Poll: When to Appoint/Ordain in Plain Anabaptist Churches

[ohio jones]

So how far does this go? What does this look like? One guy is ordained to the prison ministry? Another to hand out tracts? Another to feed the homeless? Youth group leader? Does the one who feels compelled to hold gospel signs, get upset because his ministry didn’t qualify for ordination?

Let's say someone is really into prison ministry and his proven his stability and commitment. I think he could be ordained as an evangelist or a shepherd.

Let's say someone is really good at administration. He could be used to give pastoral oversight to ministries and help churches that need help with administration. Some ministries want ordained folks on their boards, and some want pastoral committees on their boards.

Let's say someone is good at teaching. Ordaining him would allow him to be used as a teacher at churches that require someone to be ordained in order to be the main speaker at a week of meetings or at weekend meetings.

Megachurches do this, you know. They have a teaching pastor, an administrative pastor, a counseling pastor, a visitation pastor, an outreach pastor, etc. If a CA church has multiple ministers, they don't all have to be doing the same thing; let them specialize in the areas where they are gifted. Hopefully this would free up an evening or two every week for each of them.

[Neto]

It occurred to me now that I didn't look closely at the topic title, or rather most likely misunderstood the intent of the word "appoint". Our congregation (and it was also the case in the Mennonite Brethren congregation where I grew up) "appoints" Deacon and Elder couples to set term lengths, I think 4 years, but some offices may be 6 year terms. This selection process is carried out through congregational action (nominations from the body, then a 'vote'). (I should clarify that the MB process was not so 'congregational' in the beginning, 1860. Also, the 'Elder' was more or less the same position as your term 'Bishop', which for us, "smelled of State-Churchism".)

I personally feel that there is too much 'difference' assigned to ordination as an official act that places the person in a different 'spiritual class'. (Like in some other groups, where ordination comes after some years of service, and involves the addition of 'Reverend' or even the higher class title of 'Most Right Reverend' as the expected form of address.)

I am not railing against the idea of ordination - I just think that it has been made something that it shouldn't be. I have learned (in my own experience) that God doesn't declare his exact will for a person as a one-time experience, after which no further 'listening for the will of God' is necessary. God can and does move people to different roles, as he sees fit. Sometimes these changes are drastic, but perhaps generally more gradual, or subtle. None-the-less, we should keep an ear tuned for the voice of God, as he sometimes calls us to new roles over our lifetimes.

[mike]

I personally feel that there is too much 'difference' assigned to ordination as an official act that places the person in a different 'spiritual class'. (Like in some other groups, where ordination comes after some years of service, and involves the addition of 'Reverend' or even the higher class title of 'Most Right Reverend' as the expected form of address.)

I am not railing against the idea of ordination - I just think that it has been made something that it shouldn't be.

Yes to all of this. Having a few years' experience in conference conservative Mennonite church life now, I think this is one of the things that bothers me the most.

[joshuabgood]

I personally feel that there is too much 'difference' assigned to ordination as an official act that places the person in a different 'spiritual class'. (Like in some other groups, where ordination comes after some years of service, and involves the addition of 'Reverend' or even the higher class title of 'Most Right Reverend' as the expected form of address.)

I am not railing against the idea of ordination - I just think that it has been made something that it shouldn't be.

Yes to all of this. Having a few years' experience in conference conservative Mennonite church life now, I think this is one of the things that bothers me the most.

A group of CA ministers was once referred to in public, in a commending way, as the "Sanhedrin of the Lord."

[R7ehr]

I personally feel that there is too much 'difference' assigned to ordination as an official act that places the person in a different 'spiritual class'. (Like in some other groups, where ordination comes after some years of service, and involves the addition of 'Reverend' or even the higher class title of 'Most Right Reverend' as the expected form of address.)

I am not railing against the idea of ordination - I just think that it has been made something that it shouldn't be.

Yes to all of this. Having a few years' experience in conference conservative Mennonite church life now, I think this is one of the things that bothers me the most.

A group of CA ministers was once referred to in public, in a commending way, as the "Sanhedrin of the Lord."

That’s gross.

[barnhart]

I personally feel that there is too much 'difference' assigned to ordination as an official act that places the person in a different 'spiritual class'. (Like in some other groups, where ordination comes after some years of service, and involves the addition of 'Reverend' or even the higher class title of 'Most Right Reverend' as the expected form of address.)

I am not railing against the idea of ordination - I just think that it has been made something that it shouldn't be.

Yes to all of this. Having a few years' experience in conference conservative Mennonite church life now, I think this is one of the things that bothers me the most.

A group of CA ministers was once referred to in public, in a commending way, as the "Sanhedrin of the Lord."

That is not a positive reference. Read the new testament.

[cooper]

Let's say someone is really into prison ministry and his proven his stability and commitment. I think he could be ordained as an evangelist or a shepherd.

Let's say someone is really good at administration. He could be used to give pastoral oversight to ministries and help churches that need help with administration. Some ministries want ordained folks on their boards, and some want pastoral committees on their boards.

Let's say someone is good at teaching. Ordaining him would allow him to be used as a teacher at churches that require someone to be ordained in order to be the main speaker at a week of meetings or at weekend meetings.

Megachurches do this, you know. They have a teaching pastor, an administrative pastor, a counseling pastor, a visitation pastor, an outreach pastor, etc. If a CA church has multiple ministers, they don't all have to be doing the same thing; let them specialize in the areas where they are gifted. Hopefully this would free up an evening or two every week for each of them.

And this is why megachurches often feel too much like a business. I agree that pastors can specialize to a certain extent, but I think too much specialization is bad. At my church, the lead pastor preaches most Sundays. The associate pastor is gifted with counseling and does the majority of the pastoral care. However, the associate pastor preaches occasionally and the lead pastor does some pastoral care. I want to have something of a relationship with the people who preach the sermons I hear on Sunday.

[Ernie]

It occurred to me now that I didn't look closely at the topic title, or rather most likely misunderstood the intent of the word "appoint". Our congregation (and it was also the case in the Mennonite Brethren congregation where I grew up) "appoints" Deacon and Elder couples to set term lengths, I think 4 years, but some offices may be 6 year terms. This selection process is carried out through congregational action (nominations from the body, then a 'vote'). (I should clarify that the MB process was not so 'congregational' in the beginning, 1860. Also, the 'Elder' was more or less the same position as your term 'Bishop', which for us, "smelled of State-Churchism".)

I personally feel that there is too much 'difference' assigned to ordination as an official act that places the person in a different 'spiritual class'. (Like in some other groups, where ordination comes after some years of service, and involves the addition of 'Reverend' or even the higher class title of 'Most Right Reverend' as the expected form of address.)

I am not railing against the idea of ordination - I just think that it has been made something that it shouldn't be. I have learned (in my own experience) that God doesn't declare his exact will for a person as a one-time experience, after which no further 'listening for the will of God' is necessary. God can and does move people to different roles, as he sees fit. Sometimes these changes are drastic, but perhaps generally more gradual, or subtle. None-the-less, we should keep an ear tuned for the voice of God, as he sometimes calls us to new roles over our lifetimes.

Yes, in some constituencies, appointed/ordained folks are lifted too high. I won't argue against that.

In other constituencies, churches and non-profits want appointed/ordained folks to fill certain roles as it frees them from needing to determine whether the person is considered approved by the congregation. In general, if a person is appointed/ordained, the person either had the support of most of the congregation at one point and/or the person currently needs to answer to the church.
If a person meets the NT character qualifications, but is not appointed/ordained, he may not be tapped for certain responsibilities, through no fault of his own. He doesn't get tapped simply because his church didn't think they needed any more ordained people in the church right now. I think that is unfortunate.