Anabaptist ordination - lifelong calling?

[Heirbyadoption]

I do not see a particular reason to use Greek words which now have a different meaning in English. Examples are "bishop", "deacon", "presbyter / priest", and "apostle". These should just mean "supervisor / overseer", "servant / waiter", "old man / older man", and "one who is sent out". But they have rather "loaded" meanings now.

I was always under the impression those initial translations were a direct result of the religious establishment in the days of good old King James, ergo their enshrinement in English language Christianity...

[Judas Maccabeus]

I do not see a particular reason to use Greek words which now have a different meaning in English. Examples are "bishop", "deacon", "presbyter / priest", and "apostle". These should just mean "supervisor / overseer", "servant / waiter", "old man / older man", and "one who is sent out". But they have rather "loaded" meanings now.

I was always under the impression those initial translations were a direct result of the religious establishment in the days of good old King James, ergo their enshrinement in English language Christianity...

The translators simply used the commonly understood word as the equivalent to the Greek. They were not translating into a vacuum.

The other words while perhaps more correct, might not have been so well understood. Kinda like the principles that work for dynamic equivalence.

[mike]

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

No idea.

Our preaching calendar prioritizes local ordained leaders but also includes lay teachers, including youth, and leaders from sister churches.

This resonates with me. I've also been used to non-ordained men participating with the elder(s) in baptisms of their children, which I thought was good and meaningful. In our current church, only ordained can perform baptisms. I've also been used to fathers sometimes having a speaking part at a child's wedding, and again, this doesn't happen at conference conservative Mennonite weddings, because only ordained men can speak. It is a little sad to me how little non-ordained men are trusted in conservative Mennonite settings.

[JohnH]

No idea.

Our preaching calendar prioritizes local ordained leaders but also includes lay teachers, including youth, and leaders from sister churches.

This resonates with me. I've also been used to non-ordained men participating with the elder(s) in baptisms of their children, which I thought was good and meaningful. In our current church, only ordained can perform baptisms. I've also been used to fathers sometimes having a speaking part at a child's wedding, and again, this doesn't happen at conference conservative Mennonite weddings, because only ordained men can speak. It is a little sad to me how little non-ordained men are trusted in conservative Mennonite settings.

The “only ordained can baptize or serve communion” seems to be a holdover of apostolic succession and sacramentalism from Catholicism. Particularly absurd are some Mennonite groups where only a bishop can baptize.

[mike]

Our preaching calendar prioritizes local ordained leaders but also includes lay teachers, including youth, and leaders from sister churches.

This resonates with me. I've also been used to non-ordained men participating with the elder(s) in baptisms of their children, which I thought was good and meaningful. In our current church, only ordained can perform baptisms. I've also been used to fathers sometimes having a speaking part at a child's wedding, and again, this doesn't happen at conference conservative Mennonite weddings, because only ordained men can speak. It is a little sad to me how little non-ordained men are trusted in conservative Mennonite settings.

The “only ordained can baptize or serve communion” seems to be a holdover of apostolic succession and sacramentalism from Catholicism. Particularly absurd are some Mennonite groups where only a bishop can baptize.

Baptism being restricted to a bishop is the common practice among conservative Mennonites - rare to see anything different.

All you have to do to understand where the practice of a bishop serving communion - as in handing a piece of bread to each member individually - comes from is to attend a Catholic mass.

Which brings to mind a question which is easily answered, and that is whether Catholic priests have a lifetime appointment.

Yes, Roman Catholic priests have a lifetime appointment. The sacrament of Holy Orders, which ordains a man as a priest, imprints a permanent, indelible mark on his soul. This means that he is forever a priest, even if he leaves active ministry or is no longer able to perform priestly functions.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Indelible Character:
The sacrament of Holy Orders confers an indelible character, meaning it leaves a permanent spiritual mark. This is similar to the indelible mark received at baptism.

Lifelong Ordination:
Once a man is ordained a priest, he remains a priest for the rest of his life. This ordination cannot be undone.

Leaving Active Ministry:
While priests can leave active ministry (often referred to as "leaving the priesthood" or being "laicized"), they do not lose their priestly ordination. They can still live as lay people, participate in church services, and receive sacraments.

Limited Priestly Functions:
Even after leaving active ministry, a priest can only perform certain priestly functions, such as hearing confessions, under very specific circumstances (e.g., in an emergency).

No Reversal:
There is no process to "undo" or reverse a priest's ordination. The indelible mark remains, even if the priest is not actively fulfilling his priestly duties.

So that's interesting, particularly the part where ordination "imprints a permanent, indelible mark on his soul." So for Catholics, something supernatural does happen at ordination, something which can never be undone.

There are a number of aspects of Catholic ordination that resemble Anabaptist ordination. The question is whether these aspects are rooted in the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.

[Heirbyadoption]

No idea.

Our preaching calendar prioritizes local ordained leaders but also includes lay teachers, including youth, and leaders from sister churches.

This resonates with me. I've also been used to non-ordained men participating with the elder(s) in baptisms of their children, which I thought was good and meaningful. In our current church, only ordained can perform baptisms. I've also been used to fathers sometimes having a speaking part at a child's wedding, and again, this doesn't happen at conference conservative Mennonite weddings, because only ordained men can speak. It is a little sad to me how little non-ordained men are trusted in conservative Mennonite settings.

We still use some of the lay brothers in our services, though we have never actually required it of them AND less lay brothers are willing to share since we have ordained more ministers/deacons in our congregation over the last few years. Our servant body (ministers/deacons) are unanimous in still wanting to encourage willing lay brothers to occasionally assist with the opening devotions and definitely with bearing testimony after the message, but one particular challenge for our servant body (speaking frankly) as we have evolved toward less lay involvement is when we have lay brothers who are (over)eager to speak but clearly unedifying for the body (for a variety for a variety of reasons)...and how to graciously address such situations without a suggestion of favoritism. Gotta love working with people.

To the OP question of life-long ordinations, I'll just say this much as someone who has been ordained as a deacon in a group that expects me to continue in my calling for the rest of my life (assuming i remain in the group I'm in, at least) - the common rationale I encounter on the OP subject tends to be that promoting ordinations in a congregation or church group for the duration of one's lifetime gives it more of a sense of a calling, whereas the thought is (whether right or wrong...) that to NOT do so and freely let brothers step down whenever they feel to gives it more the sense of a job than a calling. I realize that isn't always the actual perspective of those that don't do life-long ordinations, I'm just putting it out there as one of the reasons I've often heard for making it lifelong. There are pros and cons both ways, imho. And for clarity, we do allow ministers and deacons to stop actively preaching/serving if/when their age/health does not permit, though they continue to be part of their congregation's servant body and offer counsel or encouragement as they are able.

[mike]

We still use some of the lay brothers in our services, though we have never actually required it of them AND less lay brothers are willing to share since we have ordained more ministers/deacons in our congregation over the last few years. Our servant body (ministers/deacons) are unanimous in still wanting to encourage willing lay brothers to occasionally assist with the opening devotions and definitely with bearing testimony after the message, but one particular challenge for our servant body (speaking frankly) as we have evolved toward less lay involvement is when we have lay brothers who are (over)eager to speak but clearly unedifying for the body (for a variety for a variety of reasons)...and how to graciously address such situations without a suggestion of favoritism. Gotta love working with people.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that variation between brethren and Mennonites.

Yes, this is an issue even in churches where lay members regularly speak in church. I think there are churches that pretty much expect everyone to take their turn, but others where they end up using those that are willing/able more frequently. A church like this in your area I'm thinking of, I think they need a pretty strong reason to be exempt from preaching.

In the case of lay members who are eager to speak but 'clearly unedifying,' at least a church would have the option not to ask them to speak, or at least not ask them to speak more so than others. For those who are ordained while not being edifying speakers, there's not much to do except endure them, is there?

[JohnH]

So that's interesting, particularly the part where ordination "imprints a permanent, indelible mark on his soul." So for Catholics, something supernatural does happen at ordination, something which can never be undone.

Yes, they consider the “laying on of hands” sacramental in nature, and in particular it is part of their belief in apostolic succession (a belief Anabaptists do not share).

Priests can get “un-ordained” but it is a rather complex process, usually happens when a priest either wants to get married, or loses their faith and wants to be upfront they are now an atheist or they want to be part of a different denomination.

[R7ehr]

So there is no such thing in the Catholic world as getting/being “benched” or “silenced”. Interesting.

[joshuabgood]

So there is no such thing in the Catholic world as getting/being “benched” or “silenced”. Interesting.

Yeah there is, I am pretty sure. They usually use the word "defrocked" if I am not mistaken. And they could also theoretically be excommunicated, as at least two popes were.