Anabaptist ordination - lifelong calling?

[Neto]

Reading the latest comments, I realized that I never said the main thing I was thinking of. This is that I no longer think that a 'calling' is for life, so that once received, you can just "stop listening for a possible new direction from God".

[Ernie]

It seems that something is considered to have changed significantly about the nature and calling of a person who is 'ordained.' This has significant ramifications for how the rest of one's life is lived.

Being in a congregation/conference where said ordinations are for life, barring a congregational removal for moral issues or a personal (though rarely seen) removal for other issues, health, etc. I'd definitely be interested in hearing more on this part of the OP if anybody has any specific thoughts...

How is 'ordination' different from simple 'appointment' in the way that we appoint a janitor or Sunday school teacher? What great supernatural thing is supposed to happen via ordination as opposed to the appointment to other positions of service in the church?

I might have more thoughts after some folks share on the first part I quoted, but I'm not sure (speaking personally) that there's a great supernatural thing that happens upon the ordination of a deacon or minister in a congregation, other than perhaps a sense of duty/purpose in a role that is specifically mentioned in Scripture, especially with some Apostolic basis and a certain degree of responsibility for the leadership/shepherding of a congregation, as opposed to some positions within a congregation... (*missing shrug emoji)

In the book of Acts, we see deacons being selected based on fairly high criteria, (Of good reputation, Full of the Holy Spirit, Full of wisdom) and then we see some of them becoming evangelists and teachers and taking up other roles. So it doesn't appear like being a deacon is a life long calling but there were high expectations of deacons. Deacons were also appointed "as needed". Seven were needed in Acts 6 according to the apostles so they only appointed that many.

Once a person attains the qualifications for elder, I think we should go ahead and appoint them for life. (unless mental illness or sin or age or poor judgment or ??? disqualifies them in some way) There are not that many Christians who meet the qualifications so I think we should ordain as many as we can. They don't necessarily need to serve in one congregation but can serve the church at large. There is always a need for more qualified elders to shepherd, oversee problems, oversee church planting, etc. There are thousands of pastors around the world who would love for seasoned elders to come spend time with them and coach them and teach them.

How is 'ordination' different from simple 'appointment' in the way that we appoint a janitor or Sunday school teacher? What great supernatural thing is supposed to happen via ordination as opposed to the appointment to other positions of service in the church?

I don't know that there are any scriptural qualifications for janitors. There are some for teachers. I don't see ordination as sacramental but am not opposed to that idea either. I think ordination should simply be recognizing that a person meets the qualifications and is designated by the church to fill certain roles. Once that is done, the elder needs to give account for souls in the church. (this doesn't mean that others don't also need to give account, but it is not to the same extent or in the same way.)

[R7ehr]

I've recently heard more about the idea that a person is ordained to a specific calling at a specific congregation. What this meant, is that if that man moved to a different congregation, he is should no longer be considered to be an ordained man, but just the same as any other lay member. If this man were to ever join the leadership again, he would need to go through the whole ordination process again.

For comparison, our practice has been that if an ordained man moved to a different congregation, then he was still considered ordained, but was a "preacher without a charge". What this meant in practice, was that he held no leadership position in his new congregation, was not included in any of the leadership meetings. His distinction between himself and the other lay members, is that he may on rare occasion be asked to preach a sermon in his new congregation or may be asked to preach at a different congregation on rare occasion. Whereas a normal lay member would never be asked to preach anywhere. We have an man in our congregation like this. He was ordained at a different church. He resigned there, and moved to our church. This Sunday, all of our leaders/preachers are going out of state for a meeting, and this man was asked to preach at our church this Sunday because he will be the only ordained man in attendance.
In our practice, if a "preacher without a charge" was selected to be part of the leadership, he would then be "given a charge". He would not need to go through the whole ordination process again.

[Ernie]

I've recently heard more about the idea that a person is ordained to a specific calling at a specific congregation. What this meant, is that if that man moved to a different congregation, he is should no longer be considered to be an ordained man, but just the same as any other lay member. If this man were to ever join the leadership again, he would need to go through the whole ordination process again.

For comparison, our practice has been that if an ordained man moved to a different congregation, then he was still considered ordained, but was a "preacher without a charge". What this meant in practice, was that he held no leadership position in his new congregation, was not included in any of the leadership meetings. His distinction between himself and the other lay members, is that he may on rare occasion be asked to preach a sermon in his new congregation or may be asked to preach at a different congregation on rare occasion. Whereas a normal lay member would never be asked to preach anywhere. We have an man in our congregation like this. He was ordained at a different church. He resigned there, and moved to our church. This Sunday, all of our leaders/preachers are going out of state for a meeting, and this man was asked to preach at our church this Sunday because he will be the only ordained man in attendance.
In our practice, if a "preacher without a charge" was selected to be part of the leadership, he would then be "given a charge". He would not need to go through the whole ordination process again.

I think that would mesh well with what I just wrote. I think elders should be accountable to a congregation or body of elders.

[R7ehr]

I've recently heard more about the idea that a person is ordained to a specific calling at a specific congregation. What this meant, is that if that man moved to a different congregation, he is should no longer be considered to be an ordained man, but just the same as any other lay member. If this man were to ever join the leadership again, he would need to go through the whole ordination process again.

For comparison, our practice has been that if an ordained man moved to a different congregation, then he was still considered ordained, but was a "preacher without a charge". What this meant in practice, was that he held no leadership position in his new congregation, was not included in any of the leadership meetings. His distinction between himself and the other lay members, is that he may on rare occasion be asked to preach a sermon in his new congregation or may be asked to preach at a different congregation on rare occasion. Whereas a normal lay member would never be asked to preach anywhere. We have an man in our congregation like this. He was ordained at a different church. He resigned there, and moved to our church. This Sunday, all of our leaders/preachers are going out of state for a meeting, and this man was asked to preach at our church this Sunday because he will be the only ordained man in attendance.
In our practice, if a "preacher without a charge" was selected to be part of the leadership, he would then be "given a charge". He would not need to go through the whole ordination process again.

I think that would mesh well with what I just wrote. I think elders should be accountable to a congregation or body of elders.

Which one, the first paragraph or the second?

[barnhart]

I've recently heard more about the idea that a person is ordained to a specific calling at a specific congregation. What this meant, is that if that man moved to a different congregation, he is should no longer be considered to be an ordained man, but just the same as any other lay member. If this man were to ever join the leadership again, he would need to go through the whole ordination process again.

For comparison, our practice has been that if an ordained man moved to a different congregation, then he was still considered ordained, but was a "preacher without a charge". What this meant in practice, was that he held no leadership position in his new congregation, was not included in any of the leadership meetings. His distinction between himself and the other lay members, is that he may on rare occasion be asked to preach a sermon in his new congregation or may be asked to preach at a different congregation on rare occasion. Whereas a normal lay member would never be asked to preach anywhere. We have an man in our congregation like this. He was ordained at a different church. He resigned there, and moved to our church. This Sunday, all of our leaders/preachers are going out of state for a meeting, and this man was asked to preach at our church this Sunday because he will be the only ordained man in attendance.
In our practice, if a "preacher without a charge" was selected to be part of the leadership, he would then be "given a charge". He would not need to go through the whole ordination process again.

That's close to how I see it. I would put more value in lay leaders preaching on occasion. I would see a ordained man from another congregation as simply another lay leader.

[Ernie]

Which one, the first paragraph or the second?

second

[ohio jones]

I've recently heard more about the idea that a person is ordained to a specific calling at a specific congregation. What this meant, is that if that man moved to a different congregation, he is should no longer be considered to be an ordained man, but just the same as any other lay member. If this man were to ever join the leadership again, he would need to go through the whole ordination process again.

For comparison, our practice has been that if an ordained man moved to a different congregation, then he was still considered ordained, but was a "preacher without a charge". What this meant in practice, was that he held no leadership position in his new congregation, was not included in any of the leadership meetings. His distinction between himself and the other lay members, is that he may on rare occasion be asked to preach a sermon in his new congregation or may be asked to preach at a different congregation on rare occasion. Whereas a normal lay member would never be asked to preach anywhere. We have an man in our congregation like this. He was ordained at a different church. He resigned there, and moved to our church. This Sunday, all of our leaders/preachers are going out of state for a meeting, and this man was asked to preach at our church this Sunday because he will be the only ordained man in attendance.
In our practice, if a "preacher without a charge" was selected to be part of the leadership, he would then be "given a charge". He would not need to go through the whole ordination process again.

I've heard of the "specific congregation" idea with respect to unaffiliated congregations. I don't think that's a good idea for multiple reasons.

The practice I'm familiar with is that ordination is done under the authority of the conference/alliance/network. If he then moves to another congregation, he can be given responsibility there, or not (I like the phrase "minister without portfolio"), but retains his ordination status. However if he's not actively ministering in some capacity for a period of time, I think it's 5 years, his status expires, but can be reactivated without going through the ordination process again. If the congregation is in a different conference/alliance/network, he would be expected to transfer.

Where do we get the idea that one must be ordained in order to preach, at least on an occasional basis?

[JohnH]

Where do we get the idea that one must be ordained in order to preach, at least on an occasional basis?

This appears to be a disease that afflicts nearly all Protestant groups, along with the idea that a church service should largely revolve around a (usually long-winded) sermon.

[Ernie]

Where do we get the idea that one must be ordained in order to preach, at least on an occasional basis?

I think it developed in the second and third centuries as the development of clergy and roles became more defined. So a long time before Protestants.