I
have been considering ordination, and what makes one qualified to receive that
charge. In the first post I shared about
the essential need for a person to be called.
In part two, I offered thoughts on a person being competent. In this third post I will discuss the importance
for a person to be committed to the work of the ministry, and the
process of training.
Leading
a congregation is hard and the statistics on pastoral burnout are well known,
but I am not talking here about pastors who receive a salary for their ministry
service. What I am sharing about are,
for lack of a better term, ‘lay leaders’; elders, deacons, teachers, etc, who
serve the local congregation out of simple love and devotion to that family. When tough times come, they cannot look at
ministry as their ‘job’ as a mental aid to help them stick it out. They need to decide, is their ministry worth
hanging tough or is it easier to just walk away?
When
considering ordination, it is important to determine whether that person
demonstrated a desire and ability to persevere through tough times. This is difficult to do when ordination is
reserved for those who have spent most of their training period in traditional
institutions and have not been exposed to the challenges of ministry. They can be told all day how difficult it is
but until it is experienced they will not know.
So
we send our young men and women to Bible school or seminary, cutting them off
in large part from the daily life of the local church. Then after two or four years, we gather an
‘ordination council’, ask the candidate a load of theological and hypothetical
questions, lay hands on them if they got the answers right, and set them to the
work of the ministry.
The
New Testament points to a different way.
In
writing of deacons, Paul gives the following instruction: “…let them also be
tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves
blameless.” (1 Timothy 3:10) What would be
the components of this ‘test’? The
context shows us that the test is comprised of observable life patterns as well
as faithfulness to doctrine (verses 8-9, 11-12).
But
we do not usually find that deacons are ordained. It is my contention that those who “serve
well as deacons” (1 Timothy 3:13) are in fact training for the potential call
to eldership (see 1 Timothy 3:1-7), the ‘office’ on which ordination is
conferred. Has the one serving as a
deacon demonstrated a commitment to ministry and to the process of training and
testing? Have they chaffed under
spiritual authority, or shown themselves teachable and willing to grow and
learn? Have they persevered with
observable Christian character under times of trial and difficulty, or have
they been prone to either give up, find an easier way or responded in unhealthy
ways? Have they devoted themselves to
the growth of their life and ministry, understanding the importance of the call
(see 1 Timothy 4:15-16), or emphasized themselves above the ministry?
These
things are observable and quantifiable.
This pattern takes a commitment on the part of the ‘candidate’ to be
open and transparent. A commitment to
allow others access to their lives; to submit to spiritual authority; to be
confronted with areas of weakness and sin and to act t change and grow.
If
a person cannot, does not, or is not willing to, commit to the process and the ministry,
it would be obvious that they are not qualified for ordination, even if they
have that special piece of paper from the seminary.
In
the final post I will take on some other questions such as process and
procedure and the question of who is qualified to issue the ‘rite’ of ordination.
*Scripture taken from the English Standard Bible. Copyright © 2000, 2001 by Crossway Bibles,
A Division of Good News Publishers, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, Illinois
60187, USA.