for me; was it necessary for bishops to be ordained by other bishops for the first Anabaptist? Did they need to be ordained in the apostolic succession? Hmm.)

There are other things as well, such as the hanging veil for women being acceptable on the field but unacceptable stateside, which is my church's official position.

One of the explanations I heard is that it is difficult to wear a kapp and use an airliner headrest, or ride on bumpy, uncomfortable buses for very long hours. Yet stateside, there is no shortage of young women flying all over the place.

(There are a number of unofficial exceptions as well.) There are probably many more examples of differences that exist between the two spheres.

Definitely a good thread for another topic.

Another question is why more new church plants aren't conducted as "missions" in America. The Holdemans did that with their church plant in NYC, which has had good success as a "mission".

[Ernie]

(although some CA groups consider an ordination to grave of a matter to leave up to a missionary, and will arrange to have bishops fly to Timbuktu to conduct the ordination). (Why a bishop must be present at an ordination is an interesting question for me; was it necessary for bishops to be ordained by other bishops for the first Anabaptist? Did they need to be ordained in the apostolic succession? Hmm.)

Yes, we have some people in our church as well as advisors for our church from Beachy Amish-Mennonite churches who believe that a minister cannot ordain a Bishop or an Elder. The succession thing is really important to some folks. I get their point, but for some reason the distinction is not important to me.

[mike]

(although some CA groups consider an ordination to grave of a matter to leave up to a missionary, and will arrange to have bishops fly to Timbuktu to conduct the ordination). (Why a bishop must be present at an ordination is an interesting question for me; was it necessary for bishops to be ordained by other bishops for the first Anabaptist? Did they need to be ordained in the apostolic succession? Hmm.)

Yes, we have some people in our church as well as advisors for our church from Beachy Amish-Mennonite churches who believe that a minister cannot ordain a Bishop or an Elder. The succession thing is really important to some folks. I get their point, but for some reason the distinction is not important to me.

Is it a carryover from Catholicism? The whole idea that the legitimacy of an ordained leader comes from who ordained them.